DVDizzy.com

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

It is currently Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:30 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3325 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 ... 167  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 3:49 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 4:34 am
Posts: 2646
Hey, since The Good Dinosaur didn't do as well at the Box Office this weekend, does that mean that people are sick of CG films? With the mentality of most studio executives, that would be the logical conclusion. On it's opening weekend, PatF grossed just over $24 million. Without adjusting for inflation, that's just $10 million shy of Good Dino's three-day weekend. I'm sure if inflation was figured into it, PatF would have done as well or better then Good Dino. We'll have to see what Good Dion's final Box Office numbers are, but even critically, PatF has done better.

Obviously, it's silly complaining these films, but if certain Disney Executives are going to say the crap about Hand Drawn that then do and compare it to CG, then let's be honest: CG is far from perfect at the Box Office historically just as much as hand drawn is. Even the gold standard on CG films PIXAR is not perfect anymore. The claim that have been made as to why CG is "better" is nuts!

_________________
____________________________________________________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:33 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:28 pm
Posts: 3150
I'll confess that I was naive enough to think that people were sick of CGI and therefore would welcome an hand drawn animated film during "TPATF's" release. But I won't enter that discussion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:42 pm 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 7:00 pm
Posts: 1885
nah they'll see it as a weird fluke that it didnt do so well. So long as CGI films in general continue to gross the amounts that films like Frozen and Minions did they will continue to favor CGI.

the reason 2d was quickly done away with was b/c Disney was really the only studio who had any success with it, every other studio long jumped the ship to CGI with Disney being the only holdout and once their 2d films started doing poorly as well it was all over.

There's also a clique of CGI artist with a lot of power and control over the studios right now who are very paranoid of losing that control. They've seen to it that CGI is so ingrained in the studio system now that it would simply be to costly and time consuming to go back to 2d.

2D/Hand-drawn's future is in the indie market, as we are seeing with stuff like Prophet, Hulabaloo and Klaus. We need to stop looking for hope it will return to the big studios b/c they simply are long past it even being an option anymore.

_________________
Support To Belong
Hullabaloo


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 3:13 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 16081
Byron Howard and Rich Moore talk about 2D animation. The same old nonsense. "If the right story comes along" and "Zootopia couldn't have been made in 2D because there are big cities and crowds in it" :roll: :facepalm:

Quote:
Q: As an animation major, I have a love for 2D animation while CGI has taken over the industry. Do you see traditional animation making a comeback?

Byron Howard: It depends on the story really. If someone comes up with a brilliant idea that needs the touch of 2D animation. One of the things that is tough nowadays is that the worlds we build in Zootopia are so huge. If we had to build Zootopia in 2D, I am not sure how it could be done. You have to build this entire city.

Rich Moore: Oh man, I don’t even want to think about that. You have to imply a lot with the pencil mileage to try and pull off the crowds and everything. It would take years and years to do this version of this movie in 2D. Like Byron is saying, it would have to be something so intimate and heavy on a certain style where it is screaming for 2D. I don’t quite know what that is right now, and people bring it up a lot. Brad Bird keeps talking about it like, “Someday, someone will do a 2D movie.” But I don’t know, someone will come up with it. It could be someone like your age! It could be YOU, Brandon, because I worked in 2D, Byron worked in 2D. It might be someone of the next generation that did not have a chance to work in 2D. Someone with the right idea who says, “I want to use this medium that I think is appropriate for it. I am going to take this and I am going to make this movie in this way because I never had a chance to work this way.” So, you never say never!
Source: http://moviepilot.com/posts/3663067

Quote:
Q: What are you able to do now with performance that's new?

Rich Moore: This new generation of animators was trained in CG. They know all the fundamentals of any 2D animator, but a lot of them learned on these CG rigs. You give them a good rig and they can make that thing sing. I thought it was good on Wreck-It Ralph, but, with all that legacy here, they've really tapped into what makes Disney characters Disney characters. The performances they get -- and you've seen mostly comedy -- but there are some scenes that are very emotional. As directors, we describe a scene and we describe an emotion, and they can really bring it.
Source: http://blogs.indiewire.com/animationsco ... e-20151201

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 11:24 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:27 pm
Posts: 2901
Byron Howard being a former hand-drawn animator and Rich Moore a longtime director of hand-drawn animation, you can almost tell how much spouting this PR-written BS is hurting so much inside. Rich Moore directed multiple episodes of Futurama, which created an entire metropolitan city and multiple alien worlds in hand-drawn animation on a television budget, so he is likely as disbelieving about the "big city" excuse as we are.

_________________
"There are two wolves and they are always fighting. One is darkness and despair. The other is light and hope. Which wolf wins? Whichever one you feed." - Casey Newton, Tomorrowland


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2015 1:24 am 
Offline
Collector's Edition

Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:18 pm
Posts: 840
Boy. The excuses are definitely becoming more and more apparent and soon they'll become so apparent that ol' Johnny boy will have to come out and 'fess up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2015 8:00 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:46 am
Posts: 4334
Location: Maryland, USA
First, Musker & Clements. Now, Moore. I'm starting to believe that they wanted Zootopia to be 2D. Why can't they just confess why they can't do 2D? They did a whole article when they originally cancelled fairy tales


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2015 8:00 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:46 am
Posts: 4334
Location: Maryland, USA
First, Musker & Clements. Now, Moore. I'm starting to believe that they wanted Zootopia to be 2D. Why can't they just confess why they can't do 2D? They did a whole article when they originally cancelled fairy tales


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2015 1:06 pm 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 7:00 pm
Posts: 1885
Quote:
Brad Bird keeps talking about it like, “Someday, someone will do a 2D movie.” But I don’t know, someone will come up with it. It could be someone like your age! It could be YOU, Brandon, because I worked in 2D, Byron worked in 2D. It might be someone of the next generation that did not have a chance to work in 2D. Someone with the right idea who says, “I want to use this medium that I think is appropriate for it. I am going to take this and I am going to make this movie in this way because I never had a chance to work this way.” So, you never say never!


its so funny, I read this and it almost feels to me like he's pleading for some other younger studio to start making 2d films so that people stop asking them to do it. :lol:

_________________
Support To Belong
Hullabaloo


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 12:33 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 16081
The Bancroft brothers and Nik Ranieri discuss some of the behind the scenes that signified the end of 2D animation at the studio.

Quote:
Tom Bancroft: I know Ron and John kept pitching new ideas that were 2D. They wanted to stay on the 2D pathway and do a 2D film. They became the last remaining hope for 2D at Disney.

Nik Ranieri: Every production, even if they planned to do 2D films, the films that they planned to do were, in my mind, destined to fail because they kept doing things like…I mean Winnie the Pooh really shouldn’t have been done. The only reason they did that was for merchandise purposes, pure and simple.

Every tine we’d have one of those town hall meetings I’d stand up and ask Lasseter and Catmull “So, what about 2D?” and they would just look at each other and they’d go “All we need is a good story. Just a good story. That’s all we need; a good story. Next question?” I told them “You know what? You guys don’t need a good story. What you need…What 2D needs is not a good story. What it needs is a mediocre story that becomes a great story halfway through production so you can’t go back and remake it in CG”.

Because anytime someone had a great idea…I remember Steve Anderson told me that he pitched something for Lasseter and said “I see this in hand-drawn” and Lasseter just went “Ahh! I don’t want to talk about medium!”

Tony Bancroft: “It’s not about the medium, it’s about the story!”

Tom Bancroft: Well, that became their guise of not admitting 2D was dead. In early development, with almost all of their films, they wouldn’t commit exactly to a medium. It would be a good six months sometimes into a film where they’d go “Oh, yeah. By the way, this is CG. We have to do it in CG”. Because they would always find something like “Oh, there’s an action sequence here, it’s got to be in CG. Let’s just make it CG.” [...]

Tom Bancroft: I don’t think 2D is Disney’s ‘thing’ anymore. They don’t have the animation desks, they don’t have the employees anymore, the people that know how to do it…

Nik Ranieri: Well, they have some employees. They’re still trying to pretend they have a thriving 2D unit there. They are all terrific animators and artists but it’s a publicity stunt.

Tony Bancroft: There’s probably like five traditional animators that are left, right?

Nik Ranieri: Yeah.

Tony Bancroft: And what do they end up doing, those guys? They end up doing things like run cycles or character tests for CG films.

Tom Bancroft: It’s a shame. [...]

Nik Ranieri: The last couple of years that I was at Disney, Lasseter didn’t display much love for 2D animation. When he first showed up at the studio, he was like “Nik!” and he’d give me a big hug. During The Princess and the Frog he would come up to me and say “Nik, this is great stuff!” and “Nik, how are you doing?” Once The Princess and the Frog was done, and the studio began to move away from 2D, the hugs became less and less and he didn’t quite acknowledge me like he used to.

Tom Bancroft: He was too busy hugging the CG guys.

Tony Bancroft: He’s patting them on the back now. “Great job on Big Hero 6!”

Nik Ranieri: Big Hero 6. That was so funny. When Don Hall was pitching that in one of those open forums where they’re pitching, he said “It’s our salute to anime!” and I said “Oh, so what’s going to be done in? 2D or CG?” and he replied “CG, duh!” and I’m like “Yeah, because everyone knows anime is CG.”
Source: http://taughtbyapro.com/podcast-33-what ... k-ranieri/

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 1:22 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 4:44 pm
Posts: 2729
Location: Sarajevo, B&H Gender: Male
^^ I don't know whether I should laugh or cry.

I agree about their comments on Winnie the Pooh. That was an unnecessary addition to the Disney canon on top of doing nothing to differentiate itself from countless Pooh films/DTVs that came before it. The idea that a Winne the Pooh film would somehow help save or ignite people's interest in hand-drawn animation was laughable from the start. But I guess it gave hand-drawn animators something to do while their fate was being decided by the higher-ups.

That comment about Big Hero 6's visual style is spot-on. I'd go far to say that the world of Wreck-It Ralph too lent itself to hand-drawn aesthetics, and at the very least some parts of it should have been hand-drawn.

I don't know if people currently working at Disney even listen to themselves when they say that "it's about the story, not about the medium" mantra, only to contradict themselves by very reasons they give for making a movie in CG. Because realistic hair, snow, crowds and buildings all scream 'story aspects' to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 1:34 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 16081
Mooky wrote:
At the very least some parts of it should have been hand-drawn.

Like the 'real' human world. It would have made a great visual antithesis to the CG world of the video games. Actually, Rich Moore wanted those parts to be in live-action but Lasseter wouldn't let him.

Mooky wrote:
I don't know if people currently working at Disney even listen to themselves when they say that "it's about the story, not about the medium" mantra, only to contradict themselves by very reasons they give for making a movie in CG. Because realistic hair, snow, crowds and buildings all scream 'story aspects' to me.

Indeed. This whole situation became absurd a long time ago.

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 3:58 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 4:34 am
Posts: 2646
unprincess wrote:
There's also a clique of CGI artist with a lot of power and control over the studios right now who are very paranoid of losing that control. They've seen to it that CGI is so ingrained in the studio system now that it would simply be to costly and time consuming to go back to 2d.


THIS!

Mooky wrote:
I don't know if people currently working at Disney even listen to themselves when they say that "it's about the story, not about the medium" mantra, only to contradict themselves by very reasons they give for making a movie in CG. Because realistic hair, snow, crowds and buildings all scream 'story aspects' to me.


AND THAT!

Seriously, both of you are spot on! However, as for the "2-D animation is dead at the big studios," I'd have to counter that with a big "for now." Keep in mind that originally, Walt Disney's productions were "indie projects." One of those "indie projects" of the future could catch on and start something. As I've been taking film classes at school, something that has been very clear to me is that Hollywood is constantly in a state of trends and that at some point future "powers that be" bring back old trends or at least aspects of old trends, repackages them and tried to pass them off as "new."

2-D grew because films like "Lion King" made crazy amounts of money and every one in Hollywood wanted some of that bank. 2-D died because everyone in Hollywood had no idea what they were doing, put form over substance, and could not put butts in seats. As that was happening, PIXAR, Blue Sky and DreamWorks made some really good films that happened to be CG and Hollywood took away from that the wrong lesson. Another thing I've figured out in my cinema classes, Hollywood normally takes away the wrong lesson from things, but let's not get too sidetracked.

Just as 2-D died, so too will CG. It's practically written in the stars. Things will get scaled back as CG offers up more duds. Just ask DreamWorks about that. Will that mean when it does that it will be replaced with 2-D? With more stop-motion? With some new form of animation we haven't thought of yet? Or maybe Hollywood will just scale back how many animated films they produce? Who knows? But sooner or later, CG won't be seen the way it is right now. At some point, I would not be surprised if 2-D makes a comeback. But we could all be grandparents when that happens, who knows?

_________________
____________________________________________________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 4:44 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:26 pm
Posts: 12727
Reading Disney's responses to questions is like watching an exercise in brainwashing.

_________________
Image
Listening to most often lately:
Neoni ~ "Carry On Wayward Son"
Tenille Arts ~ "I Hate This"
Ashley McBryde ~ "Never Will"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 6:44 pm 
Offline
Special Edition

Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:42 pm
Posts: 438
Mooky wrote:
I agree about their comments on Winnie the Pooh. That was an unnecessary addition to the Disney canon on top of doing nothing to differentiate itself from countless Pooh films/DTVs that came before it. The idea that a Winne the Pooh film would somehow help save or ignite people's interest in hand-drawn animation was laughable from the start. But I guess it gave hand-drawn animators something to do while their fate was being decided by the higher-ups.

I actually quite like that movie, but it was definitely a strange move. I'm not even sure that movie could have moved too much merchandise, considering how under-the-radar it was. And it had pretty much zero potential to be a hit. Not because they released it alongside the Harry Potter finale, but because the WTP brand has really been diluted beyond repair over the last couple of decades. Pooh is now essentially perceived as a toddler brand, and who wants to see a todder movie?

Sotiris wrote:
Like the 'real' human world. It would have made a great visual antithesis to the CG world of the video games. Actually, Rich Moore wanted those parts to be in live-action but Lasseter wouldn't let him.

Yeah, I definitely thought that there could have been much greater visual distinction between the video games world and the real world. When I read the Rich Moore interview about him wanting live-action for those parts, I thought that would have been perfect. (Though hand-drawn animation would have been a good alternative.) Wasn't the reasoning that Lasseter gave something along the lines of it shouldn't have live-action because it is an animated film? Which I do not find to be a compelling reason at all. I'm a bit more lenient with Lasseter on the 2D/CG issue than many here, since I really don't believe that he has complete control over the situation, and I give him the benefit of the doubt considering how genuinely invested he seemed to be in PATF and the return of 2D at the time. But that said, I do think many of his decisions result in limiting creativity and blandifying the final results.

milojthatch wrote:
However, as for the "2-D animation is dead at the big studios," I'd have to counter that with a big "for now." Keep in mind that originally, Walt Disney's productions were "indie projects." One of those "indie projects" of the future could catch on and start something. As I've been taking film classes at school, something that has been very clear to me is that Hollywood is constantly in a state of trends and that at some point future "powers that be" bring back old trends or at least aspects of old trends, repackages them and tried to pass them off as "new."

Yes! I've been saying this for a while now. It really isn't limited to Hollywood either. Look at fashion, for instance. Trends go in and out, and cycle around. CG animated films are really reaching a saturation point now. I mean, I'm not expecting 2D to make a big return tomorrow, or even in the next 3 years. But I've seen people throw the word "never" around here in terms of the future of 2D animation in mainstream Hollywood and Disney, and I think that is cynicism taking over. Not that there isn't a place for cynicism, and I'm also not saying everything is sunshine and rainbows, but it's reasonable to think that the trends will inevitably shift at some point. Sure 2D may not come back the way it was before, but rest assured, I don't see this CG-dominated landscape lasting forever either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 6:57 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:46 am
Posts: 4334
Location: Maryland, USA
Oh my gosh. They actually had the gull to remove the animators' handprints out of Star Wars Launch Bay!

https://twitter.com/guyselga/status/673991308567007232


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2015 5:36 pm 
Offline
Gold Collection
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 8:18 pm
Posts: 60
Location: España
milojthatch wrote:
2-D grew because films like "Lion King" made crazy amounts of money and every one in Hollywood wanted some of that bank. 2-D died because everyone in Hollywood had no idea what they were doing, put form over substance, and could not put butts in seats. As that was happening, PIXAR, Blue Sky and DreamWorks made some really good films that happened to be CG and Hollywood took away from that the wrong lesson. Another thing I've figured out in my cinema classes, Hollywood normally takes away the wrong lesson from things, but let's not get too sidetracked.

Just as 2-D died, so too will CG. It's practically written in the stars. Things will get scaled back as CG offers up more duds. Just ask DreamWorks about that. Will that mean when it does that it will be replaced with 2-D? With more stop-motion? With some new form of animation we haven't thought of yet? Or maybe Hollywood will just scale back how many animated films they produce? Who knows? But sooner or later, CG won't be seen the way it is right now. At some point, I would not be surprised if 2-D makes a comeback. But we could all be grandparents when that happens, who knows?


I said in the past that studios find CG best for their interest because is not as expensive to teach a lot of aspiring animators on how to move a 3D puppet as it is to teach them how to draw, animate and stay consistent with the style and proportions of what you animate, things that in 3D are calculated by a machine.

Also this is like milojthatch said, a bit like a trend and like an economic bubble, it will go up and up until it blows on their faces.

Like Brad Bird said quoting an "imaginary" studio exec at a talk at the Computer History Museum in 2005: "You know those lousy ideas that got rejected?? If we make them through a computer they'll become good!! We will make a lot of money!"

I think that the next era well live through after this "CG Animation Bubble" will be like the 70s or the beginning of the 80s, experimental stuff, few movies being done, and very far one from the other in time, slowly building momentum again, but I could be wrong. maybe there IS a new technique nobody knows about right now that will be "the new hot thing".

Maybe the future is using a game engine like they are doing with Cuphead? Or like the game engine Ubisoft used to make Rayman, I don't know. But my feeling is that all this trend or bubble or whatever it is will blow eventually, like the 2D one did 10 years ago, and it will be because people in the business will think that aesthetics will save a weak plot.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2015 1:21 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 4:34 am
Posts: 2646
ce1ticmoon wrote:
Mooky wrote:
I agree about their comments on Winnie the Pooh. That was an unnecessary addition to the Disney canon on top of doing nothing to differentiate itself from countless Pooh films/DTVs that came before it. The idea that a Winne the Pooh film would somehow help save or ignite people's interest in hand-drawn animation was laughable from the start. But I guess it gave hand-drawn animators something to do while their fate was being decided by the higher-ups.

I actually quite like that movie, but it was definitely a strange move. I'm not even sure that movie could have moved too much merchandise, considering how under-the-radar it was. And it had pretty much zero potential to be a hit. Not because they released it alongside the Harry Potter finale, but because the WTP brand has really been diluted beyond repair over the last couple of decades. Pooh is now essentially perceived as a toddler brand, and who wants to see a todder movie?
ce1ticmoon wrote:

milojthatch wrote:
However, as for the "2-D animation is dead at the big studios," I'd have to counter that with a big "for now." Keep in mind that originally, Walt Disney's productions were "indie projects." One of those "indie projects" of the future could catch on and start something. As I've been taking film classes at school, something that has been very clear to me is that Hollywood is constantly in a state of trends and that at some point future "powers that be" bring back old trends or at least aspects of old trends, repackages them and tried to pass them off as "new."


Yes! I've been saying this for a while now. It really isn't limited to Hollywood either. Look at fashion, for instance. Trends go in and out, and cycle around. CG animated films are really reaching a saturation point now. I mean, I'm not expecting 2D to make a big return tomorrow, or even in the next 3 years. But I've seen people throw the word "never" around here in terms of the future of 2D animation in mainstream Hollywood and Disney, and I think that is cynicism taking over. Not that there isn't a place for cynicism, and I'm also not saying everything is sunshine and rainbows, but it's reasonable to think that the trends will inevitably shift at some point. Sure 2D may not come back the way it was before, but rest assured, I don't see this CG-dominated landscape lasting forever either.


I agree with your points on Winnie the Pooh. However, I have to say that I was lucky enough to interview Jim Cummings for my podcast and when the subject of the last Winnie the Pooh film came up, he made it clear that he was sad at how Disney handled the release and promotion but that he loved the film. In fact the way he was talking about it, I kind of felt it might have been his favorite Winnie the Pooh project that he worked on. I'm not sad they made it so much as I'm sad at how they handled it.

As for the state of animation, agreed! Never say never as they say. And you are correct, the idea of trends is not exclusive to entertainment. You see various trends in every career field. Medical, education, law enforcement, etc. Old things that were worth something always have a way of coming back ultimately.

Something I personally have been coming to grips with is change and what the limits of fandom are. I grew up in the 90's and loved a lot about the 90's. I really wish that some aspects of the 90's would come back and never leave. I wish that Rick Berman still ran new Star Trek on TV, that TGIF had never gone away on ABC, that TV animation was still the same quality as shows like DuckTales or Animaniacs and that Disney Feature Animation was still hand drawn and produced by guys with names like Keane and Deja. But, as I'm learning, things can't stay the same. A big part of being human is dealing with the next change. And let's be honest, there are so many hand drawn films and TV shows right now, both produced by Disney and not, that are worth our time. Most of these productions are on DVD or Blu-ray or streaming on NetFlix for now. There is literally not enough time in the day for all of us to enjoy these decades worth or productions without spending years to watch them all. Are we really hurting that much if there isn't anything new from Disney that is hand drawn for another 20 years? I'd say this creates an awesome chance for most of us to catch up on animation we might not have seen yet, or to enjoy animation coming out of places not located in North America.

Further, that's not saying that just because it's CG that that makes it crap, or good. Some of it will be worth watching, some of it won't. Enjoy the stuff that's actually good. However, I'm also coming to terms with limits of fandom. Just because I've been a fan of past Disney movies doesn't mean I have to watch everything new with the "Disney" name on it. They have to earn my movie money with each new project and sometimes they won't do it. I never saw "The Lone Ranger" in theaters despite being a fan of the old show and after seeing it via Redbox, I kind of wish I hadn't seen it at all. I also still have not see "Big Hero 6." I kind of mean to, but I just can't pull myself to care enough to actually watch it. Conversely, I did see "John Carter" and "Tomorrowland" in theaters and loved both of them. Of course those are just personal examples, it will be different for everyone else as to what is bad or good.

The point is, no one here that I'm aware of has made a blood pledge with Disney to see everything that they put out. If a trailer doesn't look good and the reviews suck, be brave enough to skip it! Be brave enough to see things from the past. I've been watching John Wayne movies for the first time recently and have been loving most of what I've been watching. How sad if I never gave it a try. Use your best judgment for what appeals to you. :D

_________________
____________________________________________________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2015 1:35 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 4:34 am
Posts: 2646
tweeb² wrote:
milojthatch wrote:
2-D grew because films like "Lion King" made crazy amounts of money and every one in Hollywood wanted some of that bank. 2-D died because everyone in Hollywood had no idea what they were doing, put form over substance, and could not put butts in seats. As that was happening, PIXAR, Blue Sky and DreamWorks made some really good films that happened to be CG and Hollywood took away from that the wrong lesson. Another thing I've figured out in my cinema classes, Hollywood normally takes away the wrong lesson from things, but let's not get too sidetracked.

Just as 2-D died, so too will CG. It's practically written in the stars. Things will get scaled back as CG offers up more duds. Just ask DreamWorks about that. Will that mean when it does that it will be replaced with 2-D? With more stop-motion? With some new form of animation we haven't thought of yet? Or maybe Hollywood will just scale back how many animated films they produce? Who knows? But sooner or later, CG won't be seen the way it is right now. At some point, I would not be surprised if 2-D makes a comeback. But we could all be grandparents when that happens, who knows?


I said in the past that studios find CG best for their interest because is not as expensive to teach a lot of aspiring animators on how to move a 3D puppet as it is to teach them how to draw, animate and stay consistent with the style and proportions of what you animate, things that in 3D are calculated by a machine.

Also this is like milojthatch said, a bit like a trend and like an economic bubble, it will go up and up until it blows on their faces.

Like Brad Bird said quoting an "imaginary" studio exec at a talk at the Computer History Museum in 2005: "You know those lousy ideas that got rejected?? If we make them through a computer they'll become good!! We will make a lot of money!"

I think that the next era well live through after this "CG Animation Bubble" will be like the 70s or the beginning of the 80s, experimental stuff, few movies being done, and very far one from the other in time, slowly building momentum again, but I could be wrong. maybe there IS a new technique nobody knows about right now that will be "the new hot thing".

Maybe the future is using a game engine like they are doing with Cuphead? Or like the game engine Ubisoft used to make Rayman, I don't know. But my feeling is that all this trend or bubble or whatever it is will blow eventually, like the 2D one did 10 years ago, and it will be because people in the business will think that aesthetics will save a weak plot.


I agree. I think in so much time we'll end up at a place where not as many animated films are produced by Hollywood for a while and a number of animation studio might shut down or shrink to near non-existence. History has an interesting way of repeating itself. However, this might not be a bad thing. Hopefully if/when such a time period comes, it will help to recapture that spark of creativity that in the past lead to things like computer animation, stop-motion animation and even hand drawn animation itself. It could be an exciting time actually!

_________________
____________________________________________________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 6:06 pm 
Offline
Gold Collection

Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 4:43 pm
Posts: 166
Location: Highland Park, NJ
Good news everyone: Don Bluth's Dragon's Lair movie campaign on indiegogo is a success. It breached its $250,000 goal as of yesterday. And this is only with 31 days to go!

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/drag ... /6609061#/


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3325 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 ... 167  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 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