DVDizzy Forum

Karushifa, thanks for the kind words.

Luke, thanks for correcting me. May I modify my statement by saying that the execs who decided to modify Meet the Robinsons are Disney employees? Or another way of looking at it is that there is nothing that has happened that wasn't authorized by Disney. If Bob Iger disagreed with the execs who demand modification of the film then there would be no changes. The power comes from the top. There is no one who has marched into Disney's feature animation department without the full consent of the Disney Company. But again, thanks Luke for the correction.

MichaeLeah wrote:There is no one who has marched into Disney's feature animation department without the full consent of the Disney Company.

You're entirely right, of course. But taking note of your point robs the "villains" angle (and therefore, the drama and long-winded "Simpsons" analogy) of Jim Hill's piece. For the moment, he seems to have a bone to pick with Pixar and rose-colored glasses on for Bob Iger's moves and <i>Chicken Little</i>'s successes. While so far Iger's actions have been largely laudable, defending the boneheaded new company line on <i>Song of the South</i> on the basis that he was taking responsibility for the decision is just as inane as efforts to paint Pixar as bad guys who are overstepping bounds and creating more work for Disney Feature Animation. I don't want to turn this thread into a question-the-source discussion, but as is true of any Jim Hill article (whether there is valid information behind it or not), it is written in a way to specifically support the author's personal convictions.

Luke wrote:You're entirely right, of course. But taking note of your point robs the "villains" angle (and therefore, the drama and long-winded "Simpsons" analogy) of Jim Hill's piece. For the moment, he seems to have a bone to pick with Pixar and rose-colored glasses on for Bob Iger's moves and <i>Chicken Little</i>'s successes. While so far Iger's actions have been largely laudable, defending the boneheaded new company line on <i>Song of the South</i> on the basis that he was taking responsibility for the decision is just as inane as efforts to paint Pixar as bad guys who are overstepping bounds and creating more work for Disney Feature Animation. I don't want to turn this thread into a question-the-source discussion, but as is true of any Jim Hill article (whether there is valid information behind it or not), it is written in a way to specifically support the author's personal convictions.

This is pretty well true. Although Jim Hill is very authoritative with Disney goings-on, his articles do sometimes contain a certain slant towards advocacy for one group or another. This is not to say that his opinion is more or less vaild than anyone else's, but it still is just that: his opinion. I enjoy reading his articles all the same, but they're not meant to be 100% objective.

I didn't want to spark a whole other kind of heated debate, either. But I think that it's too early to decide whether the recent happenings at WDFA really are good or bad overall. Let's wait for some movies to come out of this whole deal first.

DisneyFan 2000 wrote: OK, here's the translation:
Chicken movies = 'Hip' and 'cool' movies that base themselves on a sure formula, that are created only to cash in a few bucks. No artistic risk involved, hence chicken...
Little budgets = Eisner has reported many times that these movies are made for half the budget of past movies, yet "retains the same level of quality". Yeah right...

Well I wasn't really familiar with the term "Chicken Movies" before this thread, but, well with the exceptions of DTVs, you've still lost me there.

Personally, I found every animated classic made in the 21st century both artistic and creative on some level, yes, including Home on the Range. Like I said, it all depends on different opinions.

DisneyFan 2000 wrote: Disney shouldn't be blamed? Then who should?
I agree that Disney is being beaten up by critics for no major reason nowadays, but I bet ya that if it weren't for all those cheap productions and thousands of DTVs, people would lighten up with Disney. But when all everyone sees is the cooperate-giant-who's-interested-in-the-bottom-line, what would you have the public think when judging a movie? I would presume that Disney is just trying to make a quick buck on my expense. And that's what the general public and critics think today.

Audiences.

I mean, people are so quick to blame Disney for the amount of DTVs, but then again, why do people still keep buying them?

You gotta understand, in order to keep a company alive, they sometimes must do "cheap" moves. Even Walt did this. Remember those "package" films?

Overall, I'm just trying to say, lets give MTR a chance! Disney is even really liking it.

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:Well I wasn't really familiar with the term "Chicken Movies" before this thread, but, well with the exceptions of DTVs, you've still lost me there.

Well, let's just say Disney has been less-than-impressive, animation-wise and live action. For example: Home on the Range (lame excuse for a silly slapstick comedy), The Pacifier, Herby 5, Brother Bear (as much as I love it, all it is is reused ideas done nicely) and the list goes on... This is off the top of my head. I won't even refer to those god awful DTVs.

DisneyFan 2000 wrote: Well, let's just say Disney has been less-than-impressive, animation-wise and live action. For example: Home on the Range (lame excuse for a silly slapstick comedy), The Pacifier, Herby 5, Brother Bear (as much as I love it, all it is is reused ideas done nicely) and the list goes on... This is off the top of my head. I won't even refer to those god awful DTVs.

Home on the Range is a fun film, imo. It's flawed, but I think people hate it only because they compare it to "Beauty and the Beast" or "The Lion King".

Brother Bear is a great film. Sure it uses a couple ideas done in the past, but as Netty pointed out, Finding Nemo copies MUCH more than Brother Bear, yet it still somehow found a huger than should be fan club.

I haven't seen Herbie Fully Reloaded yet, so I have no opinions there, but from what I hear, it's not a remake, or a sequel. It a different adventure staring the loveably car.

So that leaves us with The Pacifier and those DTVs. But like I've pointed out before, Disney NEEDS to make simple films like that. It's only good for a company as it makes money and makes them more successful.

I mean even Walt did this too during 1943-1949 with those package films.

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:Home on the Range is a fun film, imo. It's flawed, but I think people hate it only because they compare it to "Beauty and the Beast" or "The Lion King".

What should I compare it to instead? Fritz the Cat?? TLK or BatB, on the other hand, are fair comparisons; they were produced by the same studio within a relatively short period of time.

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:Brother Bear is a great film. Sure it uses a couple ideas done in the past, but as Netty pointed out, Finding Nemo copies MUCH more than Brother Bear, yet it still somehow found a huger than should be fan club.

It certainly isn't as whacked out as some of their other recent efforts, but I wouldn't go so far as calling it "great".

Personally, I never use Finding Nemo as an example when I want to illustrate Pixar's quality -- not to say it's a bad film, but I think it's their weakest film. Monster's, Inc. & The Incredibles, IMO, are Pixar's best work... to the point that even now, a fair time after both have been released, I can't decide which is better than the other. Finding Nemo had the most hype of any of Pixar's films, though I've never been able to figure out why.

TM2-Megatron wrote:Finding Nemo had the most hype of any of Pixar's films, though I've never been able to figure out why.

I really think it was just that summer theatrical release window. It came exactly at the time of the year when people wanted to go see a good, fun movie and when up to that point, there had been a shortage of those. Now <i>Nemo</i> may not be Pixar's best effort, but it's an excellent film. The film's originality or lack thereof is not what determines its excellence, in my opinion. Indeed, <i>Brother Bear</i> borrowed plenty, but I'd still label it Feature Animation's best post-2000 film, which of course only says so much. I can understand people not buying into hype (it's put me off from seeing several recent hit films), but to fault <i>Nemo</i> for being unoriginal seems hardly fair considering the percentage of films in theaters today that aren't remakes, sequels, or some form of an adaptation.

TM2-Megatron wrote:What should I compare it to instead? Fritz the Cat?? TLK or BatB, on the other hand, are fair comparisons; they were produced by the same studio within a relatively short period of time.

Well, do you compare ET to Schindlers List to Catch Me If You Can to The Color Purple to Raiders of the Lost Ark. All are different films, in different genres, but all are directed by Steven Spielberg - most with a lot of creative input from the man. Home on the Range was a totally different genre to Beauty and the Beast. It's not brilliant, but it should just be held up to B&TB and callously dismissed for not being an animated broadway musical.

The good thing about Disney's animated films recently is that they have, on the whole, attempted to experiment with different storytelling, characters and formats. I'll be the first to admit the results haven't always been spectacular, but Disney have tried to widen the appeal of their animation. People critisise the actual concepts for Atlantis and Treasure Planet ("What were Disney thinking? Older boys don't want to see animated features" - but were the concepts that far from Tarzan? Which let's not forget was very successful).

Luke wrote:...but to fault <i>Nemo</i> for being unoriginal seems hardly fair considering the percentage of films in theaters today that aren't remakes, sequels, or some form of an adaptation.

But when the latest "Harry Potter" or TV-to-ironic-movie or any other adaptation or sequel is released, most people know what they are getting.
It would be somewhat silly to complain about Austin Powers in Goldmember being to much like Austin Powers 1 & 2.

They don't get what seemed like hundreds of critics (for Finding Nemo) gushing over "originality" and "innovation" and "plot" repeately. There's not wonder that many people - especially those in territories who found the film released some time after the US release - found themselves thinking "the emperor has no clothes" after what was months of none stop and excessive hype.

Anyhow this is all beyond the point. The point is, if Iger or somebody Iger wished to appoint to oversee animation thought that there were too many films, or that some of the new films weren't up to scratch, then they shouldn't need Pixar to axe or delay the films.

Remember when A Few Good Ghosts was canned by Disney? When they can a film, Disney is the devil incarnate who only care about money and not quality and thus enemy of everyone. When Disney doesn't stop a film some feel should have been stopped like Home on the Range, Disney is once again the devil incarnate who only care about money and not quality.

It just seems that no matter what they do, Disney can't win at anything they do. Not with us, the critics or, by the looks of it Pixar.

2099net wrote:Remember when A Few Good Ghosts was canned by Disney? When they can a film, Disney is the devil incarnate who only care about money and not quality and thus enemy of everyone. When Disney doesn't stop a film some feel should have been stopped like Home on the Range, Disney is once again the devil incarnate who only care about money and not quality.

It just seems that no matter what they do, Disney can't win at anything they do. Not with us, the critics or, by the looks of it Pixar.

I for one would not fault Disney specifically for canning a film, because the movie's crew much more than myself know its potential (or lack thereof) for success, and if they feel that a certain movie just will not work, then it in their discretion to cancel the project. To me, that shows care for what they do and wanting to make quality films, and does not make them the "devil incarnate".

However, what DOES upset me is the seeming lack of respect that the Disney administration seemed to have for its artists, specifically those in the Florida animation division whose studio was axed completely. This is the studio that gave us what many consider to be the jewel of last ten years of Disney animation: Lilo & Stitch. Whether or not you personally like the film, it is hard to ignore the accolades it has received amongst both animation fans and the general public. True, it has some flaws, but it could have been the first in a series of similar films that could have ushered in the next great "Golden Age" of Disney animation. Instead, its creators were fired, its birthplace shut down, and its medium gradually scaled back and then officially shuttered.

It's that kind of attitude that, I think, most critics of Disney are focusing on: that of stifling or limiting creativity for the sake of "engineering" films, rather than creating them. There's nothing wrong with experimentation, of course, but the animators must be allowed to work more on their own terms instead of throwing in cute, furry characters just to sell toys and excising any references to guns or cigarettes out of fear of a public backlash. It's not so much the animators that some criticize, rather the environment that they've had to work in.

2099net wrote:Remember when A Few Good Ghosts was canned by Disney? When they can a film, Disney is the devil incarnate who only care about money and not quality and thus enemy of everyone. When Disney doesn't stop a film some feel should have been stopped like Home on the Range, Disney is once again the devil incarnate who only care about money and not quality.

They could just make a good and successful movie (with more than a minority of people liking it) and all problems would be solved.

Prince Eric wrote: The could just make a good and successful movie (with more than a minority of people liking it) and all problems would be solved.

BUT THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!

I've heard animators have supposably said "Meet the Robinsons" is going to be the best thing to come out of Disney in years, yet Pixar feels the need to change it. They're not even giving Disney a chance.

Critics and audiences though just don't know much. First after making "The Emperor's New Groove" audiences wanted "serious" films, but they didn't like "Atlantis" or "Treasure Planet", saying they were to abstract from Disney, so they make a "traditional" Disney film, Brother Bear, THEY STILL get knocked down complaining they want a comedy, well Disney made Home on the Range and people STILL complain.

Sadly, Disney will always be evil no matter what they do. Audiences just don't have a clue a lot of times.

But hey Chicken Little was a somewhat success, but oh, I forgot, your darling critics hated it.

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:But hey Chicken Little was a somewhat success, but oh, I forgot, your darling critics hated it.

No need to get snarky here. I think pretty much everyone here would agree that Chicken Little has its weak and strong points. However, in my opinion and probably that of some others, it's still a far cry from the kind of movie we think Disney is capable of making.

Personally, I think the single most positive thing about Chicken Little is that it was made by in-house talent. I personally feel that outsourced animation to lesser studios (e.g. Valiant, The Wild) has not been and probably won't be a very positive thing for Disney, and Chicken Little is at least a step in the right direction of stoking the creative fires of feature animation again.

Timon/Pumba fan wrote: If it was such a great idea to make The Little Mermaid into a hour and 35 minute movie, why was Chicken Little any different?

Well, the actual tale of Chicken Little (not Disney's expansion of the story) could be summarised easily in around a minute, whilst The Little Mermaid would take a bit longer due to having a more complex plot.

Timon/Pumba fan wrote: But yet Walt was also starting to build Disneyland, so right there, Disney still did more than Pixar.

Also, all that you mentioned, doesn't make a profit.

I mean sure they made shorts, but it was the movies that made the box office scores, not shorts! As for DVDs, actually, I think Disney is most responsible for those 2-Disc sets, I mean, ever wonder why we see Disney previews on all of them?

Since when do trailers make money?

As I said, Disney has generally always been a bigger and more diverse company (since the mid 40s) than Pixar (essentially, Pixar is just a small though ever expanding animation studio, which is the reason why there have been less films on the whole, not necessarily because they're obsessed with story), so bringing the creation of Disneyland into the argument isn't really approriate. And although the special trailers may not rake in proffits, they are signs of originality. And the shorts do have a following; those who've seen Boundin', Geri's Game and For the Birds at the movies or on DVD seem to really like them, and I think they're becoming as beloved amongst animation fans as the classic Disney and WB shorts such as Three Little Pigs and One Froggy Evening. And you've got to admit that Pixar do have cooporation on these sets; who exactly is being interviewed?

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:

Prince Eric wrote: The could just make a good and successful movie (with more than a minority of people liking it) and all problems would be solved.

BUT THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!

I've heard animators have supposably said "Meet the Robinsons" is going to be the best thing to come out of Disney in years, yet Pixar feels the need to change it. They're not even giving Disney a chance.

Critics and audiences though just don't know much. First after making "The Emperor's New Groove" audiences wanted "serious" films, but they didn't like "Atlantis" or "Treasure Planet", saying they were to abstract from Disney, so they make a "traditional" Disney film, Brother Bear, THEY STILL get knocked down complaining they want a comedy, well Disney made Home on the Range and people STILL complain.

Sadly, Disney will always be evil no matter what they do. Audiences just don't have a clue a lot of times.

But hey Chicken Little was a somewhat success, but oh, I forgot, your darling critics hated it.

Could you cite a source about animators liking "Meet the Robinson?" Not that it would matter, because an idea can be great on paper, but still get botched through production. Audiences never "demanded" of Disney anything. They failed to respond to any of the movies this decade because they were...well, failures.

Prince Eric wrote: Could you cite a source about animators liking "Meet the Robinson?" Not that it would matter, because an idea can be great on paper, but still get botched through production. Audiences never "demanded" of Disney anything. They failed to respond to any of the movies this decade because they were...well, failures.

I heard it in a interview with Jim Hill. He said he had friends working on it who said it was the best thing from Disney in a long time.

Overall, it doesn't matter if Jim Hill's friends are wrong and MTR turns out to be a failure. If it does, THEN you can argue with me. I'm just saying, give Disney a chance! You can't judge all their talents on CG movies with just Chicken Little! (even there, though, I would argue it's not that bad as some people believe)

I still believe that the growth of CG animated films helped "fail" films like "Brother Bear" or "Treasure Planet". Just because those films had bad box office scores, doesn't mean they're bad films. Just remember, Walt Disney apologized for making "Fantasia" after it bombed at the box office!

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:I heard it in a interview with Jim Hill. He said he had friends working on it who said it was the best thing from Disney in a long time.

Overall, it doesn't matter if Jim Hill's friends are wrong and MTR turns out to be a failure. If it does, THEN you can argue with me. I'm just saying, give Disney a chance! You can't judge all their talents on CG movies with just Chicken Little! (even there, though, I would argue it's not that bad as some people believe)

I still believe that the growth of CG animated films helped "fail" films like "Brother Bear" or "Treasure Planet". Just because those films had bad box office scores, doesn't mean they're bad films. Just remember, Walt Disney apologized for making "Fantasia" after it bombed at the box office!

First...the Disney CG frame of reference also includes Dinosaur, which no one seems to be bringing up. Personally, I thought that film was rather lackluster and in all likelihood lacked some of the original touches that many people compliment Chicken Little on. So I'd say that in some respects they improved over Dinosaur, but in others perhaps they didn't.

If you believe that the growth of CG "doomed" subsequent 2-D Disney films (and I think this is not an incorrect belief), then at least part of the blame still lies with Disney. If, somewhere along the line they figured that CGI would be the savior of WDFA, then 2D may have been put on the distant backburner while investments and improvements of the CGI unit were being made. Like I have said before, it should not have been Disney's job to try reproduce the lightning-in-a-bottle of, say, Shrek, a film from a completely independent studio that garnered huge success. The Disney execs had it in their power to try to set the tone for feature animation instead of trying to keep up with the Joneses, and it has only been with the release of Chicken Little that they have even started to achieve the latter on their own.

In the meantime, they have forsaken the very medium that made them famous, perhaps seeing it in part as the reason why pre-CGI films have been slipping of late, when instead the real blame lay not in the animation but in the stories, the characters, and the overall atmosphere that was perhaps sacrificed in search of trying to market a film that could not fail. Am I saying that films like Brother Bear and Treasure Planet are utter wastes of time and film? Of course not. But all the same, there is clearly something that is missing from these movies to help people connect with and truly admire them as they once did.

2099net wrote:Remember when A Few Good Ghosts was canned by Disney? When they can a film, Disney is the devil incarnate who only care about money and not quality and thus enemy of everyone.

If I recall correctly, when Disney did this they did only care about the money. A Few Good Ghosts was cancelled not so long before the traditional animation department was out the door. I can guarantee that the reason for cancelling the project was not a creative decision. You can hardly say Disney was pulling all their creative resources when pulling the plug on the project.

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:Critics and audiences though just don't know much. First after making "The Emperor's New Groove" audiences wanted "serious" films, but they didn't like "Atlantis" or "Treasure Planet", saying they were to abstract from Disney, so they make a "traditional" Disney film, Brother Bear, THEY STILL get knocked down complaining they want a comedy, well Disney made Home on the Range and people STILL complain.

Sadly, Disney will always be evil no matter what they do. Audiences just don't have a clue a lot of times.

Well it's a shame the audience doesn't know much, since at the end of the day, they're the biggest money-maker. TENG has proven itself in the video department, and has raked in profits from that. [As much as I love it] Atlantis was criticised for having flat characters and a washed down, run-of-the-mill plot, which, in all honesty, it does. Treasure Planet was critically acclaimed. It was bad release choices that made it hard to withstand competition. It's almost as if Disney wanted it to fail. I never heard anyone cry comedy! when Brother Bear was released. The main complaints with that was the remarking resemblence to Lion King's themes. Even with critics' complaints, this movie did rake in quite a bit. And I'm sorry to say, but Disney just can't make any comedy and expect it to work. Home on the Range suffered from a bland plot, some god damn awful characters (which obviously didn't appeal to people) and so many crude jokes. I've lost count of how many of those are there. You may like it, but regular audiences are the ones that prove their love for the movie, and with numbers so low, I can honestly say that people probably hated it. So there ya have it.

I heard it in a interview with Jim Hill.

As much as I love to read Jim Hill's articles, he is one of the most biased "reporters" out there. And to be frank, he's about as much a Disney yes-man as one of those puppets on the board of directors.

DisneyFan 2000 wrote: Treasure Planet was critically acclaimed. It was bad release choices that made it hard to withstand competition. It's almost as if Disney wanted it to fail.

It still puzzles me why Disney chose to roll out Chicken Little mere weeks before Harry Potter and within a month of Chronicles of Narnia. Had it had the breathing space of an early or mid-summer release instead of having to run through the end-of-year family movie gauntlet, it may have well grossed over $200 million stateside, especially with the positive word of mouth coming from the 3-D screenings.

Treasure Planet, as I recall, was also fairly weakly marketed, a disadvantage which has been the kiss of death for even excellent films, e.g. The Iron Giant.

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:I still believe that the growth of CG animated films helped "fail" films like "Brother Bear" or "Treasure Planet". Just because those films had bad box office scores, doesn't mean they're bad films. Just remember, Walt Disney apologized for making "Fantasia" after it bombed at the box office!

He apologized because he seriously thought he had made a disaster. He didn't like the movie himself.

People can blame CG all they want, but no arguement against CG makes sense to me. At the beginning of this decade, there was indeed a CG boom, but the problem didn't start until many artists were being laid off or left on their own will from traditional animation studios. Therefore, the bulk of the talent in the industry rested with CG focused studios.

People can have personal opinions, but that doesn't make their beloved traditionally animated Disney movies good ones.