This is topic Pre-feature cartoons coming back on Disney films 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=004892
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-04-2006, 10:03 PM:
 
This is from the Internet Movie Database news section on 12/4. (www.imdb.com) (I think this is great news, but my biggest wish is for Warner Bros. to do it with old Looney Tunes.)

Cartoon shorts, once a staple of movie shows (they gradually faded away following the advance of television in the 1950s), are being revived by the Walt Disney Co. under the prodding of Pixar's John Lasseter, the New York Times reported Sunday. Disney producer Don Hahn told the newspaper, "Shorts have always been a wellspring of techniques, ideas and young talent. It's exactly what Walt did, because it's a new studio now, with new talent coming up -- as it should. I think the shorts program can really grow this studio." The new cartoons will be screened with Disney films, Hahn said. "You pay your 10 bucks to see a movie," he remarked, "and you get a surprise you hadn't counted on."
 
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 12-05-2006, 03:32 AM:
 
I agree, good news [thumbsup]

Now who should we email at Warner Bros?
 
Posted by Edwin Sheldon (Member # 4001) on 12-05-2006, 03:42 AM:
 
Great news indeed.

Reminds me of a stupid customer I had for Wallace & Gromit who made a big scene in the lobby when she realized the movie had an animated short attached to it. She claimed she didn't have all day to watch the movie, and was too busy being a bitch to listen to my assurance that the running time we had quoted her earlier INCLUDED the short and all pre-feature trailers and ads. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 12-05-2006, 12:06 PM:
 
Yes, I've been wanting that. I've always said, if I get my own theatre, or have authorization to do it at one I'm at, I'd find a way to run prefeature cartoons.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-05-2006, 12:14 PM:
 
Back in the days when Kit Parker Films was distributing the Looney Tunes, we played them for about 9 months. We'd book them three at a time and play each cartoon for two weeks. It was expensive though...they overcharged for shipping. And as you might guess, print quality was iffy. But people sure loved seeing those toons on the big screen.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-05-2006, 12:39 PM:
 
I wish we could do a similar type of thing with regular movies aimed mostly at adults. There's lots of great live action short subject movies that get made every year. And few people ever get to see them.

One thing getting in the way of cartoons and short films being stuck ahead of movies is all the TV commercials and countless movie trailers already killing over 20 minutes of time.

If I ran an art house oriented theater I'd definitely try to play 1 short film ahead of the feature.
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-05-2006, 06:49 PM:
 
quote: Charles Greenlee
if I get my own theatre, or have authorization to do it at one I'm at, I'd find a way to run prefeature cartoons.
I always did, at my drive-in "hobby" jobs. Usually the cartoons were from my personal collection, but occasionally I'd get some on loan from other collectors, like Justin West.
 
Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 12-05-2006, 10:24 PM:
 
I have no collection, but I did seriusly think about grabbing those Star Trek shows in 35, to play here, but I'm not rich.
 
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 12-06-2006, 06:47 PM:
 
This is great news, but what makes it better is that I've heard that one of those shorts is going to be a new Goofy how to short on "How to Hook Up a Home Theater." Now my question is, do we get a CGI Goofy or the Goofy we all know and love?

AJG
 
Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 12-06-2006, 07:34 PM:
 
[thumbsup] [thumbsup] [thumbsup] [Big Grin] [Smile] [Cool]
 
Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 12-07-2006, 12:00 AM:
 
We get a stop motion animated cardboard figure of Goofy. Like on those PBS kids shows. Yay! Just kidding, I hope it's your traditional drawn cartoon.
 
Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 12-07-2006, 02:04 AM:
 
CGI is killing animation. I believe that animator studios now are "attacking" the older audience instead of the young ones. Remember Lion King, Beauty and The Beast, Alladin? Those were animated for all ages! Now the new ones, the CGI dreadfull ones, have catchy lines only an adult would understand like the Matrix reference and Spiderman reference in the Shrek films! Do young kids know those films? Absolutely not. Are the scenes attractive to the older audience? Perfectly yes. It's sad that neither Disney nor Dreamworks are working on traditional cartoons and invest on countless hours of rendering. That is why I've always loved Manga/Japanese animation.
Demetris
 
Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 12-07-2006, 02:32 AM:
 
Manga and Japanimation or Cheapanimation as I call it is what most cartoons out are now based on. While it has cool effects, the animation itself is jumpy, and repetative, and the characters are drawn with quick sketch strokes, and heavy lines. All typical of cheap, low quality animation. Even the Flintstones, with the same damned couch passing by over and over as Fred runs, at least looped every 1/2 second or more, rather than anime which repeats the same 2 frames for 10 seconds. Give me traditional animation anyday, even computer assisted animation. CGI is good in it's own right, but not as a replacement for traditional. Anime has little to offer. In my opinion at least, yours may vary, and probably does.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-07-2006, 02:40 AM:
 
quote: Demetris Thoupis
It's sad that neither Disney nor Dreamworks are working on traditional cartoons and invest on countless hours of rendering.
John Lasseter has said that he would like to see Disney do some traditional animation again. I think it'll happen...once. If the movie is a hit, then it'll happen again. If the movie flops, that'll be that. I just hope whatever they come up with has a good story - at least then it'll have a chance of doing well.
 
Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 12-07-2006, 07:00 AM:
 
Traditional animation is expensive. Disney's last traditional animated film was "Home on the Range", right?

Cost = $110 million

World Wide Box Office = $103.5 million

Why try it again, if nobody is supporting it? Small budget fare might make a better run at it, but I doubt the billion dollar companies will invest much money in it anymore.

Nobody is interested in paying premium money to watch old technology in a theater. I'm not saying that old school animation (and decent story telling) is no fun, but new school animation (with decent story telling) is an easier sell.

I love "Thundercats", but it's not going to sell out theaters across America, unless Panthor and Snarf are rendered in 3-D. And that would make me vomit, as it would be RAPING my childhood.

And John Lasseter? Director of such movies as "Knick Knack", "Toy Story", "A Bug's Life", "Toy Story 2", "Cars", and the upcoming "Toy Story 3"? Hardly a beacon of hope for those praying for traditional animation to make a comeback.

His last traditional animation credit as a director (from IMDB) was for "Lady and the Lamp" in 1979. EVERYTHING he has done since has been CGI.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-07-2006, 09:29 AM:
 
quote: Charles Greenlee
Manga and Japanimation or Cheapanimation as I call it is what most cartoons out are now based on. While it has cool effects, the animation itself is jumpy, and repetative, and the characters are drawn with quick sketch strokes, and heavy lines. All typical of cheap, low quality animation.
I will agree the bulk of Japanese animation is pretty cheaply done. There are exceptions to that, such as features like Akira and Ghost in the Shell. Those two movies and a fair number of others have some very well done animation. Still, it doesn't rival the meticulous standard of traditional animation set by Disney.

A movie like Jungle Book would actually have 24 drawings per 1 second of film time. You don't get that at all with Japanese animation. Even the best feature length shows commonly have less than 5-10 drawings per second, if even that. It's pretty easy to spot the various short cuts that are taken.

The style of "manga" and "anime" is an equally glaring problem. I know lots of Americans like the look of it, mainly since it is so different to our own animation. But from the Japanese perspective, all that stuff just looks the same. Animators over there aren't allowed to do anything different. The tyranny of that style goes against the principals of creativity.

quote: Anslem Rayburn
Nobody is interested in paying premium money to watch old technology in a theater. I'm not saying that old school animation (and decent story telling) is no fun, but new school animation (with decent story telling) is an easier sell.
I don't agree with that.

A great deal of the animated CGI movie thing is a passing fad. There's a lot of mediocre to even badly done animated movies being released these days. The quality bar has been slipping as well for CGI effects in live action movies as well. And we're seeing the talent pool for 3D artists and animators shifting to other areas. You can make more money doing 3D work in computer game development than you can in working on movie projects.

Pixar has been able to do well for two reasons. First, they work very hard on developing their stories and do so following the work flow model perfected by Disney. Second, they work harder than any other studio to continually push the quality bar higher and higher with each release.

Customers will line up to pay for a good hand drawn animated movie. Home on the Range didn't fail because much of it was hand drawn. It failed because the movie was crap. Put something together as good as The Lion King and people will go to see it.

The trick is being able to assemble the talent to create a good hand drawn animated movie. It's difficult, but not impossible. Many American animators and artists have had to find work elsewhere due to the 3D CGI fad for feature films and the widespread outsourcing of traditional animation work overseas to Korea.
 
Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 12-07-2006, 12:54 PM:
 
Even good non-disney animation. I used to love Looney Toons, still do. They could take the traditional feel and maticulousness and make new ones with computer assist. Yeah, I know there are new Looney Toons cartoons, but they lack something, they seem a bit weak. Traditional animation and computer animation can get along great. As mentioned before, Lion King, and Beauty and the Beast, the Great Mouse Detective. The computers can animate backgrounds and certain elements and keep the traditional feel. Remember, in those cartoons, the computer added something nice to the cartoon, not violated them. And then you have computer assisted animation, where it's still traditionally hand drawn, and then scanned into a computer, and the animation tweaked to make it smoother, but on the outside it just looks like silky smooth traditional animation.

I consider CGI only animation it's own Genre. It's not cartoons. Cartoons are cartoons.
 
Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 12-07-2006, 01:22 PM:
 
Since the studios already own the older cartoons lock stock and copyrights, I dont see the problem in re-releasing an existing classic cartoon package with the features. After all, they dont have to pay for the animation and soundtracks to be produced again.

Please, Disney! Are you listening? You already have some of the finest animation out there just sitting in your vaults just wasting space! DVD's are the passing fad, IMHO...
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 12-07-2006, 03:12 PM:
 
Warners too, please!

CGI has all but killed traditional hand-drawn methods at studios like Disney, which closed the last of their old animation units under the old regime. Now that Lasseter sits on the board at Disney we'll see if he can breath some new life into the old factory.

In the end it does not matter what the art looks like - it only matters that there is a story worth telling and that it is told well. Without a story and characters worth caring about, a film (live-action or animated) is just a demo reel. That Lasseter works with and promotes 3D CGI as his method of choice is really secondary to the fact he and his staff work very hard on the stories they tell - as hard on the stories as they do on their art. Films like A Bug's Life, Toy Story, Monsters Inc, Finding Nemo, and Cars would be great films no matter how rendered.

Lasseter is friends with Hayao Miyazaki, co-founder of Japan's most highly regarded animation house Studio Ghibli. Miyazaki is an animator who does not like using computers for image creation, though he grumpily admits computers are great for some aspects of the animation production and post-production process. Miyazaki's films will always start as hand-drawn animation as he feels that it is much faster, cheaper, and better to do the pictures that way. Nowadays, those hand-drawn images get scanned into a computer instead of photographed on an animation stand, which opens the door to all kinds of visual possibilities not otherwise available. But in the end it's still the story and the characters that matter the most, and Lasseter considers Miyazaki to be an inspiration with the fantastic stories he tells.

There is a great DVD available in R2 NTSC in Japan called Thank You John Lasseter (Doumo Arigatou, Lasseter-san) which features lengthy interviews with both Lasseter and Miyazaki about their work, and their friendship of over 20 years. The video was shot in part at Disney and Pixar as a documentary about the North American premiere of Miyazaki's Spirited Away, the English-language dub of which Lasseter exec produced. The DVD is a video thank you letter of sorts to Lasseter for his help with that film.

Back on thread, congrats to Disney for trying this experiment in theaters. Warners, are you watching?
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-07-2006, 06:40 PM:
 
The reason the "new" Looney Tunes are no good is simple: They are making them for kids. The old LTs were made by adults, for adults.

The other reason is, with political correctness run amok, and people afraid to expose their kiddies to any remotely violent thing in a cartoon, that most of the best gags from Looney Tunes wouldn't be allowed today.
 
Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 12-07-2006, 08:22 PM:
 
I like the sound of this Miyazaki fella, lets hope his works veer away from your normal animation from Japan. And as far as the new Looney Tunes PC crap, they can keep it. Like walkie-talkies for guns in E.T. And the cartoons that don't care about PC go so far away from it to compesate, you end up with animated versions of Jackass practially. Which only further fuels the PC guys, which further fuels the anti-PC shows to more agressively break free. It's a horrible irritating loop, kind of like dobly tone.
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-07-2006, 08:54 PM:
 
quote: Bruce McGee
After all, they dont have to pay for the animation and soundtracks to be produced again.
I can see them remixing for 5.1. [Smile] Not that they still have the original elements, mind you... [Wink]
 
Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 12-07-2006, 09:16 PM:
 
Yeah, so you can hear the incoming cannonball whistleing in from over your shoulder before it lands on the Coyote. [Big Grin] Though it would be nice, and probably something they'd do just to sell some special edition DVDs, but really, they're fine without.
 
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 12-08-2006, 12:50 AM:
 
One of the first DVDs to come out was called Cartoon Crazys, which had most of the sound effects re-recorded in 5.1. Purists hated them since they were different from the original versions, but they're interesting just for the gratuituous subwoofer usage.
 
Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 12-08-2006, 12:45 PM:
 
Very much like me with the 1984 version of Fantasia, in digitall recorded surround sound. But, it was a newly recorded soundtrack, not the original. It wasn't bad, it was rearranged sligtly, and clean and clear being new and not based on the 1939 recordings, but the quality of the performance wasn't as good. Even without that, I'd still partial to the original Stokowski performance. Fortunately, whoever was responsible for the 50th and 60th anniversary releases, was smart enough to go back to the original and clean it up. Love Toccata and Fugue play on a organ, but it's also beautiful played by an orchestra. I listen to the CD all of the time. ::End rant::

Point is they could still do the 5.1 with the old sounds. Sure the fidelity wouldn't be as good as new recordings, but the old ones are already apart of the cartoon. Not to mention when you start changing the sounds, what's going to stop you from deciding a different noise is going to be more "appropriate" and now you're changing everything. I say, just clean it up, maybe remix in surround, but keep the original material. [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-08-2006, 04:47 PM:
 
quote: Charles Greenlee
Point is they could still do the 5.1 with the old sounds.
IF they still have the original M&E stems.
 
Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 12-09-2006, 02:02 PM:
 
Yeah, that could be a problem.
 
Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 12-09-2006, 03:43 PM:
 
Mono sound wouldn't frighten the horses.

Woody Allen could be employed as a monosound consultant.
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-09-2006, 08:18 PM:
 
Haha! That's funny, Ron. [Smile] [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 12-09-2006, 11:03 PM:
 
Yeah, that gets me why he does that. And also gets my why they do the 2 identical steoro tracks for mono on film now. I mean, if you're really only going to use 1 channel, then use the full real estate alotted for sound for your one track, why only use half by putting 2 identical tracks? But anyhow, that is a rant for another topic.

We're talking prefetaure cartoons. Didn't Roger Rabbit have an attached prefeature?
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-10-2006, 06:47 AM:
 
quote: Charles Greenlee
why only use half by putting 2 identical tracks?
That's dual-bilateral, and it DOES use more real estate; you have twice the striations delivering the audio information. [Wink]

It's also less noisy than a single bilateral recording.
 
Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 12-10-2006, 01:10 PM:
 
Ah, so the redundancy is used as a sort of error correction. Makes sense. So as I was thinking before, I remember thinking Roger Rabbit was supposed to kickstart prefeature cartoons again, but ,heh, I was a kid then. I'd laso like to start useing the dancing concessions intermission trailer if/when we do have intermissions, you you can't find it anywhere, except for flash spoofs of it. That and the last movie I remember having an intermission was Gods and Generals.
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-10-2006, 03:30 PM:
 
quote: Charles Greenlee
so the redundancy is used as a sort of error correction
Well, it doesn't let as much light through as a big, bilateral track (single pair of striations) does, and there's more change to the given area of light available (i.e., differences between light and dark)... which results in less film surface noise transmitted to the cell.

If you're wanting an intermission clock, might I humbly suggest:
Screen Attractions "Showbiz" Clock
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-10-2006, 06:02 PM:
 
The Let's Go to the Lobby intermission trailer is available brand-new from Filmack in Chicago. We recently started running it at the Avon (it's the first item in the trailer reel). I think they are charging $75 for it (a bit overpriced, IMHO).
 
Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 12-11-2006, 03:03 AM:
 
Yeah, the only reason for me to go for it at this time would be for personal collection. Simply because I'd have to buy it with my money, and how often would it get used? Not very, but I do like the extra touch, and tradition element it adds. It'd be fun to run a news reel, but that definatly aint gonna happen. Unless I can convice some SCAD film students to work one up, all dramatic like the old ones, from time to time. But not on film because that'd be cost prohibitive. Pipe dreams.

I'd definatly run the toons though, even if they don't come as attached features. Get younger targetted toons for the lower rated shouws, and maybe some classic looney tunes or something for higher rates shows. But yet again, I'm afraid its a moot point, unless the studio does it for us. And lets hope that Disney's a start.
 
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-05-2007, 12:04 PM:
 
We've switched over to 90% digital previews and ads . The only things we use film trailers for are the ones we can't get in video. We run the video previews in a continuous loop during intermission. Then we go straight into the feature on film.

Customers seem to like it better that way.

But, now that we don't have any pre-feature film material people only have a few seconds to get situated when the show starts. It's not good from a safety/security point of view and it's CERTAINLY not good from a presentation standpoint, either. Some people are sitting ready to watch the movie while others in front of them are shuffling their coats and belongings. Not to mention, the few stragglers that try to walk in and sit down in a dark theater. It's not good on many levels.

So, I proposed a solution. I think having shorts in front of the feature would be a good thing. It's entertaining. It provides a buffer zone between the intermission and the feature. It just makes for good presentation all-around.

Now... Where do we get shorts to put in front of our features?

I'm not sure Bugs Bunny & Mickey Mouse would be appropriate for every feature we have but I'd like to know where we can look for animated and non-animated shorts in 35mm. (Doing them in video would be counterproductive.)
 
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 01-05-2007, 02:44 PM:
 
You may know that a specific cartoon ran only with a specific film. Does anyone have a list? This is very true for pre-Road Runner cartoons; Warners. Louis
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-05-2007, 05:34 PM:
 
When we had Disney's movie Aladdin, we ran the Looney Tune "A Lad In His Lamp" with it. (Bugs Bunny...a classic!)
 
Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 01-07-2007, 04:10 AM:
 
Ooh, that's crossing sudios, and fierce rivals no less. You are risking the wrath of the Disney secret police. I like Looney Toons, better than most of the Disney shorts, not that Disney shorts suck, just indicating a preference. Now if we're talking full lenght animated features, Disney over WB, but that's a different topic.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-07-2007, 01:40 PM:
 
That was back when we'd be running movies in Week 12 or something. The studios were already onto the next big thing by the time movies got to the small towns. Nowadays I'd never do such a thing with a brand new movie.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-07-2007, 07:33 PM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
Nowadays I'd never do such a thing with a brand new movie.
Yea, You could probably make more profit by just showing 2 hours worth of cartoons and skipping the pre movie cartoon altogether!!

Mark
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2