The Emperors New Groove

Post by **askmike1** » March 8th, 2005, 8:12 pm

Special_Ed wrote:It doesn't matter what it looks like. The stories are still crap. You're just basing it on look, not story.

Stories are great too. There's no way you can say TLK was any better than TLK 2, because both were based on Shakespear Plays (Hamlet & Romeo and Juliet respectively). I think TLK 1.5 is a funny take on the original. The story mixed humor with real emotional moments (in addtion to more Rafiki sayings). Never seeing the original, I thought the plot of Lady & the Tramp 2 was great. Same with RtN.

Special_Ed wrote:I agree but the plot will probably stink like the others...

This shows me you aren't even giving them a chance. If WDFA made Bambi II, would that make it any different?

Post by **Christian** » March 8th, 2005, 8:40 pm

the look has nothing to do with story.

Now that the look is improving all the bashers can come up with is, "Well . . . well . . . um, the story must be bad! Yeah, that's it, the story's bad."

Post by **Special_Ed** » March 9th, 2005, 12:30 am

"Stories are great too. There's no way you can say TLK was any better than TLK 2, because both were based on Shakespear Plays (Hamlet & Romeo and Juliet respectively)."

Great is an over statement. And sayink all wooooorks by the same authooooor are equally as good is a crap respoonsesese

(Tha's mesa spellink wroongoersos.)

"I think TLK 1.5 is a funny take on the original. The story mixed humor with real emotional moments (in addtion to more Rafiki sayings). "

Still doesn't mean it should have been made.

"This shows me you aren't even giving them a chance. If WDFA made Bambi II, would that make it any different?"

No, I have given them a chance. I think Hunchback 2 was here I gave up.

What I dread with Bambi 2 is inserted modern humor. That dats it too much and i hints that there will be some of this.

"Now that the look is improving all the bashers can come up with is, "Well . . . well . . . um, the story must be bad! Yeah, that's it, the story's bad.""

No, I've always maintained the story trumps look. I never said otherwise.

Post by **askmike1** » March 9th, 2005, 12:44 am

Special_Ed wrote:Great is an over statement. And sayink all wooooorks by the same authooooor are equally as good is a crap respoonsesese

Irony at it's best.

I think it's a fair statement to say that you can expect similar things with the same author. Mind you , you don't have to like every one of his/her works, but they will be similar. That said, I think that overall, most people would say that Romeo & Juliet is more famous and more liked.

Special_Ed wrote:No, I have given them a chance. I think Hunchback 2 was here I gave up.

Ok, I admit that Hunchback 2 and Cinderella II downright stunk. However, I think those two are the exceptions. Pretty much every other sequel has been good (some being great) imo. You can't judge just by those two films.

Post by **Christian** » March 9th, 2005, 12:52 am

Special Ed reminds me of John K. (creator of Ren & Stimpy) who said he didn't like Disney because of Hunchback, thereby judging all of Disney's output by the one movie that a lot of Disney aficionados agree is probably not Disney's finest moment.

Post by **Special_Ed** » March 9th, 2005, 2:35 am

No. Go back and read what I said. Hunchback 2 was where I lost hope. The only one I liked before that Was A&TKOT. As I've already stated but nobody wants to listen because of all those poor animators being forced to woprk on these cheapquels and feel insulted when you pointthat out.

Yes! I AM th Rush Limbaugh of Animation!!!! With talent on loan from Walt it's the great Maha Eddie, El Edmo. Because I'm RIGHT in soooooooo many ways....

Post by **Christian** » March 9th, 2005, 3:37 am

I understand what you said. I don't know of anyone that liked Hunchback 2. I think it is the only "cheapquel" where I do not know of a single person who liked it (of those who bothered to see it). So it is funny to hear somebody say they don't like any of the sequels and use the one that everybody agrees is the worst as the reason why.

Post by **Special_Ed** » March 9th, 2005, 4:45 am

Listen, Sherlock, I did not use Hunchback 2 as the reason why! I said that was the point I lost all hope. The concept for that one was sound but the script stunk! Besides, I thought everyone agrees Cinderella 2 and those crappy Beauity and the Beast compilations were the worst.

Post by **Phil** » March 9th, 2005, 8:41 am

Let me say that, while I enjoyed Home on the Range, Treasure Planet, and Atlantis I don't think that they stand up in comparison to earlier animated features, especially in the area of story.

If its OK to denigrate "cheapquels" because "the stories are crap" even though the art is improving, why not also denigrate theatrical features because the stories are slowly sinking to the level of crap?

Post by **Ben** » March 9th, 2005, 9:07 am

I think, if you've a real eye for animation, there is a definite difference between styles.

There's the TV animation look: all black outlines, three key-frame moves and flat coloring for the most part.

There's the mid-look: used on the better DTVs, they have the same three-key poses, but are streamlined, with finer lines, and some even indidividually colored. The animation is fine, it's the inbetweeners that cause the fluidity of movent to lapse here are there.

Feature Animation look: the smooth, shaded quality we've come to expect from Disney.

Now that FA has moved over to CGI, DisneyToon have a better shot at upping their game, artistically speaking. But it must be said that the ONLY film from them so far that TRULY looks like Feature Animation output was Lion King 1.5.

Some have reached a half-way house between the mid and FA look, and they're getting close all the time, but it is mostly perfunctionary work, and not to the standards of personality animation that really brings a character to life.

There IS a difference between becoming the character you are animating, and simply making him move with the assumed mannerisms.

Post by **Christian** » March 9th, 2005, 9:54 am

If its OK to denigrate "cheapquels" because "the stories are crap" even though the art is improving, why not also denigrate theatrical features because the stories are slowly sinking to the level of crap?

Sure, go ahead. But every movie should be judged on its own merits. Ed was judging every direct-to-video title that came after Hunchback 2 as though it was Hunchback 2. A lot of people saw that subsequent titles had improved greatly over it but he can't concede that such improvement (in more than one aspect) could actually occur.

Post by **ShyViolet** » March 9th, 2005, 2:08 pm

This might sound silly but even though I haven't seen "Hunchback 2" I really like the song "I try" which is on the Disney Platinum CD, volume 3.

Post by **AniMan** » March 9th, 2005, 3:50 pm

You're right, Ben. Lion King 1.5 was the only one of the direct to video movies that actually was feature film quality. It is also, I will argue, the absolute best of any direct-to-video release that I've seen anywhere. So it's not really fair for anyone to dimiss these movies without actually seeing any of it.

Post by **Macaluso** » March 9th, 2005, 4:05 pm

An Extremely Goofy Movie was rather good, I thought.

The only thing about that movie I didn't like was them plastering espn everywhere.

...Oh and the absense of Roxanne :(

Post by **Ben** » March 10th, 2005, 2:10 pm

It was Roxanne! She was kind foxy!

Violet - I'll Try, which I agree is a really good song, actually comes from the unexpectedly really good Return To NeverLand, sung by Jonatha Brooke.