• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Information on "The Wild"

AndyP

Active Member
catinthehat said:
This was going to be my argument as well. Plus, in the trailer- it looks like they are running all over NY- I saw them in Times Square...in Madagascar, they were mostly in Africa or wherever they went.
Madagascar is where they went...

The Wild looks like a Madagascar rip-off but this thread is 2 years old so we don't really know who started first even if Madagascar came out first.
 

Connor002

Active Member
Advertisement
AndyP said:
The Wild looks like a Madagascar rip-off but this thread is 2 years old so we don't really know who started first even if Madagascar came out first.
Well, somewhere (not positive about credibility) I had heard that there was an issue with the writer where he wrote the script for Disney, then wrote an alternative, but similar one for Dreamworks. Dreamworks, seeing an opportunity to make Disney appear to be the "copy cat," they rushed it through their production system and released it.
 

AndyP

Active Member
Connor002 said:
Well, somewhere (not positive about credibility) I had heard that there was an issue with the writer where he wrote the script for Disney, then wrote an alternative, but similar one for Dreamworks. Dreamworks, seeing an opportunity to make Disney appear to be the "copy cat," they rushed it through their production system and released it.
Certainly sounds like a possibility, possibly the writer was trying to ensure the idea went through to production and scored twice. I think the movie trailer looks ok and it could still do well even post-Madagascar if the story and characters are good.
 
Well, somewhere (not positive about credibility) I had heard that there was an issue with the writer where he wrote the script for Disney, then wrote an alternative, but similar one for Dreamworks. Dreamworks, seeing an opportunity to make Disney appear to be the "copy cat," they rushed it through their production system and released it.The only problem with the final piece of this....is that if a filmed is rushed through production, then it's apparent in the film. The visuals of the film lack tremendously due to the time constraint put on the animation team. Madagascar doesn't display any of the rushed appearances that are extremely evident in fast production.

I'm searching for articles involving the two, but not really coming up with anything. From my experience in this field tho, both features would have taken the same amount of time (theoretically) to produce. The fact that "The Wild" isn't even completely finished while "Madagascar" is almost (almost) a year old gives Dreamworks the edge on this one. If both companies were given a treatment or script for this film at the same time then Dreamworks would've had to shave an entire year off of their production timeline which in the animation world is almost impossible. The only way to get around that would be to out-source the animation to multiple other studios and from what I remember...Madagascar was done strictly in house. If Disney and Dreamworks were handed that script in the same week and Disney decided to pursue other films at the time and then do it later, then that is their loss...they now become the copy cat, because Dreamworks didn't wait. It may not even be a case of copying...it could be the case of a greedy writer - possibly writing two totally different scripts for two sets of characters.

"The Wild" will be highly criticized as a Dreamworks copy due to the fact that it deals with animals from Central Park and the pop culture references which are abound in Shrek. Another point is that "The Wild" doesn't appear to be very original in concept, a Nemo storyline with Madagascar settings.

I also, just remembered that this isn't even a Disney Animation film. It's been created, animated and everything by C.O.R.E. in Toronto, Canada. According to a gentleman who does story work for Disney, the people at Disney are not fond of it's quality and are rather upset with it. He goes on to state, that everyone at Disney that he has watched it with have all thought that it looks "gastly". Tho, I do not know this mans real name, he is a very respected member of the animationnation.com forum whose credits include storywork starting on "Jungle Book" and working all the way to the present. Generally, whatever this man says always seems to turn out to be absolutely true. It'll be interesting to see what kind of advertising treatment they give this film if the executives on it think that it's going to be not so good.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
 

PencilTest

New Member
clarksfan95 said:
I also, just remembered that this isn't even a Disney Animation film. It's been created, animated and everything by C.O.R.E. in Toronto, Canada.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
Thank You! Man, I've been trying to remember who actually made this movie ever since I saw the trailer. Don't think I'll be seeing this one. I really disagree with Disney releasing sub-par movies that were made by other studios. The only thing it does is cheapen the overall perception of Disney animation quality. Even though cartoon buffs might know that Valiant and The Wild were actually made by other companies, the general public just sees them as crappy movies from Disney. Bad idea.
 
I totally agree, tho some people know that the film isn't made by Disney, people see the "Walt Disney Pictures" slate when the film starts and naturally associates something that isn't even remotely made by or even gets close to the quality that is one of the most important landmarks of Disney animation.
 

catinthehat

New Member
These are interesting possibilities that could explain why there are similarities- but I revert back to my original idea of - who cares if they are similar! Madagascar was a good movie! This one looks good too!

Plus, I happen to be a big Janeane garrafolo fan, and she is doing one of the voices :)
 

CaliSurfer182

New Member
PencilTest said:
Thank You! Man, I've been trying to remember who actually made this movie ever since I saw the trailer. Don't think I'll be seeing this one. I really disagree with Disney releasing sub-par movies that were made by other studios. The only thing it does is cheapen the overall perception of Disney animation quality. Even though cartoon buffs might know that Valiant and The Wild were actually made by other companies, the general public just sees them as crappy movies from Disney. Bad idea.

I know that WDP is just distributing The Wild, but this makes me wonder what makes a Disney animation movie an official Disney animation movie?.....I mean you say that Valiant is made by another company, but at least in that movie Disney paid production costs. All the Disney-Pixar movies were made by Pixar artists, and they were only funded by Disney, so are they not Disney animation movies? Where do you draw the line?
 
They are considered Disney because Disney pays into them....I consider Pixar movies (this is my opinion...) Pixar movies and not Disney movies. Movies that I consider Disney movies are movies that are made in house at Disney by Disney animators. Those to me, are Disney films, even those low budget crap sequel movies are at least done by studios that Disney either completely purchased or created on their own overseas.

I will never consider a Pixar movie to be a Disney movie...there is a quality factor that comes from Pixar that Disney has not had since they started working with Pixar. When the major problems with the movie deal started happening and Pixar was ready to move on without Disney I felt that Pixar was doing the best possible thing. The Disney name at that point had become tainted with the mediocrity that was coming out of their feature animation department. Pixar had established themselves as the dominant animation company and I feel that it was more to the point that Disney needed Pixar, rather than Pixar needing Disney. Disney had little to no input on all of the Pixar films to date (including Cars).

So...for me, a Disney film comes from Walt Disney Feature Animation... a Pixar film comes from Pixar, "The Wild" will be a movie from C.O.R.E....and I'm excited for the guys at CORE, because this is a huge step for them as it was for the company that did Valiant. I do not allow (in my little world) for the Disney name attachment to alter the truth behind who actually made the film...that's just my thinking and what nots......
 

catinthehat

New Member
clarksfan95 said:
So...for me, a Disney film comes from Walt Disney Feature Animation... a Pixar film comes from Pixar, "The Wild" will be a movie from C.O.R.E....and I'm excited for the guys at CORE, because this is a huge step for them as it was for the company that did Valiant. I do not allow (in my little world) for the Disney name attachment to alter the truth behind who actually made the film...that's just my thinking and what nots......
What exactly is C.O.R.E.? The people who are doing the animation for The Wild?
 

PencilTest

New Member
clarksfan95 said:
They are considered Disney because Disney pays into them....I consider Pixar movies (this is my opinion...) Pixar movies and not Disney movies. Movies that I consider Disney movies are movies that are made in house at Disney by Disney animators. Those to me, are Disney films, even those low budget crap sequel movies are at least done by studios that Disney either completely purchased or created on their own overseas.
Well put. Though I just avoid the sequels all together. I just don't even wanna see them.
 
http://www.coredp.com/

That's their web-site. They are best known for Special Effects, which are nothing more than computer animation these days. If you click on the production credits, it'll give you a complete listing of what they've done.

One of the tricks to animation is that the general public sees animation as either Disney, Pixar, Dreamworks or Sony...with everything falling into the category of "is that a new Disney film?"....

There are hundreds of animation studios spread across the United States that do animation in various forms. Some specialize in special effects, some in video game animation, television commercials, feature films (though these are less common), logo animation....you name it and people probably do it. I spent a couple years working for an animation company in Pittsburgh, PA of all places. There are actually 4 all together in the area, some more well known than others. It was my first gig aftering graduating college and spent a lot of time their unpaid. Eventually we got a gig to do animation for the Pittsburgh Pirates scoreboard and we did 14 seperate shorts while also working on 2 seperate commercials...one for a bank in Kansas City and another for a hardware store (I believe....it had to do with construction style work...). You never know what's hiding in your town...there was company that used to be just north of Columbus, Ohio which started as a commercial studio and then started doing support for feature films....they did stuff for Space Jam, Looney Tunes, A Goofy Movie....and some other stuff...unfortunately, they are no longer around.

It's strange though...people see an animated feature and assume it comes from Disney, while on the other hand, they have no idea where the commercials or special effects come from (unless it's ILM - and even they are pretty obscure to the public).
 

catinthehat

New Member
They don't seem to have too many animated films under their belt- but some good films, nonetheless. It will be interesting to see how they do on this movie- maybe it will be a breakthrough film for them in the animation department.

And I see what you are saying about people assuming this is all Disney, but we can't deny that Disney has a major part in this.
 
I believe that this is actually their first completely animated feature film that they've ever done. They are best known for their special effects and I sometimes wondered why movie makers just wouldn't turn to someone like ILM for those...but then....I'm sure ILM doesn't come cheap.

It's a nice step for them in doing this cartoon, doesn't necessarily mean that they'll continue with it, but it will help to gather more recognition.
 

PencilTest

New Member
I would never begrudge a studio from branching out and trying their hand at feature animation. Far from it. My problem comes from there being no distinction to the movie-going public that some of these films aren't made by Disney. And by that I mean, Disney animators working in the Disney studio. None of this "produced by" stuff. Simply providing money to a studio to make a movie doesn't give the producer any creative control--at least it shouldn't. That would be like me giving some kid fifty bucks to operate a lemonade stand. I didn't have anything to do with the creative process, I just signed a check.

I saw one of those Disney 411 thingies on the Disney Channel last night, and it literally said "Here's a look at the newest Disney animated feature: The Wild". No mention whatsoever of it being made by an outside company. That's what bothers me.
 

Namine78

New Member
There's only one reason to see this, and it's the fact Eddie Izzard is the Koala...and at one point, this koala is in a skirt made out of a popcorn box.

If you don't know who I'm talking about, Eddie's a British actor-comedian who is famous for sometimes going into drag for his performances, calling himself a male lesbian. He was in the movies "Mystery Men" and "The Avengers" and has another movie coming up this year called "My Super Ex-Girlfriend".

"You know, Hitler was a vegetarian and a painter, probably two of the hardest types of people to get along with. 'Oh (bleep), I messed up this tree...I feel like I'm going to shoot someone.'" :p
 

catinthehat

New Member
Oh I know Eddie Izzard...and I of course love him. He is hysterical and I am sure he will make that koala quite the comic. Did you happen to notice the rest of the cast??- also pretty impressive...
 
Top Bottom