DVDizzy Forum

No I didn't. And I'm not saying that it wouldn't be entertaining it's just more that CGI is often used for more pop-cultural laden gag-infested movies (excepting Pixar and movies like 9)

In recent years, a lot of animation studios are toning down (or even flat-out eliminating) the pop-culture references. DreamWorks, in particular, has shifted a lot what with How to Train Your Dragon and the Kung Fu Panda films having not a single pop-culture reference in sight.

I think CGI animation is beginning to grow its beard and stop being so pop cultural saturated plus actually have heart and care for the characters.

I think the reason Shrek was popular in the first place because it was very different from the Disney formula that people were used to at the time.And now people have gotten sick of it and are actually now are looking for CGI movies which can compete with Pixar in story and characters.

I mean what I like about Disney now is that for its CGI movies they are now trying to be themselves instead of copying Shrek.I mean actually that is a stock aseop of Disney is to be one self.Mainly do the stuff that people know you for.Sure,you can step out of your element once and a while but always remember to use the same heart put into that project.

I mean Wreck It Ralph might at first look like any other studio could have written it but under all that its still a Disney movie at heart.Because you feel and emphasize with these characters just as we have been seeing from the trailers people already have some kinda of connection to Ralph and his predicament.

ProfessorRatigan wrote:AVATAR?

Had nothing to do with PatF's perfomance. Other movies released around the same time, like Sherlock Holmes and Chipmunks, were successful despite its presence. The movie had an opening day weekend that wasn't much better than Brother Bear when figuring inflation and that was before Avatar was released. Now Winnie the Pooh? That was poor timing.

I do think racism or a lack on interest in seeing an overtly "black" movie was the "elephant in the room" when it came to the movie's performance, but I think the more important factor was the awful reputation of Disney hand-draw animation in the years leading up to PatF. One theatrical release was not going to magically erase dozens of DTV sequels or the long drought of popular titles from the public's memory. Nor was a Pooh sequel with DTV level ambitions.

It's a shame that the company hasn't really changed its position on hand-drawn titles, but the writing has been on the wall for awhile now, so this "news" is really no surprise to me.

I am however, loling at the anti-CGI comments some people are coming up with.

It's as I said before, John Lasseter has become Harvey Dent from The Dark Knight, You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UfcemNhlqy ... F&hl=en_US" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Also, I remember finding this song on YouTube a few years ago...

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ukpbi2Qxoag" frameborder="0"></iframe>

SWillie! wrote:All due respect, but I don't think you understand how computer animation is done. If you did, you would understand that this is no way related to "laziness." As someone who actively practices both techniques, it is impossible to say that one is more complicated or "true" than the other.

And I apologize. Yes, I am oblivious and have no understanding of how any of it is done, hand-drawn or computer created.

I understand that both are most likely VERY difficult to pull of, but as I've said: I see more effort put into characters that are created and animated on paper then I do with characters who were created from the technology of a computer.

I admit, I could honestly care less of the movies that are CGI, but there are some films done in 3D that I admire(And yet many people consider it to be the weakest film ever: Dinosaur). If they want to do it, so be it. But DON'T just do away with 2D films. I am very sick and tired of seeing them blaming a movies failure simply because it was hand drawn, because it is NOT the reason for a movies failure.

disneyboy20022 wrote:<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ukpbi2Qxoag" frameborder="0"></iframe>

And the highest rated comment on that video states: "2-D is what makes Disney unique!"

The only thing dead at Disney is bonus features.

y'know, after giving it some thought, the "life" that hand drawn animation has is to me is that of the cartoony expression, and CGI can largely pull that off really well. One of the reasons it doesnt do that often, is because CGI can get away with more subtle expressions.

SWillie wrote:

ProfessorRatigan wrote:Fuck them. Seriously. I think Lasseter has been horrible and I can't wait til he gets the boot.

This is an extremely biased, uneducated opinion.

I'm sorry--"uneducated"? Just because someone does not give Lasseter's name a tongue bath every time he's mentioned does not make them uneducated.

But it's typical that every negative comment is considered = to overreacting. We've seen all that before, too.

PatrickvD wrote:Seriously, why does Fragonard keep coming up?

Because that was Glen Keane's original vision for the movie before management deemed it too unconventional and distracting and axed it. Perhaps it was; who knows? It would have been interesting to see nonetheless.

Flanger-Hanger wrote:I do think racism or a lack on interest in seeing an overtly "black" movie was the "elephant in the room" when it came to the movie's performance.

That's true. George Lucas said that he had a lot of trouble funding Red Tails because it features black leads and it was perceived it wouldn't do well at the box office just because of the black cast. There must be plenty examples of that in Hollywood.

Flanger-Hanger wrote:The important factor was the awful reputation of Disney hand-draw animation in the years leading up to PatF. One theatrical release was not going to magically erase dozens of DTV sequels or the long drought of popular titles from the public's memory.

That was certainly a factor. Also, having the first post-Eisner hand-drawn feature to be a fairytale with a princess was probably a bad idea. According to research, boys influence what the family is going to see in theaters more than girls. And although Tangled was both a fairytale and included a princess, this was heavily masked by marketing. In retrospect, if TPatF's marketing was different and the title didn't include the word "princess", it would have performed a lot better.

The thing is Lasseter should had given hand-drawn another chance before writing it out completely after one movie. Perhaps a more original project that's fantasy or action-oriented. When Meet the Robinsons and Bolt underperformed under Lassetter administration, they didn't blame the medium and continued producing CG films. So, why isn't hand-drawn getting a second chance?

THERE ARE NO HEROES LEFT IN MAN

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rDPQpaxtTuY?rel=0" frameborder="0"></iframe>

How effing dare they abandoned hand drawn! I want Disney to make a Mickey Mouse feature with hand drawn, but now hand drawn is dead! IT's not fair! I'm thinking to write a threat letter to Disney.

THIS IS NOT F****** RIGHT!

I need a phone Number.

ProfessorRatigan wrote:Because we all know Princess and the Frog's low-numbers had NOTHING to do with racism or the fact that the film itself is poorly structured and messy because of politically-correct meddling on behalf of the studio execs... Wasn't the film also released the same time as AVATAR? And Winnie the Pooh, wasn't that put up against the final installment of Harry Fucking Potter? And Disney has the nerve to blame the medium? Fuck them. Seriously. I think Lasseter has been horrible and I can't wait til he gets the boot. We need a new renaissance and new blood at the studio.

Two examples of poor scheduling with little excuse for it. If a Disney film is not released in the late May/June or Thanksgiving time period, then it's not gonna get the attention it deserves. Though I don't think anything was more ridiculous by Disney than releasing Brother Bear on the first SATURDAY after Halloween. The suits thoughts that kids would love to see a movie after Halloween. Don't know what they were smoking then.

Regarding the changes made to The Princess and the Frog, I honestly think it was for the better. The original ideas for the film made it seem too 'Cinderella' to me and I liked that Charlotte was more of a ditzy friend instead of a rival or a villain.

They can't give up hand drawn and new movie for Mickey Mouse. They just can't I tell you! Who gives a damn if PATF and Winnie the Pooh isn't box office hit. Because people are f***ing idiots! And now, Disney is being a chickenshit!

TsWade2 wrote:They can't give up hand drawn and new movie for Mickey Mouse. They just can't I tell you! Whif PATF and Winnie the Pooh isn't box office hit. Because people are f***ing idiots! And now, Disney is being a chickenshit! I hate to say this, but John Lasseter, I HOPE YOU DIE IN HELL!

Uh, perhaps I'm taking a shot in the dark but, I think we might need Dr. Shelby to dial it down from a 20 to a 5.

disneyboy20022 wrote:

TsWade2 wrote:They can't give up hand drawn and new movie for Mickey Mouse. They just can't I tell you! Whif PATF and Winnie the Pooh isn't box office hit. Because people are f***ing idiots! And now, Disney is being a chickenshit! I hate to say this, but John Lasseter, I HOPE YOU DIE IN HELL!

Uh, perhaps I'm taking a shot in the dark but, I think we might need Dr. Shelby to dial it down from a 20 to a 5.

That's not funny! Can't you see I'm upset about this right now?

Disney's Divinity wrote:

SWillie wrote: This is an extremely biased, uneducated opinion.

I'm sorry--"uneducated"? Just because someone does not give Lasseter's name a tongue bath every time he's mentioned does not make them uneducated.

But it's typical that every negative comment is considered = to overreacting. We've seen all that before, too.

I don't worship Lasseter, nor do I think he should be worshipped. But the facts are that he came in during an almost all-time low at Disney Animation both creatively and monetarily, with the goal of making WDAS relevant and profitable again. With the success of Tangled, it appears that is so. They have the most films in active development/production since over ten years ago, and they have had their most profitable film since over ten years ago. Their next release appears to be projected to reach audiences that Disney has never reached before, and they have a wildly acclaimed short film under their belt, that many have claimed to be a game changer in the industry.

If Lassester's goal was the make WDAS relevant and profitable again, he has succeeded. Based on these indisputable facts, he has succeeded.

If you don't like the decisions he's made getting there, that's fine- like I said, he need not be worshipped. But don't act as if he's about to "get the boot" any day now, because he still one of the most valuable assets the company has, regardless of your personal opinions. Anyone educated on the matter can see that. As I said above, can't we for once TRY to be objective about this? It makes for a much more interesting and worthwhile conversation.

This is so, sad, to me. That hand drawn animation, an art forum, is dead because of bad decisions.

I agree, John Lasseter has been an awful studio runner for Disney. The man is an egomaniac with no taste.

SWillie! wrote: I don't worship Lasseter, nor do I think he should be worshipped. But the facts are that he came in during an almost all-time low at Disney Animation both creatively and monetarily, with the goal of making WDAS relevant and profitable again. With the success of Tangled, it appears that is so. They have the most films in active development/production since over ten years ago, and they have had their most profitable film since over ten years ago. Their next release appears to be projected to reach audiences that Disney has never reached before, and they have a wildly acclaimed short film under their belt, that many have claimed to be a game changer in the industry.

If Lassester's goal was the make WDAS relevant and profitable again, he has succeeded. Based on these indisputable facts, he has succeeded.

If you don't like the decisions he's made getting there, that's fine- like I said, he need not be worshipped. But don't act as if he's about to "get the boot" any day now, because he still one of the most valuable assets the company has, regardless of your personal opinions. Anyone educated on the matter can see that. As I said above, can't we for once TRY to be objective about this? It makes for a much more interesting and worthwhile conversation.

I think that Lassetter has a rather narrow-set mind regarding Disney projects and is limiting creativity at Disney to a Pixar-ish style that has been part of his successful career. He's in his own comfortable bubble regarding what works and what doesn't work. He's not in Eiser territory yet but if he's not careful, especially regarding his Cars franchise, who knows...?

He gave TPatF a shot but I don't think it was because of it being 2D that it wasn't as successful as Tangled. Animation succeeds when you experiment and do brand new things with the medium. TPatF's ultimate weakness was that it brought back 2D with nothing new to offer as far as animation or storytelling. It was done in the style of a basic 2D film from the 90s. (In fact, they constantly advertise it as such.) You can't go backwards with Disney. The only thing you can do is do what is currently good or go forward. Had the film been made years earlier, I think it really would've gotten 2D back on track at Disney.