John Lasseter PERSONALLY handling a new hand drawn film about...wait for it...

[FigmentJedi]

Do you know what really irks me? People living in the stone age that are just holding on to all things that bring them back to their childhood. It's a selfish way to be.

Think about it this way. (I'm talking about the 2D vs. 3D argument).

When your grandparents and great grandparents were children...how did they like their animation? Oh, that's right...they were silent and black and white...(if around at all).

Then came sound...did people say, "I liked animation better when the characters didn't talk." or... "I wish they'd go back to the classic silent animation"

Then came color...

Again, who said, "Black and white was better and I wish they'd go back to what made them great!" Not many.

Then came the animation which applied depth...

Then came the full length animated features...

Then came major awards for those animated features...

Then came the CGI realm of animation...

Then came MORE major awards...for the CGI animated features...

Then came new Digitial 3D...


It's just the natural progression! Stop being so selfish and clasping onto things and let kids grow up with evolving technologies and animation styles just as you did! Stop trying to keep them in the '80s and '90s!

Sorry, it just bothers me a little. Pixar is doing wonders for the Walt Disney Company and to say that they should stop doing what is working and go back to something that is failing just because you want more of what you are use to...is just plain selfish.

/rant

Except that 2D and CG are separate mediums within animation (with stop motion completing the Triforce). You just can't compare the shift from 2D to CG in feature animation to how CG has taken over special effects, both mediums have their own distinct identities.

 

[DMC-12]

Mickey Mouse ain't talkin' no mo!

(Too soon?)

Nah... the Carradine jokes were already flowing this morning. :lookaroun

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

What I find compelling is that this could involve some of the techniques that have been developed for Repunzel. From what I understand it's amazing and a true "game changer". I don't know a lot about the Pooh history or story but if handled right this has mega-franchise potential I think.

But isn't Pooh already that?

Do you know what really irks me? People living in the stone age that are just holding on to all things that bring them back to their childhood. It's a selfish way to be.

Think about it this way. (I'm talking about the 2D vs. 3D argument).

When your grandparents and great grandparents were children...how did they like their animation? Oh, that's right...they were silent and black and white...(if around at all).

Then came sound...did people say, "I liked animation better when the characters didn't talk." or... "I wish they'd go back to the classic silent animation"

Then came color...

Again, who said, "Black and white was better and I wish they'd go back to what made them great!" Not many.

Then came the animation which applied depth...

Then came the full length animated features...

Then came major awards for those animated features...

Then came the CGI realm of animation...

Then came MORE major awards...for the CGI animated features...

Then came new Digitial 3D...


It's just the natural progression! Stop being so selfish and clasping onto things and let kids grow up with evolving technologies and animation styles just as you did! Stop trying to keep them in the '80s and '90s!

Sorry, it just bothers me a little. Pixar is doing wonders for the Walt Disney Company and to say that they should stop doing what is working and go back to something that is failing just because you want more of what you are use to...is just plain selfish.




/rant

:lookaroun:lookaroun:lookaroun

Don't kill me, but...:lol:

I think BOTH types of animation are at the forefront of what you call the "Natural Progression". I think it's the nostalgia and the more spirited feel of 2D that it has so many fans and there is a request to have it back. 3D just seems like taking the easy or tyical way out. Something that Disney never really did.

*ducks flying fruit*:lol:

 

[WDWFREAK53]

Except that 2D and CG are separate mediums within animation (with stop motion completing the Triforce). You just can't compare the shift from 2D to CG in feature animation to how CG has taken over special effects, both mediums have their own distinct identities.

Yeah, here are the two distinct identities...

1. CGI is hugely successful
2. 2D is failing...and has failed for almost a decade.

You're right.

It's "PROGRESS."

People look at 2D and think it's old! (Just like kids don't want to watch black and white movies...because they look OLD!)

Are you saying the Star Trek TV show is better than the latest Star Trek movie? CG effects were used all over the place in that whereas the TV show had the Enterprise hanging from a string.

Now, I'm not saying in ALL instances CG effects are better than non-CG effects (see "New Star Wars Trilogy vs. Original Star Wars Trilogy)...but it's easier, and you can do more things with it.

Pixar has put out 10 films. All 10 of those reached #1 at the Box Office. When was the last time a 2D film put out by anyone reached #1?

 

[WDWFREAK53]

But isn't Pooh already that?


:lookaroun:lookaroun:lookaroun

Don't kill me, but...:lol:

I think BOTH types of animation are at the forefront of what you call the "Natural Progression". I think it's the nostalgia and the more spirited feel of 2D that it has so many fans and there is a request to have it back. 3D just seems like taking the easy or tyical way out. Something that Disney never really did.

*ducks flying fruit*:lol:

What about Wall*E or UP! seemed "easy" or "typical?"

Heck, for Monsters, Inc...they had to come up with a completely new program just to do Sully's fur.

But, you hit it on the head with the word you chose... "nostalgia" (and that's exactly my point!)

For the most part, people going to the movies to see "animated" movies are children. Adults aren't the ones clamoring to see animated movies. Why would the studios focus on the wants of adults when making an animated movie? Kids are the ones that beg the parents to see them...not the other way around.

*gets smacked in the face by the boomerang action I got on that banana I threw at you*

 

[Figment632]

Awsome news!!!!!!!

I think any film that Pixar isnt making (Even though Lasseter is in charge of this) and is just Disney should be hand drawn. So for example Bolt was just Disney, any film like that should be hand drawn and only the Pixar films should be CG.

 

[automation85]

my 2 cents

Sure, Pixar does well, but you cannot compare the 2-d schlock that has been released to the 3-d art that Pixar releases. If WDFA were to spend the same amount of time and effort on their 2-D flicks as they did back in the day (and as Pixar does now), then you can guarantee that the stigma that arises from new 2-d animation could fade away. It won't happen overnight, but it is very possible. :shrug:

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

What about Wall*E or UP! seemed "easy" or "typical?"

Heck, for Monsters, Inc...they had to come up with a completely new program just to do Sully's fur.

But, you hit it on the head with the word you chose... "nostalgia" (and that's exactly my point!)

For the most part, people going to the movies to see "animated" movies are children. Adults aren't the ones clamoring to see animated movies. Why would the studios focus on the wants of adults when making an animated movie? Kids are the ones that beg the parents to see them...not the other way around.

*gets smacked in the face by the boomerang action I got on that banana I threw at you*

No, no...Not easy or typical in the sense of CREATING the movies, no never that. I know that's a very labor intensive process.

I was talking about the fact that every other company does that style too. Disney's best movies, or the classics, if you will. They are known for that. That's most likely why they are returning to it with TPATF and R.

*throws another banana*:lookaroun:lol:

 

[krankenstein]

I thought Bolt was better than WALL*E. :shrug:

 

[SWatsi]

Nah the audience for animation is not mostly just kids. That's just a negative stereotype that has stuck to animation for too long.

There is absolutely no reason that Traditional and CG animation can't co-exist just as with Stop-Motion and Claymation.

'2D' theatrical animation has only really shrunk in the US, simply because Disney jumped the gun and moved Feature Animation to CG. All it takes is another hit to revive the medium. Hopefully its coming.

 

[MousDad]

I thought Bolt was better than WALL*E. :shrug:

Bolt was fabulous. It had everything. If it had been released under Pixar, it would have been a #1 blockbuster.

 

[WDWFREAK53]

Sure, Pixar does well, but you cannot compare the 2-d schlock that has been released to the 3-d art that Pixar releases. If WDFA were to spend the same amount of time and effort on their 2-D flicks as they did back in the day (and as Pixar does now), then you can guarantee that the stigma that arises from new 2-d animation could fade away. It won't happen overnight, but it is very possible. :shrug:

2D animation (the 2D animation like Beauty and the Beast) relied on CGI. Do you really think that ballroom scene would've been as "grand" if they did it all by hand? Even when they were doing 2D (the later stuff) animation, they knew that they needed the computer.

Also...think about it this way.

Say it takes 4-5 years to make a full-length animated feature on par with Beauty and the Beast and the Lion King. Think of how much money that costs. Now look at how much money that movie will make...and you can see why they don't do it anymore. CGI is a lot faster to produce and the rewards are huge!

 

[WDWFREAK53]

Nah the audience for animation is not mostly just kids. That's just a negative stereotype that has stuck to animation for too long.

I saw UP in 3D...on opening night at the 9:00 showing. The theater was not packed at all. I know for sure if I had gone the following day at around 1 in the afternoon...it would've been sold out.

Disney/Pixar knows this.

 

[automation85]

2D animation (the 2D animation like Beauty and the Beast) relied on CGI. Do you really think that ballroom scene would've been as "grand" if they did it all by hand? Even when they were doing 2D (the later stuff) animation, they knew that they needed the computer.

Also...think about it this way.

Say it takes 4-5 years to make a full-length animated feature on par with Beauty and the Beast and the Lion King. Think of how much money that costs. Now look at how much money that movie will make...and you can see why they don't do it anymore. CGI is a lot faster to produce and the rewards are huge!

So take that one step further...recreate the same look but with CGI. I'm not saying recreate the wheel everytime, but the storyboarding was a HUGE part of the process. The films took a long time because their stories were reworked multiple times. Pixar still takes years to make a feature film, and not just because the animation process is tedious (because, face it...they have people who are paid to just sit and work through the tedium). They spend a lot of time in the sweatbox, working through the plot/visuals and editing.

As for the cost...the ends will always justify the means in the entertainment industry. A quality product will keep paying out. Example: The Lion King, still going very strong nearing 15 years later

 

[WDWFREAK53]

So take that one step further...recreate the same look but with CGI. I'm not saying recreate the wheel everytime, but the storyboarding was a HUGE part of the process. The films took a long time because their stories were reworked multiple times. Pixar still takes years to make a feature film, and not just because the animation process is tedious (because, face it...they have people who are paid to just sit and work through the tedium). They spend a lot of time in the sweatbox, working through the plot/visuals and editing.

As for the cost...the ends will always justify the means in the entertainment industry. A quality product will keep paying out. Example: The Lion King, still going very strong nearing 15 years later

The Lion King is the top grossing 2D animated full-length feature to date.

That film came out in 1994.

Pixar splashed onto the scene with Toy Story in 1995.

14 years have gone by and Pixar has released 9 more films that have gone to #1...and there have been countless other full CGI films in those 14 years.

I know we'll never know...but I would say that if the Lion King were to be released today (for the first time)...it would NOT make it to #1 at the box office (unless there had been a drought of children's movies at the theaters). (Especially if it was up against UP, Wall*E, Finding Nemo, etc.)

Why? CGI films are more appealing to the eye...and more importantly, more appealing to the eyes of children.

Am I saying it's right? No because the Lion King is a dang good movie...but it's just the times we live in.

 

[FigmentJedi]

Why? CGI films are more appealing to the eye...and more importantly, more appealing to the eyes of children.

CGI has been doing so successfully because of how in the early years it was such a gimmick. Outside the Disney/Pixar and Dreamworks films, there's only a handful of successful CG films, as most of them were attempts to jump on that bandwagon. The reason why Pixar and Dreamworks always do so well is a reputation for quality storytelling from the former and an abundance of pop culture references and kid oriented humor for the latter.

 

[WDWFREAK53]

CGI has been doing so successfully because of how in the early years it was such a gimmick. Outside the Disney/Pixar and Dreamworks films, there's only a handful of successful CG films, as most of them were attempts to jump on that bandwagon. The reason why Pixar and Dreamworks always do so well is a reputation for quality storytelling from the former and an abundance of pop culture references and kid oriented humor for the latter.

No, I disagree with you about the "gimmick." It's no different than a director deciding to film in an artistic and different way to get the message across. Toy Story needed to be a completely CGI film.

Toys are plastic (for the most part)...and you get a more realistic "plastic" feel from CGI than you do with traditional 2D. That was not a gimmick. I choose this one to defend my case due to it being the first "big one."

So, the CGI thing didn't start out as a gimmick...but I will agree that following movies jumped on it due to the "gimmick." (Madagascar, Shark Tale, Ratatouille, A Bug's Life, etc.).

Toy Story laid the tracks...and the Pixar train just keeps rolling on down them. This has nothing to do with a lack of story/heart and more gimmick.

I'm not 100% Pro-CGI...I'm just being realistic.

My top Disney films are:

Mary Poppins
The Lion King
Aladdin
Little Mermaid.

My top Pixar films are:

Wall*E
Up!
Finding Nemo

If I had to combine them...

Mary Poppins
Wall*E
The Lion King
Aladdin
UP!
Finding Nemo
The Little Mermaid

Back to the Princess and the Frog. It looks good. Hopefully it does well for the company, but I dont' think you're going to see kids clamoring for more 2D animation because of it.

 

[FigmentJedi]

No, I disagree with you about the "gimmick." It's no different than a director deciding to film in an artistic and different way to get the message across. Toy Story needed to be a completely CGI film.

Toys are plastic (for the most part)...and you get a more realistic "plastic" feel from CGI than you do with traditional 2D. That was not a gimmick. I choose this one to defend my case due to it being the first "big one."

So, the CGI thing didn't start out as a gimmick...but I will agree that following movies jumped on it due to the "gimmick." (Madagascar, Shark Tale, Ratatouille, A Bug's Life, etc.).

Toy Story laid the tracks...and the Pixar train just keeps rolling on down them. This has nothing to do with a lack of story/heart and more gimmick.

I'm not 100% Pro-CGI...I'm just being realistic.

Just to clarify, what I meant by gimmick was what you said, the jumping on the bandwagon that came after Pixar's success.
And when I think of movies jumping on the CG Gimmick train, I'm thinking more of Ice Age, Open Season, Space Chimps and Delgo and it could be argued the majority of Dreamworks movies, especially when they bailed on 2D shortly after Shrek.

 

[WDWFREAK53]

Just to clarify, what I meant by gimmick was what you said, the jumping on the bandwagon that came after Pixar's success.
And when I think of movies jumping on the CG Gimmick train, I'm thinking more of Ice Age, Open Season, Space Chimps and Delgo and it could be argued the majority of Dreamworks movies, especially when they bailed on 2D shortly after Shrek.

Ah yes...I completely agree.

IMO, use the type of animation that works best for the story you are trying to tell. Don't use the animation be the reason and make a filler movie to showcase the animation.

Coraline and Nightmare Before Christmas wouldn't have worked with either Traditional 2D or CGI. Beauty and the Beast wouldn't have worked as a CGI. (I do feel that Pinocchio would be awesome in CGI though. That scene with Monstro would be killer! (As well as making him look more "wooden.")

 

[automation85]

I agree that The Princess and the Frog, and this new Pooh Adventure, will not make kids suddenly switch to liking 2-D animation. But as a kid, I remember that a movie kept my attention if it had a lot going on. The only problem with the old style of movie making was that it didn't move fast enough for my Nickelodeon-washed mind. A 2-D film could just as easily keep a little kids attention if it had a lot going on. Remember that most kids are a lot less judgemental about details than most adults.

They go for the ride, if the ride is worth going on. 3-D, 2-D, whatever...kids want entertainment with a few simple gags thrown in. And as for gimmicks...I think the 3-D glasses resurgence is absurd...3-D animation works for certain films...but the glasses just don't work...and I feel really disappointed when I hear that they are rereleasing 90's "classics" in 3-D...as if the original wasn't good enough. I can accept it in the parks...but that's where it should end.

Sorry about going way off topic there.