DVDizzy.com

Home | Reviews | Schedule | Cover Art | Search The Site
DVDizzy.com Top Stories:

It is currently Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:31 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2100 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 105  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:03 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 8011
Steve Hulett wrote:
From scuttlebutt I hear, Disney and others have small interest in hand-drawn features because the grosses aren't there.

I'm told that even Mr. Lasseter, who championed it a few years ago, is cooler now.

Smaller grosses will do that to people.
Source: http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... lings.html


Steve Hulett wrote:
While wandering the halls of the hat building yesterday, I chanced on one of the traditional animators working there. He said:

"We're developing a bunch of different projects to show John Lasseter. It's a complicated process. We pitch to a development group, they tell us which ones they like, then tell us that people who're pitching need to develop three pitches for John, since he likes artists showing him three things. And when we do pitch, it's made clear to us that the stories aren't necessarily for a hand-drawn project. When we've brought it up with John Lasseter, he's shied away from committing to a hand-drawn feature..."

This is a turn-around from a few years ago, when the idea was to have hand-drawn features created in Burbank, and the CG features produced at Emeryville.

My thought is: John Lasseter is a smart man. He likes hand-drawn but he recognizes they way the wind is blowing. The Princess and the Frog grossed $300 million globally; Tangled grossed twice that. When the gap is so wide, it's an easy corporate decision to say: "We're going with CGI."

Ron Clements and John Musker are developing a hand-drawn feature that, if what I've been shown holds up, will look one hell of a lot different from Show White. The scuttlebutt I've heard indicates that Mr. Lasseter isn't as keen on greenlighting hand-drawn epics as he was a few years ago. But who inside Diz Co. could blame him? More than overseeing hand-drawn animation, John Lasseter wants to win. And he's probably made the judgment that creating hand-drawn features isn't a winning corporate strategy.

Even so, I was disheartened to read this from Mr. Kousac down below:

"Thankfully, no "hand drawn" cartoons are in the work at Disney for the foreseeable future. Looking forward to seeing the Disney artists take hold of their new digital tools."

Sorry, Mr. Kousac. You can be as glad as you like Disney hasn't got any hand-drawn features on its "to do" list. But I think the world is a little bit diminished if the curtain now rings down on big, hand-drawn features. They had a lilting, personalized quality to them, and they are missed.
Source: http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... isney.html

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Last edited by Sotiris on Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:08 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 8011
This only confirms what we were very aware all this time. Hand-drawn animation is not deemed profitable by any Hollywood studio anymore. Hand-drawn features have become more scarce than stop-motion animated ones which have always been a niche market.

The problem with the lack of profitability of hand-drawn animation has more to do with budget than audience distaste for the medium. Hollywood animated features have become so expensive that in order to bring in a decent profit they must hit blockbuster numbers. Pixar and DreamWorks films cost on average $150-200 million, Blue Sky and SPA films cost about $80-100 million while Illumination films cost around $70 million but that's only because they outsource all animation to France.

But with the rise of expense for CG movies, the price of hand-drawn animation has fallen significantly. Winnie the Pooh was made with just $30 million without any compromises to quality and with almost no outsourcing. Hand-drawn features can be profitable when they have a small budget.

Regarding the hybrid 'Paperman' technique, they are currently performing tests in various styles and John Kahrs is assisting in advancing it and "taking it to the next level" in order to be potentially used on Clements & Musker's next film. However, there is apprehension from executives about using it on a feature, not only because the technique is a bit more expensive but also because they fear it looks too much like hand-drawn animation and won't appeal to audiences. So, use of the technique is not set in stone yet.

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Last edited by Sotiris on Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:03 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:41 am 
Offline
Collector's Edition

Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 5:40 am
Posts: 620
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:44 am 
Offline
Special Edition
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 am
Posts: 484
Location: Arkansas
Because we all know Princess and the Frog's low-numbers had NOTHING to do with racism or the fact that the film itself is poorly structured and messy because of politically-correct meddling on behalf of the studio execs... Wasn't the film also released the same time as AVATAR? And Winnie the Pooh, wasn't that put up against the final installment of Harry Fucking Potter? And Disney has the nerve to blame the medium? Fuck them. Seriously. I think Lasseter has been horrible and I can't wait til he gets the boot. We need a new renaissance and new blood at the studio.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:45 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:28 am
Posts: 2530
I'm choosing to look at the bright side of this: every so often, a team of artists will, I'm sure get to work on a hand-drawn feature. It will be more of a treat when it does happen, and will undoubtedly be something to look forward to.

In the meantime, can we please not go off on hand-drawn fanboy rants this time around? We've heard it all before.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:46 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:28 am
Posts: 2530
ProfessorRatigan wrote:
Fuck them. Seriously. I think Lasseter has been horrible and I can't wait til he gets the boot.

This is an extremely biased, uneducated opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:49 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 1:34 pm
Posts: 4485
Location: The Netherlands
Image

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:36 am 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:14 am
Posts: 861
Location: Malaysia
ProfessorRatigan wrote:
Because we all know Princess and the Frog's low-numbers had NOTHING to do with racism or the fact that the film itself is poorly structured and messy because of politically-correct meddling on behalf of the studio execs... Wasn't the film also released the same time as AVATAR? And Winnie the Pooh, wasn't that put up against the final installment of Harry Fucking Potter? And Disney has the nerve to blame the medium? Fuck them. Seriously. I think Lasseter has been horrible and I can't wait til he gets the boot. We need a new renaissance and new blood at the studio.


What instances of meddling were there for TPATF? Or are you just speculating?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:10 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:57 pm
Posts: 3521
Location: Puerto Rico
I would have made a snarky "Let the fan crapstorm begin in three... two... one..." comment, but I see people have already started.

But in all seriousness, I have come to accept this and learned to "let go" so to speak. All I want Disney is to create high quality movies, regarding of the medium chosen to tell the story, cause at the end of the day, what kept us coming back just how great these movies were.

I know that we as Disney fans must wax nostalgic about the hand drawn features because that was how all of Disney got started. But it is time to face the music and just hope that the movies that they produce now retain the storytelling sensitivities of the classics.

_________________
ImageImageImageImage

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:55 am 
Offline
Collector's Edition

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 3:48 pm
Posts: 788
Location: Los Angeles
Hey,

Just a note: Sotiris... I am afraid to burst your bubble. The cleanup for Winnie the Pooh WAS outsourced. And for the Princess and the Frog as well. Most of it was done in Canada (I happen to know clean-up artists that worked on them).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:48 am 
Offline
Limited Edition

Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 1:06 pm
Posts: 1000
Sotiris wrote:
The Princess and the Frog grossed $300 million globally; Tangled grossed twice that. When the gap is so wide, it's an easy corporate decision to say: "We're going with CGI."


Tangled would have grossed 4 times that if it was hand drawn.

The story works, the characters looked good on paper, but the CGI characters is what bothered moste people on this film.

They should think of that. There's more to the success of a film than that.

Also, I think there is a whole new type of animation that Disney has never done yet. I'm talking about the Rapunzel in the swing style, the moving painting, the original Snowwhite filmposter style. A combination of 2d characters with 3d backgrounds in a realistic, painterly style.

Tangled is just very cartoony and plasticky. The same old, boring, slapstick, fart-joke, charlie chaplin style, witch plastic looking dolls as characters. Why are they so scared to go into a different direction?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:03 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 1:34 pm
Posts: 4485
Location: The Netherlands
Marky_198 wrote:
Sotiris wrote:
The Princess and the Frog grossed $300 million globally; Tangled grossed twice that. When the gap is so wide, it's an easy corporate decision to say: "We're going with CGI."


Tangled would have grossed 4 times that if it was hand drawn.


And you base this on what? That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while.

Marky_198 wrote:
Also, I think there is a whole new type of animation that Disney has never done yet. I'm talking about the Rapunzel in the swing style, the moving painting, the original Snowwhite filmposter style. A combination of 2d characters with 3d backgrounds in a realistic, painterly style.


You mean extreme kitsch? Because that's what it is.

Seriously, why does Fragonard keep coming up amongst these hand drawn fascists? I love hand drawn animation but I'd much rather look back and cherish the films that have been made than push for this nonsense.

Marky_198 wrote:
Tangled is just very cartoony and plasticky.


This. Seriously.

ImageImage

If you think she resembles plastic in any way you need to have your eyes examined. Also, cartoony?? CALL THE POLICE! We can't have a cartoon look like cartoon! Quick, get Robert Zemeckis on the case, he knows to to get that cartoony look squeezed out of her!

:roll:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:17 am 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:14 am
Posts: 861
Location: Malaysia
Marky_198 wrote:
Sotiris wrote:
The Princess and the Frog grossed $300 million globally; Tangled grossed twice that. When the gap is so wide, it's an easy corporate decision to say: "We're going with CGI."


Tangled would have grossed 4 times that if it was hand drawn.

The story works, the characters looked good on paper, but the CGI characters is what bothered moste people on this film.

They should think of that. There's more to the success of a film than that.

Also, I think there is a whole new type of animation that Disney has never done yet. I'm talking about the Rapunzel in the swing style, the moving painting, the original Snowwhite filmposter style. A combination of 2d characters with 3d backgrounds in a realistic, painterly style.

Tangled is just very cartoony and plasticky. The same old, boring, slapstick, fart-joke, charlie chaplin style, witch plastic looking dolls as characters. Why are they so scared to go into a different direction?


Do you seriously think Tangled would have made more than 2 billion if it was hand-drawn? Seriously, for all people claim that it's the story, not the medium that determines box-office grosses, I truly believe that the general public would prefer to watch CG animation.

And no, it wasn't the CGI that bothered 'most' people. It was actually the most widely praised aspect of the film.

Yes, and I'd also love it if people stopped bringing up Fragonard. We always like to assume that what we didn't get is automatically better.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:54 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition

Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 5:40 am
Posts: 620
You know, I'm finally warming up to Tangled Image. I can admit I was being a snob to this film as well as others like Bolt, Chicken Little etc because I wanted CG to be a Pixar/Dreamworks thing. At the end of the day, I love animation. I'll be a happy customer as long as the movies remain entertaining. That's what movies are really all about :).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:59 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:47 pm
Posts: 556
Location: The Flying Dutchman
Image

Perhaps I'll be bombarded with potatoes, but CGI is -- To me -- Not true animation.

To me, the migration of 3D CGI out of 2D Hand-Drawn is a display of laziness. Yes, creating CGI animating is quite complicated on the computer, but characters created and animated through Hand-Drawn pictures brings out the life of a character far more then it would if Computer Generated.

To me, hand-drawn animating is much fairer in my eyes. There is more life to be seen in the characters that were hand-drawn. The characters of Tangled, or any other computer generated movie...

I'm sorry, there simply isn't anything appealing about them. Perhaps it was entertaining story-wise, but it just... It lacked appeal in appearance. I don't know. They just weren't... Alive in a way, compared to the hand-drawn characters.

And it SUCKS that if a 2D-Animated movie performs poorly at the box office, they blame it on the fact that it was hand-drawn and not CGI. There is more life -- And effort -- to be seen in hand-drawn characters then there is with computer generated characters.

I'm fine if they stick with doing one film with hand-drawn animating and another with CGI. But I find it very crubby of them to just ditch Hand-Drawn animating in favoritism for CGI. As I said: It's a display of laziness and effort.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:07 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:19 am
Posts: 8101
Location: Appleton, WI
ProfessorRatigan wrote:
Because we all know Princess and the Frog's low-numbers had NOTHING to do with racism or the fact that the film itself is poorly structured and messy because of politically-correct meddling on behalf of the studio execs... Wasn't the film also released the same time as AVATAR? And Winnie the Pooh, wasn't that put up against the final installment of Harry Fucking Potter? And Disney has the nerve to blame the medium? Fuck them. Seriously. I think Lasseter has been horrible and I can't wait til he gets the boot. We need a new renaissance and new blood at the studio.


Never heard of most of that, but the marketing was too geared to hand drawn and nostalgia than anything and the film was released a few days before Avatar.

And I seem to have forgotten where tangled had Fart jokes or any potty humor.


I love CGI and think there's a lot of life in character animation in cgi, but Hand Drawn should never die.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:44 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:28 am
Posts: 2530
Kraken Guard wrote:
Perhaps I'll be bombarded with potatoes, but CGI is -- To me -- Not true animation.

To me, the migration of 3D CGI out of 2D Hand-Drawn is a display of laziness. Yes, creating CGI animating is quite complicated on the computer...

All due respect, but I don't think you understand how computer animation is done. If you did, you would understand that this is no way related to "laziness." As someone who actively practices both techniques, it is impossible to say that one is more complicated or "true" than the other.

Marky_198 wrote:
Tangled would have grossed 4 times that if it was hand drawn.

As others have said, this is such an incredibly ridiculous claim that I can't believe I'm putting the time in right now to respond. You can't possibly believe that not only does traditional animation not have a negative effect on box office returns, but that it actually has an overwhelmingly positive effect on returns. To claim that Tangled would have made AVATAR numbers is absolutely asinine. I wish people here would stop just flat out making stuff up for the purpose of backing up their ridiculous fandoms.

Marky_198 wrote:
The story works, the characters looked good on paper, but the CGI characters is what bothered moste people on this film.

Again, a ridiculous claim. Outside of the handful of people on this forum, find me someone that had anything negative to say about the CG aspects of this movie. It did NOT "bother most people". The film is stunningly beautiful. It has been widely acclaimed throughout the industry for having the best CG human animation to date. The characters in the film have already proved that they are lasting favorites among fans and children alike.

If you seriously STILL hold a grudge against CG animation in 2012, then fine. But at least attempt to look at this objectively. You aren't even trying. You're blatantly blasting fanboy statistics and claims that have no grounding in reality. I'd love to have a nice, thought out debate with someone here about the merits of CG animation vs. traditional animation, but that unfortunately can never happen because of the immaturity level and blatant disregard for objectivity.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:29 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition

Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:18 pm
Posts: 627
Didn't we hear this kind of thing before the last few times? I'm still remaining cautiously optimistic that 2D animation will be making a comeback. I think even though CGI animated films are doing pretty well, people are in general getting tired of it and to be honest, while there have been some good CGI films (Tangled and Ratatouille), ...well, it's kind of become ridiculous. (Look at Hotel Transylvania for example.) Also considering how Cars 2 and ,to a certain extent, Brave did not go over well with critics, there might come a time when everyone does get tired of CG and long for 2D again.

It might sound like I'm bashing CG. I'm not. I just think there should be an even amount of animated films in both mediums like there used to be in the late 90s.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:30 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:47 pm
Posts: 2337
PatrickvD wrote:
Also, cartoony?? CALL THE POLICE! We can't have a cartoon look like cartoon! Quick, get Robert Zemeckis on the case, he knows to to get that cartoony look squeezed out of her! :roll:


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:37 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:28 am
Posts: 2530
Tristy wrote:
(Look at Hotel Transylvania for example.)

Did you see Hotel Transylvania? It was actually pretty entertaining, and it did very well. It was refreshing to see something so cartoony.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2100 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 105  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], disneyprincess11, Google [Bot] and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group