MovieMusicals.net wrote:HIGHLY Disagree with you there. If Toy Story, Finding Nemo, and Monsters, Inc. were all in 2D - they would still be the same great stories. The animation style had LITTLE to do with box office. Back when TOY STORY came out, people were VERY timid about an all computer-animated film. But it was such a great film - who cared if it was 3D?
...
Now there's FINDING NEMO. I thought the ocean was life-like, but nothing about the animation was shocking or inspiring. Just very detailed.
In any case, I don't think type of animation has anything to do with it. As long as the film is good, it will get an audience.
Well, I disagree. Let's pop over to
RottenTomatoes.Com and see what all the critics said about Finding Nemo.
"So advanced - with lifelike motion and imagination-tingling artwork stroked with a silicon paintbrush - that it makes its predecessors come off as crude, ancient scrawlings on a cave wall."
-- Phil Villarreal, ARIZONA DAILY STAR
"Pixar's employees, masters of computer-generated animation, capture the look of the ocean like no artists before."
-- Lawrence Toppman, CHARLOTTE OBSERVER
"It's business as usual -- the usual being stunning visuals, a charming story, and a dab of emotional resonance thrown in for good measure."
-- Gary Thompson, PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS
"I challenge any adult to ignore the artistry of the amazing opaque jellyfish floating through the ocean. The animation is incredible."
-- Michael Szymanski, ZAP2IT.COM
"A gem, popping with cool tropical colors and wondrous sea creatures."
-- Scott Von Doviak, FORT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM
"With a perfunctory plot with a lot of laughs and some very good voice actors, this could have been an entertaining film, but what elevates it above others is the animation."
-- Boyd Van Hoeij, BIBLOI.COM
"Although Finding Nemo reaches a new watermark in animation, it doesn't have the endearing characters or driving plot of Toy Story and Monsters, Inc. But then, classics are tough acts to follow."
-- Susan Tavernetti, PALO ALTO WEEKLY
"Pixar's masterpiece. It feels dizzy with color and drunk on its own otherworldly creation. Sure, it derives most of its splendor from what actually exists on our ocean floors, but that doesn’t make it any less wondrous."
-- Collin Souter, EFILMCRITIC.COM
"Lives up to Pixar's high standards for wildly creative visuals, clever comedy, solid characters and an involving story."
-- Bruce Westbrook, HOUSTON CHRONICLE
"Proves that even when Pixar is not at the top of its game, it still produces better animation than some of its competitors on their best days."
-- Jeff Strickler, MINNEAPOLIS STAR TRIBUNE
"The underwater backdrops take your breath away. No, really. They're so lifelike, you almost feel like holding your breath while watching."
-- Gene Seymour, NEWSDAY
I could go on, I only selected the relevant quotes from the first page. Only a few of the review quotes actually mention the story. Most of those that do place it second to the visuals. Like it or not, the visuals of Finding Nemo are a huge crowd puller. While the story may be praised, it is undoubtably the visuals that act as the initial hook.
Now, lets see what the critics say about Home on the Range on the same site.
"...More than a few discouraging words could be said about its dull animation. The once-great Mouse House needs to keep up with the Joneses."
-- Kit Bowen, HOLLYWOOD.COM
"The animation looks second rate, laughable even, when compared to the studios direct to video releases."
-- Josh Gilchrist, REC.ARTS.MOVIES.REVIEWS
"This 76-minute Western tall tale isn't out-and-out bad, but strictly formulaic and an underachievement from the studio that made the dazzling Snow White."
-- Walter V. Addiego, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE
While there's not as many comments on the animation, while all Finding Nemo's comments about animation were positive, all of the comments about Home on the Range's visuals seem to be negative. On the whole, the critics just don't seem to think the visuals are important enough to even mention most of the time.
It's all very well saying the story is all that's important, but that's obviously wrong. The story will give a popular film legs as it will perhaps result in more repeat viewings and a bigger "word of mouth" audience. No one can deny that a story is important.
But people don't decide on which film to see at the opening weekend because of the story.
Nobody knows the story before the film opens. You could have a film with one of the best stories ever written, but if nobody goes to the opening weekend, the film is a flop. As has already been mentioned, just see what happened to
The Iron Giant.
And don't say critics reviews influence the opening weekend box office takings that much. There's lots of films critics have universally panned (
Scooby Doo,
Van Helsing etc) which have all had more than respectable opening weekends.
Initial appeal is a mixture of visuals, how likable the characters appear to be from previews, and... perhaps most importantly these days hype (sadly).
Like it or not, CGI films have more box office clout than the traditional handdrawn animated films. People just prefer the look of CGI. My own theory is because television offers handdrawn animation constantly, but CGI is still 'new' and therefore relatively rare.
I do find it doubtful that Nemo would have done half its business had it been handdrawn. Certainly, the story, which is nothing more than reworked set-pieces from Pixar's own
Toy Story and
Monsters, Inc films is just as formulaic as Disney's post
Lion King films are accused of being.
Little Red Henski wrote:The Hollywood studios are going to flood the market with their 3D cgi films. When that happens people will stop going to see them because people will be tired of them. Disney has to accept some blame for the death of 2D. Disney flooded the market with their 2D cheapquels. Now Disney is planning to do 3D cheapquels of Pixar films.
I disagree LRH. I used to think this, becuase it's always easier to blame someone or something. But I think the evidence just doesn't add up. The fact that the 2D "cheapquels" sales are still on an upward trend shows that people still want them. More than ever.
It's easy to blame the cheapquels, but what did more to damage Disney's reputation? A single Little Mermaid II DTV which most people didn't even buy, or a syndicated weekly or daily "Adventures of the Little Mermaid" TV series?
I place the blame on television. Television has made cartoons readily available to almost everyone. Gone are the days of limited animation Yogi Bear and Huckleberry Hound. Gone of the days of when Saturday Morning was the only time to see lots of cartoons. We now have 24 hour dedicated cartoon channels. We even have successful prime-time animated sit-coms. And as a result, cartoons aren't special any more. When earlier Disney features were released cartoons were still seen as a treat. Now they're seen as a fixture and nothing more in the eyes of most people.
Television stopped the cartoon shorts from being profitable (and even the mighty Walt himself had to acknowledge this) and now television is making cartoon films become less profitable. CGI is currently riding a wave of popularity at the cinemas, but this too will loose popularity when CGI becomes more common on our televisions.
ichabod you so totally rock!
Just think, reality shows and whatnot, oy. 
