DVDizzy Forum

estefan wrote:I don't know whether that YouTube commentator "Ben Waldburger" saw my earlier post on here comparing the hand-drawn animation situation to musicals and pirate films, but I agree with him.

Umm... That 'Ben Waldburger' you speak of is me.

Anyhow, the major difference between had-drawn and musicals/pirate films is that hand-drawn is a medium whereas the pirate/musical type of films are GENRES, like that one commentator said.

Hollywood executives don't think in such technical terms. A Warner Brothers executive once said that the studio wasn't going to make any films with female leads, all because one Jodie Foster film underperformed. That's the mentality of thinking that goes up in those Hollywood offices. Not to mention, while animation fans like us are aware animation is a medium and not a genre, most of the general public and even revered film critics and Hollywood types still consider it a genre. Even the AFI, which is a fairly respected institution, made a list of the top ten greatest animated films in a series of "genre" lists and IMDb also calls it a genre.

Such a shame they don't think like this anymore
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVgZaYA5BHM[/youtube]

kylemj wrote:Such a shame they don't think like this anymore
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVgZaYA5BHM[/youtube]

"We have to, it's our legacy."

Says the same man who took a shit on what the company stood for years later by trying to deliberately kill it with his greed.

kylemj wrote:Such a shame they don't think like this anymore.

Where's that from? Do you know where I could find the whole thing?

Sotiris wrote:

kylemj wrote:Such a shame they don't think like this anymore.

Where's that from? Do you know where I could find the whole thing?

Diane Sawyer's interview with Michael Eisner for CBS's news program "60 Minutes." Eisner lent out his home video copy to Don Hahn for inclusion in Waking Sleeping Beauty. I don't think the full "60 Minutes" report has shown up anywhere else online (YouTube, Daily Motion, etc.), just whatever was featured in Waking Sleeping Beauty. I'd certainly like to see the entire thing, too.

Albert

^Thanks, Albert.

kylemj wrote:Such a shame they don't think like this anymore
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVgZaYA5BHM[/youtube]

Thanks for getting me discourage again. Disney doesn't want to do hand drawn movie because they're..............Chickenpoop!

^ I thought youtube reaction videos were against forum rules now?

DancingCrab wrote:^ I thought youtube reaction videos were against forum rules now?

Fine. I fixed it.

Maybe it's time to move on. With computers nowadays, you don't need to draw every frame on a piece of paper.

Does anyone here miss the colourist? We have computers to do that now, and guess what, it does a better job than having to paint each cel by hand.

He says before he is blown to pieces.

GreatGreg wrote:Does anyone here miss the colourist? We have computers to do that now, and guess what, it does a better job than having to paint each cel by hand.

No, no one misses the colorist although that's a false analogy. No one is arguing against technological advances in the field. No one is saying we need to go back to painting cels, using CAPS or even animating on paper. Hand-drawn animation is not a tool that can be replaced; it's a medium that has multiple functions and a rich spectrum of aesthetics to offer, unique from other animation mediums. Following your reasoning, stop-motion animation should also become obsolete because of the advent of CG.

GreatGreg wrote:Maybe it's time to move on.

If Tangled and WIR are the best the future has to offer, no thank you. I'd rather live in the past where it concerns Disney. Looking at the future is only depressing to watch Disney movies slowly morph into the bland, generic, calculated formula that is Pixar.

Tbh, even the hand-drawn films of the past 10 years at Disney haven't been great, but at least I could enjoy the animation. So, it's definitely true that I'm only a Disney fan because of their past. If you don't like that about some fans, then follow your own advice and get over it.

GreatGreg wrote:Maybe it's time to move on.

Did Disney fans during the Disney Dark ages during the 70's and early 80's "Move On " ? Nope

They waited and then TLM came out and thus history was born.

thelittleursula wrote:Did Disney fans during the Disney Dark ages during the 70's and early 80's "Move On " ? Nope

They waited and then TLM came out and thus history was born.

I think you overestimate the cultural relevance the Disney company had in the late 70s and early 80s. There was no fan culture like there is now. No internet, no conventions, nothing. Disney wasn't very relevant and Disneyland was just a window to the past.

When The Little Mermaid came out it wasn't like there were huge amounts of fans jumping up and down celebrating the return of the king. It was more like bumping into your best friend from childhood and finding that you still have so much in common. Animation was dead. Musicals were dead. Disney was dead.

Now that Disney is the biggest media conglomerate in the world, you cannot compare a group of disgruntled fans venting online about the direction the company is headed in with what was happening in the 70s and 80s.

Disney's Divinity wrote:If Tangled and WIR are the best the future has to offer, no thank you. .

Exactly.

I think these films can be compared to the "Betty Boop era"", before Snow White. Rubbery-limbed, asexual characters.
The wait is for the first CGI film that has the quality of Snow White.

CGI up until now, has just been a series of experiments, a black era in animation, although some slight advances, still not quite there.

Marky_198 wrote:Rubbery-limbed, asexual characters.

Marky_198 wrote:CGI up until now, has just been a series of experiments, a black era in animation, although some slight advances, still not quite there.

A black era? I get you have some kind of agenda against CG animation but the advances it has made in recent years have been far more than "slight".

Sotiris wrote:

Marky_198 wrote:Rubbery-limbed, asexual characters.

I second that.