Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>If you go to the Disney outlets there always seems to be a large amount of Stitch stuff, and while Stitch is a staple in the Disney lineup, I don't think he's a huge franchise in of himself.<<< At least a couple of years ago, Stitch was the third biggest individual character, in terms of moving merchandise, in the Disney Pantheon - behind Mickey and Pooh. I don't know if that remains the case. Note I said individual character - the "Princess" line features a group of characters. >>>I expect Ratatouille to be a flop. There's only room for one rodent in the Disney studio empire.<<< Please don't tell that to Bernard and Miss Bianca, who carried two separate features, Gus and Jaq and all of their friends, Timothy of the Big Top, Basil or Dr. Dawson. Do Chip and Dale count as rodents? I think they've got some elbow room in the Disney empire. Eventually, Disney will do a ferret in some movie, and he'll be wildly popular. Heck, we'll probably even get a juggling gerbil, eventually. You know, after Richard Gere kicks the bucket.
Originally Posted By Indigo Alas if Ratatouille does box office numbers similar to either 'Rescuers' film, then it will be considered a big disappointment by today's standards. Plus when's the last time you saw a Bernard or Bianca walk-around.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj I will have to give Bernard and Bianca credit -- they had the highest grossing Disney film upon initial release and the highest grossing opening for an animated film of all time when it first hit theaters in 1977.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA >>Whatever -- how's this?<< <Equally childish. How old are you, seven?> I feel so ashamed. Jimmy go sit in corner...
Originally Posted By MissCandice Yeah, not quite sure why there is animosity about your valid opinions there, Jim.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA It's probably because I'm not considered to be the 'resident expert' on all things animation.
Originally Posted By Jim Thanks for reading, everyone. As always, I love to see the comments. AFA, as always, I love to hear your perspective. I think as to whether removing Sanders was the best choice is arguable, but I guess we'll know the answer the same as we know the answer to "Would George Scribner have been a better fit for THE LION KING before he was removed." I still stand on the side of Lasseter, but I'll never know for sure. I personally held out little hope for Stainton, though I know you were open-minded. He suggested HUNCHBACK, but I would argue that he had little to do with its artistic success, and his success with the Straight-to-DVD division has little cred with me, personally. To me, he officially lost it about the time when his artistic vision was to create a fairy tale in CG, as if that was some great original idea. I would agree that Lasseter is not Walt Disney, but his success can't be argued; neither can the immense popular appeal of his films and characters. Personally, I can't sit through TOY STORY a second time, though I've tried. INVINCIBLES and CARS were good but not great, and FINDING NEMO never really grabbed me (though I did enjoy it). But I think he understands the Pixar style verses the Disney style, whereas Schumacher and Stainton understood marketing. My Sanders illustration, though, was just one. I could have mentioned the change in songwriters in FROG PRINCESS and several other things that have come up. Have you any word on MEET THE ROBINSONS? Or any explanation for Don Hahn's sabatical that you'd like to share? Here's to hoping RAPUNZEL and AMERICAN DOG get changed to 2D . . .
Originally Posted By u k fan Sorry Jim, I haven't read your article yet (I will I promise), but I hope that Repunzel stays computer generated. It was conceived as CG and I have enough confidence in the film-makers that they can pull off something that has never been seen before. The artwork that has been seen so far certainly points to that. I would hate to see it changed purely for the sake of a Disney does traditional and Pixar does CG mentality. Each film should be judged individually on story, art direction etc before the decision is made about which medium to use, IMHO. Who wouldn't want to see a traditionally animated film from Pixar at some point, even out of curiosity?!!!
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror I too hope Rapunzel stays CG. A lot of heart has been invested to show people what CAN be done with CG, given the right attention to artistry. OPEN SEASON showed the promise of some of this, visually, although its story just kind of laid there.
Originally Posted By Jim I fully understand why Glen Keane wants to keep it CG, but for my own selfish reasons, I really want it to be 2D (plus, I honestly think it will do better in 2D since the glut . . . and people will be ready for the traditional way after the glut).
Originally Posted By mawnck With 602 releases tracked by boxofficemojo in 2006, 4 of the top 10 movies were CGI, and one of them came out in November. Some glut! There's no glut of CGI, any more than there's a glut of live action. There's just good movies and not-so-good ones.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan The difference for animation is, there's generally a smaller appetite for it vs. live action. So when several in a row feature wise-cracking woodland creatures, it feeds the perception of been-there, done-that... even more than 20 lightweight romantic comedies with similar plotlines does.
