DVDizzy.com

Honestly, I think hand drawn animation's future in North America (it's still doing very well outside of North America) rest with the amateur animators. If it isn't made as part of someone's hobby, it won't get made. That is what I want to do, make 2D animated shorts (or films) for fun.

That is not to say I'm not in hopes that Disney has more 2D projects, I'm just not going to hold my breath anymore. That way, when they do get made, I'll be that much more excited! I think "Tangled" however has shown me that CG animation CAN feel like Disney. That film has altered my perspective a bit, I have to admit.

_________________
____________________________________________________________
All the adversity I've had in my life, all my troubles and obstacles, have strengthened me... You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you.

-Walt Disney

^Yeah, I could be wrong, but I'm not sure whether or not when he was around, he didn't care if his films were profitable, as long as they were good stories.

When Eisner the jerkface came into the picture, things were good, until he pulled the 'Money's more important than quality, because the latter is shit' card, which cost him his position. Yes, money helps keep a company running, but that shouldn't be the ONLY thing that matters!

^^ You ever watch the "Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution" on ABC? A few episodes back, this guy Jamie has been trying to get to change his fast food business menu (and so far has, I've eaten there) at the very end, after talking to this one lady, starts to have a massive change of heart about the whole thing. He was resent at first, as he was worried about the bottom line, but started to realize there was more to this then money. He remembered his father, who had started the business, and shared something his father had said years earlier.

I'm paraphrasing a bit, but the basic idea was this: "Let someone else get rich, I just want to make enough to get by and take care of my family. There is more important things to life then making money."

I very much agree with that idea. I have no issue with making money, so long as you still help people and that you don't hurt anyone. If you are not helping people, or hurting them, or both, it isn't worth it in my book.

Disney the company may have zillions of dollars made of off business decisions Eisner and now Iger have made, but is it all worth it at the end of the day? It's a question each Disney fan will have a different answer to, and in fact have been debating for sometime now. But, the important issue is that we ask it, and that we ask it often, and that the folks at Disney ask it often. Maybe not asking that question is more frighting then the answer at times...

Story is king. I truly believe that story telling is an awesome power that has been used to better or worsen mankind's existence since Adam and Eve walked the Earth. Today's primary story tellers work in Hollywood or mostly in their homes writing the next great pop novel (which 9 out of 10 times ends up a Hollywood script). I hope these story tellers understand how much power the hold in being a story teller, and are more interested in telling stories worth telling then making a quick buck. If used right, these stories can enrich people's lives, enforce important moral situations, and help people learn about their World and other ways of thinking. If used in the wrong hands, you end up with Disney direct-to-video sequels and "Chicken Little."

_________________
____________________________________________________________
All the adversity I've had in my life, all my troubles and obstacles, have strengthened me... You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you.

-Walt Disney

Source: http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/diz.html

_________________

Screw CGI. I'm sorry, but.....

Just screw CGI. Who gives a rat's ass which rakes in more money? I thought story was king. Apparently, no one CARES if the story's good. They only care for visuals. No wonder terrible movies rake in more money, whereas the truly deserving better films (in terms of story) get nothing. I'm sorry, but most of the American population is made up of blind idiots. They just wouldn't know a better movie unless it punched them square in the nose.

No offense, but it's no wonder the other countries are beating the Americans. They're frickin' ignorant! Or should I say this generation's kids are ignorant?

So, yet again, this person walks into the Disney building and the only person he decides to talk about is one disgruntled employee. According to this blog, does anything good or positive ever happen at Disney? It just seems to focus on negative things over and over again. Perhaps I'm wrong and hand-drawn animation is dead but seen as there are apparently several projects being pitched and in development that we know nothing about, one of which could be hand-drawn, so I'm going to wait a while and see what the future holds.



I know you like hand-drawn animation but not all CGI films are bad or have a weak story, Meet the Robinsons and Tangled were some of Disney's best work in years in my opinion.

_________________
We're not going to Guam, are we?

Well, the studios care. People seem to forget this, but film is a business. That's quite it's called an industry. Obviously, they're in the business of making good products same as any other company out there.

If I was a studio executive, I would also produce hand-drawn features at a smaller budget than their computer-generated counterparts. It's just good business practise as, yes, computer-generated films make more money than hand-drawn efforts. However, that's also because of name brand recognition. Pixar and DreamWorks make strong animated films and until Bolt, Disney was somewhat out of the loop in terms of quality. So, naturally, their films haven't been quite the events they used to be.

However, if anything, the very positive response to The Princess and the Frog (which did amazing business on video, despite the solid yet disappointing box-office) helped pave the way for Tangled's humongous success.

You also have to understand, that unlike us, the current generation of children have grown up watching computer-animated films on the big screen with hand-drawn animation on the small screen. So, of course, they're going to equate work done by hand as being something for television.

I don't think hand-drawn animation will die. Neither John Lasster, Bob Iger or Ed Catmull have officially announced they will ending traditional animation at the feature studio. And we still have the likes of international studios like Studio Ghibli and Cartoon Saloon, not to mention directors like Bill Plympton and Sylvain Chomet keeping the medium well and alive. Plus, as I said before, we have television shows like Phineas and Ferb being ratings bonanzas, so traditional animation is definitely not being ignored by the public (or Disney, for that matter).

_________________
"If your life had a face, I would punch it." - Kim Pine, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

It's not just hand drawn vs. CGI, per say. I'm just comparing movies (good and bad) and how both are, in a way, like kids. One gets more attention than it truly deserves (CGI films that are good, and some films that are really terrible with sucky stories, but many people see them anyway) as opposed to the more deserving one (the greats). And apparently, the terrible films gain more audiences than the better films. (ie: Alvin and the Chipmunks 2 vs. The Princess and the Frog, The Hangover Part II vs. Kung Fu Panda 2, etc.)

You're probably curious as to how Hangover 2 and KFP2 have anything to do with all this. Well, while both are sequels, Hangover 2 got more audiences than it really needed, since it was just a copycat plot to its predecessor. Yeah, I know they both have different target audiences, but KFP2's story was MUCH more original than HO2's rehash.

My point being that, for some ungodly reason, people obviously and unfairly favor terrible films with sucky plots and carbon copy sequels over the better films.

As much as I'd like to pile upon the 'ignorant Americans'-meme (and I'm tempted to do so), it's a universal phenomenon. It's no different in Europe: stupid movies make huge amounts of money; arthouse dramas get little attention. Same principle goes for pop music, tv shows, magazines, books etc.


The reason is simple: the general public is stupid. They like to see what they already know and what's familiar to them over and over again. The less thinking needed, the more positive the response from the average Joe. Yes, this is a very elitist thing to say. And yet I don't give a ...

_________________

Yes! Exactly!

I bet the general public loved Louis the alligator as well.

_________________

^Well.... that's rather debatable about who loves him. I mean, yes, I like him, and so do some of my friends. But he's not the subject here.

The point is, I'm one of the ONLY few people in the general public who is NOT a moron and knows a good film upon first glance at it and looking at the reviews. Of course, I know I'm supposed to trust my own instinct instead of reviews, but they help me decide which is the better film.

Source: http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/diz.html

_________________

I'd actually have to agree with that. Of the Disney CG films, I think right now they are the gold standard.





I understand what your saying, and even have to agree that is how it is. Don't like it, but have to agree. I guess there are just some, deep down myself as well, that would love to see he kind of devotion to the art of animation that Walt gave in the mid to late 30's when he literally tied up all his assets, even personal, to raise the money to make "Snow White." The early days of Disney were filled with many more stories of high risk in the name of a getting a good story out there.

Today's Hollywood, even at Disney, is more interested in "the sure thing." That is why they are making more sequels and re-makes then original stuff. Did you know this year more sequels were made then any other year previous? They want "franchises." Even a lot of the original stuff this year is meant to produce sequels later, like "Green Lantern," "Thor," and "Captain America."

I understand why they do this, because at the end of the day, they are a business. But, I think it needs to be understood equally why more a more people are becoming weary of decisions made by Hollywood. Fact is, even though Box Office numbers can still be high, few tickets are being sold then in years past and the only way Hollywood can stay on top of it any more is by raising ticket prices like they have been.



I want you to be right, but I have to admit, I have my doubts about it's future. Guess we'll have to wait and see. But really, I think what is at stake is hand drawn's future in American movies. So I mostly agree with you, it's is completely dead right now.



First, I'll never understand why the "Hangover" films are so popular. A bunch of drunk guys acting like idiots. Entertaining maybe for five to ten minutes, then it's just stupid.

I do feel, looking at both animation history and Hollywood history that there is a thing where some new nitch comes along (sound, color, 3D, CG) and movies get made exploiting said nitch and the film makers hope you focus more on the nitch then the story to bring you to the theater. It's a sad reality to that industry, again, realizing that it is more business then art house (despite what folks inside may say). But that's Hollywood. I agree with you though, I want more hand drawn films made! Between no more "Star Trek" in the pre-J.J. Abrams world, the end of the Toby "Spider-Man" films and this, I feel like my childhood and the few years after, are forever changed and i don't like it. But such is life, eh?

_________________
____________________________________________________________
All the adversity I've had in my life, all my troubles and obstacles, have strengthened me... You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you.

-Walt Disney

I didn't really like Meet the Robinsons. The pacing and the editing was too frantic and all over the place for my taste. The human characters were not very well animated, the villain (the bowler hat guy) was neither funny nor intimidating, and the dinosaur sequence was lame and unnecessary. Granted, the ending and the little moral message in the end were nice but that's just about it.

_________________

That's too bad, but with 49 other films, there should be something for just about everyone, yes?

_________________
____________________________________________________________
All the adversity I've had in my life, all my troubles and obstacles, have strengthened me... You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you.

-Walt Disney

@ milojthatch: Hollywood still produces the occasional interesting film (like Black Swann last year), but I agree, they're far and between. But no worries: excellent films are being made everywhere in the world! They're out there for the public to discover.



Damn! He didn't take the bait!

Curses!

_________________

That's almost exactly how I felt about the movie too. I'll also add that almost none of the jokes were really funny at all, despite the volume of them being thrown at the screen.

_________________

Source: http://blueskydisney.blogspot.com/2011/ ... ailer.html

_________________

*sigh* Well of course this is sad, no doubt about it. But if he's all set and made up his mind then I say to him "Go make some kickass DreamWorks films!"

Hey ... maybe he'll supervise animation on DreamWorks' upcoming Me and My Shadow. That's supposed to feature hand-drawn animation.