It's true, Brother Bear is the final nail
LordofTheBidding
in front of Disney's Pirates and now I am certain this will be the final nail
in the coffin for feature animation. Well, this and Sinbad's failure
ofcourse.
I just can't get over how they directly lifted the scene from Lion King where
Simba's father appears in the clouds! And the stampede! I mean, the
similarities are laughable, this comes across almost as bad as Dizzney's
cheapquels. And the bear cub doing those "cutesy" baby animal pounces that
every one has ever done in just about every other animated animal film. This
just shows that Disney has lost all faith in it's ability to tell exciting and
invigorating stories.
I have to admit though that the canadian moose were actually very humorous;
it's nice to have talking animals that are actually humorous instead of just
plain annoying. This doesn't look any worse than most of other's Disney's
animated films and it's nice to see them return to the North American
wilderness for the first time since Pocahontas. It doesn't seem to be as
annoying as Monsters Inc and Nemo but at least *they* had innovative faux
animation thanks to Pixar technology.
I think the kids who grew up with Lion King are just going to reject Brother
Bear for trying to cash in on the classic they grew up with. I mean, Disney
needs to stop copying their films from the nineties and at least go back to
copying what they did in the 40's and 50's. They can only get away with this
for so long and it appears people have finally grown tired of their Little
Mermaid/Aladdin remakes, which ofcourse themselves were just updated remakes of
their older films. I know people in this NG caught on to what they were doing
several years ago but now it's getting really apparent that the general public
is catching on to Disney's tactics too. They need to stop blaming competition
or ineffective marketing (cough!) on why their traditional animated films are
failing and start blaming themselves. But of course it's already too late as
they now are copying Pixar's films.
TheShr...@prodigy.net
Heh, maby they should also stop tarnishing Walts name and rename it to
whoever
is in charge. Let their name be associated to the bad products :).
Warewolf
news:20030710203337...@mb-m04.aol.com:
> I just can't get over how they directly lifted the scene from Lion
> King where Simba's father appears in the clouds! And the stampede! I
> mean, the similarities are laughable, this comes across almost as bad
> as Dizzney's cheapquels. And the bear cub doing those "cutesy" baby
> animal pounces that every one has ever done in just about every other
> animated animal film. This just shows that Disney has lost all faith
> in it's ability to tell exciting and invigorating stories.
Would you prefer a road trip flick where Jasmine, Ariel, Belle, and
Pocahantas steal a car and run into trouble in the California desert (among
other places)? It sounds good at first, particularly if it were to include
some Disney (and non-Disney) references, but how many quips from Daria
would the audiance take before it left the theatre?
> They need to stop blaming
> competition or ineffective marketing (cough!) on why their traditional
> animated films are failing and start blaming themselves. But of
> course it's already too late as they now are copying Pixar's films.
I think the WB and FOX can learn a thing or two as well. I'm not saying
that all of their projects were disasters, but you can't say they didn't
make a costly mistake or three.
Signed,
Warewolf at Large
who would be very surprised if the above mistakes weren't the driving force
behind a certain 'Fritz Chip'
Gerard dS
.
>
> Heh, maby they should also stop tarnishing Walts name and rename it to
> whoever
> is in charge.
Hey, well I always thought all they have to do is replace the 'D' in
"Disney" with an "E" and the "y" in "Disney" with an "r" and ya have
"Eisner"...cheaper than replacin the WHOLE logo.
Gerard
Heather M. Fieldhouse
(in message <20030710203337...@mb-m04.aol.com>):
> I think the kids who grew up with Lion King are just going to reject Brother
> Bear for trying to cash in on the classic they grew up with. I mean, Disney
> needs to stop copying their films from the nineties and at least go back to
> copying what they did in the 40's and 50's.
Like they did with "The Lion King," aka "Bambi '94."
Heather
Thomas E. Reed
failing, when in reality it's the stories in those 2D movies.
I don't know why the better writers seem to be gravitating to the
computer animated stuff. but they are. Test this: listen to "Shrek"
and "Toy Story" with the picture turned off. Then do the same to "The
Prince of Egypt" and "Treasure Planet." Without the visuals, you tell
me which are the better-written and more involving stories.
Get the Conventioneer's Guide to Life - now in
convenient printable PDF download form - at
Tom Reed's Off-Model - http://www.off-model.com
Terrence Briggs
> I know it's been discussed here but I just saw the Brother Bear trailer today
> in front of Disney's Pirates and now I am certain this will be the final nail
> in the coffin for feature animation. Well, this and Sinbad's failure
> ofcourse.
Well, you call Pixar's work "faux animation" later on, so I can see
where THIS is coming from...
As for nailing the pine box shut, well, Pixar and Ghibli are making
plenty of money on their own. Their films are well-received at home,
and Pixar's films are the commercial beacon American animators seem to
be following these days.
Shrek 2, like it or not, is the most anticipated animated film down
the pipe, along with whatever Pixar and Miyazaki (in Japan, anyway) do
next. Whatever Blue Sky does next will excite the general public.
And so on.
As for traditional animation, aside from Miyazaki's performance in
Japan, Lilo & Stitch is the other commercial boon. Hey, after
Atlantis, Spirit, and Treasure Planet, the "money changers" needed a
reason to believe traditional animation could be viable in a market
that seemed to embrace CGI at the expense of old-school animated
storytelling.
> I just can't get over how they directly lifted the scene from Lion King where
> Simba's father appears in the clouds! And the stampede! I mean, the
> similarities are laughable, this comes across almost as bad as Dizzney's
> cheapquels. And the bear cub doing those "cutesy" baby animal pounces that
> every one has ever done in just about every other animated animal film. This
> just shows that Disney has lost all faith in it's ability to tell exciting and
> invigorating stories.
Yes, a frickin' TRAILER has killed your faith in feature animation.
Dude, the last decent trailer I saw for ANY movie was Pearl Harbor.
Work with that.
> I have to admit though that the canadian moose were actually very humorous;
> it's nice to have talking animals that are actually humorous instead of just
> plain annoying. This doesn't look any worse than most of other's Disney's
> animated films and it's nice to see them return to the North American
> wilderness for the first time since Pocahontas. It doesn't seem to be as
> annoying as Monsters Inc and Nemo but at least *they* had innovative faux
> animation thanks to Pixar technology.
Sorry, but Pixar features REAL animators controlling those machines.
> I think the kids who grew up with Lion King are just going to reject Brother
> Bear for trying to cash in on the classic they grew up with. I mean, Disney
> needs to stop copying their films from the nineties and at least go back to
> copying what they did in the 40's and 50's. They can only get away with this
> for so long and it appears people have finally grown tired of their Little
> Mermaid/Aladdin remakes, which ofcourse themselves were just updated remakes of
> their older films. I know people in this NG caught on to what they were doing
> several years ago but now it's getting really apparent that the general public
> is catching on to Disney's tactics too.
So... it was okay with the public when Pixar told "classic" stories in
CGI, but it won't stand for the same classics animated with CGI
backgrounds and traditional characers?
> They need to stop blaming competition
> or ineffective marketing (cough!) on why their traditional animated films are
> failing and start blaming themselves. But of course it's already too late as
> they now are copying Pixar's films.
Complaints? None listed in my book. Hire John Lasseter for the
traditional animation department if it makes the coup more complete.
Maybe it'll be his chance to make a film in the Miyazaki style and
exercise his 2D skillz.
My rabid opinions aside, no trailer ever hauled my padded arse into a
theater on opening day. No trailer's gonna turn me into a feature
animation assassin, either. So what if the last tradionally animated
film to compete with the CGI behemoths was Tarzan? So what if last
year's Best Animated Film Oscar went to a tradionally animated FOREIGN
film (an anime, no less)? So what if Brother Bear bombs, TP-style,
and a Lilo & Stitch comes out of nowhere to surprise to box office
pundits and scare up some unexpected earnings?
So... it won't mean the end of feature animation, that's what. Mellow
out, fellow animatophile. Watch some Spirited Away, and call me in
the morning.
Terrence Briggs, who's due for a sixth viewing, after surviving
Pokemon 4Ever
Peace to you...
Walt Sellers
Thomas E. Reed <tomr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I find it interesting that the press is blaming 2D cel animation for
> failing, when in reality it's the stories in those 2D movies.
Seconded. And I wander, aren't journalists supposedly schooled in
writing? Wouldn't they know this?
> I don't know why the better writers seem to be gravitating to the
> computer animated stuff. but they are. Test this: listen to "Shrek"
> and "Toy Story" with the picture turned off. Then do the same to "The
> Prince of Egypt" and "Treasure Planet." Without the visuals, you tell
> me which are the better-written and more involving stories.
Or the inverse: turn off the sound and see if you can follow just the
pictures.
Or a test my kids taught me: watch it 20 times in a row and see if it
makes you feel like throwing up. If you don't throw up, it was good.
Walt Sellers
Walt Sellers
Do you suppose Eisner hired managers from Xerox?
I just saw a commercial for a remake of "Freaky Friday" (wasn't it
originally "Friday the 13th"?) Ugh. As much as I like Jamie Lee
Curtis, I'm in disbelief. What next? "The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes"?
(Oh, wait, didn't they already do that on TV?) The Disneyox machine
chugs on.
Walt Sellers
Derek Janssen
> Do you suppose Eisner hired managers from Xerox?
>
> I just saw a commercial for a remake of "Freaky Friday" (wasn't it
> originally "Friday the 13th"?) Ugh. As much as I like Jamie Lee
> Curtis, I'm in disbelief. What next? "The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes"?
> (Oh, wait, didn't they already do that on TV?) The Disneyox machine
> chugs on.
Before we go off on Outsider's Generic Anti-Disney Template #3.0, wanna
know the REAL reason we're getting a "Freaky Friday" remake?
...Aw, c'mon, curious?
...Admit it.
Tell ya anyway....
Okay--
Disney, the "we don't know why they're popular, but grab 'em and put 'em
in something of ours" studio (who first gave us Pauly Shore, after all?)
wanted to find a movie for Kelly Osborne.
Needless to say, she didn't take it. We're just getting what's left.
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
Rufus T. Frazier
<tomr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I find it interesting that the press is blaming 2D cel animation for
>failing, when in reality it's the stories in those 2D movies.
>
>I don't know why the better writers seem to be gravitating to the
>computer animated stuff. but they are.
I propose the following possible answer. At studios where 2d animation
has ruled for 70 years, there's "old boy" networks, politics, and
calcified executive bureaucracy. At the studios which are now making
3d films, everything is new, just like it was at the beginning of 2d
animation.This would also explain why Disney's 3d animation group
also tanked with "Dinosaur".
ELurio
3d films, everything is new, just like it was at the beginning of 2d
animation.This would also explain why Disney's 3d animation group
Yeah, but "Dinosaur" didn't do all that bad at the box office. What killed the
3D department was the concept of doing a G-rated porno film. I want very much
to see the story reel for Club Wild Life.
eric l.
Jay Shell
> I have to admit though that the canadian moose were actually very humorous;
> it's nice to have talking animals that are actually humorous instead of just
> plain annoying.
Those moose sounded awfully familiar, and sure enough they're
Dave Thomas and Rick Moranis doing their "hosers" routine from
SCTV... I loved that show! I may actually go see the movie now.
--
Jay Shell
Derek Janssen
Don't worry, you'll get all the Toque and Rutt you can handle before it
comes out:
Early marketing suggests that the cute lil' Webster bear cub might NOT
singlehandedly sell the picture after all as Disney thought--
And latest trailer indications suggest a now-panicky Disney may now be
putting all their eggs in the post-SCTV fan basket, and Kenai & Koda
will be getting a marketing downstaging Marlon & Dory would've been
happy to have.
Derek janssen
dja...@rcn.com
LordofTheBidding
>> competition or ineffective marketing (cough!) on why their traditional
>> animated films are failing and start blaming themselves. But of
>> course it's already too late as they now are copying Pixar's films.
>
>I think the WB and FOX can learn a thing or two as well. I'm not saying
>that all of their projects were disasters, but you can't say they didn't
>make a costly mistake or three.
>
>Signed,
>Warewolf at Large
<
<
<
Personally I felt Quest For Camelot, and the Bluth films' Titan A.E. and
Anastasia were far more adult, far more suited for the entire family than
anything Disney has done since Little Mermaid. Even though Anastasia copied
the Mermaid/Beauty and the Beast formula, overall it actually did it *better*
than those two films which were brilliant yet very uneven.
Even "Quest," while it offered virtually nothing new or groundbreaking I still
feel cut out the fat that plagues most Disney productions, especially as of
late.
The facts are that WB and Fox and every other studio doesn't promote their
films anywhere near as well as Disney does, because they just aren't animation
studios. Disney is the only major animation studio in the motion picture
business, not counting Pixar. They might have the odd hit here or there but
they can never keep it up. Just ask Don Bluth/Gary Goldman about all of the
headaches they've had to endure over the years with their non-Disney
distributors. And look at the mess Dreamworks made with Sinbad!
Although I'd say Paramount has been doing a decent job with their Klasky/Csupo
Nick films but that's probably because they had already proven themselves on
TV.
Invid Fan
Sellers <wsel...@nospam.mindspring.com> wrote:
> Or a test my kids taught me: watch it 20 times in a row and see if it
> makes you feel like throwing up. If you don't throw up, it was good.
>
The best movie in the world would make me throw up if I had to watch it
that much.
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
LordofTheBidding
>As for nailing the pine box shut, well, Pixar and Ghibli are making
>plenty of money on their own. Their films are well-received at home,
>and Pixar's films are the commercial beacon American animators seem to
>be following these days.
>
>Shrek 2, like it or not, is the most anticipated animated film down
>the pipe, along with whatever Pixar and Miyazaki (in Japan, anyway) do
>next. Whatever Blue Sky does next will excite the general public.
>And so on.
<
<
<
I enjoyed Shrek a lot. The only CG film so far that I was compelled to
actually go see. I much rather would have preferred Chris Farley in that role
since the overall likeness was obviously modeled on him, but the character
still actually works in some of the quieter moments. And they actually
attempted to "animate" humans, good for them! Cameron Diaz's princess indeed
looked lovely. Eisner's "theme park" castle was great, the moment the donkey
started to break out into a Broadway song and Shrek cut him off was great, the
"Mr Bill"-like Gingerbread Man was great, the anti-Beauty and the Beast ending
was great, in fact the major problem I had with it was Eddie Murphy's Donkey,
something culled right out of the latest Disney films.
>Yes, a frickin' TRAILER has killed your faith in feature animation.
>Dude, the last decent trailer I saw for ANY movie was Pearl Harbor.
>Work with that.
<
<
<
The Pearl Harbor trailer ws great and I felt the film was a just spectacular,
until the final segment with the attack on Japan, which three all of the film's
momentum way off. But the rest of the film was probably one of the best film's
I've ever seen as I deducted it *might* be from seeing the trailer. But yeah,
animated trailers are different, as are many heavily CG animated live action
films, since a lot of the work isn't complete yet, they aren't perhaps showing
you all the film has to offer yet. But you still get the general idea whether
this is the type of film you'd like to see or not, and the fact that they chose
to put in those two scenes they lifted from LK isn't a good sign for the film.
>It doesn't seem to be as
>> annoying as Monsters Inc and Nemo but at least *they* had innovative faux
>> animation thanks to Pixar technology.
>
>Sorry, but Pixar features REAL animators controlling those machines.
>
>
>
I'm not disrespecting the craft of the programmers at all, nor their ability to
create amazing "art," and amazing films. But as we all know, *technically* it
isn't art. It's computer programming, or whatever you want to call it. It's a
marvelous feat of engineering. It's math. I know they are retraining
traditional animators into controlling those machines and frankly that makes me
sick. I understand the economics and why they are doing it, and yes, it's good
for traditional artists to branch out into new things. But this is something
completely removed from what they were doing before. It's a completely
different art form. It's not like playing different musical instruments and
turning them into computer files and then rearranging and tweaking and
synthesizing everything; this is all completely fabricated from the start.
It's not art, although yeah, I guess you could still call it animation, of a
different sort. It's not shot frame by frame that I'm aware of. It's all
mimicking what has come before, what the animators all grew up watching and
what many of them have been doing for many years now. It's false, it's like
singing by ear. Not that I'm complaining about it in and of itself, because
I've always been a huge proponent of technology in art, or in this case,
technology as art. But in this case, it's "replacing" an existing art form and
that makes me sad.
>
>So... it was okay with the public when Pixar told "classic" stories in
>CGI, but it won't stand for the same classics animated with CGI
>backgrounds and traditional characers?
<
<
<
I wasn't referring to that. I am all for CGI backgrounds and inanimate
objects. But not objects like the trees in Tarzan because they seemed way too
synthetic when they were supposed to be a natural living organism.
>My rabid opinions aside, no trailer ever hauled my padded arse into a
>theater on opening day. No trailer's gonna turn me into a feature
>animation assassin, either. So what if the last tradionally animated
>film to compete with the CGI behemoths was Tarzan? So what if last
>year's Best Animated Film Oscar went to a tradionally animated FOREIGN
>film (an anime, no less)? So what if Brother Bear bombs, TP-style,
>and a Lilo & Stitch comes out of nowhere to surprise to box office
>pundits and scare up some unexpected earnings?
>
>So... it won't mean the end of feature animation, that's what. Mellow
>out, fellow animatophile. Watch some Spirited Away, and call me in
>the morning.
>
>Terrence Briggs, who's due for a sixth viewing, after surviving
>Pokemon 4Ever
>Peace to you...
>
>
>
Why do you think traditional animation is bulletproof? Yes, it's had a huge
run, a lot longer than most other genre's that gained popularity in the first
half of the 20th century. But that doesn't mean it's going to be around for
all time. It was something unique that appealed to a certain audience and
never had any real competition. I don't know if Claymation was ever considered
serious competition to cell animation, although at least *that* was real art
and animation; and it wasn't able to incorporate what people loved about cell
animation the way CGI is able to. But traditional animation does now have
serious competition from advanced technology, that offers advantages that cell
animation can't really compete with, even by employing cg.
I know it's early for anyone to be proclaiming it's death, but that's just my
observation as a fan. I'm old enough to see what has happened to other art
forms that I grew up with and assumed would be around forever that are now long
gone.
As far as anime, I'm not a fan, but then I wasn't brought up with it like
American kids today have been. The character design is just way off the map.
It's certainly a whole genre removed from traditional American animated
features, and I'd almost call it another art form entirely. Technically the
films are just crap, sorry. Yes, they are innovative and I appreciate that.
I like the way they used the low budgets to create some really innovative
action. And of course I love the adult themes, but they don't do it for me
overall. I think it's a fad in this country, because there is no adult
animation industry in the US yet there is a demand for it. But there are
several adult direct to video and cable projects in the works. And this is
what is going to be traditional animation's last hope. TV animation. I mean,
what has everyone been talking about lately in this NG?
And I don't consider Atlantis or Treasure Planet to have been adult films.
They were still far to close to the average Disney fare I think for most
people, which is why they failed. Titan A.E. however was an honest to God film
that actually was made for adults as well as children. If anything, I don't
think Bluth went far enough with it though. I still don't think there was
enough to pull audiences into the theaters besides them thinking "well thank
God it's not just another crappie Disney kids film." The amazing thing about
that film is the complexity of the story and the alien life forms. The aliens
were more *alien* than they were in the Star Wars prequels. And the story
dealt with some actual modern science fiction concepts. FOX should have
advertised those aspects of it instead of trying to call it an animated Star
Wars which it wasn't really.
And for the trailer issue, most of the time I can decide from them if it's a
film I might like and want to see or not. I know what I like and I know what I
want to see. It didn't used to be that way, but it is anymore because they
want to presell everything. The movie industry is like McDonalds where you
know the menu before going in to order, that's how it works now. Yes, it's
hard to tell a lot of times what the general public's reaction as a whole is
going to be though. I was convinced from the trailer's that Ice Age and
Monsters Inc. were the most horrible things ever created inside a computer, and
yet they were huge. However I don't think anybody ever doubted that Finding
Nemo would be a success because by now it has been proven the public will eat
up anything with the Pixar name on it.
But in this case, with Brother Bear, I think some of us feel safe by going out
on a limb and saying that the public is tired of seeing the same old thing.
They showed two scenes they directly lifted from Lion King, maybe the two most
famous scenes, in the first trailer! They didn't even bother to cleverly
disguise them. They just throw it in people's faces and expect them not to
mind. It's ludicrous, it's like they've just given up. This is exactly what
studios do when they are desperate. Yeah, they tried something similar to the
InterSTITCHal campaign only because they *were* giving the people something a
little different in that film and it scared them sh*tless. I guess when most
people saw the actual film clips they decided that this wasn't Little Mermaid
Part 12 and could see what Disney was doing. But here they have actual put
the INterSTITCHal campaign in the movie itself! And not just as some in joke,
like in Aladdin, but as major scenes and story points in the film. It's just
too obvious and yeah they are gambling that people's love for Lion King will
lead them into this movie which is apparently Lion King 2: (or should it be 3?)
The Bear King.
Derek Janssen
> ::Warning, long post::
>
(Uh....yeah. Let me take care of that in a sec:)
> But in this case, with Brother Bear, I think some of us feel safe by going out
> on a limb and saying that the public is tired of seeing the same old thing.
> They showed two scenes they directly lifted from Lion King, maybe the two most
> famous scenes, in the first trailer! They didn't even bother to cleverly
> disguise them. They just throw it in people's faces and expect them not to
> mind. It's ludicrous, it's like they've just given up. This is exactly what
> studios do when they are desperate. Yeah, they tried something similar to the
> InterSTITCHal campaign only because they *were* giving the people something a
> little different in that film and it scared them sh*tless. I guess when most
> people saw the actual film clips they decided that this wasn't Little Mermaid
> Part 12 and could see what Disney was doing. But here they have actual put
> the INterSTITCHal campaign in the movie itself! And not just as some in joke,
> like in Aladdin, but as major scenes and story points in the film. It's just
> too obvious and yeah they are gambling that people's love for Lion King will
> lead them into this movie which is apparently Lion King 2: (or should it be 3?)
> The Bear King.
And before we beat this further into the ground without having actually
seen the film, try this comparison to play with:
"Emperor's New Groove", not LK.
Ie., the serious version, back before Mark Dindal came on, back when it
was going to be a "noble" South American folktale of llamas and intolerance.
(...There, make a little more sense now?--Hm?
We won't feel like quite as much of an idiot if we beat THAT idea into
the ground in our next twenty posts?)
Derek Janssen (but y'see, bears are COMPLETELY different from llamas,
'cause, like, South America's different from Alaska...Well, inn'it?)
dja...@rcn.com
Red-Haired She-Devil
>
>I enjoyed Shrek a lot. The only CG film so far that I was compelled to
>actually go see.
Ewwwww. Cheap jabs at the business that won't hold up in a few years.
>
> But yeah, animated trailers are different,
>as are many heavily CG animated live action films, since a lot of the
>work isn't complete yet, they aren't perhaps showing you all the film
>has to offer yet. But you still get the general idea whether this is
>the type of film you'd like to see or not, and the fact that they chose
>to put in those two scenes they lifted from LK isn't a good sign for the
>film.
Disney has one blueprint for marketing animated films. I remember seeing
the Lilo & Stitch trailer and was bored out of my mind. It was a relief to
be so pleasantly surprised that the film didn't suck an ostrich's
posterior. The Brother Bear trailer is yet another cookie cutter marketing
campaign, nothing more. I have a glimmer of hope that since the film wasn't
done in Burbank it may have escaped some of the executive meddling that on-
lot films seem to suffer from.
>
>I'm not disrespecting the craft of the programmers at all, nor their
>ability to create amazing "art," and amazing films. But as we all know,
>*technically* it isn't art.
Oh cripes. If it's not done with a pencil it's not art? How rude.
>I
>know they are retraining traditional animators into controlling those
>machines and frankly that makes me sick. I understand the economics and
>why they are doing it, and yes, it's good for traditional artists to
>branch out into new things. But this is something completely removed
>from what they were doing before. It's a completely different art form.
Oh the HORROR! They're not technophobes anymore! How is that hurting
*anyone*? They're working on better films than what the studios will allow
traditional animated fare to be at the moment. Why is that so horrible?
> It's not like playing different musical instruments and turning them
>into computer files and then rearranging and tweaking and synthesizing
>everything; this is all completely fabricated from the start.
Uh...unless you're talking about "found art", then ALL art is fabricated,
silly.
>
> But in this case, it's
>"replacing" an existing art form and that makes me sad.
What, you think no one on their own can fart around and animate with a
pencil? Kids have been doing that for decades, and will continue to do so.
Then they can scan their drawings into a computer and put it online. That's
pretty damn cool. I wish I could've done that as a kid.
>
>
>Why do you think traditional animation is bulletproof? Yes, it's had a
>huge run, a lot longer than most other genre's that gained popularity in
>the first half of the 20th century. But that doesn't mean it's going to
>be around for all time.
Animation makes too much money for studios to totally bury, no matter what
Chicken Little reactions artists and fans alike keep screaming in the wake
of the failure of the extremely boring "Sinbad".
>
>I know it's early for anyone to be proclaiming it's death, but that's
>just my observation as a fan. I'm old enough to see what has happened
>to other art forms that I grew up with and assumed would be around
>forever that are now long gone.
Maybe instead of assuming that everything stays the same, you should
realize that nothing lasts forever. Disney has shot itself in the head
creatively. Let it die so that a new regime can take over.
>
>As far as anime, I'm not a fan, but then I wasn't brought up with it
>like American kids today have been.
There are a lot of adults who like anime. Being brought up on it isn't a
requirement to liking or appreciating it.
>Technically the films are just crap, sorry.
Why don't you just come out and admit that the only animation you like is
the Disney style and be done with it?
>And this is what is going to be
>traditional animation's last hope. TV animation. I mean, what has
>everyone been talking about lately in this NG?
Yet another horror. TV animation. What next? Web toons? Oh wait, those can
be funny and entertaining as well. I can hear hands wringing away...
>
>But in this case, with Brother Bear, I think some of us feel safe by
>going out on a limb and saying that the public is tired of seeing the
>same old thing.
Maybe you should see the film before totally assuming that it's the same
old thing. I'm hoping the trailer is misleading.
RHSD
--
-------------
Red-Haired She-Devil
www.casadiablos.com/rhsd_page.htm
reply to: shedevilatpoboxdotcom
Rufus T. Frazier
><< At the studios which are now making
>3d films, everything is new, just like it was at the beginning of 2d
>animation.This would also explain why Disney's 3d animation group
>also tanked with "Dinosaur". >><BR><BR>
>
>Yeah, but "Dinosaur" didn't do all that bad at the box office.
If all 3d films did as well as "Dinosaur" did, 2d wouldn't be in
trouble.
> What killed the
>3D department was the concept of doing a G-rated porno film. I want very muc
>h
>to see the story reel for Club Wild Life.
Sounds interesting. Can you provide more details, please? Perhaps
Miramax can take it over.
Terrence Briggs
> In article <wsellers-485CFE...@news.west.cox.net>, Walt
> Sellers <wsel...@nospam.mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Or a test my kids taught me: watch it 20 times in a row and see if it
> > makes you feel like throwing up. If you don't throw up, it was good.
> >
> The best movie in the world would make me throw up if I had to watch it
> that much.
Spirited Away? Heck, no, despite having to sit through 180 animated
regugitations in the process.
Who says John K. has the market cornered on that?
Terrence Briggs, who needs an excuse to learn Japanese anyway
Peace to you...
ANIM8Rfsk
<< Even though Anastasia copied
the Mermaid/Beauty and the Beast formula, overall it actually did it *better*
than those two films which were brilliant yet very uneven. >>
"Better" in what sense? Anastasia barely grossed back it's marketing budget.
It lost a ton of money. Little Mermaid grossed twice what Anastasia did, and
BatB grossed three times what Anastasia did.
___________
NATIONAL DO NOT CALL REGISTRY
<A HREF="http://www.donotcall.gov/">http://www.donotcall.gov/</A>
Most telemarketers cannot call your telephone number
if it is in the National Do Not Call Registry.
Steve Carras
Yeah, it is high time that "The Walt Disney Comapny" be changed to
"The Michael Eisner Comapny". Whoops, beg your pardon., I meantr:
"Ei$ner", with the dollar sign, not "eisner", without them.:D
Steve Carras
> Jay Shell wrote:
>
> >>I have to admit though that the canadian moose were actually very humorous;
> >>it's nice to have talking animals that are actually humorous instead of just
> >>plain annoying.
> >
> > Those moose sounded awfully familiar, and sure enough they're
> > Dave Thomas and Rick Moranis doing their "hosers" routine from
> > SCTV... I loved that show! I may actually go see the movie now.
>
> Don't worry, you'll get all the Toque and Rutt you can handle before it
> comes out:
>
TWICE---once before the Pirate film and second today in the
Montebello, California, mall DISNEY store.
Derek Janssen wrote:
> Early marketing suggests that the cute lil' Webster bear cub might NOT
> singlehandedly sell the picture after all as Disney thought--
> And latest trailer indications suggest a now-panicky Disney may now be
> putting all their eggs in the post-SCTV fan basket, and Kenai & Koda
> will be getting a marketing downstaging Marlon & Dory would've been
> happy to have.
>
> Derek janssen
> dja...@rcn.com
I'll take the Pixar fish (ELlen DeGeneres aka "Dory" is on a roll,
with a new fall 2003 TV series, establishing her all of this - Nemo
included - as a post-ELlen G rated comic.I remember her on an old Fox
Network TV series Open Houseproduced by Paramount (their best since
the Brady Bunch 20 years earlier)-and that was a spinoff of a earlier
show Duet:))
Steve (yep, I'm an Ellen fan)
gca...@aol.com
Invid Fan
<anim...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> << From: lordofth...@aol.com (LordofTheBidding) >>
>
>
> << Even though Anastasia copied
> the Mermaid/Beauty and the Beast formula, overall it actually did it *better*
> than those two films which were brilliant yet very uneven. >>
>
> "Better" in what sense? Anastasia barely grossed back it's marketing budget.
> It lost a ton of money. Little Mermaid grossed twice what Anastasia did, and
> BatB grossed three times what Anastasia did.
>
I assume he ment better in the artistic sense, which has nothing to do
with box office results.
Derek Janssen
>><< Even though Anastasia copied
>>the Mermaid/Beauty and the Beast formula, overall it actually did it *better*
>>than those two films which were brilliant yet very uneven. >>
>>
>>"Better" in what sense? Anastasia barely grossed back its marketing budget.
No one COULD gross back Anastasia's marketing budget--
At the time, Bluth/Fox were so proud that they were personally "going up
against Disney", that as a mischevious act of rebellion, they came up
with the novel--if ill-advised--concept of deliberately replicating
every...*EVERY*...single Disney marketing item for the movie under their
own banner:
Yes, an ice show. Yes, a singalong video. YES, a Florida theme-park
attraction (albeit, appropriately green-eyed enough, at Sea World Orlando).
>>It lost a ton of money. Little Mermaid grossed twice what Anastasia did, and
>>BatB grossed three times what Anastasia did.
>
> I assume he ment better in the artistic sense, which has nothing to do
> with box office results.
And perhaps was confused with Disney putting a Mermaid reissue up
against it in theaters to "crush" it, resulting in a mass audience
"sympathy date" for Anastasia.
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
ELurio
<< Yeah, it is high time that "The Walt Disney Comapny" be changed to
"The Michael Eisner Comapny". Whoops, beg your pardon., I meantr:
So you would have been happy if the Bass Brothers et al. had managed to rip the
company to shreds in 1982 and the company's legacy ended with "The Fox and the
Hound?" That without the Disney influence that the medium of animation would
have continued to wither and die?
Am I getting you right?
eric l.
Juan F. Lara
ELurio <elu...@aol.com> wrote:
> So you would have been happy if the Bass Brothers et al. had managed to rip
> the company to shreds in 1982 and the company's legacy ended with "The Fox
> and the Hound?"
Whatever was done in the 1980's it's a moot point now. Right now current
management policies have been very destructive for Disney. Eisner's time has
long passed.
- Juan F. Lara
ANIM8Rfsk
<< > << Even though Anastasia copied
> the Mermaid/Beauty and the Beast formula, overall it actually did it *better*
> than those two films which were brilliant yet very uneven. >> >>
<< I assume he ment better in the artistic sense, which has nothing to do
with box office results. >>
Anastasia better than Little Mermaid in an artistic sense? Nobody could
possibly have mean that.
ANIM8Rfsk
<< No one COULD gross back Anastasia's marketing budget--
At the time, Bluth/Fox were so proud that they were personally "going up
against Disney", that as a mischevious act of rebellion, they came up
with the novel--if ill-advised--concept of deliberately replicating
every...*EVERY*...single Disney marketing item for the movie under their
own banner: >>
Yeah, but these were just all lame brained half baked notions; I doubt any
money was spent on it.
Actually I have no idea where Fox spent the, what, $50 million or something
they claimed was Anastasia's marketing budget. Apart from a few really lame tv
ads where they swapped dialog between scenes so it looked like the lip sync was
all wrong, the only marketing I saw was a one inch strip add along the side of
the local Pennysaver.
Derek Janssen
> << From: Derek Janssen dja...@rcn.com >>
>
>
> << No one COULD gross back Anastasia's marketing budget--
>
> At the time, Bluth/Fox were so proud that they were personally "going up
> against Disney", that as a mischevious act of rebellion, they came up
> with the novel--if ill-advised--concept of deliberately replicating
> every...*EVERY*...single Disney marketing item for the movie under their
> own banner: >>
>
> Yeah, but these were just all lame brained half baked notions; I doubt any
> money was spent on it.
No, no, we GOT most of them--
Now, don't tell me you actually *missed* the "Anastasia on Ice" tour...
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
ANIM8Rfsk
<< > Yeah, but these were just all lame brained half baked notions; I doubt any
> money was spent on it.
No, no, we GOT most of them--
Now, don't tell me you actually *missed* the "Anastasia on Ice" tour... >>
LOL, did they actually do that?
I remember looking at the toy display at Toys R Us some months after the film
came out - there was actually a thin layer of dust on them, and they weren't
even hanging crooked - no child had ever touched them. You could almost see
the tumbleweeds rolling by.
DishRoom1
><< > Yeah, but these were just all lame brained half baked notions; I doubt
>any
>> money was spent on it.
>
>No, no, we GOT most of them--
>Now, don't tell me you actually *missed* the "Anastasia on Ice" tour... >>
I once read an article on how Fox considered such a move, patterened after the
"Disney On Ice" shows, But then nothing more transpired that. No shows, no
commericals for it even or anything.
>
>LOL, did they actually do that?
>
>I remember looking at the toy display at Toys R Us some months after the film
>came out - there was actually a thin layer of dust on them, and they weren't
>even hanging crooked - no child had ever touched them. You could almost see
>the tumbleweeds rolling by.
>
Must have been a sad sight.
John Shughart
ELurio
today.
eric l.
Thomas E. Reed
<wsel...@nospam.mindspring.com> responded to my remark about the
script mattering more than 2-D or 3-D animation styles. He said:
>Seconded. And I wander, aren't journalists supposedly schooled in
>writing? Wouldn't they know this?
Sure they would. Check the reviews of animated films by most big-time
journalists - Roger Ebert, Roeper, even Leonard Maltin. Rarely do they
make the "look" of a film the centerpiece of their reviews.
The people who are making the 2-D/3-D argument are mostly with the
entertainment industry press. And they're doing it because it is the
current talk among the bigwigs in the industry. The suits always come
up with "theories" about what's hot and what's not, what will get
audiences and what will lose them.
These theories are always about as valid as a psychic reading your
toenail clippings, but the industry loves them. Mostly because it
helps them to avoid this uncomfortable truth; even if you pick the
right people and the hot trend and don't interfere with them, making a
successful money-making film is still a crapshoot. So they put on
their copper bracelets and chant their drum circles and churn out more
"theories."
Get the Conventioneer's Guide to Life - now in
convenient printable PDF download form - at
Tom Reed's Off-Model - http://www.off-model.com
Crouching Jedi Hidden Sith
>entertainment industry press. And they're doing it because it is the
>current talk among the bigwigs in the industry. The suits always come
>up with "theories" about what's hot and what's not, what will get
>audiences and what will lose them.
>
>These theories are always about as valid as a psychic reading your
>toenail clippings, but the industry loves them. Mostly because it
>helps them to avoid this uncomfortable truth; even if you pick the
>right people and the hot trend and don't interfere with them, making a
>successful money-making film is still a crapshoot. So they put on
>their copper bracelets and chant their drum circles and churn out more
>"theories."
... which proves what I've believed in for so long: the only "thing" on Earth
lower than a loan shark or a papparazi is a box office analyst. Hollywood
agents are friggin' samurai in comparison.
____ _____
V
@(^.^)@
"Music is the soundtrack to the crappy movie that is my life." -- Chris Rock
"I had to choose between 'Magic: The Gathering' and girls, and... well...
'Magic' was just THERE." -- unknown author
Invid Fan
Jedi Hidden Sith <sith...@aol.comlink> wrote:
> >The people who are making the 2-D/3-D argument are mostly with the
> >entertainment industry press. And they're doing it because it is the
> >current talk among the bigwigs in the industry. The suits always come
> >up with "theories" about what's hot and what's not, what will get
> >audiences and what will lose them.
> >
> >These theories are always about as valid as a psychic reading your
> >toenail clippings, but the industry loves them. Mostly because it
> >helps them to avoid this uncomfortable truth; even if you pick the
> >right people and the hot trend and don't interfere with them, making a
> >successful money-making film is still a crapshoot. So they put on
> >their copper bracelets and chant their drum circles and churn out more
> >"theories."
>
> ... which proves what I've believed in for so long: the only "thing" on Earth
> lower than a loan shark or a papparazi is a box office analyst. Hollywood
> agents are friggin' samurai in comparison.
Where does know it all newsgroup poster fit in? :)
DishRoom1
>>The people who are making the 2-D/3-D argument are mostly with the
>>entertainment industry press. And they're doing it because it is the
>>current talk among the bigwigs in the industry. The suits always come
>>up with "theories" about what's hot and what's not, what will get
>>audiences and what will lose them.
>>
>>These theories are always about as valid as a psychic reading your
>>toenail clippings, but the industry loves them. Mostly because it
>>helps them to avoid this uncomfortable truth; even if you pick the
>>right people and the hot trend and don't interfere with them, making a
>>successful money-making film is still a crapshoot. So they put on
>>their copper bracelets and chant their drum circles and churn out more
>>"theories."
>
>... which proves what I've believed in for so long: the only "thing" on Earth
>lower than a loan shark or a papparazi is a box office analyst. Hollywood
>agents are friggin' samurai in comparison.
Great crap, there are some more ugly stuff in Hollywood out there.
John Shughart
Crouching Jedi Hidden Sith
In Jansenn-land, but don't tell him that, he's seems to be on a roll.
Thomas E. Reed
John Shughart, wrote:
>Great crap, there are some more ugly stuff in Hollywood out there.
And all your base are belong to us. What the hell did you just say? I
can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing. If you were saying
"there are more ugly (villains) in Hollywood," you're probably right,
but I think we were talking about the sliminess of Hollywood
hangers-on, not ranking evil people in Hollywood (which would be a
task even St. Peter might find daunting).. Clarify, please.
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>>Great crap, there are some more ugly stuff in Hollywood out there.
>
>And all your base are belong to us. What the hell did you just say? I
>can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing. If you were saying
>"there are more ugly (villains) in Hollywood," you're probably right,
>but I think we were talking about the sliminess of Hollywood
>hangers-on, not ranking evil people in Hollywood (which would be a
>task even St. Peter might find daunting).. Clarify, please.
I was refering to the executives and their bad decisions, sorry if it got
confusing.
John Shughart
ccbosley
confident Disney is in this, they aren't opening it until Saturday
that weekend. It's got the closest thing to that Lion King vibe of any
of their animated features since, well, The Lion King. The Phil
Collins soundtrack means (whatever you think of Phil's songs aside)
mass-appeal songs that people will leave the theater with in their
heads. And it feels like the most kid-friendly of the Disney animated
works in a while. Treasure Planet, Emperor's New Groove, and even Lilo
and Stich to a degree were probably geared towards later development,
almost early-teens. This one is going to appeal to kids from 3-4 up I
surmise. And the Bob & Doug moose for the kind of humor that even the
parents/adults get (just like Timon & Pumba). Is there anything else
coming out for kids at the holidays anyway to compete? Elf seems like
this year's Grinch but I think this one has the kids market to itself.
And they're not marketing it to the generation of children that grew
up on the Lion King ten years ago. This is for a whole new generation
of kids that haven't really seen a truly great Disney musical. I
think it will be a total return to the form of the late-80's early
90's stuff.
Gerard dS
We've already seen Lion King....hundreds of times.
I'm not predecting. Just commenting on your prediction....which I don't know
how it would help interest.
Gerard
"ccbosley" <ccbo...@ubmail.ubalt.edu> wrote in message
news:1ea413a0.03080...@posting.google.com...
Invid Fan
<dra...@spamtelus.net> wrote:
> So in other words it will be popular because it is like Lion King?
> We've already seen Lion King....hundreds of times.
> I'm not predecting. Just commenting on your prediction....which I don't know
> how it would help interest.
I went to the Disney/MGM park last week (sister's final day in florida
before she moved back here up north to Buffalo), and went through the
"animation studio tour". At the start an artist did a sketch of the
small bear from Brother Bear, talking about the character. The part
that cracked the room up was when he said that to make the character
even more cute, he was putting a small tuff of hair on top of his head.
"Hey, it worked for Simba!"
Brandi Weed
ccbo...@ubmail.ubalt.edu says...
> Brother Bear is going to be beyond huge.
<gene_siskel>You're Satan, aren't you?</gene_siskel>
--
brandiweed at lanset dot com
Jim
same reaction - "You've got to be kidding!".
The animation looked terrible - it looks like Saturday morning TV. The
backgrounds were even flatter.
The animated film is going to bomb and bomb big. This will be the end of
anything resembling quality animation from Disney.
Eisner is history after this.
Steve Carras
> Walt Sellers wrote:
>
> > Do you suppose Eisner hired managers from Xerox?
> >
> > I just saw a commercial for a remake of "Freaky Friday" (wasn't it
> > originally "Friday the 13th"?) Ugh. As much as I like Jamie Lee
> > Curtis, I'm in disbelief. What next? "The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes"?
> > (Oh, wait, didn't they already do that on TV?) The Disneyox machine
> > chugs on.
>
> Before we go off on Outsider's Generic Anti-Disney Template #3.0, wanna
> know the REAL reason we're getting a "Freaky Friday" remake?
>
>
>
> ...Aw, c'mon, curious?
>
>
>
> ...Admit it.
>
>
>
> Tell ya anyway....
>
>
>
> Okay--
>
>
>
> Disney, the "we don't know why they're popular, but grab 'em and put 'em
> in something of ours" studio (who first gave us Pauly Shore, after all?)
> wanted to find a movie for Kelly Osborne.
>
> Needless to say, she didn't take it. We're just getting what's left.
>
> Derek Janssen
> dja...@rcn.com
Well, Derek J., for what it is worth I plan on seeing it..interesting
to see Jamie Lee Curtis an' Linsay Lohan as each other (I'm about the
same age as Jodie Foster who played the daughter in the ORIGINAL,
whcih had Barbara Harris as the mom, and both Jodie Foster and I are
slightly close to JLC in age--Barbara Harris mustr be in her
60s--she's credited as an ADR person currently or is that someone
else. Gaby Hoffman and some aduilt actress I forget the name of
momentarily made another remake for Diz, of course, last decade).