DVDizzy Forum

^Agreed.

I don't have strong opinions one way or the other on 2D vs 3D, but I very much would like to see an adaptation of Rumpelstiltskin. And if the rumors are to be believed, they've considered doing one in the past.

I remember reading about an "Uncle Stiltskin" project about 10 years ago that sounds like it could have been fun (if not too Shrek-like).

RyGuy wrote:^Agreed.

I don't have strong opinions one way or the other on 2D vs 3D, but I very much would like to see an adaptation of Rumpelstiltskin. And if the rumors are to be believed, they've considered doing one in the past.

I remember reading about an "Uncle Stiltskin" project about 10 years ago that sounds like it could have been fun (if not too Shrek-like).

I swear John Katzenberg's influence on modern day animated films is really getting out of control.I mean there should be some movie that is the antithesis of John Katzenberg's work so we can get something more fresh and orginal.The funning thing is that when Shrek came out it was fresh and orginal because of the fact it was very anti-Disney but now the forumla has become dry to the point its not funny.

If they ever do an adaption of Rumpelstilskin I hope they can find a way to make it into an hour and forty-five minute film.

jazzflower92 wrote:

RyGuy wrote:^Agreed.

I don't have strong opinions one way or the other on 2D vs 3D, but I very much would like to see an adaptation of Rumpelstiltskin. And if the rumors are to be believed, they've considered doing one in the past.

I remember reading about an "Uncle Stiltskin" project about 10 years ago that sounds like it could have been fun (if not too Shrek-like).

I swear John Katzenberg's influence on modern day animated films is really getting out of control.I mean there should be some movie that is the antithesis of John Katzenberg's work so we can get something more fresh and orginal.The funning thing is that when Shrek came out it was fresh and orginal because of the fact it was very anti-Disney but now the forumla has become dry to the point its not funny.

If they ever do an adaption of Rumpelstilskin I hope they can find a way to make it into an hour and forty-five minute film.

you mean Jeffrey Katzenberg?

Oh,sorry that's what I meant Jeffery Katzenberg.But I still think that the guy has had a hand in helping Disney on the other hand he has also kinda of influenced the reason why animated films are the way they are now.If I remember he was kinda of the reason why Toy Story almost had Woody as an unlikable jerk.

jazzflower92 wrote:Oh,sorry that's what I meant Jeffery Katzenberg.But I still think that the guy has had a hand in helping Disney on the other hand he has also kinda of influenced the reason why animated films are the way they are now.If I remember he was kinda of the reason why Toy Story almost had Woody as an unlikable jerk.

yes, he wanted to make CGI films more "edgy" (edgy [his definition] = adult-oriented, more mature humour etc [my definition] = the cheap-humour shit Dreamworks animation is flooded with right now).

Can anyone explain why Katzenberg has that awful reputation other than being too greedy? If you think of it, his influence in Disney had a positive effect on the company, yet everyone (staff and fans alike) are complaining about how terrible he was.

Lnds500 wrote:

jazzflower92 wrote:Oh,sorry that's what I meant Jeffery Katzenberg.But I still think that the guy has had a hand in helping Disney on the other hand he has also kinda of influenced the reason why animated films are the way they are now.If I remember he was kinda of the reason why Toy Story almost had Woody as an unlikable jerk.

yes, he wanted to make CGI films more "edgy" (edgy [his definition] = adult-oriented, more mature humour etc [my definition] = the cheap-humour shit Dreamworks animation is flooded with right now).

Can anyone explain why Katzenberg has that awful reputation other than being too greedy? If you think of it, his influence in Disney had a positive effect on the company, yet everyone (staff and fans alike) are complaining about how terrible he was.

He is also the reason why Robin Williams won't voice Genie anymore because of the fact that Katzenberg went back on his word on stuff.It is also the reason why Mr.Williams won't work for Katzenberg anymore so I think its probably the experience of working with him that people don't like him that much.

jazzflower92 wrote:

Lnds500 wrote: yes, he wanted to make CGI films more "edgy" (edgy [his definition] = adult-oriented, more mature humour etc [my definition] = the cheap-humour shit Dreamworks animation is flooded with right now).

Can anyone explain why Katzenberg has that awful reputation other than being too greedy? If you think of it, his influence in Disney had a positive effect on the company, yet everyone (staff and fans alike) are complaining about how terrible he was.

He is also the reason why Robin Williams won't voice Genie anymore because of the fact that Katzenberg went back on his word on stuff.It is also the reason why Mr.Williams won't work for Katzenberg anymore so I think its probably the experience of working with him that people don't like him that much.

I know that he was hard to work with, but even Don Hahn has admitted, that while the hours got longer etc, the privilileges of working at Disney were not bad as well. they had enough money to buy expensive cars, their work was admired etc etc

jazzflower92 wrote:If I remember he was kinda of the reason why Toy Story almost had Woody as an unlikable jerk.

It was Katzenberg who told John Lasseter and his team to watch the films "The Defiant Ones" and "48 Hours", advice that Lasseter has said helped Pixar as those "buddy" films helped shape the story and relationship between Woody and Buzz Lightyear. So Katzenberg is actually the reason why Woody isn't an unlikable jerk.

In my opinion, Katzenberg didn't just have a hand in making Disney animation great again, he was the main catalyst for it. The new Eisner/Wells management were ready to shut down animation and it became Katzenberg's problem because they simply had no interest in it. Katzenberg was smart enough to see the potential and value that animation still had at Disney and brought together creative individuals like John Musker, Ron Clements and Howard Ashman to create those films that made Disney a force once again. I don't like most of DreamWorks' films (I only enjoyed the first two Shrek films) but he has shown a knack for bringing together creative minds that produce films which go on to make a lot of money.

Lnds500 wrote:If you think of it, his influence in Disney had a positive effect on the company, yet everyone (staff and fans alike) are complaining about how terrible he was.

I don't think many of those who worked closely with him say that. He had a difficult relationship with Roy E. Disney because they were two completely different personalities and the animators might have initially resented his maniacal approach to work but I think his success, passion and commitment won them round by the time he left the company. If you are a Disney fan, I don't see how you could describe Katzenberg as terrible when his time at the company was so successful and he played such a vital role in dragging animation at Disney out of the dark days of the 1980's when the department was so close to being closed down. Compare him to the likes of some of his successors like David Stainton, an Eisner yes-man brought in to ensure that costs were kept down at animation, and I think its easy to see the positive effect that Katzenberg ultimately had on Disney.

jazzflower92 wrote:He is also the reason why Robin Williams won't voice Genie anymore because of the fact that Katzenberg went back on his word on stuff.

They fell out because Robin Williams agreed to work for SAG scale pay on Aladdin in return for him not being used to market the film. Katzenberg agreed and then went back on that agreement so the two fell out. After Katzenberg left Disney, the company reached out to Williams and he returned to voice the Genie in Aladdin and the King of Thieves. He was made a Disney Legend a couple of years ago so I doubt that their is any bad feeling remaining between him and the company.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote: It was Katzenberg who told John Lasseter and his team to watch the films "The Defiant Ones" and "48 Hours", advice that Lasseter has said helped Pixar as those "buddy" films helped shape the story and relationship between Woody and Buzz Lightyear. So Katzenberg is actually the reason why Woody isn't an unlikable jerk.

as I said above, Katzenberg wanted Toy Story to be "edgy" and that's the reason the early version of Toy Story was scraped and re-worked again (source: The Pixar Story)

In my opinion, Katzenberg didn't just have a hand in making Disney animation great again, he was the main catalyst for it. The new Eisner/Wells management were ready to shut down animation and it became Katzenberg's problem because they simply had no interest in it. Katzenberg was smart enough to see the potential and value that animation still had at Disney and brought together creative individuals like John Musker, Ron Clements and Howard Ashman to create those films that made Disney a force once again.

I'm pretty sure that Katzenberg was one of the main reasons the animators took the boot from the old buildings. At least that's what's being said in Waking Sleeping Beauty. The live-action business was thriving and he wanted the buildings for the extra space. They put the animators in some awful buildings and everyone thought they were getting fired. After a few years, when the new animation building was announced, Katzenberg didn't even know about this, as if he didn't care about the conditions the artists worked in, as long as the movies they were making were profitable

I don't think many of those who worked closely with him say that.

I've seen or heard bad things about him from that era from a lot of sources. Also in Waking Sleeping Beauty, Eric Goldberg says in the credits "Am I allowed to mention Jeffrey Katzenberg?", clearly showing that's it's a tough subject amongst the artists and the company. Also, in Runaway Brain As Mickey is falling down the tube, a pink slip (an American term for being Laid-off) with the initials J.K. on them passes Mickey and moves the left of the screen. This is a referral to Jeffrey Katzenberg, who was fired by Michael Eisner the year previous. Finally, the infamous line "I'm not interested in the Academy Awards, I'm interested in the Bank of America Awards" was another reason of disdain among the artists

If you are a Disney fan, I don't see how you could describe Katzenberg as terrible when his time at the company was so successful and he played such a vital role in dragging animation at Disney out of the dark days of the 1980's when the department was so close to being closed down.

I think that the reason Disney Katzenberg eventually warmed up to animated films, is because they brought in money. If it weren't for the artists at the studio who showed him the potential of animation, the animation department could have closed like that. That's why I don't like katzenberg. while others like Dejas or Keane saw the movies as an art form in which they could express themselves, Katzenberg only saw them as big money makers. And that policy continues on in DreamWorks; some (a few) movies are great, some are too cliché just for the sake of attracting audiences.

Sotiris wrote:For the last time: It's NOT Rumpelstiltskin and it's NOT going to be hand-drawn.

Steve Hulett has confirmed multiple times that it's not Rumplestitchkin and although the project was once to be hand-drawn that changed and now it's gonna be CG with hand-drawn elements. Supposedly it will feature a new groundbreaking technique which was employed on the upcoming CG short "Paperman".

If you read all the way through the post that Polizzi linked, you would see that they actually debunked the report about Rumpelstiltskin using UD as source. This rumour was first posted on Wikipedia and it has already been addressed on page 7 of this thread.

Hey Sotiris, come here! Closer. Come on now, closer. That's it, perfect. HIIIIIIIIIYA!

Honestly, I can't help but wonder whether or not Bob Iger is actually abusing his duties as chairman. I mean, he's kind of the reason for the tween boppy stuff, the lack of hand-drawn films lately and I wouldn't be surprised if he was squandering the company's earnings by buying out Marvel (not that I'm complaining about that, mind you) and probably creating an Avatar themed area in Animal Kingdom, which we aren't sure if they're still doing it or not.

In short, I kind of feel that Iger is abusing his power, maybe even worse than Eisner did. Some of you may disagree, but that's kind of how I feel. Really, it's no wonder that Andreas Deja (unless I'm wrong) left. Really, what Disney needs is to re-hire their hand-drawn artists and make more hand-drawn movies. And I don't CARE if it's more "expensive" than CG. They should just DO IT!

Oh, also, Jeffrey Katzenberg was also the reason Ariel's "I Want" song was almost taken out of The Little Mermaid. And for what reason? A kid more focused on picking up his popcorn.

And lastly, if they can't have the characters in John and Ron's next movie be hand-drawn, they should at least go and make the movie look like a moving oil painting, like a certain would-be film that has become Tangled. You know, have everything drawn and color/fill everything in with CG. Well, if that's what Rapunzel Unbraided was going to be in terms of medium...

DisneyJedi wrote:In short, I kind of feel that Iger is abusing his power, maybe even worse than Eisner did. Some of you may disagree, but that's kind of how I feel.

If that's how you feel then fine but I think Eisner and Iger are very different. Eisner filled the board of the company with yes-men who were unswervingly loyal to him, no matter the mistakes he was making, nor the undeserved and inflated bonuses he was receiving, to ensure that he could keep control of the company for as long as he wanted. Anyone who dared to oppose him (Roy E. Disney, Stanley Gold, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Andrea Van de Kamp) was immediately purged.

Iger might have been one of those yes-men at the time and I don't agree with all of the things he's done as CEO but I much prefer him to Eisner. For one thing, Iger was smart enough to do a deal with Pixar, one that Eisner wouldn't because of a personal issue with Steve Jobs. The thing that seals it for me is that Iger has already set a date at which he will stand down as CEO, something that Eisner was never willing to do. Eisner did some great things at Disney but the power eventually went to his head and he viewed the Walt Disney Company as his own personal kingdom that only he could rule. Iger might not be perfect but at least it won't take a boardroom revolt and a bitter personal dispute played out in the media to get rid of him.

In short, I don't think Iger has abused his power at all; he's done some big deals and not everything he's done has paid off or is something that I agree with but, all in all, I personally think he's been a pretty good CEO and it will be interesting to see who replaces him.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:

DisneyJedi wrote:In short, I kind of feel that Iger is abusing his power, maybe even worse than Eisner did. Some of you may disagree, but that's kind of how I feel.

If that's how you feel then fine but I think Eisner and Iger are very different. Eisner filled the board of the company with yes-men who were unswervingly loyal to him, no matter the mistakes he was making, nor the undeserved and inflated bonuses he was receiving, to ensure that he could keep control of the company for as long as he wanted. Anyone who dared to oppose him (Roy E. Disney, Stanley Gold, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Andrea Van de Kamp) was immediately purged.

Iger might have been one of those yes-men at the time and I don't agree with all of the things he's done as CEO but I much prefer him to Eisner. For one thing, Iger was smart enough to do a deal with Pixar, one that Eisner wouldn't because of a personal issue with Steve Jobs. The thing that seals it for me is that Iger has already set a date at which he will stand down as CEO, something that Eisner was never willing to do. Eisner did some great things at Disney but the power eventually went to his head and he viewed the Walt Disney Company as his own personal kingdom that only he could rule. Iger might not be perfect but at least it won't take a boardroom revolt and a bitter personal dispute played out in the media to get rid of him.

In short, I don't think Iger has abused his power at all; he's done some big deals and not everything he's done has paid off or is something that I agree with but, all in all, I personally think he's been a pretty good CEO and it will be interesting to see who replaces him.

Yeah! Like maybe someone want hand drawn more than CGI and get Mickey Mouse out of the preschool world. But thanks to Sotiris or Steve Hulett the idiot, we'll never get good news about hand drawn animation. Because people are total idiots!

TsWade2 wrote:Hey Sotiris, come here! Closer. Come on now, closer. That's it, perfect. HIIIIIIIIIYA!

I'm not sure if virtual hitting is a personal attack, but it's uncalled for regardless.

TsWade2 wrote:But thanks to Sotiris

Don't mistake the message for the messenger.

Yeah, because Sotiris is COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE for the medium switch in this new Ron John project.

I hate to be the guy that has to tell TsWade the bad news about his health

pap64 wrote:Yeah, because Sotiris is COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE for the medium switch in this new Ron John project.

I hate to be the guy that has to tell TsWade the bad news about his health

Thanks. Much oblige.

enigmawing wrote:Don't mistake the message for the messenger.

lol, the last guy who told that got crucified

Is animationguildblog.blogspot.com telling the truth? Because I'm beginning to feel they're possibly not telling the truth. Maybe they're trying to make us mad at Disney for not getting what we want. I think Steve Hulett is a total idiot. I'm not going to blame Sotiris, but I'm blaming Steve Hulett animation guild blog for lying to us to create this forum into a Days Of Our Lives moment:
<iframe width="640" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_KZsiMhziRI" frameborder="0"></iframe>

There was another chat forum called Pixar Planet, and on the users from Pixar Planet are criticizing us for attacking people who don't agree with eachother.

Do these guys know anymore than we do? No, and everything that's posted on TAG should really be taken with a grain of salt; until Disney publicly comes out and says that 2D is dead at their studio, anything that suggests they may be headed in that direction should really not be taken seriously, or as fact. -jturner82@aol.com

I don't think we should listen to TAG Blog anymore. That blog is nothing trouble.
[/quote]

TsWade2 wrote:I don't think we should listen to TAG Blog anymore. That blog is nothing trouble.

Considering he actually spends time at the Disney studio and talks to the animators, I'll take his word over others. If you don't like what the blog says, there's a pretty simple answer: don't read the blog. I don't see it causing any trouble on this forum at all aside from when certain members needlessly have a meltdown over it.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:

TsWade2 wrote:I don't think we should listen to TAG Blog anymore. That blog is nothing trouble.

Considering he actually spends time at the Disney studio and talks to the animators, I'll take his word over others. If you don't like what the blog says, there's a pretty simple answer: don't read the blog. I don't see it causing any trouble on this forum at all aside from when certain members needlessly have a meltdown over it.

But he says 2D hand drawn animation is dead. Is that true?