BRAVO NETTY!!!2099net wrote:
Well, I disagree. Let's pop over to RottenTomatoes.Com and see what all the critics said about Finding Nemo.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
MovieMusicals.net should read this! He lists some of the points I was trying to point out!
And why are people saying the Hunchback was a hit! It barely made over 100 million dollars. I would consider that a flop!
