Disney needs to return to this animation format
-
Mississippi20 — 11 years ago(November 02, 2014 09:00 AM)
Winnie the Pooh was the last "hand drawn" animation in 2011, I believe. It looks absolutely beautiful but Winnie the Pooh has a tradition to follow.
I don't have a problem with CGI. Disney has made great films with Wreck it Ralph and Frozen..traditional hand drawn animation has obviously died out, like stop-motion or something, but occasionally you'll get a movie where it makes sense to utilize those art forms and it makes it really special. Part if the reason why I love films like Winnie the Pooh (2011) and Frankenweenie. But if we keep getting a bunch of hand drawn animated films or something, it might not be as special, unique and nostalgic.
I do think CGI is the better, more modern art form but hopefully we can still see traditional-animation at least occasionally when it makes sense. -
Andthatismytwocents — 11 years ago(November 03, 2014 06:43 AM)
It does not make money for them anymore
Lion King was the last "traditional"(it had computer imaging and coloring) animated film that made a sizable profit then the films just did not make money
One rule of many in show biz is you gotta make money CGI films by Pixar then Shrek made the cash
And that's my two cents -
TutuAnimationPrincess — 11 years ago(November 03, 2014 09:53 PM)
That's a serious underestimate of Disney's box office performances. Sure, they didn't make "Lion King" money, but the rest of the Renaissance films were still highly profitable. Lilo and Stitch in 2002 did reasonably well and even Princess and the Frog did well, though not up to expectations. It's not like every 2D Disney film after TLK bombed.
"If life is getting you down and needs uplifting, then please come dance with me!" -
jname96 — 11 years ago(November 04, 2014 09:14 AM)
Sure, they didn't make "Lion King" money, but the rest of the Renaissance films were still highly profitable. Lilo and Stitch in 2002 did reasonably well and even Princess and the Frog did well, though not up to expectations.
I was gonna say the same thing. They never LOST money during the Renaissance, geez! Every film made a profit overall through "Tarzan". And yes, "Lilo and Stitch" was a success. I think "Brother Bear" did well too. And yes, "Princess and the Frog" totally earned its budget back and more. -
Andthatismytwocents — 11 years ago(November 17, 2014 01:26 PM)
YES BUT Lion King Made three Hundred Million in less then three months its budget was under 100 million
Pocahantas had done that there would be a theme park in VA Right now
And that was before Mel Gibson ruined himself
And in 1996 with the aquistion of ABC Disney made more money through the radio stations that came with that hence the music industry
Ten years from now what will they do?
Remember Happy meal Toys? They do not do that anymore because they do not want the characters to be associated with food lacking nutrition due to current execs course they still make chocolate
Subway you get bags
So if by chance a traditional drawn film makes ALOT of money fast
they will have to retrain hand inking at the studios
And that's my two cents -
otness_e — 11 years ago(November 18, 2014 07:43 AM)
YES BUT Lion King Made three Hundred Million in less then three months its budget was under 100 million
Pocahantas had done that there would be a theme park in VA Right now
And that was before Mel Gibson ruined himself
And in 1996 with the aquistion of ABC Disney made more money through the radio stations that came with that hence the music industry
Ten years from now what will they do?
Maybe I should remind you that Princess and the Frog and Winnie the Pooh, the two final Disney movies with traditional animation, only got subpar box office receipts because they had the rotten luck (and the latter case, utter stupidity) of being released around the time of Avatar and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, respectively. Had they been aired during times that didn't have it fighting with either anticipated or potential box office hits, they probably would have gotten much higher revenues.
Remember Happy meal Toys? They do not do that anymore because they do not want the characters to be associated with food lacking nutrition due to current execs course they still make chocolate
Subway you get bags
So if by chance a traditional drawn film makes ALOT of money fast
they will have to retrain hand inking at the studios
Aren't those examples due to political pressure rather than true economic factors, though? A lot of people are afraid of upsetting special interest groups even when said things they have in store may actually be a gold mine. Heck, Disney's unwilling to release Path to 9/11 onto DVD, either directly or even by selling the rights to another company, despite it being a smash hit, and it shaved enough minutes from the film to effectively deflect any criticism of the Clinton administration all because Clintonian Democrats basically forced Iger to do so, especially during an election year.
And anyways, if we used your logic, then CGI itself is becoming unsustainable anyways, especially when most of DreamWorks films are flops (only the Shrek and Madagascar franchises did even remotely well, the rest basically bombed, and I heard that the attempt at implementing 3D basically crashed and burned as well), and the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy and remaining Matrix movies did terribly, both by critics and even box office to some extent (not too much of a failure in the case of the Prequel Trilogy, but definitely the case with the Matrix). Heck, we wouldn't even have any movies or TV shows anymore, heck, TVs themselves would be defunct by now because most people don't watch them anymore.
Besides, Disney already has Pixar for CGI film distribution. They don't need to implement CGI into their main movie making business, as that just makes things redundant. -
Andthatismytwocents — 11 years ago(November 18, 2014 01:38 PM)
Phantom menace made MORE money then most people realize
And the failure of Tianna was due to some "genius" at the studio releasing in the middle of December
Now heres a quote for you
"Utimately it is the audience who decides or success or failure. They have the final say"
This was a quote to the sucess of Spongebob Square Pants by
Jeffery Katzenburg
who for some reason does NOT like the Little Mermaid
for that staement APTLY applies to The Little Mermaids success
And not to turn this into a bad chat room but simply this
The ego controls the industry as well as money
Unlike myself you sound alot younger and you just may have a chance to get into the entertainment business
ME Sure as hell TRIED and now I spend my time putting worthless opinions on things online
And when you become a CEO oh what you could do -
otness_e — 11 years ago(November 18, 2014 02:17 PM)
That depends, are you older than 24? Because that's how old I am. And I'm not sure I can get into Disney now and make any changes. Heck, thanks to Diane Miller's death, I don't think I can even stand a chance in reversing the damages Katzenberg, Eisner, and Iger have done and are doing to the company, since her death means the last of the Disney line is extinguished.
-
Andthatismytwocents — 11 years ago(November 18, 2014 02:42 PM)
You forgot Roy and as to my age not 50 yet
Chris Saunders in the late eighties was under 30
Other Disney Films that came out Nov Thanksgiving did well Little Mermaid included
The Princess and Frog was December BIG MISTAKE on Disney's part -
otness_e — 11 years ago(November 18, 2014 07:34 PM)
Yeah, Roy too. Unfortunately, Diane Miller died in the middle of my penultimate semester at College. I needed to be trained by one of the original Disneys, she was the last of the line to directly interact from the master himself, and now she's dead. Roy was pretty much dead while I was in high school, there was little I could do by that point regarding him.
And as far as your other points, I heard Avatar's release also played a huge role in how PATF did subpar in the Box Office. And as far as Katzenberg, I can only speculate as to why he might hate The Little Mermaid right now, and it's most likely because it was the only film besides Lion King he had little influence over. He got rid of Silence is Golden, a solo by Eric, and changed the ending to be more like Die Hard, but that's it. He did attempt to get rid of Part of Your World for extremely petty reasons, but fortunately saner heads prevailed. Beauty and the Beast, he basically rewrote from scratch with the excuse of the original screenplay being "too dark and too dramatic" (Ironic, considering what he later nearly did to Toy Story) to effectively be feminist propaganda with very little in common with the actual fairy tale it was based on, and as a result Belle came across as a huge jerk in the film (which also calls into question why the beauty of the tale doesn't even match internal beauty and ironically, the triplets, the girls who are the closest standins to Belle's wicked sisters in the original tale actually came far closer to internal beauty from their actions with purity of heart), basically. It might have gotten good raving reviews at the time and won an oscar, but right now, people are actually noticing the flaws in the film right now. I'm not sure how Aladdin is doing, but I do know the only other smash hit besides The Little Mermaid, Lion King, was made without Katzenberg's involvement (he in fact focused on Pocahontas, and while I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to say it bombed, it definitely wasn't close to being a smash hit either, being moderately successful at best). Oh, and Katzenberg nearly ruined Toy Story with his Black Friday idea. Not to mention, The Little Mermaid seems more likely to stand the test of time, even having a convention dedicated to Ariel and the franchise called ArielCon not to mention. What has Belle or even Jasmine got in comparison? -
racy1285 — 10 years ago(September 14, 2015 03:45 PM)
And as far as your other points, I heard Avatar's release also played a huge role in how PATF did subpar in the Box Office.
AVATAR had nothing to do with PATF's boxoffice. AVATAR is a action adventure scifi film. The people that watch Disney Princess films wouldn't be caught dead watching a film like AVATAR and vice versa. AVATAR is for a male audience while PATF was for women, families, and little children. The real film that hurt PATF was Alvin and the Chipmunks the squeakquel. The film came out the same week as AVATAR and still made over $400 million at the boxoffice. And of course the audience for it is exactly the same as PATF "Women, families, and little children".
Where is else was Disney suppose to release The Princess and The Frog? For the film to make money you need to put it either in the summer or winter. Disney did exactly that and they struck out. People just didn't want to go see it. They wanted to see CGI chipmunks instead. So I can't really blame Disney for going with CGI animation. If thats what people want to see then Disney had no choice but to respond. And hell it worked. -
watcher101 — 10 years ago(September 14, 2015 03:59 PM)
I beg to differ. I know a few people that like Avatar (both James Cameron's and The Last Airbender) and Disney Princess films. It doesn't matter what age group the movie is aimed at, it's the story that they like.
-
racy1285 — 10 years ago(September 14, 2015 04:26 PM)
I know a few people that like Avatar (both James Cameron's and The Last Airbender) and Disney Princess films.
You said some key words there "a few people". I wasn't talking about a few people I'm talking about the Majority of people. And its a fact that the Majority of the people that watched Avatar is not going to watch a Disney Princess Film. Hence why AVATAR had nothing to do with Princess and the Frog not doing well. Going back to my original point.
I have no idea why you mentioned the Last Airbender. Other than having the same title as AVATAR. It has nothing to do with this discussion. Its a great tv show and a really awful Shaymalan movie. But completely off topic.
It doesn't matter what age group the movie is aimed at, it's the story that they like.
I 100% disagree. Of course the age group matters and the type of people who watch it matters. If its always about the story. Then tell me why films like "A Wolf of Wolf Street","Boyhood","Birdman"etc don't make the same type of money at the boxoffice as the Marvel films, The DC films, The Pixar Films, The Disney Animated films, Scifi films, etc?
Yes its important to have a good story. But its not the main driver when it comes to boxoffice. It comes from films or people working on them having a following. -
otness_e — 9 years ago(November 20, 2016 04:27 PM)
Hey, I'm just stating what I had heard, and it was on one of Disney Wiki's forum posts. I'll try to hunt it down if you wish.
Here's the post in question:
http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:286772#51
Yea that's one of the reasons Tangled did better next to
Avatar coming as the same week as Princess and The Frog.
There are people who now have predujice against handdrawn animation. If it's CGI they will think it's for them to. It's really one of those stupid little annoyences next to someone calling you an idiot for liking something that they don't -
marvelass — 10 years ago(July 01, 2015 10:13 PM)
YES BUT Lion King Made three Hundred Million in less then three months its budget was under 100 million
Pocahantas had done that there would be a theme park in VA Right now
And that was before Mel Gibson ruined himself
Pocahontas
made about the same amount of money as
Toy Story
in 1995, but no one calls
Toy Story
a disappointment; in fact, it kickstarted Pixar.
Pocahontas
Domestic: $141.6 million
Foreign: $204.5 million
Total: $346.1 million
Toy Story
Domestic: $191.7 million
Foreign: $170.1 million
Total: $361.8 million
The thing is, Disney saw it as a disappointment, because it didn't do better than the previous animated film,
The Lion King
. Starting with
The Little Mermaid
, each animated film of the "Disney Renaissance" had done better than the one before it:
1989:
The Little Mermaid
= $84.3 million domestically; $184.1 million worldwide
1991:
Beauty and the Beast
= $145.8 million domestically; $351.8 million worldwide
1992:
Aladdin
= $217 million domestically; $504 million worldwide
1994:
The Lion King
= $312.8 million domestically; $768.6 million worldwide
As you can see,
The Lion King
was a phenomenon, and any film would have had a difficult time following in its behemoth footsteps. Even though
Pocahontas
did remarkably well any film would love to have had its grosses and actually did better than Pixar's
Toy Story
internationally (Pocahontas = $204.5 million; Toy Story = $170.1 million), nevertheless, Disney saw it as a disappointment, because it didn't surpass
The Lion King
. Not just Disney thought this: pundits and critics alike were saying that the Disney Renaissance began its descent with
Pocahontas
.
Furthermore, the criticisms
Pocahontas
got for its 'historical inaccuracies,' especially by Native Americans, really hurt the film's reputation. But the film went on to win two Oscars (Best Song, Best Score) against Toy Story, no less so it was not maligned by other filmmakers.
.
. -
jname96 — 10 years ago(July 02, 2015 08:24 AM)
As a huge fan of
Pocahontas
(it's actually my favorite Disney animated flick), I actually beg to differ with you, regarding its legacy:
It simply doesn't hold up well, with fans. In spite of its substantial box office revenue upon its release, most moviegoers have completely forgotten it. And noI don't think it's cuz of the historical inaccuracies. There are many films that are historically inaccurate, but well-received anyway (Fox's
Anastasia
comes to mind, even though I hated it. No one talks about the historical inaccuracy of that film, cuz they just liked it. Mel Gibson's
Braveheart
, which was also released the same year as
Pocahontas
, went on to win Best Picture in spite of its looming inaccuracies).
Pocahontas
was simply a weaker film, story-wise, and subsequently has not remained in the public conscious since. -
otness_e — 11 years ago(November 18, 2014 06:07 AM)
Yeah, and I heard that a large part of the reason why Princess and the Frog didn't reach expectations was because they had the rotten luck of releasing it a week before James Cameron's Avatar. For the record, Winnie the Pooh's low box office numbers was only because Disney made the stupid decision to release it on the same day as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2. I mean, releasing PATF around the time of Avatar is one thing, as the film, while heavily marketed, was not guaranteed to be a box office success. But releasing Winnie the Pooh on the same day of not only a Harry Potter film, but the anticipated conclusion of the film series, AND the second part of said adaptation of the final book?! That's box office suicide, even with the PG-13 rating (which BTW, I remember seeing lots of people at The Dark Knight who were much younger than 13).