Oh My God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[trekkie]

Read this if you have not already seen it:
http://www.mouseplanet.com/david/dk030814.htm
What do you think?
IMO, it's ridiculous. Look at how well ENG and LILO & STITCH did, compared to TP & ATLANTIS.

 

[CTXRover]

I too think its a shame, but I think the idea that CG films are better is really just a fad right now and it will come to an end in 5-10 years. Dreamworks has NO more intention to do traditional animated fare, while Disney does have at least two more, although they are finishing them up soon.

This is what I think, Pixar is starting to get a big head and think they are better than they are. Yes, they've been five for five, but like all good things, they eventually come to an end and Pixar is bound to make a film that doesn't do well or becomes repetitive from what they've done thus far. With the contract coming up with Disney, they are demanding a deal that I think Disney would find not worthy of their time, a simple distribution fee and no profits from the movies at all. I think Disney sees their relationship with Pixar starting to wear thin and they want to be able to start their own successful CG animation industry should a new Pixar deal not materialize. It is the fad right now anyways, isn't it?

One thing to note, the MP article says Michael Eisner is more obsessed with the "look" of the film then its story. However, a recent Times Magazine interview reported him answering the question on whether 2D was dead as saying that bad storytelling is what's dead. Not the style. Encouraging words, I think.

 

[MKCustodial]

This is interesting because I read a quote from John Lasseter who said it's insane for people to say 2D animation is dead. "JUst wait for a CG flop, and then they'll start saying 3D animation is dead", was his exact sentence, sort of.

 

[General Grizz]

IDIOTS!

I LAUGH at Disney management!




Sheesh, how more of a moron can you be?

 

[JLW11Hi]

I usually try to remain civil in these discussions and not lash out a lot....but...

STUPID, STUPID, STUPID, STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!

Ok, now that I got that out of the way ) )...here's what I think...

I agree whole heartedly with what the articles author said:

"What Eisner, et. al., is missing is that the most important factor in the success of an animated features has always been its story. A great concept, terrific characters, catchy music are important, too. The medium is absolutely the least important.

"It's a lesson Disney forgot in the 1970s, when the Nine Really Old Men were doing pictures like The Aristocats and spending a lot less time crafting an original story than adding elegant flurries of animation."

So, now, Disney will probably come out with some CGI thing, and they'll probaby worry more about the CGI effects, while the characters and story will be ignorred, then they'll have a big, fancy-looking flop come out. I am so sorry to everyone for saying this...but I hope one of these upcomming Disney CGI movies does just as bad as Treasure Planet did...just to knock some sence into Eisner and show him that there is more to a good animated movie than its look.

Its funny how movies like "Lilo and Stitch" and "Spirit" turn out wonderful...and the only thing we ever hear about is how badly "Treasure Planet" and "Sinbad" did. Maybe if Disney actually stopped cutting the budget in its animation department, they might...just might make a great movie! Is that such a crazy, outlandish idea???

And as for that motion capture stuff like they used in Final Fantasy, here is a quote from animator Linda Bell that was published in Animation Magazine:

"Why animate something if you can film it with a camera? Why create human motion digitally when you can just do it live action?"

Right on, Linda

..aw, ta heck with 'em. Maybe these remaining ledgends of Disney 2-D animation (like Deja) should just quit and start their own studio...headed by Roy Disney!

 

[MKCustodial]

Originally posted by JLW11Hi
I am so sorry to everyone for saying this...but I hope one of these upcomming Disney CGI movies does just as bad as Treasure Planet did...just to knock some sence into Eisner and show him that there is more to a good animated movie than its look.

Actually, I don't. I hope it's a terrible film. Because Treasure Planet is GREAT. I've said this once and I'll say it again. I don't care about how much it made, they did a crappy job on its advertisement, and that's why it went bad. I showed my brother its trailer, and right after made him watch the movie (he didn't want to, he hated the trailer). After it was over he asked me "Are you sure you showed me the RIGHT trailer?"

If you haven't seen it, I'd say you should. If you're bad-mouthing it because you saw it and didn't like it, I'll shut up. In fact, that's why I don't say much about the Black Cauldron. Haven't seen it, don't know if it really is Disney's worse movie. So to me, the worst still is Oliver or Mulan or Pocahontas... :lol:

 

[GaryT977]

Originally posted by CTXRover
I too think its a shame, but I think the idea that CG films are better is really just a fad right now and it will come to an end in 5-10 years.

A fad or a trend? Philharmagic is CG. Even the new Spiderman cartoon on MTV is CG. IMHO - CG is here to stay. Hand drawn animation just looks, well, old.

That being said, I think the most important point in that article was the emphasis on story, a point Pixar makes with every movie they make.

 

[daksimba]

I have just one word for this argument: Evolution.

 

[Yellow Shoes]

Originally posted by daksimba
I have just one word for this argument: Evolution.

I'm sorry.
I don't know that word.
The Kansas legislature tried to prohibit teaching about evolution in our schools.


:lol:


Oh yeah, there is a town in our state called Liberal.

But everyone knows that Liberal Kansas is an oxymoron.

 

[daksimba]

Originally posted by Yellow Shoes
I'm sorry.
I don't know that word.
The Kansas legislature tried to prohibit teaching about evolution in our schools.


:lol:


Oh yeah, there is a town in our state called Liberal.

But everyone knows that Liberal Kansas is an oxymoron.

It's gonna happen, go with the flow. If Disney tried to stick with 2D, the public would think their movies are old, and they can't compete with Dreamworks.

 

[cookiee_munster]

Originally posted by MKCustodial
Actually, I don't. I hope it's a terrible film. Because Treasure Planet is GREAT. I've said this once and I'll say it again. I don't care about how much it made, they did a crappy job on its advertisement, and that's why it went bad. I showed my brother its trailer, and right after made him watch the movie (he didn't want to, he hated the trailer). After it was over he asked me "Are you sure you showed me the RIGHT trailer?"

If you haven't seen it, I'd say you should. If you're bad-mouthing it because you saw it and didn't like it, I'll shut up. In fact, that's why I don't say much about the Black Cauldron. Haven't seen it, don't know if it really is Disney's worse movie. So to me, the worst still is Oliver or Mulan or Pocahontas... :lol:

thats just like me n' my brother i usually judge trailers wrong, like Treasure Planet and i was like "OMG! what is that!?" but my younger brother sat me down and put it in the video and at the end i was like "OMG, thats what it is and i love it!" especially morph

i didn't even think the black cauldron was a disney film because it seemed the animation was so different, the look of it was different, and it seemed a little more darker in the theme of the whole film. And it was pretty scary compared to the others especially with that King bad guy person at the end... eeek!

 

[JLW11Hi]

Originally posted by MKCustodial
Actually, I don't. I hope it's a terrible film. Because Treasure Planet is GREAT. I've said this once and I'll say it again. I don't care about how much it made, they did a crappy job on its advertisement, and that's why it went bad. I showed my brother its trailer, and right after made him watch the movie (he didn't want to, he hated the trailer). After it was over he asked me "Are you sure you showed me the RIGHT trailer?"

If you haven't seen it, I'd say you should. If you're bad-mouthing it because you saw it and didn't like it, I'll shut up. In fact, that's why I don't say much about the Black Cauldron. Haven't seen it, don't know if it really is Disney's worse movie. So to me, the worst still is Oliver or Mulan or Pocahontas... :lol:

Oh, I liked Treasure Planet, I meant that I hope it does as bad box office wise...

As for CGI looking "new", well, that will change someday. Trust me, it happens with all mediums of entertainment. It happened with the original black and white silent cartoons. When they first came out, everyone liked them just because they were drawings that movied on the screen. It was somwething they had never seen before, and it looked really cool. After a couple decades or so, though, people started getting used to animation, and thats when story and character started getting more important.

What irks me is basically the fact that Disney is treating CGI in this exact manner. The fact that its CGI is "So cool"...not even because of what they do with it, but for the simple fact that its digital and looks "3D". Even if CGI takes over, there will come a day when we will all stop talking about how "cool" it looks and look for more of waht they actually do with the medium.

 

[daksimba]

Originally posted by cookiee_munster

i didn't even think the black cauldron was a disney film because it seemed the animation was so different, the look of it was different, and it seemed a little more darker in the theme of the whole film. And it was pretty scary compared to the others especially with that King bad guy person at the end... eeek!

That's because it was the first Disney movie to actually use: CGI!!!

Computer graphics were used to create Eilonwy's bauble, and the Cauldon was also CGI. This same technique was also later used to create Big Ben in the Great Mouse Detective.

 

[MKCustodial]

Originally posted by daksimba


It's gonna happen, go with the flow. If Disney tried to stick with 2D, the public would think their movies are old, and they can't compete with Dreamworks.

So "Dinosaur" is currently Disney's number 1 hit on your list?

 

[daksimba]

Originally posted by MKCustodial
So "Dinosaur" is currently Disney's number 1 hit on your list?

What would be your reasoning on that?

If it is because of technology, then Monsters Inc. is FAR above Dinosaur. The animation of Sully far out weighs any of Dinosaur.

However, Dinosaur did have amazing animation and music. The story however was only so-so.

The most important part of any movie is the story. No matter how the animation looks, it can't survive without a good story. Hence, Mulan. To me, Mulan was a beautiful piece of animation, but the story was very dull in places.

Then you have movies like Hunchback, with its wonderful story, but the look was pretty dull, IMO.

CGI, or hand drawn and painted, the story is first. The animation is only part, and should display as much realism as possible, unless a specific look is needed. Look at Lilo and Stitch. Tons of that movie was CGI, but they used very old styled backgrounds because it helped the laid back feel of Hawaii. That was an instance where older style of Animation was called for. CGI backgrounds would have been to hard edge for Lilo. But, with movies like Atlantis and Treasure Planet, it is a necessity. Who would want Treasure Planet with watercolor backgrounds?

 

[MKCustodial]

Originally posted by daksimba
What would be your reasoning on that?

If it is because of technology, then Monsters Inc. is FAR above Dinosaur. The animation of Sully far out weighs any of Dinosaur.

However, Dinosaur did have amazing animation and music. The story however was only so-so.

The most important part of any movie is the story. No matter how the animation looks, it can't survive without a good story. Hence, Mulan. To me, Mulan was a beautiful piece of animation, but the story was very dull in places.

Then you have movies like Hunchback, with its wonderful story, but the look was pretty dull, IMO.

CGI, or hand drawn and painted, the story is first. The animation is only part, and should display as much realism as possible, unless a specific look is needed. Look at Lilo and Stitch. Tons of that movie was CGI, but they used very old styled backgrounds because it helped the laid back feel of Hawaii. That was an instance where older style of Animation was called for. CGI backgrounds would have been to hard edge for Lilo. But, with movies like Atlantis and Treasure Planet, it is a necessity. Who would want Treasure Planet with watercolor backgrounds?

Hold on, I'm lost. :lol: You say story is first, but certain movies demand a scpecific style? If Lilo & Stitch was CGI, it'd have been just as awesome.

Now, I mention Dinosaur because of your commentary that Disney has to "go with the flow". That's one thing that Walt NEVER did. He was always AHEAD of the flow. And he wasn't one to jump on a bandwagon either. He did "Flowers and Trees" in Technicolor as an experiment, and even after "Silly Simphonies was already in color, Mickey shorts were still B & W because he felt it wasn't its time. Now, if Disney wants to use CGI, fine, do it. As long as they don't waste all their efforts on the looks and forget the story, so we don't get another Dinosaur. But go just CGI is stupid. As much as I love Toy Story or Bug's Life I wouldn't like to never see a beauty like Lilo & Stitch again. That's why the sequels have been looking so bad... I still hope to see the day when 2D will have its flare back, and all those DTVs will be as beautiful as Feature animations.

 

[MKCustodial]

Have you guys seen this?

- Much of the 3-D character animation for Walt Disney World's upcoming Mickey's PhilharMagic was reportedly so bad--in particular Ariel from The Little Mermaid--that it had to be reanimated by 2-D animators, then transferred into the computer.

Doesn't this say enough? I mean, Disney is still booting their traditional animators even though stuff like THIS is going on? :hurl:

 

[daksimba]

Originally posted by MKCustodial
Hold on, I'm lost. :lol: You say story is first, but certain movies demand a scpecific style? If Lilo & Stitch was CGI, it'd have been just as awesome.

I disagree. Had they done the whole CGI treatment on the backgrounds, it would have really hurt the movie. It wouldn't have that proper "hawaii" feel. It created a nice relaxed atmosphere. To accomplish this with hard-edge, bright CGI would have been very, very difficult.

Now, I mention Dinosaur because of your commentary that Disney has to "go with the flow". That's one thing that Walt NEVER did. He was always AHEAD of the flow. And he wasn't one to jump on a bandwagon either. He did "Flowers and Trees" in Technicolor as an experiment, and even after "Silly Simphonies was already in color, Mickey shorts were still B & W because he felt it wasn't its time.

I can't help but think that Roy Sr. also had a lot to do with that. Technicolor was extremely expensive, and Walt had no concept of money. He needed Roy to make those finicial decisions for him. I'm sure that Walt would have gone right ahead and made Mickey in color, but Roy most likely talked him out of it, since it would have been a HUGE finicial risk.

Now, if Disney wants to use CGI, fine, do it. As long as they don't waste all their efforts on the looks and forget the story, so we don't get another Dinosaur.

I believe that was the point I was trying to make.

But go just CGI is stupid. As much as I love Toy Story or Bug's Life I wouldn't like to never see a beauty like Lilo & Stitch again.

Now I'm confused. Didn't you just say Lilo & Stitch would have been just as awsome in CGI?

That's why the sequels have been looking so bad... I still hope to see the day when 2D will have its flare back, and all those DTVs will be as beautiful as Feature animations.

I don't think the public will go for the old 2D again. Society is too progress driven to want the old look back. People want newer and brighter. To bring back 2D would just flop.

 

[cookiee_munster]

Now I'm confused. Didn't you just say Lilo & Stitch would have been just as awsome in CGI?

I think the person aimed it as a question towards yourself,

I don't think the public will go for the old 2D again. Society is too progress driven to want the old look back. People want newer and brighter. To bring back 2D would just flop

i dunno... i think if its fresh and very attractive i think the public would love anything, Japanamation is 2D and thats equally amazing, so moving and stylistic and of course pretty modern

 

[daksimba]

Originally posted by cookiee_munster
I think the person aimed it as a question towards yourself,

Then that person didn't read my arguments very well at all.

i dunno... i think if its fresh and very attractive i think the public would love anything, Japanamation is 2D and thats equally amazing, so moving and stylistic and of course pretty modern

Yeah, if it wasn't for the fact that most of the hand drawn anime that people are watching wasn't 20 years old. Most of the new ones have been Computer generated for years (similar to the CAPS system started with Mermaid.)

Gundam, Yu-Gi-Oh, .hack, Bubblegum Crisis, they are all Computer animation.

Akira, Fushigi Yuugi, Castle in the Sky, Vampire Hunter, all of them are older and 2D. And of course they had looked better than anything Disney had done because Japan doesn't really care about budgets. All they care for is the end result. They don't settle for anything less than perfection. And they have the work ethic to get it done.