DVDizzy Forum

Found this on

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/new ... tion_x.htm

Disney's 3-D era will begin in earnest with Chicken Little in '05 and continues with the computer/hand-drawn hybrid A Few Good Ghosts in '06 as well as the spoof Rapunzel Unbraided in '07.

Rapunzel Unbraided sounds interesting. Thoughts?

Hook

is "Few Good Ghosts" that movie that we use know as "my peoples" or "angel and her no good sister"? whats the plot???

I've just read Rapunzel "Unbrained"

PheR wrote:is "Few Good Ghosts" that movie that we use know as "my peoples" or "angel and her no good sister"? whats the plot???

I've just read Rapunzel "Unbrained"

from "my peoples" to "once in a blue moon" to "Elgin's People" to "Angel and her no good sister" to now "A few good ghosts".... i wonder whats it gonna be next week... by the way, those titles have a lot in common...........NOT

and Rapunzel is gonna be a comedy.....

Let's just say WDFA is in dark time right now, ok...

Well, all Disney films are comedies.

The problem is the nature of the Rapunzel comedy - a spoof. Just as; yes; Shrek was a spoof on Fairy tales. So Disney, once the great leader of animated films becomes a follower. And about 6 years too late by the time the film is released.

As for the Angel/Peoples/Ghosts film, the Daily Mail in the UK reports that Billy Connolly will be playing Dolly Parton's dog in an Animated film. So I guess that means he will be one of the voices in Angel/Peoples/Ghosts.

If thats true then it must be one of the biggest gaps a person has ever had from voiceing characters in Disney flicks. It will be 11 years since Billy had his part in "Pocahontas".

Angel And Her No Good Sister and A Few Good Ghosts are the same movie?Weird.

Are those three the only feature films that Disney has planned for computer animation or are those only the main three?

I had figured that Gnomeo and Juliet would end up being computer animated (the plot and characters sound kooky enough for the format), but I haven't heard anything on that development.

RoyalNatalie wrote:Are those three the only feature films that Disney has planned for computer animation or are those only the main three?

Not sure...I remember maybe five more that Disney has the rights to, but I don't know if they'll be made or not.

I believe that there were some called Antonius (?), The Three Pigs, Stoneflight, Selkies, Snow Queen and possibly Don Quionte (spelling). Anyways, these were the movies animated-movies had down as Disney owning the rights.

I guess these are only the WDFA CGI pics. There's also Valiant about a homing/carrier pidgeon in WWII and some Hamster picture by a company called Shadebox (both of which will have Pixar like distribution deals), as well as Elton John's Gnomeo and Juliet.

Talking of Pixar like deals, does this sound like a bad idea? Disney's already awoken on sleeping giant in Pixar, does it really want to help create another competitor or two?

See here for Hamster info and a general studio CGI roundup.

Will Gnomeo and Juliet be like The Who's Tommy(Haven't seen it yet)?

Captain Hook wrote:Disney's 3-D era will begin in earnest with Chicken Little in '05 and continues with the computer/hand-drawn hybrid A Few Good Ghosts in '06 as well as the spoof Rapunzel Unbraided in '07.

Thoughts?

Have they figured out yet that it's plot and characterization that makes a film good yet, and not the style of animation?

Until then, none of this matters.

Eeyore wrote:Have they figured out yet that it's plot and characterization that makes a film good yet, and not the style of animation?

Until then, none of this matters.

Well said. I'm ready to go see Brother Bear now.

Eeyore wrote:Have they figured out yet that it's plot and characterization that makes a film good yet, and not the style of animation?

Until then, none of this matters.

My sentiments exactly! Walt figured out long ago that story was the most important thing. Why oh why have they forgotten this?! I don't care how "cool" a movie looks...CGI...3D... whatever. Story. Story! STORY!

Ahem... Sorry, it's just something that's been rankling for quite awhile.

PS. 2099net I completely agree about Disney being a follower now instead of a leader. The lack of vision and originality (2 things that the Disney name used to stand for ) - just breaks my heart.

Eeyore wrote:Have they figured out yet that it's plot and characterization that makes a film good yet, and not the style of animation?

Until then, none of this matters.

Well, I disagree about the plot. A good story may help a film's legs via word of mouth, but nobody knows the plot for a movie before they see it. Even the reviews don't give the whole game away. Plus some of the "classic" Disney films have had appaling plots, with no internal consistancy what-so-ever (we'll sort of ignore guilty adapations like Alice and Pan, but hello Robin Hood and Sword in the Stone).

I'm sick to death of people repeating the mantra "story, story, story" when it means nothing. Look at all the blockbuster movies of the past decade - they're almost all films with no story. The Men in Black films even had the stories either altered or improvised in editing according to the DVDs! Yet the ignorant masses eat them up. And most of the films with proper stories end up being minor hits or cults. I know that's a generalisation and like all "rules" there are exceptions, but it's true most of the time.

What's important - and in some respects, all that's important to the general public these days is knock-down "characterization". For live action this sadly seems to translate only as "bankable actors" and for animation it means "appealing character designs" and "quick soundbites". That's what you need to hook the public - characters. Nothing else matters when it comes down to bums on seats. Stitch, more than anything else was responsible for "bums on seats" for Lilo and Stitch which by a strange co-incidence was Disney's highest performing recent picture.

None of the recent Disney films bar Lilo and Stitch have really had instantly appealing characters to showcase in the trailer (not that I'm saying their characters aren't appealing over time). Kusco was arrogant. Jim Hawkings was broody. Milo was weedy. The Moose in Brother Bear seem to have the instant appeal and this seems to be translating to "bums on seats".

If anything, recent Disney movies have had too much story. Characters with proper, thought out motivations and development arcs. Some of the stories are quite complex as well (for a "children's" animated movie - especially Treasure Planet).

Pixar have good scripts, but I would suggest weak stories. The stories of the pictures can be summed up in a few sentances. I'm not suggesting this is bad, in fact it's good (but I do feel Pixar are relying on the "mismatched buddy team" formula too much).

Stories have little to do with the appeal of an animated film.

Oh, but a good story doesn't hurt. I still want to see Disney make more movies with more engrossing story lines. Financial success or not, a good story is still a good thing and still desired.

Disney's best films are the ones that feel simple, but contain a lot of charm and enchantment. The movies have the feeling of a classic fairy tale where the audience is asked to take a lot on faith with little or no explanation and where it feels that anything is possible. That is basically the philosophy of animation anyway. It is a fairy-tale-like format so it makes sense that fairy tales fit so well in that environment.

Characterization is extremely important as you said. You need a character that is instantly relatable (usually by appearance), but also interesting and someone interesting to watch. Obviously a character doesn't have to be all sunshine and daisies to click with an audience, but the character has to come off as empathic and likeable.

Really, I think Disney's marketing is part of the problem why Disney has not been so great lately. The commericals they show for their films are usually clearly targeted for children during programming dedicated to children. If only Disney would spare some extra money to also promote the movie during prime time hours and, possibly, even widen their target audience to include adults as well. Lilo & Stitch did so well with teenagers because of word of mouth. Imagine how well it might have done if Disney had did a better attempt at marketing the movie to a wider audience. For Brother Bear, they could feature the emotional conflict between brothers, actions scenes, and (of course) the moose(s ?) to get an older age group interested in the film.

There is no reason why Disney should still be treating animation any different than they would a typical live action film. The immediately classic films from the early '90s should have taught the company that lesson. We know now that it doesn't matter what format the movie is presented in. What still matters most is the movie's content.

2099net - Maybe that's true about recent blockbusters. I'm well aware that appealing design/looks and snappy soundbites often make a movie (or tv show) successful.... that's not really what I'm talking about though.

When I say "story story story", I don't just mean WHAT the story is about, but the WAY the plot is executed... memorable dialogue is a part of it too, sure. And characterization, as you say.

I'm also thinking about the timeless, magical quality that classic Disney films have... that makes them rise above a sometimes less than original or complex story.

I guess what I'm getting at is... Walt was a great Storyteller. So was Howard Ashman, in my opinion. And I think great storytellers are what Disney is lacking now. They really seem to be focusing most of their attention on the appearance of their films (this obsession with CGI and 3D), rather than the content/story. Style over substance. That's how I see it anyway.

RoyalNatalie wrote:Oh, but a good story doesn't hurt. I still want to see Disney make more movies with more engrossing story lines. Financial success or not, a good story is still a good thing and still desired.

Disney's best films are the ones that feel simple, but contain a lot of charm and enchantment.

The immediately classic films from the early '90s should have taught the company that lesson. We know now that it doesn't matter what format the movie is presented in. What still matters most is the movie's content.

Well said! That's what I was sorta trying to say but you expressed it so much better.

So what we're really saying is "script, script, script" over "story, story, story"?

I don't dispute the script is the key - the script contains the characters, the story and even the "witty one-liners" people seem to love so much. The strength of the Pixar scripts have even successfully disguised their formulatic storylines.

2099net wrote:So what we're really saying is "script, script, script" over "story, story, story"?

Sure, you can say "script script script" if you want. I used the word "story" instead of "script" because they're not necessarily one and the same... you can have a story (containing characters, one-liners and everything you mentioned) without having a script, per se.

I remember reading that when Walt was still alive they used storyboards, but not scripts... because it was all basically in Walt's head. When Walt died, the animators had trouble adjusting and found they were having more story problems... and eventually realized they needed to write scripts and plan everything more carefully. 'Cause they didn't have One Great Storyteller to rely on anymore.

Anyway back on topic...

I wonder if Disney have considered that using 3D/CGI exclusively will probably make the special effects...well... less special and effective. After awhile we'll all be used to it (if not sick of it). Heck I'm already a little sick of computer animation. But I'm biased because ever since I was a child I marvelled at the amount of work and time involved in animating a movie by hand... the patience and attention to detail just amazed me. And I have so much respect for traditional animators. I feel sorry for them, being forced to scrap their methods and learn CGI whether they like it or not. Must make them feel like the skills they've honed for years are worthless.

And it's just a fact that computer animation is NOT always the best tool to use for every type of situation. Why throw away every other tool you possess, just because you've got a new one? Acting like CGI/3D is the be-all end-all ONLY way to animate, is just plain stupid.

I wonder if one of the major problems for the 2D films is that they have had horrible advertising. I heard more about the sequels than I have about Treasure Planet when it was released. I loved Treasure Planet and The Emperor's New Groove and both had horrible advertising. I was determined not to see either because they looked so bad, and they were really great Disney movies! Grrr!

Hook