Page 22 of 76
Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2011 11:36 am
by DisneyDude2010
i completely agree megustajake!
The only Disney movies in the early 2000's that made profit were Emperor's New Groove and Lilo & Stitch ... Both movies where completely original and ENG is one of my favorite Disney movies. I think KOTE & SQ both have a very interesting and strong story and I do believe Disney is going in the right track since BOLT was released. I do think the Wreck-it Ralph plot seems a bit bland and I pray this does well for Disney.
Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2011 12:31 pm
by fatcake
Rough animation of the Russian cgi film snow queen:
<iframe width="560" height="349" src="
http://www.youtube.com/embed/dhJP090_0Do" frameborder="0"></iframe>
Behind the scenes/tour of the company inlay films:
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="
http://www.youtube.com/embed/PetWkEwiogs" frameborder="0"></iframe>
Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2011 8:10 pm
by Polizzi
That rough draft animation reminds me of the rough draft animation of Disney's, "Rapunzel (Tangled)." If that movie does really well, I bet Disney might distribute that movie in the US in English Dubbed, like Disney did to Studio Ghibli movies from Japan.
Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2011 8:23 pm
by ajmrowland
Disney's Divinity wrote:Of course, I personally don't feel TP&TF was bland, but I still don't think the quality of a film really decides it's success/failure many times over. Otherwise the Twilight, Shrek, and Chipmunk films would be considered some of the best films of all time. *scared*
Harry Potter can still be considered above average cinema.
Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 12:54 am
by SWillie!
Disney's Divinity wrote:Of course, I personally don't feel TP&TF was bland, but I still don't think the quality of a film really decides it's success/failure many times over. Otherwise the HP, Shrek, and Chipmunk films would be considered some of the best films of all time. *scared* On the other hand, there are many films that are good that do well, so it's hard to explain.
Don't you ever talk shit about Harry Potter.
Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 3:26 am
by Disney's Divinity
Sorry, the films are awful. Sort of like Transformers--all effects and no substance, though I would say the series picked up a little with HBP. But they are very
nice effects. Well, that's exaggerating (
); only films 4 and 5 are awful. The rest are moderately good to great. Still, it’s a shame though. They have so many incredible actors, but nearly all of them are underused.
The
Twilight films
are horrible--I've unfortunately seen them because my mother loves the series--so I don’t mind the replacement. Although I’m thinking watching the films is the better option over reading the books, really.
Am I the only one who thinks the designs for that Russian film look bad? I know that's rough animation, but still.
Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 10:02 am
by Super Aurora
SWillie! wrote:Disney's Divinity wrote:Of course, I personally don't feel TP&TF was bland, but I still don't think the quality of a film really decides it's success/failure many times over. Otherwise the HP, Shrek, and Chipmunk films would be considered some of the best films of all time. *scared* On the other hand, there are many films that are good that do well, so it's hard to explain.
Don't you ever talk shit about Harry Potter.
HP is overrated.
Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 10:35 am
by Avaitor
Super Aurora wrote:SWillie! wrote:
Don't you ever talk shit about Harry Potter.
HP is overrated.
Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 2:16 pm
by Sotiris
July 08, 2011
Honor Hunter wrote:Based on the current state of projects, a CG version of "Snow Queen" directed by Chris Buck is likely to see release sometime during the year. The story structure problems that popped up in the last hand-drawn version seem to be ironed out and storyboarding has moved forward with Chris' unique take on the material. And for those of you wondering if it'll be faithful to the original story? I can only say that it'll be as faithful to it as the Mouse was to "The Little Mermaid."
Source: http://blueskydisney.blogspot.com/2011/ ... -road.html
Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 3:04 pm
by DisneyJedi
So it is gonna be CG? This is so unfair! Hand-drawn animation is probably dying, and no one at Disney even cares!
Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 3:25 pm
by Dream Huntress
DisneyJedi wrote:So it is gonna be CG? This is so unfair! Hand-drawn animation is probably dying, and no one at Disney even cares!
Not as long as they don't make any money, they won't.
Look at the bright side, Musker and Clements pitched a new hand-drawn project to Lasseter.
Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 3:34 pm
by Kyle
This might turn out for the better. Snow Queen will probably turn out as good as Rapunzel for the most part.
But if we just saw this in hand drawn it would be more of the same. I don't know about you guys but I want a new idea for the next hand drawn movie, a non fairy tale. We just had a slew of them, so I don't think its unreasonable to want a bit of a break from that.
Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:05 pm
by Disney's Divinity
How is the film being CG make it any better than it would have been in 2D? You mean, just because it's in CG, it
wouldn't be "more of the same" even though the last CG film they had was also a fairy tale?
The story structure problems that popped up in the last hand-drawn version seem to be ironed out
What bs. Too bad the next HCA story they chose couldn't have been a 2D feature. At least there's
The Little Match Girl.
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:07 am
by Wonderlicious
Disney's Divinity wrote:Am I the only one who thinks the designs for that Russian film look bad? I know that's rough animation, but still.
The designs don't look great, but it is a low budget production with not that great a many experienced or highly trained animator. It's obviously going to pale against the likes of Pixar, Disney or Dreamworks.
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 7:20 am
by Prince Edward
Major dissapointment that The Snow Queen won't be in 2D. A shame really to not make this Hans Christian Andersen fairytale in 2D. It would have been a great opportunity to showcase traditional animation. But it seems Disney have abandoned the medium, it's like they don't have any faith or believe in it anymore. If they market the movie well and if the movie is good, then the medium (2D or CGI/3D) should not make any difference regarding the financial success.
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 7:36 am
by Candy-Bonita95
Disney's Divinity wrote:How is the film being CG make it any better than it would have been in 2D? You mean, just because it's in CG, it
wouldn't be "more of the same" even though the last CG film they had was also a fairy tale?
The story structure problems that popped up in the last hand-drawn version seem to be ironed out
What bs. Too bad the next HCA story they chose couldn't have been a 2D feature. At least there's
The Little Match Girl.
True,what bs.
But after all,the source is not legit.They are not going to have it cgi if there is another Russian version in cgi. WDAS hates having one of their films confused for another film.They seem to be open with their problems with the medium of the production,but they
never tell us why the narrative is difficult to produce.They haven't even told us why Glen Keane's version of
Rapunzel(not
Rapunzel:Unbraided) didn't work.The only cancelled Disney film that had a clear explanation why it was cancelled was Walt's version of
The Little Mermaid.
Here's a list of other cancelled Disney films that were never fully explained.
1.Don Qixoute
2.The Kingdom of The Sun
3.Newt
4.Where The Wild Things Are
5.Walt's version of Beauty and the Beast
6.Fraidy Cat.
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:31 am
by estefan
Candy-Bonita95 wrote:
Here's a list of other cancelled Disney films that were never fully explained.
2.The Kingdom of The Sun
3.Newt
4.Where The Wild Things Are
6.Fraidy Cat.
Apparently, Kingdom of the Sun was cancelled because it was too cliched and the story seemed to be taking itself too seriously, hence the addition of Mark Dandal as a director.
Newt was cancelled, because the story line was too similar to Rio.
I think Where the Wild Things Are was just a test on John Lasseter's part. The Brave Little Toaster was what he intended as his first feature and what ultimately got him fired from Disney.
Fraidy Cat was cancelled, because it was apparently not marketable enough, according to the Disney executives of the time.
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:47 am
by SWillie!
Candy-Bonita95 wrote:True,what bs.
But after all,the source is not legit.
Honor Hunter is right about everything he says about 99% percent of the time. It's pretty legit.
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:04 pm
by Candy-Bonita95
I think Where the Wild Things Are was just a test on John Lasseter's part. The Brave Little Toaster was what he intended as his first feature and what ultimately got him fired from Disney.
Thanks for correcting me.But yikes!The Brave Little Toaster got Lasseter fired?That movie is a classic.
Honor Hunter is right about everything he says about 99% percent of the time. It's pretty legit.
I was talking about the TAG blog source...lol.I was also referring to
The story structure problems that popped up in the last hand-drawn version seem to be ironed out
You have to agree that it's hard to believe!We don't know the problems the narrative had.I guess we will have to wait.
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:16 pm
by Super Aurora
Candy-Bonita95 wrote:
Here's a list of other cancelled Disney films that were never fully explained.
1.Don Qixoute
2.The Kingdom of The Sun
3.Newt
4.Where The Wild Things Are
5.Walt's version of Beauty and the Beast
6.Fraidy Cat.
There were more than just that list on of ones that never got a chance to be develop