prberk
Well-Known Member
When it all comes down to it, it is all art. CGI is cool and trendy, but no one is saying "Tomb Raider" was oscar-worthy, as they have Nemo.
Story AND art are the important factors here. Don't forget that Beauty and the Beast and Lion King both used CGI in effective, beautiful ways in an otherwise traditionally-animated film. The result was art AND a great story that in both cases brought about great word-of-mouth among adults.
Lelo and Stitch was appropriately-drawn in a MOST traditional fashion (water-colors), but anyone who has watched the making-of featurette on the DVD knows that it was also heavily dependent on computers. Once again, the art and story combined to make a great movie.
We should also remember that it was Disney who took a chance on Pixar in the first place. We would not be having this discussion if they had not totally financed and helped develop Toy Story. Pixar is inhabited by Disney alums and fans. They know how to make a traditional Disney story: amusing and fun for kids, with a heavy dose of sprinklings for the adults..
When it is all said and done, the big enemy to Disney feature animation is NOT CGI. It is cheap sequels and cheap television animation.
The scariest part is that the new feature animation director comes from the TV animation unit, and wants to merge the two worlds. This is not bad because TV animation is a bad place to be overall, but because the company's recent TV and video product has been completely crap in recent years, apparently under his leadership. Not even worthy of Hanna-Barbera.
The Pixar name is not associated with ANY poor quality, but Disney has allowed its name to be associated with cheap, meaningless TV, video crap. The suits who are worried about "devaluing the brand," as business school junkies like to say, should be most worried about that. A gengeration that has grown up with a steady diet of cheap Disney crap on TV should not expect much more from the movies....., especially when they see quality elsewhere.
Story AND art are the important factors here. Don't forget that Beauty and the Beast and Lion King both used CGI in effective, beautiful ways in an otherwise traditionally-animated film. The result was art AND a great story that in both cases brought about great word-of-mouth among adults.
Lelo and Stitch was appropriately-drawn in a MOST traditional fashion (water-colors), but anyone who has watched the making-of featurette on the DVD knows that it was also heavily dependent on computers. Once again, the art and story combined to make a great movie.
We should also remember that it was Disney who took a chance on Pixar in the first place. We would not be having this discussion if they had not totally financed and helped develop Toy Story. Pixar is inhabited by Disney alums and fans. They know how to make a traditional Disney story: amusing and fun for kids, with a heavy dose of sprinklings for the adults..
When it is all said and done, the big enemy to Disney feature animation is NOT CGI. It is cheap sequels and cheap television animation.
The scariest part is that the new feature animation director comes from the TV animation unit, and wants to merge the two worlds. This is not bad because TV animation is a bad place to be overall, but because the company's recent TV and video product has been completely crap in recent years, apparently under his leadership. Not even worthy of Hanna-Barbera.
The Pixar name is not associated with ANY poor quality, but Disney has allowed its name to be associated with cheap, meaningless TV, video crap. The suits who are worried about "devaluing the brand," as business school junkies like to say, should be most worried about that. A gengeration that has grown up with a steady diet of cheap Disney crap on TV should not expect much more from the movies....., especially when they see quality elsewhere.