DVDizzy Forum

2099net wrote:Didn't Tarzan have a mullet?

nope his hair was just long a mullet is short in the front and long at the back

Loomis wrote:

Captain Hook wrote: Yeah! Another bake-off!

Chicken pie, anyone?

eatz mere Chickin!

MickeyMouseboy wrote:

Loomis wrote: Chicken pie, anyone?

eatz mere Chickin!

I don't want to be a pie! I don't even like gravy.....

Loomis wrote:

MickeyMouseboy wrote: eatz mere Chickin!

I don't want to be a pie! I don't even like gravy.....

If you want my gravy
Pepper my ragout
Spice it up for Mama
She'll get hot for you

I guess Loomis won't get Mama

Loomis the Groovy Gravy Guy wrote:I don't want to be a pie! I don't even like gravy.....

MickeyMouseboy wrote: If you want my gravy
Pepper my ragout
Spice it up for Mama
She'll get hot for you

I guess Loomis won't get Mama

Eh...you'd be surprised what an Aussie accent can do for a guy

Plus, I'm cute and fluffy.

I mean really what is disney thinking. Animation(2D) is what started the company! I saw Finding Nemo this past summer. It's okay, but its no where near my favorite. All the dvds I have or plan to buy are disney classics or 2D films! If they decide to do this I may complain. However they have to look and see why 2D is failing in the first place. Brother Bear? who wants to see that? Look at their past hits, they were romantic films or life stories ( lion king). They need to find books or stories that can grip hearts again like they did in the past using 2D. Thats all. I'm not saying they cant use 3D. but dont kill 2D.

I'm starting the baking. I'm making brownies and cakes - three layered chocolate. Who else is helping?

TheBionicWoman wrote:I mean really what is disney thinking. Animation(2D) is what started the company! I saw Finding Nemo this past summer. It's okay, but its no where near my favorite. All the dvds I have or plan to buy are disney classics or 2D films! If they decide to do this I may complain. However they have to look and see why 2D is failing in the first place. Brother Bear? who wants to see that? Look at their past hits, they were romantic films or life stories ( lion king). They need to find books or stories that can grip hearts again like they did in the past using 2D. Thats all. I'm not saying they cant use 3D. but dont kill 2D.

I have to disagree with you about Brother Bear. I feel that from what I've seen it has a good "life story". I feel the message of what really "brotherhood" is, is as good a message as any of their other films.

I don't really want to see Brother Bear either... Oh well

is anyone else nervous about Chicken Little? I keep getting hives just thinking about it for some reason...


sheesh... just because B.B is about animals doesn't mean it's going to do wonders at the box office.. Spirit didn't .. neither did Balto , or even TENG.. I know the first two aren't Disney but still ..

*fwaps Eisner*

I'm not nervous about Chicken Little, because it's the makers of Emperor's New Groove and I loved Chicken Little as a kid.

Loomis wrote:

Loomis the Groovy Gravy Guy wrote:I don't want to be a pie! I don't even like gravy.....

MickeyMouseboy wrote: If you want my gravy
Pepper my ragout
Spice it up for Mama
She'll get hot for you

I guess Loomis won't get Mama

Eh...you'd be surprised what an Aussie accent can do for a guy

Plus, I'm cute and fluffy.

Aloha Cousin!

Is there anything that we can do about getting Disney to continue to make Traditional animation?

Captain Hook wrote:Is there anything that we can do about getting Disney to continue to make Traditional animation?

Absolutely. Show active support for their current traditionally animated product - meaning, Brother Bear and Home on the Range. See my post on page 5 of the current Brother Bear thread for a more detailed plan of action and motivational speech. If you care, see Brother Bear!

Now, on to another subtopic. Guys - I think (and you can view this as good or bad, however you feel about it) that the CGI movies WILL be counted as part of the animated classic canon. Disney has defined their useage of the term "animated classic" to mean "a full-length feature film produced by Walt Disney Feature Animation," not "a full-length <i>traditionally animated</i> feature film produced by Walt Disney Feature Animation." Dinosaur would have counted as an animated classic, except that it used live-action backgrounds throughout the film and thus is not wholly animated. The Pixar films -- and the films to be produced by other companies who now have deals with Disney simmilar to the Pixar one -- don't count as WDFA employees themselves don't do the animation. The CGI films in production now, however, will be completely CG without any live action footage and will be produced completely by a branch of Feature Animation, usually Burbank. Thus, by Disney's own definitions, they will HAVE to count as animated classics wheather we like it or not.

It won't make any difference in the long term Jake (although I'll admit it may make some difference in the sort term - but being as they've fired a whole lot of traditional animators and support staff and sold/shipped out their equipment it seems unlikely).

One of Disney's goals is to create CGI animation that looks handdrawn (think B.E.N. in Treasure Planet or the Giant in Warners' The Iron Giant). It's easy to do with angular characters like robots, but harder to do with more rounded, organic shapes. But once they do, why would they go back to handdrawn animation?

Create a model in the computer, create a number of animations for it (such as a walk or run cycle) and it can be used over and over again with only minor user input. They can even animate the characters quicker by using motion capture and other technologies.

Want the same character to appear in a DTV? Simply pull out the CGI model. Want the same character to appear in a TV series? Pull out the CGI model. Want the same character to appear in an advert or theme park movie? Pull out the CGI model. Use the some of the animations on file, create some new ones with motion capture (if applicable for the character) and/or get an animator or two to create some new ones or clean up the captured animations.

If the technology is there, you will have an animated character which looks fully handdrawn, but created in a fraction of the time (debatable - especially if this is the first time the character is being animated) but certainly created with a fraction of the manpower (again, manpower savings will mostly be made if reusing existing characters).

If you want to reuse a handdrawn character, the animation still has to be drawn, cleaned-up, inked and coloured. Each step of which takes a lot of time (which equals money) passing through a lot of employees (which also equals money).

That's why Disney want to get rid of handdrawn animation.

I think that they're some way of doing this using todays technology - the fact that they appear to have scrapped (or put on hold) their sequels to Dumbo and Bambi (although I think Bambi II is going to be traditional animation now) supports this. But one day - perhaps soon considering the rapid leaps and bounds in computing technology and power - Disney will achieve their aim. CGI animation that looks 100% handdrawn.

Then there will be no need to ever go back to handdrawn animation if CGI can replicate it's look and feel.

I think that CGI that looks hand drawn would be fine with me. And frankly, the Beauty and the Beast and Peter Pan covers were partially CG, and they looked GREAT! Also, the CG scenes in Fantasia 2000 looked good, and Dinosaur was rather good also.

Well, i'm starting to look forward to the DTV sequels seeing how they'll probably be the only traditional animation left in a few years (unless they do them in CGI too).

They wanted to do Dumbo II and Bambi II in CGI but either 'bailed out' or put this 'on hold' (depending on what you read) as the results of the tests were not up to scratch.

(And hey, if they thought Belle's Magical World's animation was 'up to scratch', those CGI tests must have been appaling!)

2099net wrote:It won't make any difference in the long term Jake (although I'll admit it may make some difference in the sort term - but being as they've fired a whole lot of traditional animators and support staff and sold/shipped out their equipment it seems unlikely).

One of Disney's goals is to create CGI animation that looks handdrawn (think B.E.N. in Treasure Planet or the Giant in Warners' The Iron Giant). It's easy to do with angular characters like robots, but harder to do with more rounded, organic shapes. But once they do, why would they go back to handdrawn animation?

Create a in the computer, create a number of animations for it (such as a walk or run cycle) and it can be used over and over again with only minor user input. They can even animate the characters quicker by using motion capture and other technologies.

Want the same character to appear in a DTV? Simply pull out the CGI . Want the same character to appear in a TV series? Pull out the CGI . Want the same character to appear in an advert or theme park movie? Pull out the CGI . Use the some of the animations on file, create some new ones with motion capture (if applicable for the character) and/or get an animator or two to create some new ones or clean up the captured animations.

If the technology is there, you will have an animated character which looks fully handdrawn, but created in a fraction of the time (debatable - especially if this is the first time the character is being animated) but certainly created with a fraction of the manpower (again, manpower savings will mostly be made if reusing existing characters).

If you want to reuse a handdrawn character, the animation still has to be drawn, cleaned-up, inked and coloured. Each step of which takes a lot of time (which equals money) passing through a lot of employees (which also equals money).

That's why Disney want to get rid of handdrawn animation.

I think that they're some way of doing this using todays technology - the fact that they appear to have scrapped (or put on hold) their sequels to Dumbo and Bambi (although I think Bambi II is going to be traditional animation now) supports this. But one day - perhaps soon considering the rapid leaps and bounds in computing technology and power - Disney will achieve their aim. CGI animation that looks 100% handdrawn.

Then there will be no need to ever go back to handdrawn animation if CGI can replicate it's look and feel.

While it would be totally easy and more convenient for them to do this, they are going to take something very special away: the heart and soul of an actual human being drawing a character. I think nothing shows this better than Glen kean's explanation of how he drew the Beast transformation at the end of BATB on the DVD. The way he talks about it and the way they show him drawing it is simply astounding.

When they go to computer animation looking like 2D, things like this are going to be lost . . .