Since we're already off-topic:
Why do you feel the CGI films should not be part of the classics line?
And by the definitions you provided previously, Valiant would not be in this list - it would be relegated to the same list with such films as Pokemon and Renaissance?
Worst Animated Films You've Seen
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: September 27th, 2007
No, "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron" and "SharkTale" were bad--
Prince of Egypt was some freakish perfect-storm of GOOD talent working for Dreamworks for one movie (and one direct-video, as "Joseph, King of Dreams" wasn't bad either), and still, a decade later, gets held up as Witness for the Defense by fans desperately hoping that DW will someday make another one, even though most of the people responsible for it have moved on:
Who ever thought we'd see a villain treated realistically and sympathetically in a Katzenberg-produced movie?? 0_0
Of course, that's over now, Simon Wells made the Time Machine remake and won't get a job with the studio again; JK caught the Shrek bug, buried 2-D animation himself after Sinbad, now believes that all CGI movies have to have sitcom stars in them, and even Egypt had the post-Hunchback Katzenberg spell of forced Broadway-itis--
But, for one brief shining moment...
Prince of Egypt was some freakish perfect-storm of GOOD talent working for Dreamworks for one movie (and one direct-video, as "Joseph, King of Dreams" wasn't bad either), and still, a decade later, gets held up as Witness for the Defense by fans desperately hoping that DW will someday make another one, even though most of the people responsible for it have moved on:
Who ever thought we'd see a villain treated realistically and sympathetically in a Katzenberg-produced movie?? 0_0
Of course, that's over now, Simon Wells made the Time Machine remake and won't get a job with the studio again; JK caught the Shrek bug, buried 2-D animation himself after Sinbad, now believes that all CGI movies have to have sitcom stars in them, and even Egypt had the post-Hunchback Katzenberg spell of forced Broadway-itis--
But, for one brief shining moment...
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 1471
- Joined: October 7th, 2007
- Location: Unknown
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 416
- Joined: August 11th, 2008
Well, Ben, I'll give you my take on what you said - I believe Walt Disney was a highly adaptable man who always looked to improve and upgrade. We've all been well alerted to his mantra "Keep Moving Forward" recently.
He wasn't satisfied with silent cartoons so he made the first talkie.
He wanted more from the black and white cartoons so he made the first colored one.
He experimented with 3D with such films as "Working for Peanuts".
He was always updating his animatronics and improving upon his parks.
I think he would have embraced CGI and seen it as an exciting new medium - just like he embraced sound, color, and another dimension.
I don't think he would have dismissed traditional animation (for obvious reasons) - but I think he would have dabbled in CGI.
And why shouldn't they be classics? Sure, they're not as timeless as the golden era of Walt or the silver age. But some of the recent 2D films were of the same ethos as the CGIs. I mean, "The Emperor's New Groove" is on the same level as "BOLT" - both are 'hip comedies'. Why should TENG be a classic merely because it's traditionally drawn while BOLT cannot be because it's CGI?
And with the forthcoming "Rapunzel" and possibly even "King of the Elves" we will finally see the classic style of Disney portrayed in CGI - so far we've only gotten more modern stuff out of their CGI.
But to say that the CGI features should be on a separate list only marks them with inferiority and difference, when truly, they are from the same studio, artists, storytellers - only in a different medium. To me, they are all 'blood brothers'.
He wasn't satisfied with silent cartoons so he made the first talkie.
He wanted more from the black and white cartoons so he made the first colored one.
He experimented with 3D with such films as "Working for Peanuts".
He was always updating his animatronics and improving upon his parks.
I think he would have embraced CGI and seen it as an exciting new medium - just like he embraced sound, color, and another dimension.
I don't think he would have dismissed traditional animation (for obvious reasons) - but I think he would have dabbled in CGI.
And why shouldn't they be classics? Sure, they're not as timeless as the golden era of Walt or the silver age. But some of the recent 2D films were of the same ethos as the CGIs. I mean, "The Emperor's New Groove" is on the same level as "BOLT" - both are 'hip comedies'. Why should TENG be a classic merely because it's traditionally drawn while BOLT cannot be because it's CGI?
And with the forthcoming "Rapunzel" and possibly even "King of the Elves" we will finally see the classic style of Disney portrayed in CGI - so far we've only gotten more modern stuff out of their CGI.
But to say that the CGI features should be on a separate list only marks them with inferiority and difference, when truly, they are from the same studio, artists, storytellers - only in a different medium. To me, they are all 'blood brothers'.
Feature Animation Favorites:
- Tekkonkinkreet, Watership Down, A Town Called Panic, Howl's Moving Castle, Rio 2096, Mind Game, Fantastic Planet
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: September 27th, 2007
Oh, you mean, from that movie they had to fix up after they kicked David Stainton out on his keister?Neal wrote:Well, Ben, I'll give you my take on what you said - I believe Walt Disney was a highly adaptable man who always looked to improve and upgrade. We've all been well alerted to his mantra "Keep Moving Forward" recently.
(Like, "He wouldn't have found Shrek funny either, and would never have become as resentfully jealous as Eisner had"--I don't think he would have dismissed traditional animation (for obvious reasons)
From all reports, Walt was a demanding stickler for good gags vs. bad gags, and Mr. K.'s do-it-yourself-sitcom attempts wouldn't have made it past one Sweatbox session.)
Similarly, why should we call Mark Dindal's TENG a "good" film, and Dindal's "Chicken Little" a "bad" film?--And why shouldn't they be classics? Sure, they're not as timeless as the golden era of Walt or the silver age. But some of the recent 2D films were of the same ethos as the CGIs. I mean, "The Emperor's New Groove" is on the same level as "BOLT" - both are 'hip comedies'. Why should TENG be a classic merely because it's traditionally drawn while BOLT cannot be because it's CGI?
Well, er...we know why. Maybe we should rephrase the question.
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25651
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
My points were being missed here and I don't have the time to go into them.
My viewpoint is purely on the mediums, not the merits of the films themselves, which as has been mentioned are created (mostly) by the same crews.
But the traditional listing actually kept out the films such as Song Of The South, So Dear To My Heart and Mary Poppins during Walt's lifetime...he obviously saw them as not totally animated features either. And there are several compilation feature films (not the Package Features, and no I'm not going to start listing them all) that were valid feature releases but were never counted in the official list. These films too were created by the same teams.
My basic point was that the "official" classic list might be better off made up from the films created in the traditional hand-drawn "classical" animation style. So it's a list not made up of "better" (or "worse") films, but a list made up of productions created in a similar style. By all means let's see a listing of "alternate" productions that include the hybrid films, or indeed a separate new listing, beginning with Off His Rockers, Dinosaur and the like, and continuing with the new CG films. I'm not saying they're "inferior"...not by a long shot.
Also, you might want to read up a bit more on Walt: as someone who has studied the guy, I love it when folks like to suggest all the things I may not be "aware" of, but look deeper yourself and you'll see he innovated much, <I>much</I> more than he even gets credit for.
My viewpoint is purely on the mediums, not the merits of the films themselves, which as has been mentioned are created (mostly) by the same crews.
But the traditional listing actually kept out the films such as Song Of The South, So Dear To My Heart and Mary Poppins during Walt's lifetime...he obviously saw them as not totally animated features either. And there are several compilation feature films (not the Package Features, and no I'm not going to start listing them all) that were valid feature releases but were never counted in the official list. These films too were created by the same teams.
My basic point was that the "official" classic list might be better off made up from the films created in the traditional hand-drawn "classical" animation style. So it's a list not made up of "better" (or "worse") films, but a list made up of productions created in a similar style. By all means let's see a listing of "alternate" productions that include the hybrid films, or indeed a separate new listing, beginning with Off His Rockers, Dinosaur and the like, and continuing with the new CG films. I'm not saying they're "inferior"...not by a long shot.
Also, you might want to read up a bit more on Walt: as someone who has studied the guy, I love it when folks like to suggest all the things I may not be "aware" of, but look deeper yourself and you'll see he innovated much, <I>much</I> more than he even gets credit for.
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 416
- Joined: August 11th, 2008
I was intently and appreciatively reading your post until that last quip.
I wasn't suggesting anything you weren't aware of - merely re-iterating. As of right now, the first, last, and only biography I ever read on him was in 4th grade for a book report.
I don't pretend to know a thing about him personally. I was stating facts, not revelations.
I wasn't attempting to enlighten or educate you - I was just brining the facts into my argument.
I'll add one final fact I only just learned and found interesting: On the "Lilo and Stitch" DVD Joe Grant said he believed Walt would have stopped traditional animation before Disney actually did in 2004, and would have fully switched over to CGI. That outshines even what I had said he would have done.
I'm all for creating multiple 'canons'. Disney needs them. For both the layman consumer awareness and for serious collector aficionados. For their animation they need a hybrids list, shorts list, featurettes list, traditionally animated features list and CGI animated features list.
I'd love to see this done.
They've done some lists here and there such as the SIGGRAPH 2007 promotional disk - but as you pointed out - that lacked some key works.
They need to sit down and do it right. It's bad when fans can do it better than the company.
I wasn't suggesting anything you weren't aware of - merely re-iterating. As of right now, the first, last, and only biography I ever read on him was in 4th grade for a book report.
I don't pretend to know a thing about him personally. I was stating facts, not revelations.
I wasn't attempting to enlighten or educate you - I was just brining the facts into my argument.
I'll add one final fact I only just learned and found interesting: On the "Lilo and Stitch" DVD Joe Grant said he believed Walt would have stopped traditional animation before Disney actually did in 2004, and would have fully switched over to CGI. That outshines even what I had said he would have done.
I'm all for creating multiple 'canons'. Disney needs them. For both the layman consumer awareness and for serious collector aficionados. For their animation they need a hybrids list, shorts list, featurettes list, traditionally animated features list and CGI animated features list.
I'd love to see this done.
They've done some lists here and there such as the SIGGRAPH 2007 promotional disk - but as you pointed out - that lacked some key works.
They need to sit down and do it right. It's bad when fans can do it better than the company.
Feature Animation Favorites:
- Tekkonkinkreet, Watership Down, A Town Called Panic, Howl's Moving Castle, Rio 2096, Mind Game, Fantastic Planet
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: September 27th, 2007
Uh, see above quote about "Walt wasn't a Shrek-sucker"...Neal wrote: I'll add one final fact I only just learned and found interesting: On the "Lilo and Stitch" DVD Joe Grant said he believed Walt would have stopped traditional animation before Disney actually did in 2004, and would have fully switched over to CGI. That outshines even what I had said he would have done.
Were you THERE, in 2003? (We can assume Grant was, but he was under mortarfire just like everybody else and eager to find any concession that might pave the way to a ceasefire.)
It was the Time of Cholera....Panic, desperation and superstition was everywhere:
No one could explain why "Finding Nemo" was a hit and studio action movies weren't...
No one (at least, studio execs and columnists who can't tell animated studios apart) could explain why "Nemo" was a hit and "Sinbad" wasn't.
People thought DW and Pixar were the same studio because they'd both had a CGI hit, and that Dreamxar was going to take over the industry with Shrek, Inc...
Even Eisner was convinced people thought fairytale-asswiping was funny, and thought he was forced to apologize to the entire world on behalf of his corporate ancestors...
...Let's take a deep breath. It's over now. -_-
Walt may have jumped to conclusions about some of his misexplained "flops", but he didn't shut down the entire fairytale production after "Alice" and "Peter Pan".
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25651
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
Good points, all. And I always smile at that lightbulb joke, Droo. 
In an interview I did with Diane Disney-Miller a few years back, we spoke about her Dad and computers...apparently he loved them, what they could do and were capable of, and especially their potential. My personal belief is that Walt would have developed the kind of tools that led to Pixar and the like as much as a decade earlier. He always disliked that he could film a live-action film faster and cheaper. He didn't like the Xerox method but knew keeping costs down was the key. We wouldn't have had the 1990s films without the ability to keep those costs down thanks to the computer's ink, paint and effects systems.
I think it's easy to say Walt would have done this or that back in the day, but ultimately processing power just wasn't there. So whatever Walt <I>would</I> have wanted to do is fairly moot: the technology didn't exist. I believe that he would have continued the use of computers in Audio-Animatronics and perhaps looked at a way to use these with animation in some way. Perhaps these experiments would have powered on the quest for more computer capabilities, perhaps Disney would have funded some research. I tend to believe that Walt <I>would</I> have ramped up computer generated imagery in the 1970s, and been at least five-to-ten years ahead of the game.
Whether he would have cut back or stopped traditional animation is an interesting debate, but one would have hoped not. On the other hand, he might well have seen the step as being the next logical one in keeping the films coming.
Basically, since Walt often did the exact opposite to what was expected, who knows?
In an interview I did with Diane Disney-Miller a few years back, we spoke about her Dad and computers...apparently he loved them, what they could do and were capable of, and especially their potential. My personal belief is that Walt would have developed the kind of tools that led to Pixar and the like as much as a decade earlier. He always disliked that he could film a live-action film faster and cheaper. He didn't like the Xerox method but knew keeping costs down was the key. We wouldn't have had the 1990s films without the ability to keep those costs down thanks to the computer's ink, paint and effects systems.
I think it's easy to say Walt would have done this or that back in the day, but ultimately processing power just wasn't there. So whatever Walt <I>would</I> have wanted to do is fairly moot: the technology didn't exist. I believe that he would have continued the use of computers in Audio-Animatronics and perhaps looked at a way to use these with animation in some way. Perhaps these experiments would have powered on the quest for more computer capabilities, perhaps Disney would have funded some research. I tend to believe that Walt <I>would</I> have ramped up computer generated imagery in the 1970s, and been at least five-to-ten years ahead of the game.
Whether he would have cut back or stopped traditional animation is an interesting debate, but one would have hoped not. On the other hand, he might well have seen the step as being the next logical one in keeping the films coming.
Basically, since Walt often did the exact opposite to what was expected, who knows?
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 39
- Joined: February 7th, 2007
Since there is ENDLESS speculation, here's the truth
The Wild was developed as a screenplay by the live action group at Disney.
It was purchased as a pitch (verbal story) from writers and a screenplay was developed from that pitch--at the time it was called, The Big Break. This is 1999. Oddly, it starred a lion named. . . ALEX!
Anyway, it was not clear how the movie would be made--it was simply a good idea (zoo animals after dark). It could have been live action with animation ala Dinosaur or claymation. Oddly, at that time, CG wasn't really a viable option.
After quite a few years of development, a screenplay was given the greenlight and a director and producer were brought on board. They had done live action and CG animal combos with commercials for Blockbuster.
They were given a few months to study the screenplay and to devise two approaches to getting the movie made. Live action/CG or all CG.
All CG made far more sense as it would be less expensive and it would look better and give the film makers more creative options than a combo approach.
All that was needed was an independent CG studio. Since there wasn't a pipeline just sitting around and Disney Animation wasn't particularly interested in taking a project from the live action group, a search for a studio began. The Core in Toronto was found. They wanted to expand what they had been doing in FX and TV animation. This was the perfect opportunity to get into the feature biz, so they signed on.
While Disney Animation was not responsible for the creative content or physical production of the film, several senior members of that group were consulted along the way in all areas of film making both creative and production. Still, the film was always firmly planted in the live-action creative camp and day-to-day of the film was managed from that group.
Needless to say, things did not go as planned.
The aggressive production timeline could not be met and the release date slipped.
DreamWorks released Madagascar.
Does that mean it's a "Disney" movie? Yes.
A Disney Animated movie in the same sense as Cinderella, Dalmatians etc? No.
I think the closest similar project might be Nightmare. But even THAT was really managed more closely by the Disney Animation team even though it's roots were with the live action group and it was released as a Touchstone Picture.
Hope that clears up some of the confusion.
Sorry so many of you hate it so much.
It was purchased as a pitch (verbal story) from writers and a screenplay was developed from that pitch--at the time it was called, The Big Break. This is 1999. Oddly, it starred a lion named. . . ALEX!
Anyway, it was not clear how the movie would be made--it was simply a good idea (zoo animals after dark). It could have been live action with animation ala Dinosaur or claymation. Oddly, at that time, CG wasn't really a viable option.
After quite a few years of development, a screenplay was given the greenlight and a director and producer were brought on board. They had done live action and CG animal combos with commercials for Blockbuster.
They were given a few months to study the screenplay and to devise two approaches to getting the movie made. Live action/CG or all CG.
All CG made far more sense as it would be less expensive and it would look better and give the film makers more creative options than a combo approach.
All that was needed was an independent CG studio. Since there wasn't a pipeline just sitting around and Disney Animation wasn't particularly interested in taking a project from the live action group, a search for a studio began. The Core in Toronto was found. They wanted to expand what they had been doing in FX and TV animation. This was the perfect opportunity to get into the feature biz, so they signed on.
While Disney Animation was not responsible for the creative content or physical production of the film, several senior members of that group were consulted along the way in all areas of film making both creative and production. Still, the film was always firmly planted in the live-action creative camp and day-to-day of the film was managed from that group.
Needless to say, things did not go as planned.
The aggressive production timeline could not be met and the release date slipped.
DreamWorks released Madagascar.
Does that mean it's a "Disney" movie? Yes.
A Disney Animated movie in the same sense as Cinderella, Dalmatians etc? No.
I think the closest similar project might be Nightmare. But even THAT was really managed more closely by the Disney Animation team even though it's roots were with the live action group and it was released as a Touchstone Picture.
Hope that clears up some of the confusion.
Sorry so many of you hate it so much.