This is probably old news to some, but I found this story interesting. I've not been a fan of the Mouse lately, but this takes some of the edge off my hatred. Good riddence to all those crappy DVDs. Nice to know that the raping of the classics will finally be stopped.
I hope that is what that story means. I can't believe Walt Disney would have supported any of that crap. Maybe it was making money, but it was destroying the reputation of quality the original, classic works possessed.
Hehe.
Pinocchio 4: Morning Wood: A touching adventure of misunderstanding and discovery as Pinocchio seeks out the Fairy to save him from becoming a puppet again. Along the way he'll meet new friends and his old companion, Jiminy Cricket, will return to guide our hero's choices. Will his journey prove to be too dangerous, or will he learn more of what it means to be a real boy? Featuring all-new songs by Emmy-nominated composers, this sequel to Disney's line of Pinocchio classics will warm the hearts of your children while educating them about anatomy.
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005
THE DIRECT TO DVD SEQUELS WERE KEEPING THE TRADITIONAL ANIMATION DEPARTMENT ALIVE. WHETHER WE LIKED THE SEQUELS OR NOT KIDS REALLY DO ENJOY THEM. WHEN THEY COME OUT AT THE VIDEO STORES THEY FLY OFF THE SHELVES. I REALLY THINK THIS WILL HURT DISNEY FINANCIALLY.
Originally posted by: PSYCHO_DAYV THE DITECT TO DVD SEQUELS WERE KEEPING THE TRADITIONAL ANIMATION DEPARTMENT ALIVE. WHETHER WE LIKED THE SEQUELS OR NOT KIDS REALLY DO ENJOY THEM. WHEN THEY COME OUT AT THE VIDEO STORES THEY FLY OFF THE SHELVES. I REALLY THINK THIS WILL HURT DISNEY FINANCIALLY.
I didn't like the direct-to-DVD series much, but it was real animation which made me happy. You're probably right about that dayv.
Originally posted by: PSYCHO_DAYV THE DITECT TO DVD SEQUELS WERE KEEPING THE TRADITIONAL ANIMATION DEPARTMENT ALIVE. WHETHER WE LIKED THE SEQUELS OR NOT KIDS REALLY DO ENJOY THEM. WHEN THEY COME OUT AT THE VIDEO STORES THEY FLY OFF THE SHELVES. I REALLY THINK THIS WILL HURT DISNEY FINANCIALLY.
They fly off the shelves based on the Disney name and nothing else. Family and friends agree that the stories are crap though. I think it's debatable whether or not kids enjoy seeing them. Kids probably enjoy seeing something on the tv screen for an hour, but that doesn't mean they're enjoying the actual story.
Did we really need a sequel to Bambi? Oh look, Bambi's all grown up and now he has his own family. A new threat awaits though. Seriously, is that really needed?
Pixar will definitely help get them back on track. F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335
You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.
yeah because the world definetely needs a toy story 3 planned to be made in 2010, lol
thats is about as pathetic as dreamworks doing shreks four and five. non necessary sequels will continue to be made as long as they make money count on it.
thank god miyazaki came out of retirement, i'm looking forward to his next films.
Do we really need a cars 2 either, pitiful.
I hate all american kiddie animation crap form pixar and disney as much as i hate pokemon. with the possible exceptions of the first toy story,and the incredibles. or films like wallace and gromit, or chicken run, or iron giant.
not only has 3D graphics and Cgi all but killed films, it is the death of traditional animation as we know it.
and while certain films like those i listed above can be done well with cgi it is not art in the same way traditional animation and film was, and really should be used as a tool to enhance traditional animation rather than replace it.
By the way his name is John Lasseter, and if it was not for him we probably would not be enjoying the genius of studio ghibli in the unites states on dvd.
And other than chicken little, all other disney films have been failures in terms of box office except for pirates of the caribbean amd that is live action. Disney made all there money in recent years off of the right to license ghibli films here in the states, as well as being the release studio on several of pixars films until steve jobs sold pixar to disney.
I think the direct to video market sequels was a thing possibly spurred forward by axed former ceo michael eisner. I think the direct to video sequels since the quality of the animation was not as good and were cheaply made, but still made money allowed disney to stay in business for several years. while they were losing in competition to studios such as dreamworks, and pixar. many of the empolyees of both pixar and dreamworks animation formerly worked for disney. Some of the animators even were appropriated for Lucasfilm projects.
It gets even stranger because Lasseter was formerly an employee of disney who left to make the brave little toaster and ended up working for ilm and eventually became of member of lucas pixar computer division. He then along with his entire creative team was a part of the deal to sell pixar to steve jobs, and now he and all his guys working under him have been sold off to disney. so he returns to his roots.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
Sounds like you just hate the CG animation that Pixar puts out. I have just about all of Pixar's movies and I love every one of them. Finding Nemo (which I've probably seen close to 100 times now), Monsters Inc, Cars, The Incredibles, Toy Story 1 and 2 (two was going to be direct to video until it was decided it was to good for that). Every one of Pixar's movies is story first and animation second (they even say that on the commentary). Hell, on the Finding Nemo commentary, they mention that they do movies of things they want to see and it just happens to be something the kids want to see too. They even said they had to scale some of the scenes in Nemo back since they'd be to scary for little kids. Nothing wrong with that, especially since parents probably don't want their kids screaming and having nightmares after watching the movie.
All other Disney films have been failures because the stories all sucked. It really had nothing to do with the animation. The animation looked fantastic, but the stories totally blew.
Disney wasn't just the release studio on several Pixar films. They were the release studio for ALL Pixar films. Now they're another division of Disney. That alone should make future Disney films much more successful. I for one would go out of my way to see Pixar films before. Now that they're owned by Disney, they'll just get a bigger cut of the receipts.
I don't know how you can even compare any of Pixar's movies to Pokemon. The former are expressly designed for kids and adults alike with wonderful stories and great animation (whether you like the animation or not doesn't mean it's not great animation). The latter is a show strictly for kids that has only slightly more plot than an average episode of Dragonball.
And while Shrek 3 may not have been as good as Shrek 1 or even 2, it was still a fun, enjoyable movie. I really like the way those guys poke fun and make references to all the fairy tales.
So by your reasoning, all animation that targets kids is crap. Well, IMHO, Chicken Run was a pretty lame movie and Wallace and Gromit didn't look that good either. F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335
You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.
I grew up in the 90s era of Disney animation. We got The Lion King, Aladdin, Hunchback, Pocahontas, Hercules, Beauty and the Beast, etc.
IMO this era made movies rivaling some of the very best they've ever put out overall but it's certainly biased that I was a kid during those years and automatically like them the most. They've got the classic memorable songs and soundtracks (that the CGI/Pixar movies seem to have lost) and some of the most amazing animation ever seen in....well, history. They incorporated CGI in ways that simply helped the traditional animations come more to life. They never really overdid it and that makes them more special. Plus the actual animators used to do some insane on-location research (Africa for LK, Paris for Hunchback) back in the day.
Sure, I've seen and enjoyed my fair share of Direct-to-DVD sequels (Aladdin ones mostly) but they never really add anything to the original in terms of depth or story, it's always just been to get well-liked characters in another situation cuz kids love that. Actually, now that I think about it, aren't kids the ones who should be asked about these sequels instead of adults assuming kids don't like 'em?
To me, nothing has ever touched the classic Disney-era films like Aristocats, The Jungle Book, and Pinocchio. I think maybe it's because they weren't aimed just at small children.
Pinocchio was SCARY! They wouldn't have done it the same way now.
I was in high school when the Little Mermaid came out, so I got to witness the new era of Disney 'classics' first hand. The new movies were pretty good, but they didn't have the same feel as the old movies I grew up with. This is just a preference of style really. I just liked the old ones better. This is why I never really liked the direct to DVD releases. How could 2002's Cinderella II - Dreams Come True match up with 1949's original? Maybe this is why the Star Wars prequels feel funny to me as well.
The way I see it, I don't care if traditional animation dies out if all were going to get is some crap that is only fit to keep little kids busy every now and then. I'd rather have nothing than bother watching that and I'd tell all the kids to go outside and play.
That said, traditional animation won't just "die out." That point of view is ridiculous. Computer technology is making it very easy to create traditional animation these days. A number of people are creating some interesting things as a result. I'd look to someone coming from a non-studio to create the next big thing.
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005
Originally posted by: Sluggo I was in high school when the Little Mermaid came out, so I got to witness the new era of Disney 'classics' first hand. The new movies were pretty good, but they didn't have the same feel as the old movies I grew up with. This is just a preference of style really. I just liked the old ones better. This is why I never really liked the direct to DVD releases. How could 2002's Cinderella II - Dreams Come True match up with 1949's original? Maybe this is why the Star Wars prequels feel funny to me as well.
Disney's bad move is/was making sequel to stories that never had sequels, "Cinderella 2" "Snow White 2" etc 100% bad choice,it would be equally silly to make a "Titanic 2"
