PatrickvD wrote:are your serious? The animator's don't make money at Disney anymore. And clean-up and inbetween animation is being outsourced to other studios from former Disney animators in Florida.
Lasseter is trying to make this film for less than $80 million. Why you ask? Because if it doesn't turn a prodit, this it it. The end.
It's a miracle Lasseter even got the suits to agree on doing another handdrawn film. Also, he has mentioned time and time again that he felt 2d went under because of bad storytelling not because of the medium. So if he went through all this trouble to get management on his side on making another one, why would he allow it to suck?
you could appreciate the effot, you know. If you'r a Disney fan. but whatever.
WTF are you talking about? I'm talking about the pressure on the animator's for the film to make big $$$ that they might not have been able to do what they want. I just finished watching Dream On Silly Dreamer and the whole issue of films needing to be BLOCKBUSTERS that raked in the dough was one of the major factors that killed animation, which is what I was talking about earlier (along with lousy stories and animators losing interest because of how animation was handled) .
I don't respect the artists? Who the hell are you to say that to me? I DO care about them and that's why I'm concerned for there being able to do what they want with the medium and not just simply please higher ups who don't care.
That's good for Lasserter to reduce the costs of production and taking an interest but even he could make a mistake. He will of course have the best intentions but there is always the possibility he could screw up either because he himself missed something or did something that wouldn't work or just ended up trying to please management who clearly could acre less about the product as they would call it.
Thank goodness it isn't over a hundred million dollars!
Many of Disney's previous 2D films- such as Tarzan, Atlantis, Treasure Planet and Home on the Range- have been ridiculously expensive, going over a hundred million!
Flanger-Hanger wrote:WTF are you talking about? I'm talking about the pressure on the animator's for the film to make big $$$ that they might not have been able to do what they want.
sorry I completely misinterpreted what you said. Because in this case I am in complete agreement.
Aw, the toys look cool. The Tiana doll is quite nice. It reminds me a bit of the Disney Princess dolls from the early 90's. I know their are current Princess dolls that are out now, but I think those ones look fairly different.
Thanks to CinemaBlend, we have a new Tiana character concept, Naveen is revealed through a doll, we see more Tiana dolls, and even the fact they are going to sell her dresses - both the blue and lily pad ones!
The first scene-- which may or may not be the first in the film-- shows Tiana and her friend Charlotte listening to Tiana's mother Eudora (voiced by Oprah Winfrey) tell the original fairy tale of The Frog Princess. Charlotte is white and wealthy, the daughter of New Orleans businessman Big Daddy LaBouff (voiced by John Goodman), while Tiana lives with Eudora and her dad Ray (Jim Cummings) in a line of shotgun houses on the edge of town. But given that Oprah is her mom and her dad repeatedly tells her to dream big and become whatever she wants to be, Tiana doesn't exactly have it bad.
We saw Tiana grow up in a series of sketches and become a waitress, harboring a dream of opening her own restaurant. When exotic Prince Naveen is set to visit town, Charlotte set her sights on him, and asks Tiana to bake beignets for the Mardi Gras ball she'll have in Prince Naveen's honor. The money Tiana gets from that job will be all she needs to open up her restaurant at last. But things don't go as expected for Tiana, whose business loan application is turned down, or Prince Naveen, who stops by a voodoo master on this way to the ball and is transformed-- you guessed it-- into a frog.
In the second clip we meet Tiana, now voiced by Tony-winner Anika Noni Rose, in the pose we've all seen in promotions for the film. She's wishing, once again, upon a star to help her make her dreams come true-- but instead she gets a mouthy frog with a French accent who claims to be Naveen. He convinces her to kiss him, breaking the spell, but we didn't get to see what happens next-- the clip ended just as their lips locked.
Neal wrote:Thanks to CinemaBlend, we have a new Tiana character concept, Naveen is revealed through a doll, we see more Tiana dolls, and even the fact they are going to sell her dresses - both the blue and lily pad ones!
The first scene-- which may or may not be the first in the film-- shows Tiana and her friend Charlotte listening to Tiana's mother Eudora (voiced by Oprah Winfrey) tell the original fairy tale of The Frog Princess. Charlotte is white and wealthy, the daughter of New Orleans businessman Big Daddy LaBouff (voiced by John Goodman), while Tiana lives with Eudora and her dad Ray (Jim Cummings) in a line of shotgun houses on the edge of town. But given that Oprah is her mom and her dad repeatedly tells her to dream big and become whatever she wants to be, Tiana doesn't exactly have it bad.
We saw Tiana grow up in a series of sketches and become a waitress, harboring a dream of opening her own restaurant. When exotic Prince Naveen is set to visit town, Charlotte set her sights on him, and asks Tiana to bake beignets for the Mardi Gras ball she'll have in Prince Naveen's honor. The money Tiana gets from that job will be all she needs to open up her restaurant at last. But things don't go as expected for Tiana, whose business loan application is turned down, or Prince Naveen, who stops by a voodoo master on this way to the ball and is transformed-- you guessed it-- into a frog.
In the second clip we meet Tiana, now voiced by Tony-winner Anika Noni Rose, in the pose we've all seen in promotions for the film. She's wishing, once again, upon a star to help her make her dreams come true-- but instead she gets a mouthy frog with a French accent who claims to be Naveen. He convinces her to kiss him, breaking the spell, but we didn't get to see what happens next-- the clip ended just as their lips locked.
So...... is this gonna be something like Chitty Chitty Bang Bang? In other words, is the movie gonna start off in a reality-like setting, then going into a dream sequence kind of tale told by one of the characters? Because it kind of seems that way from what I've read. ^^;
Hm, I'd never heard that before but now that you mention it...
unless this article is wrong, why is both Tiana's dad and a lovesick cajun firefly named Ray? Unless, they're one in the same...only the firefly exists in the dream world and her dad exists in reality.
Basically, people Tiana knows become alternate versions of themselves in the story...ala the Wizard of Oz movie.
Tiana has a father now? Who gets the bigger part by spurring her to "dream on?" Bah. I wanted there to be a single mother for once. I hope the article is mistaken and the father either never existed or has been/will be cut.
Anyway, supposing that this info. is true, I think it's a strange idea for Tiana to be a waitress who wants her own restaurant. Somehow, that doesn't really scream "classic fairytale" or even "classic Disney." Too bad everyone had to get up in arms about her being a chambermaid--now it's been replaced with this crappy storyline.
Listening to most often lately:
Taylor Swift ~ ~ "The Fate of Ophelia"
Taylor Swift ~ "Eldest Daughter"
Taylor Swift ~ "CANCELLED!"
And you people are surprised Disney can't release films 50 years old with a black central character -- they can't even release feature films that aren't finished yet with black central characters.
Disney's Divinity wrote:Anyway, supposing that this info. is true, I think it's a strange idea for Tiana to be a waitress who wants her own restaurant. Somehow, that doesn't really scream "classic fairytale" or even "classic Disney." Too bad everyone had to get up in arms about her being a chambermaid--now it's been replaced with this crappy storyline.
The fact that its set in 1920's New Orleans (or whatever decade now) means that it's never screamed "classic fairytale" to me.
I'm still confused as to what you people actually want. On one hand, you're all praising Wall-E to the sky for its "originality" and claiming it's been snubbed for best picture at the Oscars (I actually saw the film this weekend and I still think its got a little of Pixar's house-style to be truely classed as "original") but you seem to want "a classic fairytale" for Princess and the Frog, which is far from original.
