Originally Posted By Doobie This topic is for Discussion of: <a href="http://www.LaughingPlace.com/News-ID510380.asp" target="_blank">5/16/06 Jim on Film: Great Expectations</a>
Originally Posted By FerretAfros After having watched Pocahontas last weekend, I would definately agree that the shot at the end of Just Around the River Bend is one of those things that really sets Disney apart from the rest, even in live action. I haven't seen Brother Bear since it was in theaters (I keep meaning to go get it), but I completely agree with your assessment of it. It was not what I was expecting at all, but I was simply amazed with the whole thing. It's one of those movies that even if you can't remember the specifics of it, you can simply remember that it made an impact on you. It was one of the few movies that I have seen that didn't really make me feel like a spectator, but a real character, who feels for the other characters. I don't know how they did it, or why the critics didn't like it so much, but that is one heck of a movie.
Originally Posted By Imagineer This Bring back traditional Disney animation and let real animation art shine once again.
Originally Posted By mickey_ring I agree with returning to ink and paint, but what stories? I just don't know. Seems like anybody with a desktop computer can CGI animate a bunch of burp jokes and call it a movie. What kind of story would work as a feature-length, traditionally animated film?
Originally Posted By rufus3698 I can't think of a better Adult animated film than "Spirited Away". It was adult, but it also appealed to kids. Needless to say, "Brother Bear" is no "Spirited Away". For one thing, if you're going to make an "adult" film and expect the critics to treat it as such, then perhaps it isn't such a hot idea to put the McKinsey Mooses' in it. I suggest that BB appeals to you because of some political or religious resonances, not because it's a particularly good movie.
Originally Posted By ctdsnark One thing Disney can do,to make feature-length animation an art form once again---stop making all these hack-job CGI features!!!!!
Originally Posted By actingforanimators An excellent argument, Jim, and as articulate as anything I've read from you. The most difficult aspect of this, however, is the notion of what animation fans or audiences "can" or "should" do. (e.g. "Animation fans need to be open to fresher storytelling techniques and to avoid the cocky, know-it-all, vituperative, and dismissive demeanor that pollutes some people’s perspectives.") Hmmmm...well, I understand the feeling, and I can't say I haven't felt the same, but in the end we have to respect an audience in order to develop them. Audience development is a noble and worthy goal, but I've come to believe after two-plus decades in theatre and film that it's nearly impossible to reap the benefits of it in a medium that markets to the immediate nature of popular culture and boulevard taste. I'm not saying it should be abandoned, but there's very little reward for it - and quite possibly none at all. To whit, I’m not all that convinced in an altruistic Hollywood. It's a difficult enough task to build an audience in live theatre – to shepherd them in the fare offered over the course of several seasons of production and build a loyal audience that sustains you season, after season, after season. You have to start with what is familiar and popular in order to build that base of subscribers or general ticket buyers. Then once they trust you, you can ease them into new concepts, new voices, new ideas. You have to trust their feedback, not preach, not lecture, and still nudge them along toward something not previously in their regular diet of entertainment. You "find" your perfect audience over years and years and years of producing and, if your instincts are good and your located in a region or city or community where you're both fortunate enough to unearth like-minded and loyal theatre goers while also having paid attention to how you need to assimilate and serve the community at the same time...well then you'll have a long and successful run; witness the Goodman, the McCarter, the Long Warf, Yale Rep, ACT, ART, to name a few. Film, on the other hand, simply does not work this way, nor can it ever. I wish it could, truly I do, but it can not. It is first too costly and the risk is too great. Second, it appeals to a homogenized sensibility in spite of "target audiences" and therefore seeks to reach as many likeminded folks as possible - it is a product seeking mass appeal and popularity all at the same time. It welcomes new voices and visions so long as they can offer big returns. If they don't, then there is simply no place for them. While a theatre or producing group may produce a season of 90% Andrew Lloyd Webber Musicals and Neil Simon comedies, it can afford to slip in 10% Kushner or Wilson or Stoppard or Churchill without too much fear of loss. They can do it because they believe in that work and because they want to give it a voice and a place and help it find an audience. And those plays win Pulitzers and the occasional Tony. But in fact, they don't sustain a theatre - any theatre. Boulevard fare, popular standards, and familiar themes fill seats. It sucks, but it's true. In film it's even stricter. Now, you're on to something when pointing toward films like Lorenzo or Destino, (Joe Grant believed that the short film was the real heart of animation, and that the greatest loss to audiences was the slowing and eventual death of production of short films) those are the labors of love that can be produced for less money. However, since there is no regular outlet for their distribution (one that pays) they're money losers. T.V. took over that market decades ago. When shorts are produced now, typically, it's because they have a champion inside (God bless Baker Bloodworth, he’s absolutely the best friend serious animation has at Disney), or because of contractual agreements made to keep that same talent on board to direct more commercial fare. They don't make money, they don't have a sensible reason for being produced as regards the bottom line, and they never really help studios find a new audience with an appetite for more complicated or mature fare. Numbers don't lie, and for all the blame people like you and I would like to lay at the feet of executives and marketing departments the simple truth is that the risk is too great, the return nearly non-existent and ultimately it's not smart business. A truly literate animated film is up against the odds not because audiences are incapable or closed-minded, but because by and large we are not a literate culture and popular taste does not now - nor has it ever - leaned toward that kind of material. In the end, even the most stubborn and sophomoric sensibility is open and quite capable of enjoying and even embracing something more serious (or to use your argument, more "adult", although that's a semantic debate for another time) but not a steady diet, not a diet that guarantees you can spend $90 to $190 Million at a shot on films that take five years to make and see returns that boost your bottom line. It's just not going to happen. We can, and should, fight people letting other people determine what they see and forming opinions on things before they see them. To that end I'll join you in saying anyone who rejects a product they haven't even seen is behaving in a very closed-minded and dismissive fashion. But to think that audiences in general need to be more open to those films once they see them...well, I'm not sure I can agree with your assessment of that. You're absolutely right that Disney has done an impressive job developing more complicated, interesting and compelling films over the past 20 years. For all the complaints about Tom Schumacher I will give him credit for pushing the envelope in not making the same film over and over and over. But when your biggest response (read box-office take) is to the less "adult" and more vibrant and "familiar" fare, and when you're branded as such from within and without, then simple economics necessitate what you must produce in order to survive. We all know companies that make excellent products and of whom we say "Gee, if only THEY made X or Y." Alas, they don't, and it's for the same reason John Patrick Shanley is unlikely to show up on Dallas Summer Music Theatre's roster - as spectacular as the product may be, it ultimately isn't the product their core audience will buy. And so it is that films like Prince of Egypt and Pocahontas are not going to be what we get from Disney and DreamWorks. The kind of films you're campaigning for will have to come by way of independent production, and that means making them less costly. If they're smart and good enough, and cheap enough then studios may buy them and distribute them and get them seen. I see SO many...and I mean all the time, every week, so, so, so many great ideas from gifted animators who are fully capable of producing a superior product that are always budgeted at levels impossible to achieve outside of a big studio. Until these artists risk something personally, and find a way to produce their films on their own without absurdly inflated budgets audiences won't see these films. Hollywood is not a non-profit town. Smart independent animated fare has to be (and I know for a fact that they can be) produced on abbreviated schedules and at less than 10% of the costs of studio features. THEN and only then will animated film be able to sell to the majors, get distributed and marketed, and thus develop the kind of audience you're seeking for animation. Keep the faith, Jim, but keep your audience close and listen to how they spend and why. r.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>And that is something I wish Disney would return to, that sort of experimentation with visuals, music, and storytelling, the sort of thing Roy Disney did with Fantasia 2000 and was starting to do with the follow-up film that has been manifested in the shorts Destino and Lorenzo.<< Man, do I ever agree with this. Why not, perhaps in the wee small hours of the morning, couldn't the Disney Channel have an experimental animation show? Let the writers and animators "play". These shows could be sold off on DVD much the way the Trasures volumes were. Or sent via streaming video on the web. Who knows if new popular characters could spring from this, or what new animation techniques and discoveries could be made, all while being modestly profitable, too. Here would be a place where risks could be taken that would be impossible on an $90 million animated feature. Would this have a niche audience? Maybe. Maybe not. With some inventive, creative marketing, it could prove rather popular, I think. Surely, one hour among non-stop showings of 'That's So Raven' reruns late at night would be a painful sacrifice, but the world would survive.
Originally Posted By Sapphire rufus3698 wrote:<I can't think of a better Adult animated film than "Spirited Away". It was adult, but it also appealed to kids. Needless to say, "Brother Bear" is no "Spirited Away". For one thing, if you're going to make an "adult" film and expect the critics to treat it as such, then perhaps it isn't such a hot idea to put the McKinsey Mooses' in it.> That's McKenzie, by the way. ;o) But I understand your point. When you compare the more recent Disney films to the remarkable work of Hayao Miyazaki (who directed and wrote "Spirited Away" - also "My Neighbor Totoro", "Princess Mononoke", and many others) there's a stunning difference in tone. They are more mature films in many ways - starting with more integrated groups of characters. While I did like the moose, and they *did* reinforce the moral, I'm not sure they were needed - wasn't the moral clear enough as it was? I feel the same way about the gargoyles in "Hunchback of Notre Dame" - they're not doing much storywise than highlighting and underlining points that the main story has made crystal clear. "Brother Bear"'s basic storyline and message were indeed beautiful; I had no problem with the ending. But the dialogue was rather trite, and the emotions too telegraphed. (We didn't need a song over the scene where Kenai explains the truth to Koda, for instance.) The problem for Disney and most animated filmmakers - heck most mainstream filmmakers period - of late is that they are not going for *subtlety*. Everything has to be spelled out in big block letters. An example: there was a wonderful New York Times article a month or two ago that pointed out that in most recent animated films - Pixar excepted! - everyone *talks too much*. Visuals aren't allowed to convey emotions and themes as much as they once did. (I was one of those who thought "Lilo and Stitch", though far from a bad movie, beat the "ohana" message to death.) The most exciting piece of animation Disney itself produced in the last 10 years or so, IMO, was the Firebird Suite in "Fantasia 2000". No dialogue, no vocals of any kind. It may simply be a story of death and rebirth, nothing more, but it was enough to reduce me to sobbing. Just my opinion.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Great piece Jim, and ActingforAnimators - always a pleasure to read your thoughts! I have to say I often think I am alone in enjoying the artistry of Treasure Planet or Atlantis, the magic of Brother Bear (actually my favourite animated feature of all time), or the heart, passion and darkness of Hunchback. Disney is not for kids, it is for family. All ages can watch and enjoy a good Disney feature and as many of us know, they are appreciated more as one ages. To me the films of Disney have been as important to molding my thoughts and my children's as any faith, political movement or culture. The amount of effort that is expended in bringing animated features to life is increadible, and I too share your passion for the media. The limits of animation are governed by the limits of the imagination, and of course the commercial constraints. People used to laugh at my wife and I going to see animated features before we had children. And when we went to see Fantasia 2000 - we were literaly the only people in the theatre. Sad, but true. In fact, I have finally educated some of my colleagues about the importance of animation, and they actually understand that a production such as Tarzan or Brother Bear are truly a piece of art. Funny, some adults will stand in line for 2 hours to see a Dali exibit in London, but they do not care to see Destino because it's a Disney "cartoon". How sad.
Originally Posted By u k fan I'm not really sure where I sit on this one. I list Hunchback and Treasure Planet as my 2 favorire Disney films and I saw both of them for the first time as an adult. I also list F2000 in my top 5 as well so I'm fully aware of how Disney movies and to a certain extent animated movies are family movies, not kids movies, but I'm not sure that I agree that a movie like Brother Bear is so "grown up". Brother Bear and Atlantis, imho, were wasted opportunities to push the Disney movie into a more "adult" arena. Especially Atlantis which should have been a much longer in length good old fashioned adventure movie. It could have been a cult classic. Instead it had at least 2 too many unnecessary "comedy" characters which meant that the truly interesting and naturally amusing characters such as Vinnie and Audrey were vying for screentime with one joke ponies. It also suffered from the fact that someone in their infinite wisdom felt that the movie obviously wasn't going to hold little Johnny's attention much longer so that the ending felt rushed and not properly explained. If it had been done right I truly believe that Atlantis could have been a hit of NBX proportions and a valuable Disney property. As far as Brother Bear goes Rutt and Tuke seemed shoehorned into scenes for no special reason and while I understand that they were used to reinforce the underlying theme of the movie I thought that that was portrayed adequately by the principal players. Did someone get cold feet and think that we wouldn't get it? I am however completely ready to lose that argument as I'm about to defend the Gargoyles in HoND! I know I'm repeating this so bear with me if you've heard it before, but the Gargoyles represent 3 aspects of Quasimodo's personality. There's no magic at work here, they are his imaginary friends - a defence mechanism he employs to cope with his daily life. The Gargoyles song, "A Guy Like You" is not placed where it us in the movie just to add levity for the kids, but to also make it darker for the adults. When we see the Gargoyles as figments of Quasimodo's own imagination we see that Quasimodo is setting himself up for the ultimate fall. With this in mind the song almost seems sad. The fact that Esmeralda walks in and breaks his heart within seconds of Quasimodo convincing himself that she could love him makes that whole sequence in the belltower very dark and well, harrowing would be too strong a word, but you get the idea. This idea is explored further in the stage musical where after the Gargoyles talk Quasimodo into helping Phoebus and it all goes pear shaped he begins to attack them personally, essentially berating himself and as they turn to stone shutting himself down completely. Ok, sorry for the ramble and given all of that feel free to take me to task over Rutt and Tuke. I agree that along with Studio Ghibli, Disney make the most "grown up" animated movies around, but I do feel that they could go further!!!
