Originally Posted By leemac I was perplexed as to why this movie is no longer in development and having seen some of the artwork I'm still confused: <a href="http://www.facebook.com/home.php?" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/home.php?</a>#!/album.php?aid=206933&id=35245929077&ref=mf Very sad indeed.....
Originally Posted By leemac Grrrr.... Try this one: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/3a749wd" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/3a749wd</a> If you are "friends" with Disney Pixar on Facebook they posted the link to the album on their wall....
Originally Posted By Mr3000 That artwork is beautiful. I'd certainly be more interested in seeing this than the sequels that are coming down the pike.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer Very upset they didn't continue on with this...looked like classic Pixar. Original, touching, and beautifully animated.
Originally Posted By Manfried No one but Pixar knows whether or not the film would have been any good or not. That they made the decision speaks volumes of their willingness to stick their necks out on concepts, and their equal willingness to stick their necks out and just say "no." If only some Imagineers had those kind of guts.
Originally Posted By mawnck Nice stuff, but when was the last time you looked at the concept art for a Disney or PIXAR feature (or any other major studio for that matter) and thought "bleaagh, this sucks, I hope they don't make that"? The ability to make appealing artwork is a minimum requirement for employment at these places. Such artwork doesn't say squat about the viability of the project.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>when was the last time you looked at the concept art for a Disney or PIXAR feature (or any other major studio for that matter) and thought "bleaagh, this sucks, I hope they don't make that"?<< Bolt. The American Dog stuff just looked dreadful, and then when they released the art below shortly before the trailers started appearing, it looked like it wasn't going to be good. Yes, the art itself was fine, but the characters' expressions just didn't look like something I wanted to see. Luckily, I saw it anyway, and it far surpassed my expectations, so it wasn't really an issue anyway. <a href="http://niteshpatel.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/vmsy400sx600uj3.jpg" target="_blank">http://niteshpatel.com/wp/wp-c...0uj3.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By leemac <<The American Dog stuff just looked dreadful>> Wow - really? I loved the American Dog art - but then I'm a huge Chris Sanders fan. Bolt was just homogenized blandness as far as I was concerned. A movie made by committee.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Nice stuff, but when was the last time you looked at the concept art for a Disney or PIXAR feature (or any other major studio for that matter) and thought "bleaagh, this sucks, I hope they don't make that"?>> Not sure I agree with that for WDAS's recent product - Tangled's artwork does nothing for me and it has been a long time since any of their movies did - The Princess and the Frog didn't excite me either. Pixar has a better track record for me - I'd agree that most of the artwork that ends up in those Chronicle Books is amazing.
Originally Posted By Mr3000 >>I'd agree that most of the artwork that ends up in those Chronicle Books is amazing.<< I LOVE their development art-- it's so much more beautiful than the finished CompuGen stuff!
Originally Posted By DlandDug I think with the similarly themed Reo and Alpha and Omega both hitting the multi-plexes, Newt would have seemed too been-there-done-that. A pity, as Newt certainly does look good. (Better than Alpha and Omega, certainly!)
Originally Posted By mapleservo I loved the American Dog stuff, but I also think Tangled looks pretty good - so maybe I'm crazy. I agree that Bolt was OK, but pretty bland. I've heard on different sites that Newt was shelved because the plotline was too similar to the upcoming "Alpha and Omega" film, as well as Blue Sky's "Rio." I don't know that this make any sense to me though. It's not the plot that make Pixar movies appealing, it's the execution.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox The story similarities between Rio and newt were way too close for comfort. Clueless blue male critter trying to fend for himself outside captivity with the help of a smart blue female critter who calls the shots. And don't forget the whole mating ritual "I don't know what to do" plot device. Here's a fairly good summation of the complications: <a href="http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/?p=6313" target="_blank">http://youthoughtwewouldntnoti.../?p=6313</a> Rio has an April 2011 release date, weeks ahead of the date newt would have been released. With such similar story lines, newt would have appeared as a ripoff of Rio, definitely. That would have resulted in negative sentiment for Pixar and the Mouse, just given the fact that newt would have come out after Rio. Pulling newt was the smart thing to do. No matter how good the story could have been, moviegoers would have been pissed at Disney/Pixar for seeming to be stealing from Blue Sky Studios.
Originally Posted By avatarmickey115 Too bad :/ I haven't heard anything about this "Rio" Is that about that lizard (or was it an iguana) in the desert? Or is that a dreamworks movie?
Originally Posted By basil fan >>when was the last time you looked at the concept art for a Disney or PIXAR feature and thought "bleaagh, this sucks, I hope they don't make that"? American Dog--I thought it might be the first Disney animated I would skip. Wild Life--Can't tell you how glad I am this was never made. That said, the newt concept reminds me too much of the Geico Gecko. Beyond Experiment 626 <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/stitch.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/...tch.html</a>
