DVDizzy Forum

disneyprincess11 wrote: Well, said!

Clapping? I consider it a sad fact, not a happy one.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

disneyprincess11 wrote: Well, said!

Clapping? I consider it a sad fact, not a happy one.

Not, not a happy one, but a fact nonetheless.

2Disney4Ever wrote:I won't accept that for an excuse.

It’s a reason, not an excuse.

The public wants what it wants, and it seems pretty clear the public's appetite for CG features is greater than for hand-drawn at this time. The studio has responsibilities to its shareholders and its staff. There’s not a big difference in production budgets between Disney’s hand-drawn and CG features, but there’s an established trend of demonstrable difference in returns. It’s irresponsible to throw $150M into projects one may very reasonably infer will underperform—irresponsible to the workers as well as the shareholders, unless drastically downsizing animation staff is somehow deemed desirable.

Fflewduur wrote: Not, not a happy one, but a fact nonetheless.

Yeah... I said that.

yeah... I mean, what can one do about it... the fact is that the majority of the movie going public are mindless sheep who love artless mediocrity.


in other news, well it didnt take long folks, I present to you the possible first big studio Frozen wannabe...

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/feature-film ... 00205.html

Fflewduur wrote:

2Disney4Ever wrote:I won't accept that for an excuse.

It’s a reason, not an excuse.

The public wants what it wants, and it seems pretty clear the public's appetite for CG features is greater than for hand-drawn at this time. The studio has responsibilities to its shareholders and its staff. There’s not a big difference in production budgets between Disney’s hand-drawn and CG features, but there’s an established trend of demonstrable difference in returns. It’s irresponsible to throw $150M into projects one may very reasonably infer will underperform—irresponsible to the workers as well as the shareholders, unless drastically downsizing animation staff is somehow deemed desirable.

Well at this point in time I would think that the public only thinks it wants CGI because studios have bombarded them with so much of it that they've been forced to get accustomed to it, or making them forget how to appreciate anything else. If CG movies are all we ever get, then obviously more and more new generations of people are going to grow up being used to only that and thinking that's all they want to see. Funny thing is, I don't believe I was ever one of these so-called people who only wanted to see CG movies, cause I was perfectly happy with Disney's animation output until the day they started switching to CGI. And now I've become so sick of seeing CG movies that I almost don't want to even look at them anymore, giving me almost no reason to step out into the theater to see an animated film. So I guess you can see why I can't say I relate to what you say the "public" wants to see.

^ yeah I think its some of that too, if all people have to watch is CGI, its what they will become accustomed too.
but I also still think most people are just stupid & artless...

unprincess wrote:^ yeah I think its some of that too, if all people have to watch is CGI, its what they will become accustomed too.
but I also still think most people are just stupid & artless...

I almost wanted to say "stupid and artless" too, but no doubt somebody would get after me about that.

But yeah, it would just be another reason why the studios are to blame. If the studios really think that it's the fault of 2D animation if no one seems interested in those kind of movies, then perhaps the real irony would be that it's been their fault all along. And if Disney gives up hand-drawn for good and only gives us CGI, then it'll be their irony as well if they think that's all people want.

unprincess wrote:
in other news, well it didnt take long folks, I present to you the possible first big studio Frozen wannabe...

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/feature-film ... 00205.html

I'm not sure if Frozen inspired it, since this seems to be a general trend--Wicked, Frozen, Maleficent, etc. To be honest, it's not the first time I've seen an adaptation that portrays Medusa sympathetically--she was portrayed that way in Disney's Hercules TV show even.

I dont mean to be trollish and Im not singling anyone here at all, in fact I do like CGI and there are many CGI films that I love(Frozen, HTTYD, many of the Pixars.)

but I really think many people just dont want to experience beautiful extraordinary things anymore, they want to see cool, shiny, distracting things. To them movies= theme park rides, not a trip to the museum.

the reason we 2d fans are so vocal and unhappy is that today there in no bone thrown to us, we get nothing, unless we dig for the foreign stuff, of which the majority is hard to find and expensive. (and Im talking about theatrical full lenght classical animation films, not tv.)

unprincess wrote:the reason we 2d fans are so vocal and unhappy is that today there in no bone thrown to us, we get nothing, unless we dig for the foreign stuff, of which the majority is hard to find and expensive. (and Im talking about theatrical full lenght classical animation films, not tv.)

Or if we live our lives in the 90's and earlier, when 2D animation flourished.

unprincess wrote:
in other news, well it didnt take long folks, I present to you the possible first big studio Frozen wannabe...

Not every movie that has a strong, yet misunderstood, female lead will be a Frozen wannabe.

Nah, I kid, but it's kind of a frustrating correlation I'm noticing when many outside sources talk about movies. Frozen just suddenly seems to be the new go-to example of female representation in film, and it wouldn't surprise me if part of the reason they greenlighted Medusa was because of Frozen's success, but that alone shouldn't degrade Medusa. I love Greek mythology, and it will probably be gorgeous and stylistic with Lauren Faust at the helm.

2Disney,
I dont mean to be trollish and Im not singling anyone here at all, in fact I do like CGI and there are many CGI films that I love(Frozen, HTTYD, many of the Pixars.)

but I really think many people just dont want to experience beautiful extraordinary things anymore, they want to see cool, shiny, distracting things. To them movies= theme park rides, not a trip to the museum.

the reason we 2d fans are so vocal and unhappy is that today there in no bone thrown to us, we get nothing, unless we dig for the foreign stuff, of which the majority is hard to find and expensive. (and Im talking about theatrical full lenght classical animation films, not tv.)

I'm not sure if Frozen inspired it, since this seems to be a general trend--Wicked, Frozen, Maleficent, etc. To be honest, it's not the first time I've seen an adaptation that portrays Medusa sympathetically--she was portrayed that way in Disney's Hercules TV show even.

Im sure there's a bit of both there, the sympathetic villainess trend is really hot right now, but Im sure the Sony animation execs saw Frozen dollar signs in it too. If Frozen showed execs anything, its that there are a whole lot of soccer moms out there willing to empty their wallets to please their daughters.

I'm excited for 'Medusa'!

Eh, if anything Medusa is slightly based on original material. Medusa in many varied myths was considered the originall victim of the story at first.

I'd find that more interesting than Wicked, an unofficial AU to the Oz series, pretty much goes and changes the entire mythos. Now filmmakers can't even make a new Oz film without people crying for the Wicked Witch to appear in the film and "be good".

rs_milo_whatever wrote: 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.

And it will come back. We don't know how or when, but someday it'll come. Maybe it'll come after Moana, but that might be my wishful thinking.

And 2Disney, if it ever makes you feel better, Bob Iger is stepping down as CEO and we'll get a new CEO of Disney in 2016. To me, I hope it's Tom Staggs. He knows about creativity than Jay Rasulo.

Oh, and I'm very interested with Medusa.

TsWade2 wrote:And 2Disney, if it ever makes you feel better, Bob Iger is stepping down as CEO and we'll get a new CEO of Disney in 2016. To me, I hope it's Tom Staggs. He knows about creativity than Jay Rasulo.

Yes, I already know about that, and I'm already waiting for it too.

2Disney4Ever wrote: Well at this point in time I would think that the public only thinks it wants CGI because studios have bombarded them with so much of it that they've been forced to get accustomed to it, or making them forget how to appreciate anything else. If CG movies are all we ever get, then obviously more and more new generations of people are going to grow up being used to only that and thinking that's all they want to see. Funny thing is, I don't believe I was ever one of these so-called people who only wanted to see CG movies, cause I was perfectly happy with Disney's animation output until the day they started switching to CGI. And now I've become so sick of seeing CG movies that I almost don't want to even look at them anymore, giving me almost no reason to step out into the theater to see an animated film. So I guess you can see why I can't say I relate to what you say the "public" wants to see.

back in the early film days, they had black and white silent films. no feature animation, only the occasional shorts, also black, white and silent. eventually, they worked out how to add sound, color and make feature length animated movies.
now, this is all 70+ years ago, at least. do you really think people raised on color sound films can have no appreciation for what came before? or those raised with black and white have the same appreciation for the modern? by that same token, there will always be some who love the old animated films, even if they are raised on CGI. sure, it might take until their teens or early adult years to reach the desire to try, but itll come.

I actually think "Peanuts" and other similar projects could lead to a new style of animation invading the cinemas that is a form of CG that looks hand-drawn. Eventually, somebody will realise paper-and-pencil is a cheaper way to attain that same look. Yesterday, I watched that new Robert Kondo short and it was absolutely beautiful and it was animated using Photoshop, among other types of technology. I can see the future of animation looking like that and Peanuts. Computer animation seems to be evolving more towards a hand-drawn look and feel these days. For example, there are so many frames in "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2" where if you pause the film, it looks a lot like a painting.

I can see Sony Animation going a similar route as Blue Sky on a future project. I don't know if "Medusa" will be that one (though Lauren Faust did manage to make one of the more smoothly animated Flash cartoons with My Little Pony), but Genndy Tartakovsky did say that "Popeye" would try and replicate the look of a Fleischer Brothers cartoon, albeit on the computer.

Im actually curious about Medusa too. I think the story has great potential but Im just worried that Sony will turn it into a cartoony yukfest like Hotel Transylvania. Also curious to see how they try to differentiate it from Disney's Hercules. There's bound to be a few characters that will have appeared in the Disney version.

I actually think "Peanuts" and other similar projects could lead to a new style of animation invading the cinemas that is a form of CG that looks hand-drawn.

I just think that at some point in the future people are gonna get really tired of the typical cgi look. Its possible it may even start becoming associated with kiddy fare & youll see less teens & adults going to see a cgi movie. Then someone will make a really amazing animted film with a nontypical look, whether it be hand drawn or a hybrid & it will be seen as something fresh & sophisticated. Peple will flock to it the same way people flocked to the first cgi films & then every other studio will want to imitate it. But we really need that one studio who will have the balls to break out & make the first move. I dont think it will be any of the major animation studios though.

unprincess wrote:But we really need that one studio who will have the balls to break out & make the first move. I dont think it will be any of the major animation studios though.

I'd be excited if someone were to do animated movies / shows online. Like "Bee and Puppycat"; I was so excited when I heard about that show getting funded on Kickstarter. Yeah, that got funded because the creator was an artist on "Adventure Time" and had a dedicated fan base. But I'd like to think that the online market is excellent in terms of innovation. Some of my favorite shows are online, from reviews to vlogs based on old books to Let's Plays.

Of course, animation is more labor intensive than filming live actors, and thereby harder to fund. I imagine animated content would need to be made on the cheap. (Because realistically, a second job, kickstarter, and fellow artists can only chip so much for a feature.) And then there's the issue of profits; how would the costs be justified if not through ticket sales? However, I am sure one day in the near future, there will be a smart cookie who figures out these issues, and makes their vision come to life.

Studios might not care, but it doesn't mean there can't be an alternative.