The "serious" animated film??

Post by **ShyViolet** » June 3rd, 2005, 11:28 am

At this point I"ve pretty much given up trying to predict anything...to tell the truth I think that even if Cars is a bit weaker than previous Pixar films, it'll no doubt make tons of money just on the Pixar name.

Post by **Macaluso** » June 3rd, 2005, 12:33 pm

I think Cars looks like a fun movie, but that's just me.

Post by **Ben** » June 3rd, 2005, 2:11 pm

ShyViolet wrote:At this point I"ve pretty much given up trying to predict anything...to tell the truth I think that even if Cars is a bit weaker than previous Pixar films, it'll no doubt make tons of money just on the Pixar name.

As will ChickLit, even if it doesn't have The Lamp on the front of it. People will assume it's Disney/Pixar/Disney like they think all CG animation is.

Post by **Meg** » June 3rd, 2005, 4:49 pm

Ben wrote:
As will ChickLit, even if it doesn't have The Lamp on the front of it. People will assume it's Disney/Pixar/Disney like they think all CG animation is.

Man, I hate it when people do that. I'm am SO sick of people saying something like, "Oh, Shrek is my favorite Disney movie!" Same with traditional. "I really liked Spirit. It's such a good Disney movie." Someone told me something like this, to which I replied that it was actually a DW film. She said, "Well, they worked together on it, if you watch it you can see the Disney logo in the beginning." Ugh!

As for Cars...No, I don't think it'll bomb, it'll just be weaker than the other Pixar films. Not that bad, but not that great.

Okay...so where were we? Ah!
Some genres are better done using one stlye of animation for example, epics and more 'serious' animated films seem to work better with tradtitional, comdey and action go with CGI nicely, and darker films do well with stop-motion. In my opinion, anyway.

I still don't get what's so evil about CGI. Yeah, people claim there's not as much heart, not as much work, yadda yadda, but isn't that a matter of opinion? I DO think it's wrong that it's 'replacing traditional'. Replace? What's wrong with making both? I hate it how studios like Disney and DW are just like, "Hey, 3-D is popular, let's chuck our tradtitional studio and make those instead!"

Post by **AniMan** » June 17th, 2005, 11:28 am

Can you imagine Belle and the Beast being CGI characters? What about Quasimodo or Frollo? There are all types of storytelling in animation and while I do agree that it's the story that counts, I can't see a "worthy" animated film, with issues such as, say, the Kiling of the First Born or the Ten Plagues, being done in CGI. What if JK HAD tried to do POE in CGI? Do you really think he would have gotten the consent of all those religious groups?

For starters, Violet, you're limiting this argument to movies that have already been made. I, like you, cannot see them being anything other than how they were made: traditional animation. But do you really think that no one will ever come up with a serious movie idea that will work in CGI? I think to say no is a bit ridiculous, seeing as creativity knows no boundaries. It just takes someone with creative vision. It will happen; you can take that to the bank.

Also, about Pixar setting a trend towards mediocrity, I have to respectfully disagree with you once again and say that even though all their films have been very well-made and superior in quality, they are setting a trend towards a certain type of "funny characters/sidekicks/jokes/visual motifs" kind of movie that is being copied by everyone and not all movies are the better for it. Spielberg and Lucas set a trend towards the fantasy-adventure sci-fi kind of films in the late 70's/early 80's with Star Wars, ET, Close Encounters etc...and even though their films were magnificent, the imitations spawned were often putrid.

Umm, that was the point I was making, that others are trying to copy them but are not succeeding in doing so, for the most part. The bad films from others in no way detracts from what makes the good films so good.

In a lot of ways they were responsible for the dumbing-down/infantilization of films in general, even though they had good intentions. They made a certain template very, very popular and as a result a whole lot of garbadge was made.

Again, that is not fair at all. They make high quality films, with great stories, but because others are trying to copy their "format", and are doing a terrible job of it, Pixar is somehow at fault for that? That is absurd. Everyone (in this case, the studios) are responsible for their own actions; if they can't do a good film, no matter who they are trying to copy, it's their own fault and no one else. And by the way, nothing Pixar has done was "dumbed-down" or infantile. On the contrary, they upped the ante with their films, this is why others tried to copy them. It's a fact: others try to copy success, and Pixar is successful, just like Disney is successful and others try to copy them in vain.

Pixar isn't setting the trend for bad movies, just simply made, thematically uncomplicated ones.

Exhibit A: The Incredibles --- simply made? NOT
Thematically uncomplicated? See above

That's what worries me. There's no longer any motivation to shoot for a serious, "worthy" film like Pocahontas

Serious like Pocahontas? That film was so formulaic and by the numbers that I would hope no one tries to copy that. That movie had a lot of good parts about it, but they were negated by the goofy-sidekick syndrome with the racoon, hummingbird, and pug making silly on the screen.

Post by **ShyViolet** » June 21st, 2005, 10:40 am

Again, that is not fair at all. They make high quality films, with great stories, but because others are trying to copy their "format", and are doing a terrible job of it, Pixar is somehow at fault for that? That is absurd.

I'm not saying it's their fault at all. I'm just saying that when you constantly get the same type of movie made, chances are there are going to be imitators that screw it up. You can say that Tim Burton was indirectally responsible for all the cruddy comic-book spin-off movies made in the last 16 years because Batman was such a success...but is it his fault? Of course not. All I'm saying is, sometimes it's nice to see something that's a little different.

And by the way, nothing Pixar has done was "dumbed-down" or infantile. On the contrary, they upped the ante with their films, this is why others tried to copy them. It's a fact: others try to copy success, and Pixar is successful, just like Disney is successful and others try to copy them in vain.

Right, that's what I'm saying. Pixar doesn't do dumbed-down films, but their template (while enormously successful and effective) is LIMITED, and it's spawned some dumb stuff. (I'll even go out on a limb and say that DW has some of that in their films)

There are lots of places for Pixar to go, but they stay inside a certain world. There's nothing wrong with that, but after a while it can get a little bit tedious.

Exhibit A: The Incredibles --- simply made? NOT
Thematically uncomplicated? See above

Incredibles isn't typical Pixar--it's really a Brad Bird film, closer to the Iron Giant than to Toy Story. However, it stays within the parameters of a "cartoon" stylistically--it's a "super hero" flick all the way.

Serious like Pocahontas? That film was so formulaic and by the numbers that I would hope no one tries to copy that. That movie had a lot of good parts about it, but they were negated by the goofy-sidekick syndrome with the racoon, hummingbird, and pug making silly on the screen.

Pocahontas may have had its flaws but it dealt with themes like racism and genocide....plus the animals didn't talk. It was defintely the most serious animated film to date. Plus when was the last time you saw a film like Prince of Egypt? Pixar films may have some serious themes but the world of Woody, Buzz and Flick is as far away from the world of POE as you can get. (Again, this is not meant to be prejorative.)

For starters, Violet, you're limiting this argument to movies that have already been made. I, like you, cannot see them being anything other than how they were made: traditional animation. But do you really think that no one will ever come up with a serious movie idea that will work in CGI? I think to say no is a bit ridiculous, seeing as creativity knows no boundaries. It just takes someone with creative vision. It will happen; you can take that to the bank.

Hmmm....well, I can't say what the future will bring. I guess I'll try to keep an open mind.

Post by **ShyViolet** » June 21st, 2005, 11:41 am

Interesting thread on JK and DW:

http://www.animationnation.com/ubb/ulti ... 1;t=010365

It's funny, I was recently thinking about the whole argument that because of references DW films will be dated in ten years but...yesterday I was watching some of my Disney Treasures DVD with Mickey and some of his cartoons (as well as Donald, Goofy, etc...) have a lot of things that are dated too, but the cartoons are still so great.

Like: "The Nifty Nineties." I guess there was this whole nostalgia for those days back in the 1940s or whenever this film was made. I mean, that song: "....the nineties, when grandmother was a girl...." that plays in the background is REALLY dated. That whole nostalgia for vaudeville and picture shows and Model T's--kids today are not going to "get" that at all. But that doesn't mean they won't enjoy the cartoon. (Hey, I watched this cartoon when I was four years old, and I knew almost no English. I still enjoyed it, though.)

Also, what about all those "How to" Goofy movies. "How to dance"--people don't dance like that anymore...or "How to drive"--(nowadays yelling at other drivers can get you killed.) Well....I think you get my drift.

It's true these are shorts, not feature films. But like I said, that doesn't mean we can't enjoy them.