Disney (and others) at the Box Office - Current State of Affairs

Vegas Disney Fan

Well-Known Member
"Walt's vision" for these characters was for them to be designed as cartoons. They cannot simply be directly adapted into "live action." Things that are expressive, or endearing, or comical in a cartoon are weird and off putting in a realistic setting.

I think this has been the downfall of most of the live action movie's, even the ones that have made a ton of money, they simply look “wrong”. There’s something charming and endearing about cartoons, that’s lost when they try to make something “real”.

We all know what a lion looks like and how a lion acts, when they try to combine reality with talking and non natural actions it feels wrong.

I enjoyed Mufasa but the entire time I felt like I was watching a presentation of CG technology, what they can do now is very impressive but it’s also a bit off putting because it still doesn’t “look” quite right.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
I think this has been the downfall of most of the live action movie's, even the ones that have made a ton of money, they simply look “wrong”. There’s something charming and endearing about cartoons, that’s lost when they try to make something “real”.

We all know what a lion looks like and how a lion acts, when they try to combine reality with talking and non natural actions it feels wrong.

I enjoyed Mufasa but the entire time I felt like I was watching a presentation of CG technology, what they can do now is very impressive but it’s also a bit off putting because it still doesn’t “look” quite right.
BRING BACK HAND-DRAWN ANIMATION!

Seriously, it’s so much more charming than computer animation (which I know wasn’t the point of your post, but I hope you’ll forgive me).
 

Vegas Disney Fan

Well-Known Member
BRING BACK HAND-DRAWN ANIMATION!

Seriously, it’s so much more charming than computer animation (which I know wasn’t the point of your post, but I hope you’ll forgive me).
I agree, I’d love more hand drawn animation.

One other thing I’d add is how “non real” CG typically works well, something intentionally cartoony like Cars works, had they made them photo realistic cars with eyes and mouths I think it would have come off as freaky though, I’m also optimistic something like Stitch will work because we don’t associate Aliens as real so our brains tend to believe them as CG.

When they try to make something real look real though they better nail it or our brains will instantly think it looks off.
 

Farerb

Well-Known Member
Fair enough. Personally I don’t feel strongly one way or the other. There’s bad 2d animation and there’s bad 3d animation. Both excell in their own ways.
I haven't enjoyed any of Disney's CGI films except Tangled and Moana and I only like 6 Pixar movies.
 

WorldExplorer

Well-Known Member
"Walt's vision" for these characters was for them to be designed as cartoons. They cannot simply be directly adapted into "live action." Things that are expressive, or endearing, or comical in a cartoon are weird and off putting in a realistic setting. Taking cartoon characters like the dwarves, with cartoon anatomy and proportions.... and then sticking on realistic human skin, hair, and clothes is ugly and disturbing. No clue how the people making these films greenlight this stuff with their eyes open.

Realistic dwarfs is just as stupid as trying to make a realistic CGI llama for an Emperor's New Groove remake.

(Not to imply that any kind of ENG remake would be smart...or any kind of Snow White remake, for that matter...)

Realitically speaking, actual people for the dwarfs is also not a good option, because they're not going to capture the charm of them either; that charm was inherently tied to their cartoonish-ness. It's just the least dumb option that makes the most sense with the "live action remake" premise; the result would be "okay-ish" rather than "WHAT THE HELL IS THAT!?".

The best idea was just to not make it, but Disney really wanted that money.

Current prediction is a 68% drop for Snow White in its second weekend (worse than Dumbo), with $13.7 million total



Glad that worked out for them.
 

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
That’s good? But I don’t think TWDC is interested in sorta breaking even while tying up 300m over 3-5 years.

You’ll note nowhere I implied it was good. Hence why we struggle having nuanced conversations here sometimes.

My qualifier was and has always been in this range “disappointing”.

Not a defense, but movies have their own subsidiaries during production for a reason. Capital isn’t tied up in these projects until release.
 

Minnesota disney fan

Well-Known Member
I’m a child of the twentieth century. I will never enjoy computer animation as much as the hand-drawn variety.
I've gone to Disneyworld when they had the imagineers in HS actually working on the next movie. We got to see them at work on "The Lion King" before it was released. I thought it was amazing how wonderful that looked, and also the fact that we got to see them at work. I think Disney is really missing that hand drawn effect on their new movies. Anyone can push a button to make the new effects, but nothing replaces hand drawn, IMO!
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
I've gone to Disneyworld when they had the imagineers in HS actually working on the next movie. We got to see them at work on "The Lion King" before it was released. I thought it was amazing how wonderful that looked, and also the fact that we got to see them at work. I think Disney is really missing that hand drawn effect on their new movies. Anyone can push a button to make the new effects, but nothing replaces hand drawn, IMO!
I don't agree with the bolded—good computer animation takes a lot of skill—but I share your overall sentiments!
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom