DisneyJedi wrote:What, you mean Lawrence from The Princess and the Frog? If so, why refer to the movie as such?
Yes. And I referred the movie to that because sometimes, it looks like Disney tries to avoid it (like canceling the short for Ray ) and they blame it for the failure of 2D
Marce82 wrote:You clearly have no idea of what it costs to produce Disney quality traditional animation.
I read somewhere that, back in the 90s, a minute of Disney animation cost around 100 thousand dollars. Which means it would be even more now. So no... don't think they'll be animating the deleted scenes any time soon....
probably about as much as good quality cgi today. the idea that 2d is more expensive is pro CGI studio propaganda. They have no problem spending a lot of extra money making shorts for Cgi films like Frozen and Tangled
not that I think they should restore every deleted scene made in past Disney films...A few were deleted for good reasons....
I'm not even going to comment on "restoring deleted scenes".... I thought we were talking about animating them as bonus features...
And I never said traditional animation was more expensive than CGI. They are about the same when it comes to the WHOLE feature. But when creating a short based on an existing CGI film... yes, it is a lot cheaper, simply because most of the assets have already been built. All the characters have been modeled, shaded and rigged. They only have to animate them and light them, and build minor new assets. So yes... it is a lot cheaper.
And I never said traditional animation was more expensive than CGI. They are about the same when it comes to the WHOLE feature. But when creating a short based on an existing CGI film... yes, it is a lot cheaper, simply because most of the assets have already been built. All the characters have been modeled, shaded and rigged. They only have to animate them and light them, and build minor new assets. So yes... it is a lot cheaper.
I thought one of the reasons WDFA made Rescuers Down Under and more recently Winnie the Pooh was b/c theyd be cheaper to make b/c of them already having developed the main charcters, background concepts, etc...
Unprincess: as I understand it, it was more about economizing story, more than money. If the audience already knows who Bernard and Bianca are, then one doesnt have to introduce them to the audience, and can focus on the new story. But it barely a financial cost cutter.
As for that review of the Sleeping Beauty Diamond Edition.... are they FRIGGIN KIDDING ME!!!!????
Not only is this new release not even close to being worth a purchase if you own the original blu-ray, it makes me even more angry to think about how this is reason that 101 dalmatians and Aladdin both got bumped even further down the line.
DisneyFan09 wrote:It's a pity how sparse the new featurettes are. The one with the villains is supposed to be only 10 minutes long. What a pity.
I agree, and I wonder if it is worth it for the whole 23 minutes of bonus footage I actually want (deleted scenes and art of evil).
I really hoped Art Of Evil would be at least 20 minutes long.
Settling Soul mates? That is grim. And I've played Monopoly alone.
Sicoe Vlad wrote:Yes, well, the video and audio (except the new foreign language tracks) are identical to the 2008 release, and he did say he agrees with her.
Well, DVDizzy's administrator, Luke, always writes new reviews for when a film is rereleased, even if it's the fourth or fifth time, ha!
Sicoe Vlad wrote:Yes, well, the video and audio (except the new foreign language tracks) are identical to the 2008 release, and he did say he agrees with her.
Well, DVDizzy's administrator, Luke, always writes new reviews for when a film is rereleased, even if it's the fourth or fifth time, ha!
So what? That means everyone is obligated to do so?