But everyone credits Disney for that. That's quite general, he pretty much has to say it....still, I believe him. He does know about good storytelling so I'm sure he recognized those films as being superior and well made. I just have doubts about how he sees the "dark" aspects of those films, and how much he would be willing to let them iback nto the current slate.
But I'll try to give him a chance!
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!
I don't...not in its execution. It didn't look or feel like China in any remotely discernable way--not even an animated film kind of way. I like the idea though, which I thought was seriously bungled. What I was trying to say was that if Pixar had been in control back then, it probably wouldn't have even been green-lighted. But that's just my opinion.
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!
Are you trying to get the thread back on topic Meg? I kinda read it and assumed that's what your trying to do. You managed to get another chuckle out of me, how do you do it .
Like you said, it does look like a good movie. awesome CG and great non spoiler commercials, only with Pixar people, only with Pixar
I'm pasting some of the comments because they're kinda interesting. Obviously some people have VERY strong opinons.
Commments
October 17, 2006 12:02 PM
MosquitoControl said:
We won't be out of this in early 2008.
Everyone saw this coming. Everyone. We were all crying foul when Disney cut back traditional animation to jump on this. We all knew that, by the time Disney's new CGI studio was cranking full blast, the trend would be reversing and moving towards balancing out.
We weren't wrong.
CGI caught on partially because it was the late 90s, everyone loved anything digital, and it was novel.
CGI caught on mostly because Pixar was leading the charge and Pixar made surprisingly well-written and carefully crafted stories.
Yes, other CGI caught on, too. Shrek and Ice Age in particular, but again these caught on for reasons other than simply being CGI. They had interesting cartoon looks to them and interesting settings. No one wants a Barnyard or humans, they want sabre-toothed tigers and giant ogres.
Combine bland settings with dull ideas and you get poor results.
Honestly, I think Pixar has little to worry about. If they keep making good movies they'll keep getting strong returns. CGI might have caused an additional 20% or so, and maybe that's gone now, but a good movie with an interesting concept will still pack theaters.
Humans do not make interesting animated concepts. It needs to be a hard sell and heavily stylized.
Cars do not make interesting animated concepts.
Mundane animals do not make interesting animated concepts.
More Stitch. More Mike Wazowski. Less pigs.
October 17, 2006 12:35 PM
semaj86 said:
"People aren't sick of CG. They're sick of crappy stories."
Jim needs to post that on his front page for the next several weeks.
As I said before, there were only one or two out of the dozen or so CGI movies that I've been willing to see all year. Even when I wanted to see Open Season, I saw it off the bootleg my dad bought me.
It doesn't surprise me that DreamWorks is staying the course, since they're over-reliant on passing trends. People are gonna get sick of Shrek after a while, and they will get tired of annoying sequels too. When they've run out of non-original resources, they're gonna have a hell of a hard time recovering.
Pixar did feel the pinch of the glut, but Cars still made the most money, because they were the only ones seeking a straightforward classic.
It's hard to tell what will happen now, but Disney and Pixar may succeed in two areas: 1) Their joint preparation for a downturn. When people officially tire of annoyingly pretentious animal/parody films, which now runs together with CGI for many, they won't get hit as hard. 2) The return to hand-drawn animation. We were all upset when we heard the announcements 2-3 years ago. When people get a whiff of Disney making traditional animation, perhaps one that's not capitalizing on an existing product (Curious George), nostalgia and relief will combine into the biggest box office numbers for the rest of the decade.
October 17, 2006 1:53 PM
brick1974 said:
So, does anyone else think that Ratatoullie might suffer because of Flushed Away? Won't the public just think, "Wasn't there already a rat cartoon?" Did Dreamworks "steal" another idea (a la A Bug's Life/Antz, Nemo/Shark Tale, The Wild/Madagascar, did I get them all)?
And as far as humans as the main characters in a CG film, don't forget The Incredibles. I'd chalk that up as a success.
October 17, 2006 2:31 PM
MosquitoControl said:
"And as far as humans as the main characters in a CG film, don't forget The Incredibles. I'd chalk that up as a success."
Touche, but I think it was the different approach they took there, making it a comic book rather than a story book.
Also, I don't mean just for CG, I mean for animation in general. I firmly believe every CGI failure would have been a hand-drawn failure, and every hand-drawn success would have been a CGI success. Sure, they would have been more successful during the boom, but the crowds weren't packing in for the medium, and they're not now ignoring it due to the medium.
Of course, I guess there's the argument that Dreamworks was never out to make good movies, they were just out to make CGI movies.
October 17, 2006 4:07 PM
DerekJ said:
brick1974 said:
"So, does anyone else think that Ratatoullie might suffer because of Flushed Away? Won't the public just think, 'Wasn't there already a rat cartoon?'"
---
More a combined factor of that, plus the Cars Factor:
Ie., "WTF was that teaser all about?...Is that the whole thing? This movie's gonna stink!"
(Guys?...Don't bust a blood vessel: Ratatouille HAS A REAL PLOT. Just that Pixar doesn't feel like telling us what it really is yet.
Which, unfortunately, will be too late, considering that "Flushed" was already selling itself in helpful detail to its target "Wallace & Grommit" audience for a year earlier.)
===
"Did Dreamworks 'steal' another idea (a la A Bug's Life/Antz, Nemo/Shark Tale, The Wild/Madagascar, did I get them all)?"
---
Well, you forgot El Dorado/Emperor's (okay, "Kingdom"), Sinbad/Treasure Planet, and Spirit/Home on Range, but pretty much.
Which leads us to the basic question of why Dreamworks does what it does, and why there's no basic ingredient that's likely to cause it to get any better:
===
MosquitoControl said:
"Of course, I guess there's the argument that Dreamworks was never out to make good movies, they were just out to make CGI movies."
---
Err, yeah, "Shrek 1" sure really gave you that ol' impression that they were out to be their own visionary studio, and that they weren't, like, - resentful of other bigger and more established studios -, or anything...
(Oh, but of course, that was the whole popularity of the first movie: Raise hands, how many were there in '01 saying "Wow, DW is so original, they're going to wipe that stupid repetitive Disney off the map!"?...Like looking through old prom photos, ain't it?)
And while we're on the subject of DW and Flushed Away:
Can we fill in any rumor-details about that item of why Aardman is "reportedly leaving Dreamworks", and why Katzenberg isn't panicking about losing his one last remaining cash source of DW movies we DO want to see?
Was it irreconcilable differences, did Nick Park get a royal Treasure Planet-ing from DW after the boardroom convinced itself W&G "didn't make enough money", or did Aardman just figure they didn't need to work with The Midget anymore? Inquiring rumor-mongers want to know!
October 17, 2006 6:14 PM
Prankster said:
The part that boggles my mind--and it's been at the root of all the back-and-forth yelling about Pixar's financial status on this site--is that the investment community will apparently shun a film if it "doesn't live up to expectations", regardless of how much it makes. This is something that seems to be getting out of control in all fields, not just the movies. Fake money and projections now mean more than actual money in the bank. Two films can cost and make the exact same amount, but if one was projected to make a jillion skillion dollars and the other was predicted as a bomb, the former will be seen as a failure and the latter a success. It literally seems like the investment community wants to punish films, and companies, for not fitting their projections. This jiggery-pokery with fake money is the kind of thing that let Enron screw everyone over too.
Jim is, in fact, totally correct in reporting this stuff. It's just that it's completely ridiculous and unfair, and should be acknowledged as such.
October 17, 2006 8:27 PM
mawnck said:
>>Can we fill in any rumor-details about that item of why Aardman is "reportedly leaving Dreamworks", and why Katzenberg isn't panicking about losing his one last remaining cash source of DW movies we DO want to see?<<
Sure. Oscars don't cover payroll.
You watch. Shrek 3 (rumored to be terrible) and Madagascar 2 will each make more money than any 3 Aardman flicks. Then Jeffrey can sign up the guys who made The Wild. And the guys who made Valiant. And the guys who made Doogal . . .
>>Was it irreconcilable differences, did Nick Park get a royal Treasure Planet-ing from DW after the boardroom convinced itself W&G "didn't make enough money", or did Aardman just figure they didn't need to work with The Midget anymore?<<
The latter. Or more to the point, they didn't WANT to work with Jeff K anymore. So says the rumor mill. But you know how the rumor mill is with this whole "creatives good, executives bad" thing. I suspect it's more "irreconcilable differences" than anything else.
Trivia fact 4 U -- Know who distributes Aardman films in Japan? Studio Ghibli.
October 18, 2006 8:58 AM
I still think it's so funny how everyone blames Disney for too many animal/CGI/comedy/adventures and not enough traditonal fairy tale musicals, when the only reason Disney started making these was because that's what Pixar was doing!
And of course Ed Catmull wants WDFA to go back to traditional (which BTW, I agree with). Why, people might actually start LIKING Disney films like Meet the Robinsons, American Dog and Rupunzal, (you know, CGI films that AREN'T all buddy comedies) and wouldn't Pixar be up the creek then!
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!
)
You managed to get another chuckle out of me, how do you do it 
