This is topic Upcoming animation: Good or bad? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003700

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-15-2004, 09:14 PM:
 
What's everyone think of the new animated movies that were all advertised with The Incredibles?

- Pooh's Heffalump Movie: Looks like a Disney direct-to-video that's taking a detour to the big screen.

- Madagascar: Looks pretty good. The idea of cute little penguins as psycho gangsters is hilarious. This could be a big hit.

- Chicken Little: This will be Disney's first stab at Pixar-like computer animation. Uhh, I think they ought to work harder at renegotiating with Pixar.

- Cars: Pixar's last Disney movie (unless they kiss and make up). Can't tell much from this teaser but the animation sure looks nice so far. It reminds me more of Toy Story than anything else, which is not a bad thing.

There is an article in Film Journal in which Brad Bird (director of Incredibles) says animation is heading into a slump right now...he says due to all the money being made by Pixar and Dreamworks with computer animation, we're going to be subjected to a whole crop of crappy computer-animated movies. (www.filmjournal.com)
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-15-2004, 10:19 PM:
 
Pooh's Heffalump Movie:
Looks like ass. I couldn't understand anything the elephant was saying. it is time for Winnie the Pooh to give it up and retire, as everyone hates him.

Madagascar:
Chris Rock gets typecast again! Animation looks horrid, and I was extremely annoyed by the painful-to-the-ears happy birthday song at the beginning of the trailer, so this movie will suck.

Chicken Little:
I saw a trailer for this but I'll be damned if I can even remember what a single frame looks like. I imagine the movie will be the same way: unmemorable.

Cars:
This will probably be pretty good. John Asshatter is back at the director's helm and it should be enjoyable.
 

---

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 11-15-2004, 11:50 PM:
 
what about Robots ? Ice Age was not a favorite of mine by any means. But Robots is...well..about robots so i'll have to see it either way. It'll still be crap probably

Does anyone know if there are any new Japanese Anime via Disney coming out soon?

Just bought the redux DVD of Iron Giant today. Now that was a good animated movie.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 11-15-2004, 11:53 PM:
 
I'll just wait for Howl's Moving Castle which opens this Saturday in Japan. Disney is planning to release it here sometime in 2005. Lasseter produced the English language version of Spirited Away for Disney in 2002. Don't know if he will do the same for this one.
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 11-16-2004, 02:08 AM:
 
Allison! Why on earth couldn't you wait the 24 hours for the special edition!
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00009M9BK/102-6622705-0824160?v=glance

Pooh's Hefledump movie has already been reviewed on my website even though I haven't seen it yet. It got an F-.

Madagascar: This comes from DreamWorks better half, PDI. So I expect it will be good.

Robots: I've not see enough of Chris Wedge's work to accurately gage this one yet. Ice Age was middle of the road. It didn't really stand out in any way, but it didn't suck either.

Chicken Little: The sky will fall on Disney when they release this turd. Michael Eisner will discover that 3D animation isn't what made Pixar successful. Pixar is successful, of course, because they make great films. by the time Disney figures this out, all the most talented artists have lost their interest in going (back) to work for them.

For more information about Eisner's obsession over 3d, clika here.

Cars: Far too early to know, but the teaser is chock full of John Lasseter goodness. (aka that Toy Story feel some of you mentioned earlier)

Howl's Moving Castle: I'm not generally into anime at all, but Miyazaki makes some of the most imaginative films of any genre.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-16-2004, 03:01 AM:
 
OK, I forgot about Robots and also Spongebob. (We are not running those trailers with Incredibles.)

Robots looks pretty good IF they can keep a handle on Robin Williams, like Disney did with "Aladdin." If they let him just go nuts through the whole thing it could fall flat. A little of him goes a long way. The animation in it looks extremely clever though.

Spongebob: Looks like a piece of crap. I watched about 10 minutes of this show on TV one day just to see what all the hype was about. I didn't get it. Maybe I'm too old and appreciate good cartooning too much, I don't know. I guess the kids will like it.

I also was annoyed by the Happy Birthday song in "Madagascar," and the title will be a tough sell. But overall I think it could do well if the story is decent.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-16-2004, 05:09 AM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

I couldn't understand anything the elephant was saying.

---

quote:

---

Disney booting up 'Toy Story 3'
Walt Disney Studios is actively moving ahead with its long-in-discussion sequel to Pixar Animation's two "Toy Story" movies, a move that could bring Woody, left, Buzz Lightyear and the gang back to the big screen.

---

quote:

---

STUDIOS SUE PIXAR, DEMAND BAD MOVIE

"Stop making the rest of us look bad," demand Hollywood executives

Hollywood — The eight major Hollywood studios have filed suit against CGI animation company Pixar for its consistent record of quality movies. The complaint alleges that with its sixth consecutive profitable and critically acclaimed film in “The Incredibles,” Pixar is overturning a decades-long public relations campaign waged by Hollywood studios to convince the public that it’s impossible to consistently make high quality films. “If Pixar doesn’t get with the program, we’re going to have to fundamentally change the way we do business,” groused Paramount chairwoman Sherry Lansing, whose studio hasn’t produced a hit film in several years. “I repeat my recommendation to Steve Jobs that he pay John Travolta and Halle Berry $20 million each to provide voices for an effects-laden remake of ‘The Fox and the Hound.’”
Plaintiffs in the suit are Paramount, Universal, MGM, Fox, Disney, Warner Bros., Dreamworks, and Sony Pictures. All eight studios have worked together since 1980 in a sophisticated PR effort to make all Americans believe that it’s inevitable most films will be poor to mediocre. The campaign has included payoffs to critics, training for film school professors, and talking points distributed to corporate spokespeople. Because of the successful campaign, executives have successfully built a system in which they spend tens of millions of dollars each year on development and end up producing as many critically and commercially successful films as a monkey throwing darts at a board would, according to scientific studies.

Asked for comment, a Pixar spokesperson said he believes the suit was motivated by studio executives’ indignation that Pixar and Apple CEO Steve Jobs refused to send them each a free iPod Photo.

According to the studios’ talking points, it’s impossible to consistently make more than 50% of films be high quality, with an average hit to miss ratio of 1:2. But with its six profitable and acclaimed films, Pixar is beginning to make many Americans questions why it actually seems possible to consistently make successful films.

“Those guys are ruining it for everybody,” said Warner Bros. president Alan Horn. “We can’t possibly be expected to stay in business when we’re up against a studio that doesn’t have dozens of unqualified young executives with little or no background or interest in film meddling in the creative process of all their movies.”

“It just goes to show what I’ve always said,” added Universal Chairwoman Stacy Snider. “It should be illegal for companies outside of Los Angeles to produce motion pictures.”

The complaint asks that a court award the eight studios $1 billion in damages or compel Pixar to hire 118 unqualified development executives, option the rights to 38 scripts and books it has no intention of turning into films, and immediately greenlight sequels to “Toy Story” and “Finding Nemo” with $100 million-plus budgets and hire directors whose only experience is in music videos to oversee them

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

and I was extremely annoyed by the painful-to-the-ears happy birthday song at the beginning of the trailer

---

I agree ... but I guess it's not easy to sing in key or time when all the voice actors record their parts weeks apart, never even meeting their co-stars. That was my first impression. It sounds that bad.

Like anything else, the "quirky/clever" CGI full-length feature has turned from an event into a novelty. Pixar started by doing tons of well-planned shorts, developing writing along with the animation. And good for them. Now it seems that any studio can just hire a team and a render-farm, and throw together something in a year. I personally lost my taste for it long ago. I think A Bug's Life was the last one. Well ... I liked Monsters Inc., too. And, of course, Incredibles. Okay, so I'm sure I'll love Cars.

And that Suing Pixar article could have been straight out of Atlas Shrugged. It screams satire, but, you know, I'm just not sure anymore!

Edit: Okay, I love that Dateline: Hollywood site!
 

---

Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 11-18-2004, 09:19 PM:
 
Excuse me. Exactly what is Pixar doing that's illegal?

The judge should have a hearty laugh at this, then throw the case out.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 11-18-2004, 09:35 PM:
 
Watch out for the dripping sarcasm John, it leaves a nasty stain.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-19-2004, 03:12 AM:
 
John. It is a joke. In other words, there is no lawsuit.

That thing is hilarious!
 

---

Posted by Greg Davis (Member # 2687) on 11-19-2004, 03:34 AM:
 
I was worried about animations new direction after shark tale and ice age and shrek 2... but than again, was a bugs life any great? or ants?

The thing that made incredibles rock and will with madagascar and chicken little is the thing that made polar express suck

its animation. its not real. face mapping looks terrible, and so long as these animations are creative, original and (surprisingly important) well written, they will be successes. The greatest thing is the move away from an all star cast, such as pixar in incredibles and nemo. Better films than shark tale that had to have had over 70 mil just in voices. Spend the money where it works, folks !
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 11-19-2004, 03:52 AM:
 
And now, a somewhat off topic rant
-----------------------------------------------------

Greg brings up a great point. Why on earth would you have an A list actor like Will Smith, who can only do one voice, as your main character? It just about forces you to write the entire movie around that voice! Why not write a great movie and then get a profesional (and less expensive) voice actor like Rob Paulsen or Billy West to CREATE a voice around your charecter?

And then you have the A list actor talking on junkets and stuff about how he "birthed" a character. BULLSHIT. You HELPED as part of a TEAM of people that created the charecter. Profesional voice actors are much more humble in terms of understanding that creating the successfull believability of a charecter comes from all of the pieces (the voice, animators, and writers) coming together just right.
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 11-19-2004, 07:29 PM:
 
Exactly! What character did Will Smith play in Shark Tale? He played WILL FREAKIN' SMITH! It got old before the movie even started.
 

---

Posted by Wayne Keyser (Member # 2420) on 11-19-2004, 07:55 PM:
 
"due to all the money being made by Pixar and Dreamworks with computer animation, we're going to be subjected to a whole crop of crappy computer-animated movies."

Due to the low level of audience intelligence, we are continually subjected to a whole crop of crappy movies (animated or not.)

And it's not just NOW (allusions to the "aesthetic and moral decline of American civilization" notwithstanding). Take any year from the Edison years on ... make a complete list of every film released in that year ... go down the list and cross out every title for which you can say "idiot fodder" ... "by-the-numbers programmer" ... "worse than direct-to-video except there wasn't any video then" ... "the star had nothing else to do that week" ... and EVEN "won an Oscar for best picture but I've never heard of it, and probably for good reason."

Stand back and look at the list. The amount covered with big black crossouts will amaze you.

When you're done (sit down, sip some water ... no, SLOWLY ... and calm down) go back and put a big gold star next to the real standouts ... "well-deserved status as a classic" ... "saw it when I was a kid and I've never forgotten it" ... "great for a rainy Saturday afternoon with someone you love" ... "work of genius".

The gold stars will be relatively few, but fairly evenly spaced. And, looking back on those titles, I believe you will be utterly unable to point out a constant factor that would have allowed you to foresee their gold-star quality, except perhaps the absence of the note "cynical attempt to churn out a few more bucks from the rubes." And you may even disagree with me on that point.
 

---