DVDizzy Forum

filmmusic wrote:Sorry to be pessimistic but I see no future at all!
the classics are dead! 2D is dead!

I pretty much agree. As I see it, hand-drawn animation has basically become what black-and-white films have become. There will always be a place for classics like Snow White and The Lion King the same way there's a place for classics like Casablanca and Psycho. And films like Young Frankenstein, Raging Bull, Schindler's List, Ed Wood or The Man Who Wasn't There proves black-and-white have chances to return once and a while. It also has appeared in commercials as well as parts of movies like the opening in Casino Royale. So in that way, traditional animation won't be forever dead.

But as The Princess and the Frog's lukewarm reception proved, the general public will never get enthusiastic about "2D" animation like they did 20 years ago, especially with a new Pixar film released every year(and 3 Dreamworks films and a film from Sony Animation and Blue Sky) making it a far harder sell. CG films have just replaced the "event stature" hand-drawn(Disney in particular) once had for the general public and is going to continue to be case for the fore-seeable future(that is until the end of the world comes in 2012).

only 2-D that isn't dead is anime stuff from Japan. But that's cause many anime shows show some kick ass scenes, so it's cool.

DisneyJedi wrote:Excuse me, but if 2D is dead, tell that to The Princess and the Frog and Enchanted (despite that there's only ten minutes of animation in that one), Disney's most recently released 2D projects.

We're talking about the future, not the past.

DisneyJedi wrote:Now excuse me for being rude and/or childish, but if you're going to be Mr. Negative about the future of Disney and you have nothing else to say, then just sit down and shut up!

So if we have a negative opinion, no matter how valid, you don't want us to say it? You can just as easily not read it and we'll all get along hunky-dory.

Justin wrote:I pretty much agree. As I see it, hand-drawn animation has basically become what black-and-white films have become. There will always be a place for classics like Snow White and The Lion King the same way there's a place for classics like Casablanca and Psycho. And films like Young Frankenstein, Raging Bull, Schindler's List, Ed Wood or The Man Who Wasn't There proves black-and-white have chances to return once and a while. It also has appeared in commercials as well as parts of movies like the opening in Casino Royale. So in that way, traditional animation won't be forever dead.

I never thought of it like that, but it does make a lot of sense.

And frankly, I'd rather have a hand-drawn film come around once every few years that knocks my socks off rather than have them coming year after year and me progressively feeling less excited for them.

albert

Escapay wrote:

DisneyJedi wrote:Excuse me, but if 2D is dead, tell that to The Princess and the Frog and Enchanted (despite that there's only ten minutes of animation in that one), Disney's most recently released 2D projects.

We're talking about the future, not the past.

DisneyJedi wrote:Now excuse me for being rude and/or childish, but if you're going to be Mr. Negative about the future of Disney and you have nothing else to say, then just sit down and shut up!

So if we have a negative opinion, no matter how valid, you don't want us to say it? You can just as easily not read it and we'll all get along hunky-dory.

Well, I'm just frankly getting fed up with claiming that hand-drawn animation is dead, when the proof that it still has a place in the media/world (whichever works best) is in the pudding.

Super Aurora and enigmawing, yes, he would embrace technology, but a video game in itself is a whole nother matter. He used technology to tell stories set in real life organic nature or fantasy, not virtual inorganic life. Also, the theme parks are a different beast than the films, I don't think you can pull them in. Putting films into the parks is a different matter, too. At least when we are talking about what Walt did in the past that we know of.

Escapay wrote: And frankly, I'd rather have a hand-drawn film come around once every few years that knocks my socks off rather than have them coming year after year and me progressively feeling less excited for them.

albert

If that happened at least Disney could stop focusing marketing on the return to form. I feel they did that too much with Frog. of course having a bunch of failed hand drawn attempts won't help anyone, but it would be nice to see a a number of good ones come out, regardless of the studio. Disney, pixar, Dreamworks, whoever needs to make a hand drawn movie that really blows people away in quality. we get 2 or 3 of those then studios will start competing again in this format.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:I don't believe 2D is dead at all, Princess and the Frog is enough proof that Disney are still capable of making good animated features. The glory days of the 1990's are long gone but not all of the animated films Disney have produced since then have been bad, Lilo & Stitch and Emperor's New Groove are examples. John Lasseter claims on the PATF special features that Disney assembled the best group of animators in the world to produce the film so I can't see why the same group can't do so again, provided they work with capable writers and directors.

You must not have got the memo yet: The Princess and the Frog, according to everyone on this board, was a failure, thematically and financially. And it failed because it was just a bad movie, and not because it was badly marketed (like everything else Disney makes these days other than Hannah Montana).

Hope that helped you out. I know, if noone had told me, I wouldn't have known.

To be completely honest, I think Pixar has damaged Disney's chances just a little. And, no, this isn't an anti-Pixar remark. It's just people look to Pixar these days (only god knows why) and they don't expect the same standard from Disney. People don't consider Disney quality like they do Pixar (not anymore), and they don't consider Disney 'entertainment' like they do Dreamworks. Disney--according to public perception--is for daycare centers. Public perception actually does mean a lot. Which is why it was almost impossible for TP&TF to be another Beauty and the Beast or Mermaid in terms of success or cultural impact. Anybody who expected that was just being unrealistic.

[quote]You must not have got the memo yet: The Princess and the Frog, according to everyone on this board, was a failure, thematically and financially. And it failed because it was just a bad movie, and not because it was badly marketed (like everything else Disney makes these days other than Hannah Montana).

Hope that helped you out. I know, if noone had told me, I wouldn't have known. Wink[/quote]

Oh right haha well thanks for the heads up on that

I have doubts over Disney animation like every other person it seems but I would rather see whether John Lasseter can turns thing around in the long-term rather than write Disney off altogether.

Disney Duster wrote:Super Aurora and enigmawing, yes, he would embrace technology, but a video game in itself is a whole nother matter.

Walt died before video games came out. How you know he wouldn't like it?

Disney Duster wrote:He used technology to tell stories set in real life organic nature or fantasy, not virtual inorganic life.

how is animation "real life organic nature/fantasy" but not video games? They're pretty much same thing in terms of contents like story/character development but in a different medium and a different media.

Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:I pretty much agree. As I see it, hand-drawn animation has basically become what black-and-white films have become. There will always be a place for classics like Snow White and The Lion King the same way there's a place for classics like Casablanca and Psycho. And films like Young Frankenstein, Raging Bull, Schindler's List, Ed Wood or The Man Who Wasn't There proves black-and-white have chances to return once and a while. It also has appeared in commercials as well as parts of movies like the opening in Casino Royale. So in that way, traditional animation won't be forever dead.

But as The Princess and the Frog's lukewarm reception proved, the general public will never get enthusiastic about "2D" animation like they did 20 years ago, especially with a new Pixar film released every year(and 3 Dreamworks films and a film from Sony Animation and Blue Sky) making it a far harder sell. CG films have just replaced the "event stature" hand-drawn(Disney in particular) once had for the general public and is going to continue to be case for the fore-seeable future(that is until the end of the world comes in 2012).

Disney's Divinity wrote:You must not have got the memo yet: The Princess and the Frog, according to everyone on this board, was a failure, thematically and financially. And it failed because it was just a bad movie, and not because it was badly marketed (like everything else Disney makes these days other than Hannah Montana).

Hope that helped you out. I know, if no one had told me, I wouldn't have known. Wink

To be completely honest, I think Pixar has damaged Disney's chances just a little. And, no, this isn't an anti-Pixar remark. It's just people look to Pixar these days (only god knows why) and they don't expect the same standard from Disney. People don't consider Disney quality like they do Pixar (not anymore), and they don't consider Disney 'entertainment' like they do Dreamworks. Disney--according to public perception--is for daycare centers. Public perception actually does mean a lot. Which is why it was almost impossible for TP&TF to be another Beauty and the Beast or Mermaid in terms of success or cultural impact. Anybody who expected that was just being unrealistic.

My two favorite posts in this thread so far. Very interesting analogy on your part Timon/Pumbaa.

DisneyJedi wrote:

Escapay wrote: We're talking about the future, not the past.
So if we have a negative opinion, no matter how valid, you don't want us to say it? You can just as easily not read it and we'll all get along hunky-dory.

Well, I'm just frankly getting fed up with claiming that hand-drawn animation is dead, when the proof that it still has a place in the media/world (whichever works best) is in the pudding.

I meant by "2d is dead", that is not the same like it used to be. and also, have you heard of any new 2d projects of Disney that will be released? I haven't heard anything. Only the Snow queen but that was abandoned from what I heard. I see only 3d productions in the future..
Enlighten us..

Mr. Disney could not have an opinion on video games as they did not exist at his time of death.

That said, I feel as though he would have thought video games were a unique and worthwhile storytelling medium.

Epic Mickey (should) prove that.

And I knew it was Reboot Ralph now, not Joe Jump - brain poot.

So 2D IS abandoned, and they actually DID lie about releasing a new 2D project every two years?!

You know what? No! I refuse to actually believe that!

Disney's Divinity wrote:People don't consider Disney quality like they do Pixar (not anymore), and they don't consider Disney 'entertainment' like they do Dreamworks. Disney--according to public perception--is for daycare centers. Public perception actually does mean a lot.

That's Disney's own fault, for saturating the market with a very high number of very childish direct-to-dvd cheapquels. It harmed the Disney brand. And on top of that, they came with a half-baked film like PatF...

Super Aurora wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Super Aurora and enigmawing, yes, he would embrace technology, but a video game in itself is a whole nother matter.

Walt died before video games came out. How you know he wouldn't like it?[/b]
I just said it was another matter.

Disney Duster wrote:He used technology to tell stories set in real life organic nature or fantasy, not virtual inorganic life.

how is animation "real life organic nature/fantasy" but not video games? They're pretty much same thing in terms of contents like story/character development but in a different medium and a different media.

There is a difference between animating the world, trying to make it realistic in some ways and fantasy in other ways (i.e. Bambi), and making an animated film...about an animated format and fake virtual digital world such as a video game.

Okay, could someone try convincing the doubtful ones that hand-drawn animation DOES in fact have a future? There's no getting through to them. I swear, it's like arguing with a mule.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Nh33bGAxl58?fs ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Nh33bGAxl58?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

And by the way, if The Princess and the Frog was a supposedly "bad" movie, then how did it get glowing reviews and become moderately successful in terms of financial earnings? It earned back a little over $104 million, and was some thousands short of its $105 million budget. Its theatrical gross doesn't include DVD/Blu-ray sales or overseas numbers, totaling it- unless I'm mistaken- to practically $300 million.

I think that if their other projects like Tangled, Winnie-the-Pooh, and others get better and better, I think they might just gain back an audience. But i really do think they should try to do something edgy and experimental, like Who Framed Roger Rabbit, to gain the attention of adults.

Disney Duster wrote: There is a difference between animating the world, trying to make it realistic in some ways and fantasy in other ways (i.e. Bambi), and making an animated film...about an animated format and fake virtual digital world such as a video game.

Not really. Disney/pixar already has Toy Story: a story about toys. What make VG an exception and shouldn't be animated by Disney?

I think the main problem is they have lost their magic. At the start, Walt made sure the story was strong, and just made movies that he knew people wanted to see. The basic formula was making a movie the animators wanted to see.
In the 80's and 90's, Roy Jr went back to that basic philosophy, of making movies that were strong stories, and I guess what they wanted see at the cinema. Somewhere between Lion King and now, they have lost that formula. Flooding us with heaps of money grabbing cheapquels, watching other studios success and trying to copy of them. Now they are trying to copy off their pass success, instead of making a new movie that they want to see themselves.

I think Pixar have the right idea. Not one movie is a repeat of itself. The Toy story sequels are quality, enough to go to the cinema, not direct to Dvd. They propel the story forward, and the box office proves that.

I really don't think it has anything to with 2d vs 3d, but more to do with a good story, and quite frankly, the last really good story Disney did was Emperors New Groove.

I think now because of the lack of a decent 2d movie over the last 10 years, we have now got this situation, and I think the post about comparing 2d with how Black and White cinema has become, is a very accurate assumption, because of how Disney has gone.

For Disney to get back on track, they need to go back to their roots, use the ideals that Walt started with, that Roy reintroduced, stop trying to repeat pass success, and just make a movie that they themselves want to see. Pixar needs to be their influence, and learn from how they have done it and succeeded, but don't copy of them, be unique, use the creative talent that is around them, and don't be afraid of not releasing a movie every year!!! Just make a good movie, and see what happens. I really don't get why they have to make a movie once a year, that just puts them under so much pressure to produce, not to create. (I know it has more to do with share holders and profits, and they can't really do much about, but if I was a shareholder, I'd much rather hold out on profits if I knew every couple of years a big movie was gonna come out!!!!)

Well, thats my 5 cents worth, sorry for the ramblings, but it just frustrates me, when there are so many talented people (Glenn Keane, Andre Dejas etc) just being wasted......And there I go again, ranting!!!

Thanks for reading, Take care.

Greg.

^ Lilo and Stitch wasn't good and original enough for you? that was the last one in my eyes. (Actually I liked Brother Bear too, but I know Im in the minority with that, and it obviously borrowed from many other Disney movies)