DVDizzy Forum

Semaj wrote:The Five Stages of Death

Denial (2003-2004): "No, Disney animation can't be dead. It's just hibernating."

Anger (2005-2007): "F--- DISNEY! THOSE IDIOTS KILLED THEIR OWN HISTORY!"

Bargaining (2008-2011): "If we go to see The Princess and the Frog and Winnie the Pooh more than once, Disney will HAVE to bring hand-drawn back for real!"

Depression (2012): "I can't believe there are no more hand-drawn features."

Acceptance (2013): "Tangled was great, and I loved Wreck-it Ralph! I'm sure Disney has a bright future with their CGI features."

First, like was said, it's "Greif" not "Death." Second, if anything, I'm coming to tearms that the DIsney I knew and loved is gone and I don't have to hold the same reverence I used to for future films. Actually, it's very liberating in some way and will probably help keep my wallet fatter from all the new Disney films I won't go and see. I think for me, just because it says Disney or Pixar is no longer a reason to see it. If enough Disney fans feel the same way, you better believe things will change. If there are not enough that feel that way, it will keep going down the current path.

Disney fans (myself included at times) love to set themselves up. We complain about how Disney is doing this or Disney is doing that, and then we keep giving them money even though we don't like whatever the thing is. This is why the Disney Company is where it is right now, moving away from it's past and becoming just another Hollywood Studio.

Fans complain about the high prices of the parks, and then pay said prices at least once a year. Fans complain about the state of animation, and then go pay to see and own the films they really don't like, and so on and so forth. If we stop buying crap that Disney puts out there and only pay for what is good or what is a fair price, I promise they will take notice. The corporate powers will do what they are allowed to do by the customer base. They want our money and will do what they need to to get it. In many ways, we as fans deserve the mess that is Disney today. We helped to create it.

milojthatch wrote:

Semaj wrote:The Five Stages of Death

Denial (2003-2004): "No, Disney animation can't be dead. It's just hibernating."

Anger (2005-2007): "F--- DISNEY! THOSE IDIOTS KILLED THEIR OWN HISTORY!"

Bargaining (2008-2011): "If we go to see The Princess and the Frog and Winnie the Pooh more than once, Disney will HAVE to bring hand-drawn back for real!"

Depression (2012): "I can't believe there are no more hand-drawn features."

Acceptance (2013): "Tangled was great, and I loved Wreck-it Ralph! I'm sure Disney has a bright future with their CGI features."

First, like was said, it's "Greif" not "Death." Second, if anything, I'm coming to tearms that the DIsney I knew and loved is gone and I don't have to hold the same reverence I used to for future films. Actually, it's very liberating in some way and will probably help keep my wallet fatter from all the new Disney films I won't go and see. I think for me, just because it says Disney or Pixar is no longer a reason to see it. If enough Disney fans feel the same way, you better believe things will change. If there are not enough that feel that way, it will keep going down the current path.

Disney fans (myself included at times) love to set themselves up. We complain about how Disney is doing this or Disney is doing that, and then we keep giving them money even though we don't like whatever the thing is. This is why the Disney Company is where it is right now, moving away from it's past and becoming just another Hollywood Studio.

Fans complain about the high prices of the parks, and then pay said prices at least once a year. Fans complain about the state of animation, and then go pay to see and own the films they really don't like, and so on and so forth. If we stop buying crap that Disney puts out there and only pay for what is good or what is a fair price, I promise they will take notice. The corporate powers will do what they are allowed to do by the customer base. They want our money and will do what they need to to get it. In many ways, we as fans deserve the mess that is Disney today. We helped to create it.

Well said. Disney is pretty much "set" for the next few years. They already have the biggest hit of 2013 so far with Oz: The Great & Powerful,

This year for the rest of 2013 are:
• Iron Man 3, Pixar's Monsters University, The Lone Ranger, Planes, Thor 2, Frozen and Saving Mr. Banks.

In 2014:
• The Muppets 2, Captain America 2, Bears, Pixar's The Good Dinosaur, Maleficent, Phineas and Ferb, Guardians of the Galaxy, Big Hero 6 & Tommorowland.

In the near future, The Avengers 2, Pixar's Inside Out, Ant-Man, Star Wars Episode VII, Pirates of the Caribbean 5 & Finding Dory.

This should basically break the bank! And as you can see, Ron & John's film is atleast 3 years away.

TsWade2 wrote:I know this is not necessary, but here's the petition to save hand drawn animation if anyone is interested.

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/ ... e_petition

Signed !

I don't know why Disney can't just do 2D AND 3D animation like have a Aladdin, Little Mermaid- esque movie one season and then a Ralph movie the next season. Both parties win.

Sotiris wrote:
But characters like Cinderella, Wendy, Alice, Anita etc don’t have such big eyes and yet they work just as well.

If you're not careful, you can end up with a highly disproportionate facial structure. Also, it’s easier to fall into stock poses and expressions and over-the-top acting with big eyes. Smaller ones can give way to a much more nuanced performance. .

Exactly, and I also noticed it in the reaction of many people when they first watched Tangled, "Their eyes are too big". So clearly it is disturbing to many.

thelittleursula wrote:

TsWade2 wrote:I know this is not necessary, but here's the petition to save hand drawn animation if anyone is interested.

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/ ... e_petition

Signed !

I don't know why Disney can't just do 2D AND 3D animation like have a Aladdin, Little Mermaid- esque movie one season and then a Ralph movie the next season. Both parties win.

All we can do is wait and see. Either way, I think we're all blowing this out of proportion. Remember, Iger didn't rule out the possibility of another handdrawn feature either.

JTurner wrote:

thelittleursula wrote:
Signed !

I don't know why Disney can't just do 2D AND 3D animation like have a Aladdin, Little Mermaid- esque movie one season and then a Ralph movie the next season. Both parties win.

All we can do is wait and see. Either way, I think we're all blowing this out of proportion. Remember, Iger didn't rule out the possibility of another handdrawn feature either.

I know this is a dumb question, but what does ruling out mean?

TsWade2 wrote: I know this is a dumb question, but what does ruling out mean?

I think it means that just because they don't have any hand-drawn films in the works right now doesn't mean they're done with the medium.

TsWade2 wrote:I know this is a dumb question, but what does ruling out mean?

It means to completely eliminate something as a possibility.

Kyle wrote:

TsWade2 wrote:I know this is a dumb question, but what does ruling out mean?

It means to completely eliminate something as a possibility.

Ooooooooh! Then I guess I was judge mental on Bob Iger. Even though he's still not the perfect CEO.

milojthatch wrote: Second, if anything, I'm coming to tearms that the DIsney I knew and loved is gone and I don't have to hold the same reverence I used to for future films. Actually, it's very liberating in some way and will probably help keep my wallet fatter from all the new Disney films I won't go and see. I think for me, just because it says Disney or Pixar is no longer a reason to see it.

I never thought you'd be Reyquila level to begin with.

milojthatch wrote:If enough Disney fans feel the same way, you better believe things will change. If there are not enough that feel that way, it will keep going down the current path.

Maybe unless Disney starts blaming their lack of profit on their music/movies on piracy.

milojthatch wrote:Disney fans (myself included at times) love to set themselves up. We complain about how Disney is doing this or Disney is doing that, and then we keep giving them money even though we don't like whatever the thing is. This is why the Disney Company is where it is right now, moving away from it's past and becoming just another Hollywood Studio.


Fans complain about the high prices of the parks, and then pay said prices at least once a year. Fans complain about the state of animation, and then go pay to see and own the films they really don't like, and so on and so forth. If we stop buying crap that Disney puts out there and only pay for what is good or what is a fair price, I promise they will take notice. The corporate powers will do what they are allowed to do by the customer base. They want our money and will do what they need to to get it. In many ways, we as fans deserve the mess that is Disney today. We helped to create it.

Ha, This doesn't apply to me then. I never go see a movie i'm not interested in or would complain about. I only buy what interest me be it movies, merchandise etc. And even that isn't a lot. I love Disney but I'm not that big of a fanatic. I'm more of a comic/manga/etc type guy so Disney's Marvel and Star Wars is probably where my investing would be at. (star wars is iffy atm with the news of LucasArts being canceled and thus canceled the awesome 1313 game.)

TsWade2 wrote:

Kyle wrote: It means to completely eliminate something as a possibility.

Ooooooooh! Then I guess I was judge mental on Bob Iger. Even though he's still not the perfect CEO.

That's why you should think(and read) before you type ridiculous paranoia.











Also are people here seriously arguing and complaining about "big eyes" in Disney?

Seriously?!


Are you guys really THAT bored and need something to talk about?

That's why you should think(and read) before you type ridiculous paranoia.

I don't know how I say this, but you're right.

Also are people here seriously arguing and complaining about "big eyes" in Disney?

Seriously?!


Are you guys really THAT bored and need something to talk about?

I know, right? It doesn't matter how big of their eyes are, it's just how they drawn or digital drawn whatever they do.

Super Aurora wrote:
Also are people here seriously arguing and complaining about "big eyes" in Disney?

Seriously?!


Are you guys really THAT bored and need something to talk about?

I actually was thinking somewhat similar to what you said, no offense to those who are debating this. I just thought it was an odd debate.

Maybe there should be a thread created of Disney Eyes perhaps

disneyboy20022 wrote: I actually was thinking somewhat similar to what you said, no offense to those who are debating this. I just thought it was an odd debate.

I think it's a great debate, because obviously many, many people are bothered by it and now they have new techniques (paperman), there is no need to hold on to the exaggerated typical CGI rules anymore.

And yet, the image they use is absolutely gorgeous. I would most certainly not say "many, many" people have an issue with it. I'd say "a very small group" has an issue with it. I personally find Rapunzel to be the most "attractive" of all the princesses.

You want normal proportions in movies.. Yeah, that's live action.

I personally find Rapunzel to be the most "attractive" of all the princesses.

Eh... I think Rapunzel ties with SW as the princess who looks most like a little girl. >>;

I don't really care about big eyes. I will say they look much more strange in 3D though.

milojthatch wrote:Fans complain about the state of animation, and then go pay to see and own the films they really don't like, and so on and so forth.

I have seen Tangled and WIR in theaters, though I probably shouldn't have. It wasn't really about anticipation so much as commenting about it here and other forums. I also bought the cheapest, barebones version of Tangled (not WIR though). As for older Disney films I'm "eh" on, I don't buy re-releases/merchandise/expensive sets of those once I have one copy to view when I might be in the mood to watch it. TP&TF is the only Disney film this century I'd buy re-releases/merchandise for (maybe Jim Hawkins would be the exception, but not just anything TP; not really a worry since Disney cares more about Cauldron than TP. ).

Disney's Divinity wrote:I will say they look much more strange in 3D though.

Agreed. I think it has less to do with the size of the eyes than with the inherent difficulty of translating a 2D design into a CG model. For example, Rapunzel looks great in Glen Keane's drawings but in the movie not as much.

Disney's Divinity wrote:Eh... I think Rapunzel ties with SW as the princess who looks most like a little girl. >>;
).

Exactly, and I don't think she even looks "human", but apparently there are people attracted to little girls that look like a bug.

Sotiris wrote:

Disney's Divinity wrote:I will say they look much more strange in 3D though.

Agreed. I think it has less to do with the size of the eyes than with the overall difficulty of translating a 2D design into a CG model. For example, Rapunzel looks great in Glen Keane's drawings but in the movie not as much.

Good point. So when they found out about this difference they should have adjusted it.

Although Meg's eyes in Paperman look like a "bug" too. But maybe that's because it's modelled after a CGI model?

Marky_198 wrote:

Disney's Divinity wrote:Although Meg's eyes in Paperman look like a "bug" too. But maybe that's because it's modelled after a CGI model?

What is that even supposed to mean? She's already a CG model.