Disney to close Florida animation unit (1 Viewer)

[TheLongshot]

Actually, the better example is "The Iron Giant". The two above had too much focus on what looked "cool" rather than telling a good story.

It is why I am looking forward to "The Incredibles". It looks like Brad Bird is going out and doing something different. (While I will agree that the story of Finding Nemo wasn't exactly groundbreaking, it was well executed and has some magic to it, which is why it is exceptional.)

Jason

 

[chris winters]

while Pixar's films are warm and fuzzy, they are also very funny, and well directed stories. They feel modern and relevent. It may not be the plot points that break new ground, but the timing, pacing, and acting(animation), and technology are all very adult. when you watch the movie you care about where its going next and genuinaly laugh at the funny lines/moments. Disney animation, lately anyway, you appreciate its craft, are surprised by nothing, and maybe chuckle politely at a suposedely edgy line of dialogue thats about as witty/timely as a line from a sitcom out of the 80s. A 5 year old may giggle, but an adult sure wont. The bottom line is Pixar feels fresh, and Disney feels stale. Very stale. They xeroxed the formulas they perfected too many times, and eventually its gotten intolerable. Brother Bear is no exception. There is no envelope pushing there of any kind. 2 talking moose voiced by the guys from strange brew?? A movie that came out in like 1983. They are from Canada get it!! Canadian moose! talking with accents! When a pixar movie comes out, you feel they are really setting trends. Its a combination of technology, voice talent, production talent, I mean I like invisable touch as much as the next guy, but phil collins again??? ugh? Those are the kinds of decisions that Disney still feels are working that anyone over 5 and under 50 will laugh out loud at. Pixar generally doesnt make those kinds of mistakes. Its all cycles, and maybe 10 years from now Disney will be a bastion of creativity, and we will all be wondering what went wrong with Pixar.

 

[chris winters]

I should say that when I saw the trailer for Home on the range, and Rosanne, as a cow, pointed at her utters and said somthing like," yep,...and there real" I actually laughed. Somthing that hadnt happend with Disney in quite a while. That was was a bitof writing that worked. Maybe theres hope for the movie. Is it even being released?

 

[TheLongshot]

This spring, I think. That's the last 2D movie for a while...

Jason

 

[Edwin-S]

IRON GIANT also had the requisite "fake death" cliche and for even worse reasons than blatant emotional manipulation. The "fake death" scene was put in for the lowest common denominator reason: setting up for a possible sequel. IRON GIANT was a very good film, marred by a bad ending.

I feel FINAL FANTASY gets too much of a bum rap. The story may have been a little too convoluted, but I don't think it was as bad as a lot of people like to make out. I think it took plenty of guts to make an animated film that didn't rely on humour and cute characters as its main driving force. And there were no cliched "fake death" scenes in the film. When it showed people dying... they died.

 

[chris winters]

Atlantis is often used as the example of Disney breaking its formula,and getting punished for it. And too some extent thats true. The problem was that it was done very tentitively. Its not a very good movie. Its choppy and not very suspensful. It needed to be a true adventure film. Actually scary at times. Istead it was just a serious kids movie, too boring for kids and too tame for adults, and it failed. The characters were also pretty generic, boy apprentice/nerd who takes on the big adventure, fatherly crackpot, and the usual WAY over done disney comic sidekicks. Yes it had no songs, but it just was still too watered down, and created by committee. I think a better example of Disney stretching a little in a succesful way is Emperer's new groove, Its was kinda fun, and had some life to it. It still suffered from a bit if the disney sanding all the edges down till nothing is left, but not too bad. Pixar's stories are not nessisarily better then disney's but the writing, and dialogue, scripting/pacing are. At least for the moment, Pixar treats its products like art, and Disney treats it art, and artist like product. Thats the main difference, and Disney's biggest problem. They have painted themselves into a corner, defining their brand worldwide, and now upset with their own definition.

I agree that final fantasy derseves a lot of credit for the chances it took, and for what was succsessful about it. It was ambitious and expensive, and beutiful to look at. It suffered major story problems, and took itself way to seriously, however. In my oppinion, too many half baked, new agey, dopey plot points. It broke allot of technical ground, though. It was robbed of the third oscer nod that year to jimmy neutron. It deserved a nomination for its technical achievments alone.

 

[chris winters]

As far as 2d being dead, verses CGI etc...Its a little funny. For the last 20-25 years, Disney enjoyed a monoply in the animation market. But every movie they put out was trying to push the envelope in terms of visual sophistication. More detail, sharper drawings,colors, more complex camera moves and scenes. Look what we can do now! CG just beat this trend at its own game. The tools lent themselves more to accomplishing these ends then the tools of traditional animation did. Animation has always been seeking the wow factor. CG also benifits from being reletively new, and so everything is groundbreaking right now. The next 5 years will be interesting with so many CG movies glutting the market. The public may tire of them. Pixar may start repeating themselves, and the people will notice.

 

[Edwin-S]

Well, actually, the guy is a twenty-something linguist/historian who has been relegated to the basement because of his obsession with the legend of Atlantis. He is punished professionally because the University establishment thinks he is a nutter for believing in the truth of a "fairy tale."

The filmmakers did have a problem deciding just who they were primarily aiming at, but I feel Disney's management should be held responsible for that. Once again the film was savaged more than it deserved to be. I find it funny that shit like "The Cat in The Hat" can make so much money but a film like ATLANTIS, IMO a better film, bombs.

 

[Edwin-S]

This state affairs was not because of some concious effort by Disney to corner the market. Most studios did not have the stamina to remain in the animation market when a film did mediocre to poor box office. As soon as a film failed to make money the studios would cut and run by closing down their facilities and getting rid of their staff.

The only studio that stuck it out in feature animation through thick and thin was Disney. And frankly I believe that was mostly because of someone like Roy Disney who has a good appreciation of Disney's history and what got Disney to where it is today. If it hadn't been for animation there wouldn't have been a Walt Disney company and Roy Disney, better than anyone else over there, understood that. That is why the man fought to maintain the animation division, because he had an appreciation for what that department actually contributed.

"Cancer Man" Eisner, seems to have forgotten that, or doesn't care.

[q]More detail, sharper drawings,colors, more complex camera moves and scenes. Look what we can do now! CG just beat this trend at its own game. The tools lent themselves more to accomplishing these ends then the tools of traditional animation did.[q]

Most of Disney's later 2D animation, while still of good quality, actually looks flatter than the animation from their "Golden Age." The background art for films like "The Little Mermaid" and "Aladdin" does not have the detail and illusion of depth of field that the early films had. In fact, many of the techniques developed during the thirties and forties were lost or destroyed when Disney started cutting the budgets for animated films.

 

[Paul_Sjordal]

You know what's funny? By terminating the animated feature unit, they are destroying the source of direct-to-video material. I wonder if the execs considered that.

 

[TheLongshot]

It might have, but I don't think so. Good stories are good stories, no matter what the medium. Same goes with bad stories. Would "Atlantis" or "Treasure Planet" be considered any better if they were 100% 3D animated? Probably not.

And you speak of Nemo being classic Disney formula like it is a bad thing. It worked quite well for Disney for many years, and it has proven to continue to work for Pixar, especially when it is flawlessly executed. Above all, it is was people expect of Disney, which is part of the reason why it did so well.

Pixar succeeds not because they are a 3D animation house, but that they know how to write great stories and execute them to maximum effect. Disney has the problem of too many marketing weasels driving the design, rather than the creative people. That's why we end up with compromised visions on the big screen.

I'm looking forward to seeing "The Incredibles", not because it is a CGI film, but because Brad Bird is helming it and I loved "The Iron Giant". (BTW, can you name a director of a Disney film from the past five years? I can't...) I'm also looking forward to seeing if the rumors are true that Pixar is looking to start their own 2D animation shop. I wouldn't put it past them...

Jason

 

[Josh Simpson]

Time and time again we've seen cold shallow heartless movies with no story and tons of style. SFX and CGI does not a good movie make without the story.