Disney needs to return to this animation format
-
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).
-
NobodymournstheWicked — 10 years ago(March 10, 2016 07:28 PM)
Do you not count Frozen because of it being in 3D or did you not see the movie either way for the most part I would say is that Disney even through you will never know what Disney will do in the future, I say they are done doing hand drawn 2D animated movies. And I bet it will be 3D computer animated movies, and I bet saves a lot of paper doing it on computers rather then drawing them by hand. You can still enjoy the traditional animated movies like this one, but for now I can say for the foreseeable future is that Disney is done doing hand drawn 2D animated movies.
-
otness_e — 10 years ago(March 12, 2016 07:41 AM)
You know what else would save paper? Replanting trees once you cut some down.
And we've already got plenty of movies whose usage of CGI were contributors in their becoming critical and possibly financial bombs, like the Prequel Trilogy of Star Wars, the Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions, Avatar (it made a lot of dough when it was first made, but it fell into obscurity quickly, so it's by definition a failure), and most DreamWorks films, we really don't need another Disney film that utilized 3D CGI that comes across as gimmicky as a result. -
otness_e — 9 years ago(June 30, 2016 09:01 AM)
I'm doubtful about that. For starters, the various Pokmon and DBZ movies are still 2D animation, and even the Simpsons movie is 2D. There's also the DC Universe Animated Original Movie line.
And besides which, CGI doesn't really make a movie any better and in fact, several times, it comes across as gimmicky and as such results in the movie turning badly. For example, the Prequel Trilogy from Star Wars was LOADED with CGI, and while financially it was a modest success, it was critically bombed, and a large part of the reason for the bad reception was the CGI factor and bad story writing. Then there's also the Matrix sequels, which were utterly hated because of the CGI and the bad story writing. Heck, look at most of DreamWorks' films. They went the CGI route, yet they're losing a LOT of money and most of their films were downright terrible. Probably the only CGI films that were actually GOOD were Advent Children and Pixar. -
Weber4278 — 9 years ago(July 01, 2016 12:38 AM)
I really wish Disney would bring hand-drawn animation back, if only for its historical importanceits the original animation format that started the studio, I think to abandon it completely was a mistake.
Bringing it back doesn't mean they have to stop computer animation completelythey could just release hand drawn animated films alongside their computer animated filmsI don't see why they couldn't do that.
Just my opinion
You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.