DVDizzy Forum

Miss Manday wrote:Okay, I know the girl that posted that nonsense. She is being extremely dramatic because she's friends with Aurora. The Elsa/Anna room thing is only in testing right now. (And I don't think it will last, as it's not going to make that much of a difference.) PLUS, they are getting their own location back at Epcot again before the year is out. (But this time better thought out so the lines won't be as big an issue.) So even if Aurora gets booted, its temporary. Same with Snow. (She is currently meeting in Town Square. Aurora will probably end up there too.)

Frozen has done WONDERS for Disney. This is what Little Mermaid did to help what was a dying company. People need to sit down and realize that, regardless of their own personal biases...

I'm with you 100% Manday.

2Disney4Ever wrote:

thedisneyspirit wrote:Yeah I don't get it either. Tumblr's "reasoning" for still bitching about this movie is "if it's popular it needs to be criticized!"

Well my reasoning is "if it's CGI and it's from Disney, it needs to be criticized".

The moderating team has received several reports regarding the content/tone of your posts. I've looked into it, and based on the history of your posts, you have a very rigid, black-and-white standing in which you dislike anything CGI, but will embrace everything hand-drawn. And there's no allowable gray area, if it's CGI, it's criticized. If it's hand-drawn, it's beloved. Rather than deprive you of your right to free speech, I present to you this quandary:

What your stance is on films that incorporate both? Do you adjust your degree of hatred based on how much or how little CGI is used within a production? Or, because it has CGI at all, you must hate it and criticize it? Is The Black Cauldron a better film than Tangled simply by virtue of being primarily hand-drawn? Would you have to hate Beauty and the Beast because the ballroom sequence features hand-drawn characters in a computer-generated environment? Or, to use a new-age Disney film, The Princess and the Frog, which features hand-drawn characters against digitally-rendered backgrounds throughout the majority of its presentation? An artist wasn't drawing every little leaf in the bayou, they had a computer help with it. What becomes of the film now? Of any animated Disney film since 1985? Virtually all of them has featured computer-based elements in its production, some apparent, some not so apparent. Where do we draw the line, if such a line even needs to be drawn?

The Black Cauldron (1985)
The Great Mouse Detective (1986)
Oliver & Company (1988)
The Little Mermaid (1989)
The Rescuers Down Under (1990)
Beauty and the Beast (1991)
Aladdin (1992)
The Lion King (1994)
Pocahontas (1995)
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)
Hercules (1997)
Mulan (1998)
Tarzan (1999)
Fantasia 2000 (1999)
The Emperor's New Groove (2000)
Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001)
Lilo & Stitch (2002)
Treasure Planet (2002)
Brother Bear (2003)
Home on the Range (2004)
The Princess and the Frog (2009)
Winnie the Pooh (2011)

Blanket statements like "if it's CGI and it's from Disney, it needs to be criticized" do little to foster positive discussion on this forum; if anything, it serves to further alienate members. Surely we can find a common ground in which we embrace what we love about Disney, without having to constantly slam and belittle anything that does not fit within one's questionable, inconsistent criteria for what constitutes "Disney" at all. And even if such a discussion/debate regarding factors of the company that people dislike were to take place, it can be done without some of the juvenile attitudes in question.

Albert

^ I agree. Of course, I'm not a fan of 3D, but at the same time I can like things about Meet the Robinsons and Wreck-It Ralph, or even flat-out love Frozen, for instance (and more, if we were to include non-Disney 3D films).

But the real reason I'm posting is because I just heard a story about a wife divorcing her husband because he didn't like Frozen.

^Saw that, how ridiculous. People are insane.

Regarding the Fairytale Hall thing, yeah that girl is being pretty dramatic about it. It very obviously has nothing to do with anyone having a vendetta against older princesses, and everything to do with the need to milk Frozen at the moment. Hell, they moved Snow White and put her in the very front of the park! She's likely the first character many people will see - hardly anything negative. The real issue at hand is the fact that they're splitting up Elsa and Anna. Before, it's been you meet Aurora on one side of the room, then meet Elsa/Anna together on the other side. Now they're putting Elsa and Anna on opposite side of the room, in hopes that it will move things along faster. Totally dumb.

I thought that the Fairytale Hall additions were always meant to be temporary to begin with? I'm sure Snow and Aurora will be back eventually.

2Disney4Ever wrote:

thedisneyspirit wrote:Yeah I don't get it either. Tumblr's "reasoning" for still bitching about this movie is "if it's popular it needs to be criticized!"

Well my reasoning is "if it's CGI and it's from Disney, it needs to be criticized".

Shall we get divorced?
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/ju ... es-husband

I wonder how many more times people are going to bring up the divorce thing.

Escapay wrote:What your stance is on films that incorporate both? Do you adjust your degree of hatred based on how much or how little CGI is used within a production? Or, because it has CGI at all, you must hate it and criticize it? Is The Black Cauldron a better film than Tangled simply by virtue of being primarily hand-drawn? Would you have to hate Beauty and the Beast because the ballroom sequence features hand-drawn characters in a computer-generated environment? Or, to use a new-age Disney film, The Princess and the Frog, which features hand-drawn characters against digitally-rendered backgrounds throughout the majority of its presentation? An artist wasn't drawing every little leaf in the bayou, they had a computer help with it. What becomes of the film now? Of any animated Disney film since 1985? Virtually all of them has featured computer-based elements in its production, some apparent, some not so apparent. Where do we draw the line, if such a line even needs to be drawn?

Well it's not like I've always had this bitter vendetta against CG movies. My stance with CGI in Disney films is that I was always happy with it back when Disney used it to enhance their 2D films, not replace them. It was always understandable how CGI could help in things that couldn't easily be done just with hand-drawn animation. Things such as the carpet's very elaborate pattern in Aladdin, the stampede in The Lion King, or the fight with the Hydra in Hercules where it had to grow so many heads every time Herc chopped one off. I even favored the experimental type stuff like Silver in Treasure Planet having a CG robotic arm. CGI in those movies was always used as a tool for very specific things, but never something used to take the place of an entire art form or the need and artistic value of drawing characters by hand. The problem with studios like the Disney of today is that they're threatening to make computer animated films into the very definition of "animation", and it is absolutely absurd that every single animated character now has to be a computer model in order to be considered acceptable to the studios or the general public (and not just for very specific characters to be blended into a 2D film). In fact out of the many CG movies out there today, I'll bet you could find quite a few with no real argument story-wise for why they couldn't be hand-drawn, except that they have to be so by studio demand. That said, I still believe that Frozen should not have been forced by Disney into being another 100% CGI film when the CGI could be restricted to the things that absolutely need it.

All-in-all, I'd probably be enjoying the animation world so much better if CGI were still taking a back seat to 2D animation. Would I hate CG films so much if the original Toy Story had been the only one of it's kind, or Pixar the only studio of it's kind. No, but I hate them now for consuming the animation market with their imposing threat of self-superiority that wants to make 2D animation as a film making art go the way of black and white movies. When black and white cartoons went to color, it didn't replace the art of hand-drawn. It only enhanced it. That's what CGI used to do for hand-drawn as well.

Escapay wrote: The Black Cauldron (1985)
The Great Mouse Detective (1986)
Oliver & Company (1988)
The Little Mermaid (1989)
The Rescuers Down Under (1990)
Beauty and the Beast (1991)
Aladdin (1992)
The Lion King (1994)
Pocahontas (1995)
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)
Hercules (1997)
Mulan (1998)
Tarzan (1999)
Fantasia 2000 (1999)
The Emperor's New Groove (2000)
Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001)
Lilo & Stitch (2002)
Treasure Planet (2002)
Brother Bear (2003)
Home on the Range (2004)
The Princess and the Frog (2009)
Winnie the Pooh (2011)

That's a pretty accurate listing of what my own personal Disney canon for animated features has been (minus the ones from Walt's days).

Escapay wrote:Blanket statements like "if it's CGI and it's from Disney, it needs to be criticized" do little to foster positive discussion on this forum; if anything, it serves to further alienate members. Surely we can find a common ground in which we embrace what we love about Disney, without having to constantly slam and belittle anything that does not fit within one's questionable, inconsistent criteria for what constitutes "Disney" at all. And even if such a discussion/debate regarding factors of the company that people dislike were to take place, it can be done without some of the juvenile attitudes in question.

Well I'd be more than happy to be involved in more positive discussions with people that fit with the things I agree with and like. Only problem is, there are a lot of things about animation today that I don't like, and a lot of what I like about animation now seems to be in the past. And wherever I go on the internet, all people ever want to talk about is today's New-Age Disney and their CG movies, and I guess here is no exception.

With that man divorcing his wife, that face character being melodramatic, and 2DDisney's comment it's obvious people are starting to go off the loop with Frozen. I say Disney brings us a new distraction before all of us end up bonkers.

2DDisney, what do you think of CGI Non-Disney films? Do they also deserve criticism because they're not hand-drawn? A little bit more, and this regressive thinking will lead you to say "The only good cartoons are the black and white ones".

thedisneyspirit wrote:2DDisney, what do you think of CGI Non-Disney films? Do they also deserve criticism because they're not hand-drawn? A little bit more, and this regressive thinking will lead you to say "The only good cartoons are the black and white ones".

Well yes, I would say a lot of the other studios out there like DreamWorks are largely to blame also for flooding the market with CG movies because of wanting to push competition against Pixar, and for spreading their own poisonous beliefs to Disney that 2D animation is old and outdated. There could be more animation studios out there to actually benefit 2D animation, but there aren't. Instead they always shut down whatever ones we may have had.

2Disney4Ever wrote:

thedisneyspirit wrote:2DDisney, what do you think of CGI Non-Disney films? Do they also deserve criticism because they're not hand-drawn? A little bit more, and this regressive thinking will lead you to say "The only good cartoons are the black and white ones".

Well yes, I would say a lot of the other studios out there like DreamWorks are largely to blame also for flooding the market with CG movies because of wanting to push competition against Pixar, and for spreading their own poisonous beliefs to Disney that 2D animation is old and outdated. There could be more animation studios out there to actually benefit 2D animation, but there aren't. Instead they always shut down whatever ones we may have had.

The thing is, though, the world is changing daily, and updating. And that reflects the most in technology.

I don't mind CGI movies, because it's an innotive new source of art and they've come to a point where they can make movies as beautiful as any hand-drawn film (Rise of the Guardians is beautiful to look at, despite the script not being very strong and I'm not overall that fond of the movie).

And honestly, not all hand-drawn stuff is good. Just look at cheap flash crap that pollutes television daily. Fish Sticks as a work of art? No please.

2DDisney, I'm going to be honest with you and say that you personally offend me as a Disney fan saying things like CGI Disney films are not proper Disney films. Take a look at my avatar, who do you see? Rapunzel, that's right and that's because she is one of my favorite characters and my favorite princess and Tangled is not only one of my favorite Disney movies, it's one of my favorite movies of all time, so to see someone discredit a movie I love by saying it's not a proper Disney movie breaks my heart and that is an insult to not only the fans of the CGI films but also to the creative staff that worked on these movies. Movies like Frozen, Tangled or Ralph may not be proper Disney movies to you but to so many others, they are and whatever you say, people will not change their minds on these movies, there'll be more CGI films from Disney in the future and I can bet you, that they will also have their fans. So, I'll ask nicely, would you consider the people that like these movies, the next time, you decide to say they aren't proper Disney movies.

thedisneyspirit wrote:I don't mind CGI movies, because it's an innotive new source of art and they've come to a point where they can make movies as beautiful as any hand-drawn film (Rise of the Guardians is beautiful to look at, despite the script not being very strong and I'm not overall that fond of the movie).

And that's exactly why I find CG movies so threatening now. The whole idea that they can be so technically advanced that they can just eliminate the need for hand-drawn animation at all. To me that's not right. I still believe strongly in the value of hand-drawn animation as an art form and it's very right to exist as an art.

thedisneyspirit wrote:And honestly, not all hand-drawn stuff is good. Just look at cheap flash crap that pollutes television daily. Fish Sticks as a work of art? No please.

I guess you haven't been aware that there's even 2D animation out there that I don't like, and that definitely includes those aforementioned Flash cartoons on TV, so for once we're on the same boat about something.

2Disney4Ever wrote: Well yes, I would say a lot of the other studios out there like DreamWorks are largely to blame also for flooding the market with CG movies because of wanting to push competition against Pixar, and for spreading their own poisonous beliefs to Disney that 2D animation is old and outdated.

It's not a "poisonous belief."

DisneyEra wrote:
"Look, if a piece of crap like 'Ice Age' can make $176 million during its domestic release, while something as sensational as 'Treasure Planet' has to struggle to pull in $35 million, clearly audiences' tastes have changed. So Disney has to change with the times. Otherwise, it risks losing its core audience."

http://jimhillmedia.com/editor_in_chief ... 7/227.aspx

To which I'd now add--Holy Sewer Pipe, Batman: Despicable Me doubled up TPATF's worldwide gross (and did more than that domestically), and is only kept out of the top 10 selling BDs of all time by Beauty and the Beast. (Heck, Despicable Me 2 grossed nearly $1B worldwide and is the 2nd best-selling BD of all time.) Why? Because Despicable is a great piece of work? Because fairy tale movies don't sell? No--because, Disneyphiles and serious animation fans notwithstanding, the casual family-film moviegoers would rather shell out for CG than hand-drawn films. Animation is an art, but filmmaking is an industry, and the market has spoken.

Fflewduur wrote:To which I'd now add--Holy Sewer Pipe, Batman: Despicable Me doubled up TPATF's worldwide gross (and did more than that domestically), and is only kept out of the top 10 selling BDs of all time by Beauty and the Beast. (Heck, Despicable Me 2 grossed nearly $1B worldwide and is the 2nd best-selling BD of all time.) Why? Because Despicable is a great piece of work? Because fairy tale movies don't sell? No--because, Disneyphiles and serious animation fans notwithstanding, the casual family-film moviegoers would rather shell out for CG than hand-drawn films. Animation is an art, but filmmaking is am industry, and the market has spoken.

Well, said!

disneyprincess11 wrote:

Fflewduur wrote:To which I'd now add--Holy Sewer Pipe, Batman: Despicable Me doubled up TPATF's worldwide gross (and did more than that domestically), and is only kept out of the top 10 selling BDs of all time by Beauty and the Beast. (Heck, Despicable Me 2 grossed nearly $1B worldwide and is the 2nd best-selling BD of all time.) Why? Because Despicable is a great piece of work? Because fairy tale movies don't sell? No--because, Disneyphiles and serious animation fans notwithstanding, the casual family-film moviegoers would rather shell out for CG than hand-drawn films. Animation is an art, but filmmaking is am industry, and the market has spoken.

Well, said!

What do you mean "Well, said"? I won't accept that for an excuse.

2Disney4Ever wrote:

disneyprincess11 wrote: Well, said!

What do you mean "Well, said"? I won't accept that for an excuse.

Well, then we don't know what to tell you. It's such a sad thing to say but we already have 2D films and we have seen where they can go. It's a beautiful art form, but right now, people are just not paying attention to it. Which is really sad, I am with you %100. Have you been to Tumblr and YouTube? It's flooded with nostalgia and people who wish they could go back to their childhoods and 90's superiority. My point it: hand drawn will come back. The Princess and The Frog is not the last we've seen of it, but it is for now, at least from Disney.


That being said, the only poisonous belief here is that you just refuse, out of some elitist principle, to enjoy CGI films because that's not what you think an animated film should be like. You really are holding yourself back from enjoying some good movies, man. Like what if people said that movies are only good when they're live-action and this crazy new medium of animation is not what film is supposed to look like?

A little off the current topic but does anyone remember when people thought that Kristoff was going to be Kai from the original tale's stand in. Then people realized as the story unveiled that actually Kristoff was actually a gender flip version of the Robber girl. In fact one can say Kristoff's personality is a softer version of her's not to mention both have reindeer for pets.

Please 2Disney4Ever, change your tone; Escapay has warned you. You're starting to sound quite unpleasant now.

Miss Manday wrote:Okay, I know the girl that posted that nonsense. She is being extremely dramatic because she's friends with Aurora. The Elsa/Anna room thing is only in testing right now. (And I don't think it will last, as it's not going to make that much of a difference.) PLUS, they are getting their own location back at Epcot again before the year is out. (But this time better thought out so the lines won't be as big an issue.) So even if Aurora gets booted, its temporary. Same with Snow. (She is currently meeting in Town Square. Aurora will probably end up there too.)

Ah thanks for clearing this up !

Miss Manday wrote: Frozen has done WONDERS for Disney. This is what Little Mermaid did to help what was a dying company. People need to sit down and realize that, regardless of their own personal biases...

Yup.

jazzflower92 wrote:A little off the current topic but does anyone remember when people thought that Kristoff was going to be Kai from the original tale's stand in. Then people realized as the story unveiled that actually Kristoff was actually a gender flip version of the Robber girl. In fact one can say Kristoff's personality is a softer version of her's not to mention both have reindeer for pets.

Kristoff is really nothing like the little robber girl ?

In the versions I've read; she's very aggressive and even kinda abusive and even steals and chains up animals [ which may be a bit too dark for a modern day Disney movie ] and only changes because Gerda showed her kindness.

Kristoff is a shy, awkward boy- who loves animals, or rather reindeer's and wants to bone Anna from like only a few days after knowing her. It was more because he seemed to love Anna's fun, energetic and naive personality. Kristoff was the one that showed kindness; hence Anna falling in love with him.

Then again Anna was like Gerda/ Kai mixed together; and she didn't turn into a assface when her heart was frozen- she just froze.