Disney General - The saddest fandom on Earth

  • Thread starter Thread starter KO 864
  • Start date Start date
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Which is Better

  • Chicken Little

    Votes: 433 27.4%

  • Hunchback 2

    Votes: 57 3.6%

  • A slow death

    Votes: 1,088 68.9%
  • Total voters
    1,578
Shekelslovakia said:
after the failure of The Princess & The Frog (whoever thought it had any chance to go up against Avatar should have been fired on the spot)
Click to expand...
Princess and the Frog came out two weeks before. I don't know if they expected Avatar to make a billion dollars, though. Yeah, it's James Cameron and they definitely should've known better, but I think they were expecting there to not have been any competition for family films at the time of release, of which there really wasn't. It being released in December during a recession is probably what hurt it.

Still could've been sabotage, though. Disney probably never forgave John Musker and Ron Clements for Treasure Planet, though if that was the case, they wouldn't have made Moana (which they don't shill out the big bucks for, interestingly enough).
 
Kari Kamiya said:
Princess and the Frog came out two weeks before. I don't know if they expected Avatar to make a billion dollars, though. Yeah, it's James Cameron and they definitely should've known better, but I think they were expecting there to not have been any competition for family films at the time of release, of which there really wasn't. It being released in December during a recession is probably what hurt it.

Still could've been sabotage, though. Disney probably never forgave John Musker and Ron Clements for Treasure Planet, though if that was the case, they wouldn't have made Moana (which they don't shill out the big bucks for, interestingly enough).
Click to expand...
They tried with traditional animation with the 2011 Winnie the Pooh movie which itself looks gorgeous and very true to the original films, I think was the final bullet in the 2D coffin as they barely promoted it knowing that they had another failure that it being not the current Norm that Disney was going with the 3D movies. So it came and went it's unfortunate too as even the live action Christopher Robin movie was almost as good as that one.

Also back to Chip and Dale it seems like they're using the same type of shader that Warner Brothers use for the Tom and Jerry movie that recently came out. Which is very distracting as it just moves way too fluent to be mimicking 2D.
 
Shekelslovakia said:
They tried with traditional animation with the 2011 Winnie the Pooh movie which itself looks gorgeous and very true to the original films, I think was the final bullet in the 2D coffin as they barely promoted it knowing that they had another failure that it being not the current Norm that Disney was going with the 3D movies.
Click to expand...
A friend and I truly believe Winnie the Pooh was sabotaged to fail so Disney would have an excuse to close down their traditional animation department for good. Like why would you willingly put a movie up the same weekend as Harry-fucking-Potter? Thought I remember hearing a movie (Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked I think) had to move slots out of legit fear of Harry Potter.
 
3D animators barely understand basic concepts like "squash" and "stretch". When someone finally brings back 2D in a major way it'll blow the yarmulkes off these studio heads with how profitable it is. People actually like films that look good and 3D is turning into soulless garbage. Once the bubble bursts the budgets will plummet and then 2D is back baby
Kari Kamiya said:
A friend and I truly believe Winnie the Pooh was sabotaged to fail
Click to expand...
I'll agree with that and give you a theory of my own. They moved to 3D because it's easier to hide who the animators are. The differences in style make little difference when you're all working off the same models. Now the animators have no power because you can't tell who worked on what.
 
Shekelslovakia said:
Of course you can't forget Megamind which is pretty much the quintessential film that late millennials really zoomers grew up on.

Tangled & Frozen are just one of those examples where they could have worked best in 2D if Disney didn't give up with the technique after the failure of The Princess & The Frog (whoever thought it had any chance to go up against Avatar should have been fired on the spot) after all we do have concept art and promotional stills of what they could have looked like in that style.

It's also kind of weird to see a lot of Pixar properties or any IPs in 3D general have the characters as 2D for media books spin-offs etc like they just really want to go back to that style but if there's no talent or money to be found there's no point with doing it.
Click to expand...
If they had made Tangled in the same art style as the credits were, I would have been super into that.
 

Interesting thread from Cory Doctorow rounding up the allegations against Disney about refusing to pay out royalties due to creatives on the grounds that when they bought SW, Marvel etc they only bought the rights to the IP, not the associated liabilities.

Also available on his blog:


In November 2020, SFWA came forward with a stunning accusation: Disney had told the beloved writer Alan Dean Foster (author of the original, bestselling Star Wars novelization) that they would not ever pay him the royalties he was owed.

Disney argued that Foster's contract – where he was guaranteed wages for his creative labor on the Star Wars book, which was written before the film was complete and formed the basis for many elements of the final movie – was with Lucasfilm, not Disney. Disney said that when it acquired Lucasfilm, it only acquired its assets (including the right to continue publishing Foster's book), but not its liabilities (including the obligation to pay royalties to Foster).
Click to expand...

Full thing is worth a read.
 
Sarcastic sockpuppet said:
It's cute, very reminiscent of Tomi Ungerer's style, but you know it wouldn't do well in testing. Too arty, too vintage. You need bright colors and smoother lines for the kids riddled with ADD.
Click to expand...
Oh, I don’t trust Disney to do jack shit correct these days.

I just want to imagine it. I still really liked Tangled regardless.
 
Mega Man 2 Intro - NES said:
3D animators barely understand basic concepts like "squash" and "stretch". When someone finally brings back 2D in a major way it'll blow the yarmulkes off these studio heads with how profitable it is. People actually like films that look good and 3D is turning into soulless garbage. Once the bubble bursts the budgets will plummet and then 2D is back baby

I'll agree with that and give you a theory of my own. They moved to 3D because it's easier to hide who the animators are. The differences in style make little difference when you're all working off the same models. Now the animators have no power because you can't tell who worked on what.
Click to expand...
If 2D comes back, it will probably be due to people yearning for the colorful art of anime and the warmth of old Disney cartoons. Stuff like that feels inviting to get lost in, especially as a lot of it was based in how to draw people into the story and have them feel wonder.

Realistically, I think there has to be a draw back towards traditional animation again. But it can't just be 'Traditional is better then CGI' it has to be 'What can we do to make traditional look magic again?' and 'What should inspire people about it to want to use it as a medium?'

Traditional is not as big here anymore unlike, say, places in Japan, because we've mostly quit showing anything anymore with it. We mostly now rely on trends on what kids 'want' so we can sell toys and use that as an excuse to not try anymore to be creative. This naturally limits what people can do as far as risk taking and creativity, and it's also always seemingly CGI now, because CGI often is the only offered or proposed profitable option in a lot of cases.

However, it's not a forgone conclusion that 2D is down for good. Often older stuff gets revived because it's ostensibly better replacement is ultimately found wanting after the novelty has worn off, or wasn't as superior as was once thought. Amazon uses cassette tapes to hold massive amounts of data, the Air Force is on their umpteenth F-15 after trying with the F-22, and some of of the best selling videogames are sprite-based or have that old retro style. 2D could have this same kind of renaissance, but it's going to take a while. People are still infatuated with the newness and possibilities of 3D, it's faults are mostly going to be overlooked or not acknowledged right now because we're still in the 'honeymoon' phase.
 
The-Mad-Asshatter said:
If 2D comes back, it will probably be due to people yearning for the colorful art of anime and the warmth of old Disney cartoons. Stuff like that feels inviting to get lost in, especially as a lot of it was based in how to draw people into the story and have them feel wonder.

Realistically, I think there has to be a draw back towards traditional animation again. But it can't just be 'Traditional is better then CGI' it has to be 'What can we do to make traditional look magic again?' and 'What should inspire people about it to want to use it as a medium?'

Traditional is not as big here anymore unlike, say, places in Japan, because we've mostly quit showing anything anymore with it. We mostly now rely on trends on what kids 'want' so we can sell toys and use that as an excuse to not try anymore to be creative. This naturally limits what people can do as far as risk taking and creativity, and it's also always seemingly CGI now, because CGI often is the only offered or proposed profitable option in a lot of cases.

However, it's not a forgone conclusion that 2D is down for good. Often older stuff gets revived because it's ostensibly better replacement is ultimately found wanting after the novelty has worn off, or wasn't as superior as was once thought. Amazon uses cassette tapes to hold massive amounts of data, the Air Force is on their umpteenth F-15 after trying with the F-22, and some of of the best selling videogames are sprite-based or have that old retro style. 2D could have this same kind of renaissance, but it's going to take a while. People are still infatuated with the newness and possibilities of 3D, it's faults are mostly going to be overlooked or not acknowledged right now because we're still in the 'honeymoon' phase.
Click to expand...
It's been, what, twenty-five years or so since Toy Story? The honeymoon's long over.
 
The-Mad-Asshatter said:
If 2D comes back, it will probably be due to people yearning for the colorful art of anime and the warmth of old Disney cartoons. Stuff like that feels inviting to get lost in, especially as a lot of it was based in how to draw people into the story and have them feel wonder.

Realistically, I think there has to be a draw back towards traditional animation again. But it can't just be 'Traditional is better then CGI' it has to be 'What can we do to make traditional look magic again?' and 'What should inspire people about it to want to use it as a medium?'

Traditional is not as big here anymore unlike, say, places in Japan, because we've mostly quit showing anything anymore with it. We mostly now rely on trends on what kids 'want' so we can sell toys and use that as an excuse to not try anymore to be creative. This naturally limits what people can do as far as risk taking and creativity, and it's also always seemingly CGI now, because CGI often is the only offered or proposed profitable option in a lot of cases.

However, it's not a forgone conclusion that 2D is down for good. Often older stuff gets revived because it's ostensibly better replacement is ultimately found wanting after the novelty has worn off, or wasn't as superior as was once thought. Amazon uses cassette tapes to hold massive amounts of data, the Air Force is on their umpteenth F-15 after trying with the F-22, and some of of the best selling videogames are sprite-based or have that old retro style. 2D could have this same kind of renaissance, but it's going to take a while. People are still infatuated with the newness and possibilities of 3D, it's faults are mostly going to be overlooked or not acknowledged right now because we're still in the 'honeymoon' phase.
Click to expand...
I think we are now in the interesting phase where we combine the 2. 2.5D seems to be the new style since Spider-Verse, and I honestly wouldn’t want to lose it. Spider-Verse was beautiful, The Bad Guys looks super clean for a cheaper movie, even Puss In Boots 2 looks super expressive and fun. Also cannot forget the Peanuts movie which came before all this, yet sort of was in the same styling. I don’t want to disregard CGI as it has more potential than I think we are giving credit to, and films seem to be unlocking more of its stylings as time goes on, creating much nicer looking films than ever before.
 
Basic Blonde Boy said:
I think we are now in the interesting phase where we combine the 2. 2.5D seems to be the new style since Spider-Verse, and I honestly wouldn’t want to lose it. Spider-Verse was beautiful, The Bad Guys looks super clean for a cheaper movie, even Puss In Boots 2 looks super expressive and fun. Also cannot forget the Peanuts movie which came before all this, yet sort of was in the same styling. I don’t want to disregard CGI as it has more potential than I think we are giving credit to, and films seem to be unlocking more of its stylings as time goes on, creating much nicer looking films than ever before.
Click to expand...
even older, more crude examples like Jet Set/Grind Radio shows there's a lot of room for CG to do more than just the bland shit usually done
 
The-Mad-Asshatter said:
The Air Force is on their umpteenth F-15 after trying with the F-22,
Click to expand...
It was more to USAF gotten greedy wanting both the F-22 and their own version of the F-35 and not having unlimited budget for both. Plus Lockheed being the literal manifestion of the military industrial complex with their fuck fuck games in trying to get the F-22 shitcanned cause the U.S. Govt won't let them sell the F-22 to anyone else but the U.S. military. Not discounting U.S. Congress doing another round of them being too stupid to live in regards to basic fucking math. F-35 is unkillable as Lockheed made sure almost every U.S. congressional district get a piece of the pork.
 
Using kids as an excuse to never be creative (or use 2D) is especially smarmy because kids don't have any power in deciding what's made. They buy certain products because they're the only ones on the shelves. Plus companies are blatantly more interested in social media asspats or feeding 'member berries to adults, so it's a flat-out lie to act like your main concern is connecting with kids. In a way it's another case of blaming your audience for your own actions.
 
XYZpdq said:
even older, more crude examples like Jet Set/Grind Radio shows there's a lot of room for CG to do more than just the bland shit usually done
Click to expand...
The thing about CG is that we have only really seen a small part of it. Throughout the 00s, it was just a technology arms race to see who can create the most realistic animated movie first. I think we take the beginnings for granted as while many films had similar styles, massive leaps in tech were being performed from the detail of Shrek to the individual furs of Sully, to Wall-E’s very real looking landscapes. The industry was a massive push every few seconds. I used gaming as an example earlier, but there really isn’t a better comparison as they were both new frontiers in the same era that were pushing for realism to further excite the masses every year.

Like all things though, there would be a stopping point were the tech was still getting better, but the differences were not as prominent as they used to be. I think this hit animation hard in the 10s as there was still some super impressive visuals and tech in films like Frozen and Tangled, but no one really seemed to care anymore. The push for cartoony realism was over, but I don’t think we should really blame the medium or the artists. It was a rush that came and went, so now the question is where do we take the tech for a new direction? I think Spider-Verse nailed it, having details and colors that likely wouldn’t be possible through traditional animation, sparking a new life in the medium.
 
Basic Blonde Boy said:
The thing about CG is that we have only really seen a small part of it. Throughout the 00s, it was just a technology arms race to see who can create the most realistic animated movie first. I think we take the beginnings for granted as while many films had similar styles, massive leaps in tech were being performed from the detail of Shrek to the individual furs of Sully, to Wall-E’s very real looking landscapes. The industry was a massive push every few seconds. I used gaming as an example earlier, but there really isn’t a better comparison as they were both new frontiers in the same era that were pushing for realism to further excite the masses every year.

Like all things though, there would be a stopping point were the tech was still getting better, but the differences were not as prominent as they used to be. I think this hit animation hard in the 10s as there was still some super impressive visuals and tech in films like Frozen and Tangled, but no one really seemed to care anymore. The push for cartoony realism was over, but I don’t think we should really blame the medium or the artists. It was a rush that came and went, so now the question is where do we take the tech for a new direction? I think Spider-Verse nailed it, having details and colors that likely wouldn’t be possible through traditional animation, sparking a new life in the medium.
Click to expand...
I’d say Disney/Pixar not only hit the stopping point, but ran into the wall at full speed with “The Good Dinosaur”. I remember being baffled when I watched it at the amazingly realistic backgrounds contrasted with the super cartoonified dinosaurs. Between that headache inducing contrast and the dumb as fuck “plot”, it managed to make the other cgi dinosaur movie (I think it was just called Dinosaur) look good kust because at least the styling was consistent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom