My solution, Disney needs to cut back on manufacturing worthless 'tween' idols, and go back what brought made them great in the first place. Animation. Seriously, when Pixar dose a better job than you, and all you have to offer is a lame hackney sitcom about a pop star, what dose that tell you? (And i'm getting sick, and tired of CGI!) _________________ If it's got wings, i can crash it!
Last edited by launchpad25 on Jul 02 2008 8:54 am; edited 1 time in total
I'll be honest, I never much cared for Pixar, and their animation. Give me traditional hand drawn stuff any day. _________________ John R. Gibson
Host/Writer/Creator Video Masters TV
"The whole planet Houston?" -General Zod
"Am I supposed to conduct with my penis?" -Peter Griffin (Family Guy)
"What does God need with a starship?" - Star Trek V
I'll be honest, I never much cared for Pixar, and their animation. Give me traditional hand drawn stuff any day.
I think Hollywood has been in shock, and awe at all the advantages of CG animation over hand drawn animation that they immediately jumped on the band wagon because in their mind, 'computers are the wave of the future, and pencils are a thing of the past'. As an artist, that really bothers me because you can still do great stuff with pencil, and paper. What makes any movie great is the story. Not the technique used to make it. (Although how well each technique is used is a major plus.)
Also, i have serious problems with Disney Channel forcing these 'tween' idols, and their crappy shows on us. If Britney Spears, and Lindsay Lohan are any indication, Miley Sirus will be next in line, but Disney Channel will never learn their lesson. They'll keep manufacturing more 'tween idols'. Why don't they call themselves 'Girly Channel', and be done with it? _________________ If it's got wings, i can crash it!
I didn't even like Disney when I was SUPPOSED to like Disney. I'm a Looney Toons guy!!! _________________ "One of God's own prototypes. Too weird to live, too rare to die." --Hunter S Thompson Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with a lot of pleasure." --Clarence Darrow
Dude, why are you watching Disney channel anyway? I didn't even like Disney when I was SUPPOSED to like Disney. I'm a Looney Toons guy!!!
I'm a 'Looney Tunes' guy, myself, and i try to avoid Disney Channel like the plague. It's just don't understand why their stuff is as popular as it is. _________________ If it's got wings, i can crash it!
It's so funny. Years ago, my grandfather took my sister and I to see The Little Mermaid. I purposely left my glasses home because I didn't want to see it. HEHE
I'm sure my grandfather didn't want to, either. _________________ John R. Gibson
Host/Writer/Creator Video Masters TV
"The whole planet Houston?" -General Zod
"Am I supposed to conduct with my penis?" -Peter Griffin (Family Guy)
"What does God need with a starship?" - Star Trek V
Disney had some really great movies back in the day - 'The Jungle Book', 'Snow White', 'Aladdin', 'The Lion King' (one of my favourites) - consistant quality movies spanning over 60 years (from the 30's to the 90's).
Even later when they started making their less popular movies with human characters (as opposed to animals), they made stuff like 'Tarzan' and 'The Prince of Egypt'. I didn't appreciate these movies when they came out but there's definitely a lot of quality work there.
I don't have a problem with CGI and I truly believe that Pixar does it better than anyone. Wall-E was one of my favourite movies of last year. They do a good job but it's mostly down to the writing more than the animation. These guys cut their teeth doing traditional animation and writing proper scripts (Brad Bird made 'The Iron Giant'). That's how they know how to do their job.
That's the difference between Pixar and Dreamworks Animation. It isn't the quality of animation - it's the quality of writing - the mastery of story.
The problem with Disney isn't just that they've strayed from animation. It's that there are no writers working at Disney anymore. None of these High School Musical movies are written - they're manufactured.
Remember Disney also made live-action movies back in the day. It wasn't solely an animation studio. But in both their animation and their live-action movies, they knew how to tell a story. That's what's been lost. _________________ http://www.what-song.net http://www.rogershanks.com
I can think of only 1 live action Disney movie that I love a lot.
The Rocketeer! _________________ John R. Gibson
Host/Writer/Creator Video Masters TV
"The whole planet Houston?" -General Zod
"Am I supposed to conduct with my penis?" -Peter Griffin (Family Guy)
"What does God need with a starship?" - Star Trek V
We have to face the facts that good old hand drawn animation might be a thing of the past at least in western countries.
The problem is the cost, the companies that produces cartoons have to make money, from what they are selling, you can write the most beautiful piece of work to ever grace the world, hire the most talented animators the world has ever seen, the product is a work of art whose likeness is rarely seen.
Unfortunately the cost would be astronomical, and the main stream audience finds the movie bland and boring or would rather download it instead of using money on it.
The company loses A LOT of money on it and even the DVD sales isnīt enough to cover their losses.
No self sane company is going to take that risk, rather they spend their money on things they know will be a success and pay itself back and if that means using CGI or making a sit com about a tween star, instead of traditional handdrawn animation then so be it.
Though i personally love handdrawn animation, i also know a thing or two about animation myself and when you have to draw 15 frames for one second, 25 if its really detailed the cost for paying a guy to sit and draw this can be quite high.
Then rather they use Flash it looks like a cartoon and it is much cheaper in the end.
Flash cartoons are fine, for the web. I feel it's not fit for television. Let's face it, those animations are crudely drawn and poorly animated on purpose. Animation is regressing, and I really wish regressing back to the old Hanna Barbera days.
Alas, no. If it's fast, and full of hyper characters, it will sell. Sad, really.
At my old age, too much fast action hurts my eyes. _________________ John R. Gibson
Host/Writer/Creator Video Masters TV
"The whole planet Houston?" -General Zod
"Am I supposed to conduct with my penis?" -Peter Griffin (Family Guy)
"What does God need with a starship?" - Star Trek V
The problem with Disney isn't just that they've strayed from animation. It's that there are no writers working at Disney anymore. None of these High School Musical movies are written - they're manufactured. Remember Disney also made live-action movies back in the day. It wasn't solely an animation studio. But in both their animation and their live-action movies, they knew how to tell a story. That's what's been lost.
That's one of the main problems i have with Disney right now. they don't try hard enough to make good stories on their own. animation, or otherwise. you would think that they would learn from Pixar how to do it right, but i guess not. ever since they teamed up with them, Disney started becoming lazy.
Erikjust wrote:
We have to face the facts that good old hand drawn animation might be a thing of the past at least in western countries.
The problem is the cost, the companies that produces cartoons have to make money, from what they are selling, you can write the most beautiful piece of work to ever grace the world, hire the most talented animators the world has ever seen, the product is a work of art whose likeness is rarely seen.
Unfortunately the cost would be astronomical, and the main stream audience finds the movie bland and boring or would rather download it instead of using money on it.
The company loses A LOT of money on it and even the DVD sales isnīt enough to cover their losses.
No self sane company is going to take that risk, rather they spend their money on things they know will be a success and pay itself back and if that means using CGI or making a sit com about a tween star, instead of traditional handdrawn animation then so be it.
Though i personally love handdrawn animation, i also know a thing or two about animation myself and when you have to draw 15 frames for one second, 25 if its really detailed the cost for paying a guy to sit and draw this can be quite high.
I just got 'Rock & Rule' on DVD, and it comes with a booklet explaining how tough it was to get this film made, let alone released in theaters. Especially when you consider how bold, and daring the film's concept was. It's no wonder studios always prefer to play it safe when it comes to animated features.
Erikjust wrote:
Then rather they use Flash it looks like a cartoon and it is much cheaper in the end.
Its Flash but it still has the charm of of handdrawn animation, plus its cheaper.
I use flash, myself, but it's mostly better suited for the web unless it's done really well. 'Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends' is one of the few shows that actually does good work with flash. It like hand drawn animation, but maybe future technologies will help bring down production costs while hand drawn animation looks more, and more like it use to be, but i guess we'll have to wait, and see.
John Gibson wrote:
Flash cartoons are fine, for the web. I feel it's not fit for television. Let's face it, those animations are crudely drawn and poorly animated on purpose. Animation is regressing, and I really wish regressing back to the old Hanna Barbera days.
Even Hanna-Barbera's worst efforts are far more entertaining than what currently passes for cartoons these days. Especially with the character designs. _________________ If it's got wings, i can crash it!
I use flash, myself, but it's mostly better suited for the web unless it's done really well. 'Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends' is one of the few shows that actually does good work with flash. It like hand drawn animation, but maybe future technologies will help bring down production costs while hand drawn animation looks more, and more like it use to be, but i guess we'll have to wait, and see.
Wolverine and The X-Men is also made in flash, and i donīt think its that bad.
Quote:
Even Hanna-Barbera's worst efforts are far more entertaining than what currently passes for cartoons these days. Especially with the character designs.
I would recommend Penn and Teller Bullshit episode called Good Ol' Days,
Its about nostalgia how you always seems to remember the best from the good old days and not the worst.
Yes Hanna-Barbera made some good things here and there but they certainly also made bad things that sucked mayor ass.
Same in a way whit the 80īs and the 90īs yes i like cartoons such as transformers ninja turtles skeleton warriors and such but we mustnīt forget that a lot of crap was also made in that era too.
My problem whit Disney is that they are one of the few companies in the world who can actually AFFORD to experiment, but instead (like in the spirit of their dead founder Walt Disney) actually trying to do it whit some of their movies, they keep it safe.
Pixar on the other hand is another story yes they use CGI instead of handdrawn animation, but thatīs their trait mark and you canīt really change that.
What i DO like about Pixar is that they actually dares to experiment whit their stories, both Ratatuie and Wall-E heck even Toy story was an experimental form of telling a story it could easily have failed.
BUT even though it could they still went and made it.
So i think Pixar is one of the greater movie makers.
Wolverine and The X-Men is also made in flash, and i donīt think its that bad.
From the clip i saw on 'VMTV', i thought it looked just as good as the other cartoons out there. maybe flash is becoming more advanced. I'll definitely give this show a look if a ever get the chance. _________________ If it's got wings, i can crash it!
What i DO like about Pixar is that they actually dares to experiment whit their stories, both Ratatuie and Wall-E heck even Toy story was an experimental form of telling a story it could easily have failed.
I completely agree with you.
On the other hand, Pixar is much more free to experiment. They have a deal with Disney. Disney's paying for these movies and taking a lot of the risk. Pixar can make an experimental movie because they're not taking all of the risk.
Disney however is its own company. They have to make money and take less risks because there is no parent company funding them.
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 vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
