Originally Posted By Doobie This topic is for discussion of the August 6 article: Jim on Film at <a href="News-ID180350.asp" target="_blank">http://LaughingPlace.com/News-ID180350.asp</a>.
Originally Posted By DisneyCammando i thought hat was very good and i do agree about the music as a matter of fact me and my brother were talking about this less then a week ago.
Originally Posted By dxwwf3 The best thing they could do is NOT RELEASE THIS SO FREAKIN CLOSE TO THE MATRIX. I know one would think that they are going after a different audience but like it said in the article the teenage-college group is the difference maker. And trust me me and my peers will be lined up for the Matrix is we have to choose.
Originally Posted By MouseBear Salutations Jim, Your suggestions are interesting. Hopefully Disney will market this film well since it looks interesting and my school's mascot is a bear. ) Thanks for writing, Lee
Originally Posted By actingforanimators Well thought out, very well presented and an all excellent arguments, Jim. You're 100% right in warning against over-stating the comparison to LION KING. But of all the hurdles BROTHER BEAR has to leap, its release date may be the most difficult, as even the best marketing can't save a lamb sent to slaughter against sure fire hits with a broader audience. Keep in mind that Lilo's advertising campaign was designed under the guidance of its directors, primarily under the direction of Chris Sanders and that had a great deal to do with the very clever approach that helped the film find its earliest audiences. Sadly, the same directorial influence is not the case with BROTHER BEAR, and based on past marketing efforts outside of LILO, I don’t hold out much hope. BROTHER BEAR is not the last shot traditional animation has at pulling it out of the fire. That rather daunting task stands before HOME ON THE RANGE, and if any film deserved a clever and full-court-press approach to marketing it's HOTR. Regardless, it's too late to hope that BROTHER BEAR or any traditional film's success could save the jobs of the core of animation talent we've come to rely on. That core simply is no more. The crew for ANGEL & HER NO GOOD SISTER was announced last month, and as a result, those not taken on to that project or not already committed to another project are being let go. That includes some of the best up and coming talent and several veterans in animation and clean-up and effects and layout. A select few coming off of HOME ON THE RANGE will be trained on MAYA, and as to what will happen to the people who come off of ANGEL remains to be seen. The production is only now ramping up so it's too early to predict. The good news is that some of the talent doing both CG and traditional on ANGEL will be re-upping their contracts as they are up for renewal during the course of production, so we will see some outstanding talent stay on board at least for a while. But the great feature animation ensemble as we once knew it is gone. The second golden age is over, and the sun has set on the silver age, too. And so it goes. If Eisner loves this film then you'll see the dollars poured into it, even if it’s good money spent on bad ideas, and all indications are that he truly loves it so saturation and public awareness will most likely not be a problem.
Originally Posted By rasvar I have to concur with Actingforanimators on every point. I have built close ties with a few folks who were working on Brother Bear and prior features going back to TLK. Sad to say that every single one that I know is being let go. That was a pretty good team they had in Florida. They did some good work with Mulan, L&S and Brother Bear. I had hoped that Disney would allow the traditional animation to continue in Florida. I am very disappointed in the outcome.
Originally Posted By electra so youre basically saying that after Angel completes, there will no longer be a traditional feature unit at Disney... that is just unbeleivable. =(
Originally Posted By actingforanimators As of this time, there is no feature in production or development at Feature Animation beyond ANGEL AND HER NO GOOD SISTER that involves "traditional" animation. So called traditional films are still in development at Walt Disney Television Animation - some of which are being considered for theatrical release. Stay tuned for what happens if BROTHER BEAR hits big.
Originally Posted By Jim I'm hoping for a strong showing at the box office. The thing is, BROTHER BEAR will be up against some tough competition; however, these films have to be able to stand on their own two feet no matter the competition. TREASURE PLANET, against HARRY POTTER and SANTA CLAUSE II is an exception, of course because, particularly Harry, that was some extreme competition. I think Will Ferrel's ELF will be a tough one, but I think whether LOONEY TUNES is has yet to be seen. I guess we'll have to see, but I think Disney is largely on the right track with this one. If anything, the Saturday release date will hold off any "flop" screaming from the analysts.
Originally Posted By hermitfrodo Why do the suits think the choice is between computer animation and hand drawn animation. Plot, character, story, drama make a picture a success, not the medium.
Originally Posted By Zazu Jim wrote: "First of all, Lilo and Stitch has shown that there is a demand for films that are animated using traditional techniques." This is the only point of this otherwise sage essay I have to take exception to, and it's a big exception. Today, digital animation is (or can be) good enough to escape identification as such. Indeed, some is good enough to pass for live action! If the movie is any good at all, the viewer soon forgets the technology and is absorbed by the story. Story is what made "Lilo & Stitch" a great film, not the fact that the artists used brushes instead of keyboards. Yes, the artwork is stunning (don't get me wrong, I love it), but that's a much appreciated extra, not the main reason to view the film -- and certainly not a sufficient reason. If there's a failure in Disney Feature Animation to create good films of late, I credit the lack of good stories, a lack of creative vision (in positions of authority), and of managerial interference in the creative process -- not the technology. Anyone who has been transported by a radio drama -- or a book -- knows that great story is what matters; the media is of far lesser concern. Thus I'll save my concern for the selection of great stories, and for giving the creative artists enough room to tell them. Two points that a conversion from ink to pixels will neither help nor hinder.
Originally Posted By Memory People are right in saying that it is STORY that is the main draw here. And yet, that is at least as good a reason to shut down the non-digital unit as any. Because if the story is all that matters then why stick with the hand-drawn style? I don't know for sure, but is it possible that the old hand-drawn way is more expensive than using a computer? If it is then its a no-brainer. If it isn't, one could foresee a time when it will be, and that time may be sooner than you think. If that's the case might as well start the process sooner rather than later. It's probably unwise to do it as simply and abruptly as what's being proposed, better to figure out ways to use your 2-d talent on a 3-d feature instead of bagging their creativity all together and kicking them out the door. Again though, if our argument is that the medium is not important than we might have just pulled the trigger ourselves. I think Disney has the talent to catch up with Pixar if thats what they want. But I'm not sure that's their desire. And should it even be? As long as they have pixar under their umbrella they're pretty well set for the future. It is a little sad, I guess to see hand-drawn animation disappear. But it really doesn't mean that 2-d is dead or that the classic Disney style will be gone only that they will be using different tools. To lay this at the feet of Brother Bear, however, is interesting and I'm intrigued to see how it will all play out.
Originally Posted By basil fan I have to disagree that the medium is unimportant. Every artist knows that the medium is ALL important. I can't tell you how many art school projects of mine were failures simply because I chose the wrong medium to portray what I wanted to portray. Of course, I was only learning, so I have an excuse. If you render an object or scene or portrait in oils, it's a completely different finished product than the same scene in watercolor, or pastel, or whatever. It's not just another "version" of the same work, it's a completely different work. What works in one medium will fail in another. Instead of replacing all hand-drawn animation with CGI, why not replace it with live-action? Why animate at all? Why are so many of us animation fans? Because the medium is vital in art. Absolutely vital. Suppose all rock music was to be replaced by classical-style. Same singers & songwriters, same instruments, just change the rhythm & alter the style, & you have the same song, right? Isn't it the lyrics & melody that are important? (I use rock music because I assume its loss would upset the majority of posters; I personally would rejoice) Granted, an imperfect example, but try the same exercise with any work of art. Remake the Thinker out of paper mache, the Mona Lisa in charcoal, you've got a different work of art. Only one medium can be the best choice. All of the above is IMO, of course. Tarzan's Dictionary <a href="http://www15.brinkster.com/wtstsgalor/etc/tarmangani.html" target="_blank">http://www15.brinkster.com/wts tsgalor/etc/tarmangani.html</a>
Originally Posted By Memory "What works in one medium will fail in another." In fact though, changing Peter Pan to CGI is not exactly changing mediums. Nor is it, I don't think, changing styles. It's hard to pin down definitions on these things, because while it may seem at first glance that traditional and computer animation are different mediums they really are both the same medium. That of film. The only difference is in the way they are made. The techniques and tools used to create them. So in that sense, it is not really like re-doing The Thinker in paper mache, but rather much closer to re-doing The Thinker with a sharper chisel. And same goes for styles. To use your music analogy it would not be like changing Rock to Classical but more like one band covering a song from another band. The song is the same song. Same melody, rhythm, and lyrics. It is in the same medium (music) and the same style (rock) only now somebody else is playing the guitar part and instead of it being sung by John Lennon, it's being sung by Steven Tyler. In the case of the guitar player and the singer it is not a different style or medium that's being heard or experienced but a different "voice" and for the most part our preference of one over the other has to do with who we heard sing it first. Or think of it as a revival of a play. Where everything is the same except now there's new actors. It's not a different style or medium, but a different voice. Now reverse that and assume they had all the same actors, but instead of the old plywood sets on stage, they now had new intricately designed ones. If you follow the analogy the sets could now be said to hav a different voice. Would a change such as that be the difference in the play failing or succeeding? I hardly think so. Similiarly a new Pixar-esque "voice" being added to Peter Pan, while still keeping it in the medium of Film and maintaining the classic disney style, (which is what seems to be Eisner's suggestion) would not really alter things too greatly. Which, I beleive, means that neither will the public care too greatly about it. And that the expense to profit ratio generated by such a stunt after one or two tries is likely to convince Eisner not to continue on with it. Right now I can't say that I care if it happens or not. But it would kinda be an intriguing expirament and I'd be interested to see how it turns out. If nothing else just to have something tangible enough to argue over. Right now, I don't think, there's anyone who knows how it would turn out for sure. It's all just conjecture at this point. But it's not really like he's suggesting re-doing the mona lisa in charcoal. I'm actually kinda surprised there's no cgi firm or student who's attempted this and put it out on the internet for people to see how it might look.
Originally Posted By basil fan I wasn't trying to prove the inherent superiority of hand-drawn animation over CGI, only to refute the popular opinion that story is all or nearly all. >Or think of it as a revival of a play. >Where everything is the same except now >there's new actors. It's not a >different style or medium, but a >different voice. Now reverse that and >assume they had all the same actors, >but instead of the old plywood sets on >stage, they now had new intricately >designed ones. If you follow the >analogy the sets could now be said to >hav a different voice. Would a change >such as that be the difference in the >play failing or succeeding? I hardly >think so. Now there I'd have to disagree again. I've seen various productions of plays, & some were good & some not so good. You doin't think bad acting can ruin a good story? I do. Look at Jungle Book & Alice in Wonderland, 2 acknowledged Disney classics, beloved by millions, which are both weak in story. The strong characters, character design, animation, songs, etc, compensate for the story flaws to create an enjoyable film, IMHO. In JB's case, one of my top 5. If story was truly what it's all about, then one would derive as much enjoyment out of reading a script as in watching the play. Maybe some can, but I never could really enjoy reading a script. A book yes, but not a script. Again, IMO, which is not very popular on these boards, I know. Disney Glitches <a href="http://www15.brinkster.com/wtstsgalor/dglitch.html" target="_blank">http://www15.brinkster.com/wts tsgalor/dglitch.html</a>
Originally Posted By brick74 Actually, wouldn't a better analogy be turning the Mona Lisa into a sculpture?
Originally Posted By narkspud Amen, right on, Basil Fan (post 15). Story is NOT everything. Fantasia doesn't have one. Alice and Jungle (as BF noted) have lousy ones. Yellow Submarine has an even worse one. Charlotte's Web has a wonderful one, but the animation torpedos it. A movie is a piece of entertainment, and it can ride on story, visuals, performances, and a gazillion other factors. A really good story told well is a good thing for a movie to ride on, but not the only thing available. At the same time, something really badly done (Charlotte's Web's animation, Treasure Planet's attempts at humor) can work to a movie's detriment. The combo is different for every movie. To chalk up all of Disney's recent 2D failures to story alone is a gross oversimplification.
Originally Posted By basil fan Careful, narkspud, you'll give me a swelled head. For Disney Girls Only <a href="http://www15.brinkster.com/wtstsgalor/girls.html" target="_blank">http://www15.brinkster.com/wts tsgalor/girls.html</a>
Originally Posted By Daddy Servo "Actually, wouldn't a better analogy be turning the Mona Lisa into a sculpture?" More like trying to re-create the Mona Lisa using nothing but PhotoShop or Fractal Painter.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators Actually, Memory, the Mickey's Philharmagic attraction previewing at Walt Disney World's Magic Kindgom is just such a tangible example of what we'll see, as it was the Peter Pan sequence of this that made Eisner decide that Pan was the first project he wanted to completely re-make in CG. So a substantial amount of material now exists for proper debate. "Have you ever seen anything so butt ugly in all your life?" --- a highly regarded and noted character animator, who will remain un-named, upon seeing Mickey in CG on the last Oscar telecast.
