Pencils down: Disney terminates traditional animation

http://www.mouseplanet.com/david/dk030814.htm

Crap.

 

Sad.

 

Sad, but typical.

 

I second that!

 

Lets face it, some of the traditional animated features they have done recently have been quite bad. My feeling is that they try to put out too many and they just can't come up with good stories. They should go back to one every three or four years. What makes the Pixar stuff so good are the ideas behind the films like Toy Story, for instance. I thought that was very ingenious.

 

What happens when computer animation gets predictable? What happens when what Pixar is doing looks just like what junior can do with a mouse?

Ink, pencil and pen created magic. It was also gazillion hours of work, and it's paid off every time. Even Fantasia, which took a long time to grow, but it ultimately did.

RIP.

 

This sucks, but I think I understand when people complain about traditional animated films these days (the sentiment of one Chicago critic for one was "why did this have to be animated at all," and reading what he meant by that, how things were drawn, etc., I think it's similar to my feelings on trad. animation these days).

The problem, for me, is that someone like Dreamworks makes them too freakin' homogeneous. They're boring and uncreative to look at it. Spirit, Sinbad...I know these things are practically made on an assembly line, but aesthetically they shouldn't feel that way.

Granted, the WB cartoons I love adhered to the same style, one that changed only incrementally and gradually over the years, but they had a very unique look and feel to them. Something like Sinbad looks well-drawn, it looks nice and slick, but it's got little personality.

Of course, we're talking about Disney, not Dreamworks, and the sad thing is, Disney WAS making attempts at new looks (look at the background designs on Atlantis).

Nothing's written in stone. Maybe this will just be a break, who knows.

 

Licensing Elvis songs probably cost a fortune!

 

I have a slightly different take on the whole mess:

Disney will probably get what it deserves; FTR, I've been disappointed by much of Disney's film-fare for sometime. I feel for the animators, but times do change and full animation techniques have not been employed in any measurable form since the late 1940's! IMHO, limited (abstract; simplified) animation, regardless of story content, is one of the drawbacks to modern 2D animation techniques. Older Disney animation had heart AND beauty, not to mention the fact that their animated films didn't rely on catchy songs, even though their classic animated films certainly had them. Granted, one can stylize simplified art to compensate for lost realism, but it becomes increasingly difficult connecting with the audience using representational, abstracted 2D art.

The reason PIXAR is so successful is because it resists the modern Disney mold in order to produce charming films with all of the heart of the old 2D FULL animation. In other words, the "oooh-ahhh" factor is still an essential part of the package and Sckott, when "...junior can do with a mouse" what PIXAR is doing, he'll probably be working for PIXAR and supporting you!

Unfortunately, Disney, has become an outdated caricature of itself in terms of film production; a monopolistic cash-cow that has lost touch while grazing it's once green pasture to barrenness. PIXAR's films are clever, thoughtful and not condescending, and occassionally take chances that fall outside of the scope of chances Disney is willing to take in their "Mickey Mouse" effort to homoginize animated entertainment.

Ken mentioned DINOSAUR, calling it a "snoozefest" and I would agree! However, if we'd seen the contemplative film that the promos hinted at, without cute-sy talking dinos and the horribly lame dialogue & plot devices, but rather classical music and/or sound effects combined with stunning visuals a'la Fantasia, it just might've been the greatest of ALL Disney animated films. However, that would've involved taking a risk at the box office, because we're talking about a more mature and imaginative film effort with more realistic story-telling, and something not necessarily marketable to very young viewers.

Disney, at least today's Disney, seems little more than a factory churning out vapid product that plays down to it's targeted audience as well as the expectations of adults who wish to park their kids for a couple of hours while they're shopping in the mall. Any change that gets away from that, in my estimation, would be a positive one!


Cat

 

I actually liked Dinosaur. Guess I'm in the minority. lol

But at the same time, I can't argue that Finding Nemo, the Toy Story movies, A Bug's Life, Monsters Inc are all exceptional films with wonderful stories and great visuals. I've found I'm personally more inticed these days by computer-animated films.

 

You've got a keen eye Ken! My wife and I were very much looking forward to this film having been literally blown away by the beauty of it's trailer, but we started hearing rumors about the how different the film would be shortly thereafter and braced ourselves for the worst. Unfortunately, the "worst" turned out to be even worse than we'd been led to believe. As I recall, DINOSAUR was among the most disappointing films we saw that year.

It just goes to show you though, that whoever was putting together the teaser did have a clue. I suspect that some folks at Disney KNEW or at least suspected that the voiceless imagery would sell the picture and that the movie itself could never live up to the promise of the trailer. *SIGH* What a tragic waste of a great opportunity!


Cat

 

They'll have a revival