Originally Posted By MissCandice Why on earth did a dead baby joke just spring to my head just now? I have had to admin my response to your query, K2OONMAN.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA You guys are all off-topic and I'm contacting a moderator and you'll all be ADMIN'd.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I hope Chickem little turns out to be good, but it's the films that follow it that I'm really inetrested in.
Originally Posted By ctdsnark I just finished reading the TIME article on,what would appear to be,Disney sounding the death knell for traditional animation.In the past,I've started pages arguing against this happening,citing reasons why CGI is different,but not better than,the traditional,hand-drawn,or "cel" animation.The simple truth is---I DON'T want cel animation to die!I DON'T want "Home On The Range" to be the last cel-animated feature,certainly not in my lifetime.But after reading the TIME article,I'm beginning to feel more and more like the owner of a horse-drawn cart,trying to shout down the rise of the automobile.Am I among the ever-dwindling ranks of what will eventually be the losing side?!? I believe that Disney's last few cel-animated features were failures because of weak scripts,not because they weren't in CGI---story-wise,none of these films were as clever,or as well-written as "Lion King",or "Beauty & The Beast",or any of their successes of the last two decades.I honestly believe that "The Incredibles",done in top-knotch cel-anime,would still have been a hit.I don't want CGI to replace cel-anime,simply because the end visual result isn't the same,no more than CGI could replace stop-motion---a medium in which two feature films are forthcoming,I might add. I've said this before,and no matter how redundant it seems it's going to become,I'm going to keep right on saying it---the very idea that the Walt Disney Company is going to abandon traditional animation,is a very depressing prospect.
Originally Posted By basil fan I agree with some things you said, snark, & disagree with others. But... It's not how clever a film is, or how well-written, or how good the visuals are, ultimately it's how it does aat the box office. And while we'd like to believe that great films are appreciated by the movie-going public & poor films aren't, it ain't necessarily so. With animation there appear to be a lot of preconceived notions affecting the audience. i mean, certain people deciding whether to see the thing at all, let alone whether they like it or not. Scads of folks won't watch a hand-drawn film. Period. Something unusual happened with LK and B&B. Non-animation people watched them. Not because they are the best traditionally animated films ever made. It just suddenly became "the thing." A lot of those same people would like Snow White or Dalmatians or Groove or even (get ready) Home on the Range!! But they can't watch them with an open mind. They see a not cool cartoon and that's that. I have an aunt who won't watch a black & white film. Even if you tell her it's good. Just not interested. Anyhow, that's my opinion. Basil of Baker Street <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/basil/bakerst.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/ basil/bakerst.html</a>
Originally Posted By Socrates Thanks, Jim for bring this up, because I was about to. I thought it was a very thought-provoking article. Anyone interested in Disney animation should read it. For instance: "Like a dazed boxer who has been KO'd, the old-line Disney artists were slow to rise from their canvases. They kept making serioso dramas with soaring Broadwayesque scores, when the CG films were mopping up with brash, no-song comedies that appealed to young males as well as the family audience. New ideas were stifled." Comments? Socrates "The unexamined life is not worth living."
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan My comment is that in an effort to use the boxing analogy, the author oversimplified something much more complex. It also overlooks the fact that many of those "Broadwayesque" films were very popular and will remain profitable for years to come. I guess what bothers me is the general attitude that there's not room for all sorts of animation, with a variety of storylines, styles, music or not, comedy and drama alike. The idea that only CGI comedies will succeed is a very "of the moment" perspective and it'll only remain true until the public's tastes change, as they inevitably will over time.
Originally Posted By ctdsnark In his book "The Art Of Walt Disney",Christopher Finch points out that "Lady And The Tramp",the first Disney animated feature to be set in 20th-century America {as was "Dumbo",but that was set in the closed world of the circus},as well as breaking new ground in subject matter in feature animation,was a hit upon its initial release.In contrast,the next feature,"Sleeping Beauty",although a showcase for some breathtaking animation,wasn't as successful.Finch cites many reasons,chief among them was the fact that Walt Disney was so involved with the opening of Disneyland,he may not have given "Beauty" his full attention;another reason,a more likely one,is that following "Lady",movie audiences may not have wanted to return to the world of European fairy tales. Feature animation has undergone drastic changes since the company made its dramatic comeback with films like "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" and "The Little Mermaid"---obviously,if traditional animated features are to survive,Disney must look for some new formulas.Their return to fairy tales in the late 80's/early 90's was,thankfully for them,brief {which makes me question the wisdom of their doing an upcoming "Rapunzal" feature}before moving into other genres for inspiration---Greek mythology,ancient Chinese legends,a Shakespearean-type tale with African animals,and so on.They have dropped the Broadway-style musical numbers from their films---although they still feature new music,they rarely come from the mouths of the movie's characters anymore.These changes are a good start,but clearly,they're not enough.I must admit,I can't guess what direction traditional animated features will take,although it's pretty obvious to me that the route it takes won't be too dissimilar to that of CGI features.I just hope someone at Disney can create a new renaissance for traditional animation.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <They have dropped the Broadway-style musical numbers from their films---although they still feature new music,they rarely come from the mouths of the movie's characters anymore.These changes are a good start,but clearly,they're not enough.> I disagree. An animated musical - with the chracters singing the song, is no more or less relevant than when the characters in a live Broadway show sing -- or in a musical like 'Chicago' or 'Moulin Rouge.' It's a shame that Disney Animation has to follow the trends so hard. In other words, why not have a musical, and an adventure tale, and a 'weird one' all in the works at the same time? Why must it be 'one or the other'? Why is it either all Broadway-style musicals -- 'Little Mermaid' 'Aladdin' 'Lion King' 'Pocahantas' 'Hercules' 'Mulan' 'Tarzan' boom-boom-boom, back-to-back releases. Or wacky comedy/fractured fairy tale all in a row. Or adventure movie 'Treasure Planet' 'Atlantis' 'Brother Bear' all in a row. Hollywood is and always has been, a bit like sheep. If something works -- grind it into the dirt until it's dead. I'm hoping a new musical from Disney Feature Animation will come along again.
Originally Posted By AladdinAZ I really hope Disney still does some "traditional" looking animation films again. It certainly isn't dead, and so many of the "traditional" films look fantastic. But as someone already said, Disney was among the 1st to mix the traditional looking animation with computer animation. And they did a great job blending these two styles, from Ballroom scenes, to Stampedes to bionic arms, to Flying Whales. Dinosaur did some of the most interesting visual effects, mixing CGI characters, with a mix of several different layers of real video photography of scenery. I just wasn't that fond of the story. But don't forget that little story with watercolored backgrounds about a character that didn't quite fit in. It became one of Disney's most loved characters. Nope, not talking about the character flying thru the air on large ears, I'm talking about the character flying thru the air on a spaceship, Stitch! Lilo and Stitch proved that there is still life in a traditional animation film.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators ctdsnark - there WILL be another traditionally animated feature from Disney in production very, very soon. It will never be, at least not at Disney, a purely 100% hand drawn without any computer composited images or animation, it will be a blend, closer to what you saw technically in films like Treasure Planet or Sinbad (blended approach wise, that is, not content wise.) Give them a year or so to get the next slate of things lined up, and give them a chance to re-build the brand around the successes of things like "Chicken Little", "A Day With Wilbur Robinson" and "American Dog." Disney needs to gain a stronger hold in the market. The look, the feel, (the touch of Cotton!...sorry) the look, the feel, the visual appeal of hand-drawn animation will be brought back into the fold shortly. Just enjoy the storytelling and the great character animation of the CG films during this period. They, too, have value, and need to be given a little time in the spotlight as the Mouse House spruces up for a critical re-bound.
Originally Posted By electra so Time liked the chicken. That means zilch to me. Im sure they loved Shrek 2 & Madagascar too(ugh). They liked Chicken Little cuz cgi is the in thing now...I bet if CL was traditional animation it would have been panned... ctdsnark, I felt the same way as you, but sorry buddy, its gone. It probably wont come back for a looong time. The only exception, is if this Pixar thing works out at the end & they convince the studio to back a trad film. Ive since turned to the East to quench my thirst for hand drawn animation, & theres still those dvds of all the classics, both old school & recent, to watch over again...
Originally Posted By basil fan Are you speaking from inside knowledge? House of Mouse <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/house.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/ disney/house.html</a>
Originally Posted By FerretAfros The cynnical side of me really wants Chicken Little to bomb horribly and Cars to to amazingly, just to prove to Disney execs that it isn't the medium that is important, it's the meaning.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <The cynnical side of me really wants Chicken Little to bomb horribly and Cars to to amazingly, just to prove to Disney execs that it isn't the medium that is important, it's the meaning.> Yeah, that'll learn 'em.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators Yes, Basil. Electra, take note that Richard Corless, long a great supporter of the Disney product, has far from praised CG as an approach, having voiced dissatisfaction with the trend toward verasimilitude over substantive characters and sheepish trails of studios bent on following "the trend." Please trust me when I say traditional is NOT "dead." FerretAfros - When your cynical side ponders Chicken Little, does it ever consider that it may just succeed on its meaning and not its medium? Similarly, what's to prevent the cynical question of Pixar being entrenched in their medium? There's very little argument that Pixar is leading the pack, and their principal talent and their exectuvies are stellar. It's a strong model, and well worth examining. It works. But there's some merrit to considering what level of editorial control has come from Burbank over the past 12 years, and what creative input Pixar has enjoyed from Disney colleagues. Pixar has not been producing in a vacuum. For example, John Lasseter can be frequently heard praising his friend Tom Schumacher for his contributions - and that is sincere praise. I'm always confused by people pixated on Fixar..fixated on Pixar who are so angry with Disney's temporary shelving of hand-drawn animation while equally as enthusiastic about Pixar's CGI end-product. Chicken Little will succeed or fail on its own merrits, but I can promise you that it is a Disney film, not a Pixar styled product or a Blue Sky styled product or a DreamWorks styled product. I hope anyone here would judge it WHEN they've seen it, not BEFORE. Every film is deserving of the same. Regardless of how a trailer is spliced, no amount of marketing can equal the value of seeing a film and deciding whether it's bad or good based on the entire product, not just bits and pieces. To whit, consider Iron Giant, Cats Don't Dance or Emperor's New Groove (the latter two having been directed by Chicken Little's Mark Dindal)and reserved judgement, despair, and write-offs until you've seen the whole product, or at least until the game is clearly over. Trust me, it's not.
