Frozen: Part V

[2Disney4Ever]

I've known exactly why it doesn't deserve it. Disney took a movie they initially promised to us as a hand-drawn film and forced it to be CGI, while simultaneously spreading the news about them "gutting their hand-drawn animation department", and they think that they still deserve to get success out of it? All this "success" they may think that they've gotten from making Frozen is just blood money on their part. They just keep murdering their own 2D animation with no remorse.

[Warm Regards]

While the timing is unfortunate (i.e., had Frozen been hand-drawn, it probably would have broke a billion anyway), to discredit the movie just because it's CG is myopic and rude to the animators/ storytellers who worked on Frozen.

[2Disney4Ever]

While the timing is unfortunate (i.e., had Frozen been hand-drawn, it probably would have broke a billion anyway), to discredit the movie just because it's CG is myopic and rude to the animators/ storytellers who worked on Frozen.

Yes, but the people at Disney, being the cowards that they are, denied 2D animation that chance.

[Victurtle]

Im so glad Frozen did end up in CGI because it is beautiful to look at, and the ice and snow lent themselves so well to CGI.

Disney is working on developing 2D or 2D-like animation right now, but whatever is in the works is not ready yet. And its good they are taking their time to perfect it. TPATF and WTP looked terrible whenever they resorted to CGI.

[TsWade2]

I've known exactly why it doesn't deserve it. Disney took a movie they initially promised to us as a hand-drawn film and forced it to be CGI, while simultaneously spreading the news about them "gutting their hand-drawn animation department", and they think that they still deserve to get success out of it? All this "success" they may think that they've gotten from making Frozen is just blood money on their part. They just keep murdering their own 2D animation with no remorse.

Uh...........no comment.

[2Disney4Ever]

I've known exactly why it doesn't deserve it. Disney took a movie they initially promised to us as a hand-drawn film and forced it to be CGI, while simultaneously spreading the news about them "gutting their hand-drawn animation department", and they think that they still deserve to get success out of it? All this "success" they may think that they've gotten from making Frozen is just blood money on their part. They just keep murdering their own 2D animation with no remorse.

Uh...........no comment.

I thought you would know this stuff already, TsWade2.

[TsWade2]

Uh...........no comment.

I thought you would know this stuff already, TsWade2.

Well, I was being a total butt munch ranting about 2D animation being treated to be a dying art. And I was trying to change behavior on that. I still hope for Disney do another hand drawn animated feature, but their not ready right now. I know, John Lasseter and his team are total cowards, but I'm sure someday as soon as they get a new CEO (hopefully Tom Staggs), they'll finally create another hand drawn or 2D Traditional animated movie. Also, I'm a bit off-topic, can we just get back on topic. Thanks.

[2Disney4Ever]

Well, I was being a total butt munch ranting about 2D animation being treated to be a dying art. And I was trying to change behavior on that. I still hope for Disney do another hand drawn animated feature, but their not ready right now. I know, John Lasseter and his team are total cowards, but I'm sure someday as soon as they get a new CEO (hopefully Tom Staggs), they'll finally create another hand drawn or 2D Traditional animated movie. Also, I'm a bit off-topic, can we just get back on topic. Thanks.

Oh, I see. Well, can't say I'm not disappointed. It seems like you're just getting soft on them.

[Prince Edward]

Im so glad Frozen did end up in CGI because it is beautiful to look at, and the ice and snow lent themselves so well to CGI.

Disney is working on developing 2D or 2D-like animation right now, but whatever is in the works is not ready yet. And its good they are taking their time to perfect it. TPATF and WTP looked terrible whenever they resorted to CGI.

But why should there be any need for Disney to develop a "2D-like" animation? Why is not the animation style of Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Pocahontas, Hercules, Hunchback, Treasure Planet, Mulan, Brother Bear or Lilo & Stitch good enough today? It is all about money, if Disney's latest 2D movies had not been flops (Treasure Planet, Atlantis) or underperformed (Brother Bear, Princess and the Frog) - Disney would have still made 2 movies.

If the story is good, it should be possible to sell 2D movies even to audiences of today as well. But when you have stories like Home on the Range, it's bound to be some disasters at the box office. The longer Disney waits to make more 2D movies, the more children will grow up being unaccostumed to watch 2D. CGI movies will be all they know, and even terrible CGI movies will make more money then their 2D counterparts - because 2D will be unfamiliar, while CGI is hip, cool and the new mainstream.

Frozen is a great movie and it looks awesome (although the near non-excistent noses of Anna and Elsa looks horrid), but a part of me wish that it would have been made in 2D. Disney have a special responsibility to keep 2D alive, it's a cornerstone of their legacy and image. The company would have been nothing today had it not been for 2D animation. The character drawings of Rapunzel, Flynn, Anna, Elsa, Hans and Kristoff look really beautiful in 2D, and I would have preferred that the Disney classics (especially the Disney fairytales) to be a continuation of the style of Sleeping Beauty, Beauty and the Beast and The Princess and the Frog.

[unprincess]

^the 2d films making less money than cgi was only partly the reason Disney abandoned 2d. There was some political stuff going on within the studio where it seemed that a bunch of younger 3d animators just wanted to turn Disney into a CGI studio & conspired to force the older 2d animators out...

[2Disney4Ever]

^the 2d films making less money than cgi was only partly the reason Disney abandoned 2d. There was some political stuff going on within the studio where it seemed that a bunch of younger 3d animators just wanted to turn Disney into a CGI studio & conspired to force the older 2d animators out...

So your saying they wanted to turn Disney away from it's true purpose and change it into something it shouldn't be. This kind of reminds me of that story I heard where John Lasseter was fired from Disney due to the controversy of secretly wanting to incorporate CGI into The Brave Little Toaster. Looking back, I almost think it may have been wise of Disney to be weary of his enthusiasm for CGI. Not that I think there's anything wrong with it being blended into hand-drawn movies, but the thought of it taking over animation completely is something I would have been weary of too.

Also, I agree with a lot of what Prince Edward said.

[estefan]

The longer Disney waits to make more 2D movies, the more children will grow up being unaccostumed to watch 2D. CGI movies will be all they know, and even terrible CGI movies will make more money then their 2D counterparts - because 2D will be unfamiliar, while CGI is hip, cool and the new mainstream.

That's why I think it's good to see movies like Peanuts which replicate the look and feel of hand-drawn animation. I don't think a lot of audience members will be aware that it's fully CG (much like how plenty of people assumed The LEGO Movie was stop-motion) and if that movie is a smash hit, which I think it will, we'll see more of that sort of animated film being released. In a way, John Lasseter's original intention of melding hand-drawn and CG back in the '80s might come true in the near future.

[Warm Regards]

Hijacking a bit here, but has anyone else seen the stills for "The Book of Life" from Reel FX? It looks distinct, not at all generic CG like what happened with Free Birds or other CG films. Indeed, it could very well pass for stop-motion, if the animation is purposely done in such a manner.

[2Disney4Ever]

Hijacking a bit here, but has anyone else seen the stills for "The Book of Life" from Reel FX? It looks distinct, not at all generic CG like what happened with Free Birds or other CG films. Indeed, it could very well pass for stop-motion, if the animation is purposely done in such a manner.

Still looks like CGI to me.

[disneyprincess11]

Hijacking a bit here, but has anyone else seen the stills for "The Book of Life" from Reel FX? It looks distinct, not at all generic CG like what happened with Free Birds or other CG films. Indeed, it could very well pass for stop-motion, if the animation is purposely done in such a manner.

I personally don't like the design of it at all. It look way too cartoony. And that chick's eyes are bigger than the Disney CGI girls'.

[unprincess]

been waiting to see stills of this, and I dont know what to think. I love the storyline but I dont like the character design at all, especially the boxy angularity of the characters, then I read that they are supposed to look like they are wooden... are they supposed to be puppets?

I just hope this is good b/c we lost Pixar's Day of the Dead film for this.

[thedisneyspirit]

The girl looks like some weirdass Bratz ripoff.

[taei]

Hijacking a bit here, but has anyone else seen the stills for "The Book of Life" from Reel FX? It looks distinct, not at all generic CG like what happened with Free Birds or other CG films. Indeed, it could very well pass for stop-motion, if the animation is purposely done in such a manner.

I'm divided.
I loved it when the trailer started. I love the colors, the sets, the character designs, it was all just really really inventive. I thought the scene where he wakes up to find himself completely different was very well done. The designs just captivated me. The whole land of the dead was good.

But I had 3 major problems with the trailer.
1. For a first trailer, it pretty much gave away the entire movie. This is what the final trailer should be.
2. The resort to very modern and childish humor took me out. When the trailer started, I thought that it was going to be a cult classic, that is appreciated by it's own fanbase. But once the jokes started coming in..... I just cringed. The churros joke, the "hey girl" and the faint.. However, I'm willing to forgive it if the story is inventive and distracts me from noticing.
3. I also worry about the voice acting. Zoe's lines seemed to be just read without emotions. Especially the king of the dead (?). I hope that it gets away from that. :S

But all in all, definitely interested in the movie and I can't wait to see it.
I might avoid any future trailers.

[unprincess]

^where's the link to the trailer?

[taei]

^where's the link to the trailer?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCdhAr3VBBc[/youtube]