I've seen Bridge to Terabithia. It wasn't the best movie, but I thought it was enjoyable. But I havn't seen it in a while, so that's just memory talking. But I do remember that
[hide]The ending was sad. D:[/hide]
Disney animation thread
-
Slytherin all the way, baby~[[deviantART]](http://sry005.deviantart.com/)[[art tumblr]](http://artsycrapfromsai.tumblr.com/)[[Sai's Art Thread 2.0!]](http://apforums.net/showthread.php?t=40075&p=3045242#post3045242)
-
I don't really get it myself, it was a pretty fun movie. Nic Cage and Molina were great in it, too.
My only real complaint about it was that the first ten or so minutes were rushed as FUCK.
It might have been promotion.
I didn't see much for that movie aside from the past two weeks in the papers, a few commercials, and the trailer preceding TS3.
Sure, people were talking about it, but only for two weeks. It's easy for people to miss a show or pass on it when times are tough.
The last two weeks preceding the movie should have been harder promotion, not simply when promotion begins.
-
Man, Disney's marketing team lately really SUCKS don't they? PatF was a victim too.
They should do a purge.
-
It might have been promotion.
I didn't see much for that movie aside from the past two weeks in the papers, a few commercials, and the trailer preceding TS3.
Sure, people were talking about it, but only for two weeks. It's easy for people to miss a show or pass on it when times are tough.
The last two weeks preceding the movie should have been harder promotion, not simply when promotion begins.
My experience is different, I've been seeing that movie advertised TO DEATH for many months and it hasn't stopped. Every movie I went to had a preview for it, and TV wasn't letting me forget it either. And I only watch TV one or two days in a week.
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. - Frank Zappa
-
The Sorcerer's Apprentice had a disappointing opening, apparently.
Prince of Persia had a lackluster run as well.
I haven't seen either, but I know that I wasn't very interested from the start despite it being advertised pretty well as far as I could see. Bad early critic reviews, bad timing or just bad concept?
I don't really get it myself, it was a pretty fun movie. Nic Cage and Molina were great in it, too.
My only real complaint about it was that the first ten or so minutes were rushed as FUCK.
I went to see the Sorcerer's Apprentice last weekend. The lack of revenue doesn't surprise me, as I didn't even want to see the movie. That was because the advertisement was TERRIBLE. But, my friends wanted to see it, so I saw it. And it was actually good.
Zenigame's right, though. The first 10 minutes were very rushed, for no reason.
But, other than that, it's a good movie. The main character seemed easy to relate to, and was pretty grounded (as grounded as a person can be in a movie where balls of "plasma" are thrown at Asian people who control dragons with their chest).One of my ONLY complaints is that they kept referring to Morgan Le Fay as Morgana Le Fay. That was just a nitpick that bothered me.
If I was a critic, I'd give 3 1/2 - 4 stars. (3 1/2 if I was having a bad day)
-
Morgana is an accepted spelling pronunciation. So is Morgane and Morgaine. Plus Morgan le Fay, or Fata Morgana in Italian, has been associated with Sicily since the Norman conquest of southern Italy.
That'll happen when you have a centuries old mythical character being translated through many languages.
Also, Morgana sounds more feminine to the modern ear. Its no pronouncing Aang as Ohng, at any rate.
-
Hmm. I didn't know about that.
Well, if it's a correct spelling, then I'm in no position to complain about it.
So, yeah. Movie was pretty good.
-
My experience is different, I've been seeing that movie advertised TO DEATH for many months and it hasn't stopped. Every movie I went to had a preview for it, and TV wasn't letting me forget it either. And I only watch TV one or two days in a week.
I hadn't watched many movies, and I don't watch TV at all. Literally, only after the TS3 preview did I start to see advertisements - first a billboard, then a few TV commercials as I walked by one. Finally a tepid review in SN&R.
Ironically, I probably would have heard about this sooner if there had been a Google ad about it on YouTube or something. I might not pay attention to those, but if I saw a Disney movie called "The Sorceror's Apprentice" earlier in the year I would have raised an eyebrow.
-
I hadn't watched many movies, and I don't watch TV at all.
Well, of course you didn't see any advertising, lol
-
i blame nicholas cage for the movie failure
-
How could the Lord of War tank a movie?
There…there must be some sort of mistake....
hyperventilates
I'll check the movie out myself (that and Inception this week). -
A little Comic-Con Tangled interview:
http://www.collider.com/2010/07/28/comic-con-tangled-interview-byron-howard-nathan-greno-directors-walt-disney/?_r=trueInteresting interview. It doesn't reveal much but of the few tidbits I could get out of it I really liked:
! how they had Rapunzel cover her walls with paintings because her mind and heart were so full, but she couldn't go outside to release it. Nice concept.
And today I realized that Flynn Rider is the first Disney hero since Phoebus (Hunchback of Notre Dame) to have facial hair.
-
And for all you artistic types, here's a look at the design of several set-pieces of the movie:
awlBswjJC-gLooks like Fantasyland from Disneyland was a big inspiration for the design of the Tangled world.
-
Looks like Fantasyland from Disneyland was a big inspiration for the design of the Tangled world.
Derivative works are the cancer killing
fantasyfiction.Though honestly, the artwork looks great. It's the story focus that's the real question…
-
Well, most art takes inspiration from SOMEWHERE. Even if it's just nature.
-
Im sure it's going to be a good film… I mean, it's been in production for ages, and I'm hoping most of the film was created during the period where people thought Princess+Frog was going to repave the way for disney princess movies... and they did have Glen Keene working on it for a short while, even if he did bail on it eventually
  -
I think Glen Keene was still there as an overseer, even if he had to drop the directorial duties. This was his pet project after all, I doubt he'd want to walk away entirely.
-
I read this in the morning paper.
If anything, it shows Disney's managers are dingbats. This move doesn't profit Disney at all, seeing as they're selling the rights to Miramax distributed films as well as future releases. It only hurts them financially, since Viacom and Warner are certainly not limiting themselves to "family friendly" material (and Marvel, family friendly? wut).
The whole point to Miramax was to allow Disney to profit from mature films without having to sully the Disney name, and it was done at the tail end of an era where Disney was nearing bankruptcy. You'd think the idiot managers would have learned from that…
-
DISNEY BRAND
-
But Disney had been looking to sell Miramax amid a studio overhaul because it no longer resonated with its other family-centric studio units such as Pixar and Marvel.
I just
what
fsdgdsfgsdgddfgdsfzgsdfgs
There are just so many things that are completely and utterly wrong about this viewpoint that I wonder how human could have held it. -
But Disney had been looking to sell Miramax amid a studio overhaul because it no longer resonated with its other family-centric studio units such as Pixar and Marvel.
Makes ense.
[HIDE]
[/HIDE] -
Perhaps the article is portent to Marvel's future.
-
Sucks that the Weinstein brothers weren't able to buy it themselves.
この世に悪があるとすればそれは人の心だ。
-
I think this says it all:
uyYb_r4cZHE -
One of my favorite films i havent seen in years was on HBO a few days ago
im a fan of the James and the Giant peach movie.. it was awesome for its animation style pre-pixar
(mentioning this film because its on blu ray in a week or 2 soon) -
I read this in the morning paper.
If anything, it shows Disney's managers are dingbats. This move doesn't profit Disney at all, seeing as they're selling the rights to Miramax distributed films as well as future releases. It only hurts them financially, since Viacom and Warner are certainly not limiting themselves to "family friendly" material (and Marvel, family friendly? wut).
The whole point to Miramax was to allow Disney to profit from mature films without having to sully the Disney name, and it was done at the tail end of an era where Disney was nearing bankruptcy. You'd think the idiot managers would have learned from that…
Many Hollywood businessmen have been very conservative lately. From what I've been able to gather on this, its a combination of lower Miramax box office revenues from last year and a sharp drop in DVD sales from the Miramax back catalogue, which is where much of the Miramax revenue came from before the drop.
http://blogs.wsj.com/source/2010/07/30/mickey-comes-to-playdom-on-facebook/
Instead, Disney seems to be focusing on media accuision, lately in the news that Disney acquired social gaming company Playdom likely as an effort to increase exposure of its existing franchise characters through Facebook and other social media sites
The worst thing about this, though, is that Disney refused to sell the studio back to the Weinsteins, even if they were able to get $50 million extra from the Tudors.
-
  -
http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a274855/pixar-eyeing-doctor-strange.html
whhaaaaaa….....I don't....I don't even understand.
Why?
How?
What?Pixar? Picking up Dr. Strange? I mean, I'm okay with Dr. Strange, but of all things and of all people.....
-
It could work rather well I think depending on who directs it. Animation is about the only way you could possibly capture the look of the comics if you base it on the Steve Dikto era, which is probably the most famous incarnation of the series.
Complicating things since 2009.
-
It could work rather well I think; animation is about the only way you could possibly capture the look of the comics especially if you base it on the Steve Dikto era.
I'm not doubting their performance.
I'm questioning their reason. It's just REALLY weird.
-
I'm not doubting their performance.
I'm questioning their reason. It's just REALLY weird.
Almost strange don't you think? Yet, I'm no doctor on this subject matter, but I think it would be quite interesting. Pixar+Dr. Strange=Win in my book.
-
Strange is the biggest Marvel name that's never had a television series or big-screen movie to his credit so there's that. Far as I know, there was the DTV movie a few years ago that was okayish at best and cameos in pretty much every animated Marvel series since the '70s, but that's it.
-
Pixar needs to upgrade how they animate humans if they want to pass it off convincingly, though.
-
They animate humans very well
if you mean model them more realistically/change style then that's hardly an upgrade
  -
Oh lord. You know, this is the kinda stuff we joked about when Disney purchased Marvel.
Well, it is Pixar, so maybe it'll be good.
-
if you mean model them more realistically/change style then that's hardly an upgrade
They stick with the current style because they haven't been able to overcome that problem. Disney changed styles for almost every movie during the Renaissance. If Pixar's going to do a comic book Dr. Strange better not look like Mr. Incredible.
-
No Terek, nobody wants to see Pixar do Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, or LotR, or Avatar style realism, or even Reboot.
The technology is clearly there, and Pixar opts to go for stylization, design and art flavor instead. I'm sure if the most successful cgi company in the world wanted to give their stuff a different look, they could.
Real looking does not equal better.
-
@RobbyBevard:
No Terek, nobody wants to see Pixar do Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, or LotR, or Avatar style realism, or even Reboot.
The technology is clearly there, and Pixar opts to go for stylization, design and art flavor instead. I'm sure if the most successful cgi company in the world wanted to give their stuff a different look, they could.
Real looking does not equal better.
This. People need to stop thinking 'Realism = Perfect'. Maybe it's just me, but the writing and the actual LOOK (in terms of catching the eye) of the movie.
Incoming movie rant:
[hide]
Let's take Carl from UP:
[hide]
[/hide]I don't know a single person who looks like this, but through his character and design, they were able to define any emotion and make it look completely genuine. He LOOKED alive. He didn't look like a moving puppet with awkward emotions like Spirts Within. He didn't have bland script writing to make him completely unrelatable.
The movie did what was necessary to throw a good story with real and relatable emotions with actual comedy, while still managing to give appeal to the eye.
Great movie making isn't perfection. It's doing the necessary actions to make us laugh, cry, scream (out of fear), and smile. That's generally why we consider a lot of old movies to be better. They didn't have the tools to make "PERFECTION", they had limits. They used those limits to make something amazing.[/hide]
Also, I loved Reboot. I don't think you're bashing Reboot, but I still love it.
-
Well I wouldn't want to see a superhero type like dr strange done in the more familiar pixar style (though expecting him to look like Mr Incredible is kind of dumb) but it's fallacy to think that they can't do other styles, or the fact that they'd want to manipulate an already established character to thier own mould (though small artistic changes will probably be required)
also super realism superheros have been done before, and frankly i'm more excited to see what kind of story they'd come up with
-
http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a274855/pixar-eyeing-doctor-strange.html
whhaaaaaaWait.
Wait wait wait wait.
[hide]They're considering Sandman?
Does Neil Gaiman know this?
This is the guy who said "I'd rather have no Sandman movie than a bad one," and I'd rather that he have a say in this.
Not to mention that the series ain't entirely family friendly (I can already hear Fox News denouncing the transgendered protagonist.)
If it does go through though…
Screw realism:
[hide]
I wants me some Merv Pumpkinhead and Corinthian done right.[/hide][/hide]
On the subject of realism, this reminds me of something I read on the net a while ago (maybe a year or two?)
Something along the lines of 'realism ain't shit if the audience doesn't believe the characters can actually move that way.'
Still not entirely sure what it means, but I think this is a case of that. -
No, he pitched a crossover.
It wouldn't work since Sandman is owned by DC while Marvel owns Dr. Strange.
I understand Neil Gaiman's love of Sandman but I don't see why it needs to be a requirement for anybody who wants to use characters from Sandman to ask for his permission. I guess it's because they don't want they same thing to happen with him that happened with Alan Moore.
Although, Neil Gaiman DID use a LOT of DC characters in Sandman.
Actually, according to Wiki:
"I'd rather see no Sandman movie made than a bad Sandman movie. But I feel like the time for a Sandman movie is coming soon. We need someone who has the same obsession with the source material as Peter Jackson had with Lord of the Rings or Sam Raimi had with Spider-Man."[20] Gaiman is currently working on a movie adaptation of Death: The High Cost of Living.
-
On the subject of realism, this reminds me of something I read on the net a while ago (maybe a year or two?)
Something along the lines of 'realism ain't shit if the audience doesn't believe the characters can actually move that way.'
Still not entirely sure what it means, but I think this is a case of that.Sort of. The closer CGI gets to reality, the more unsettling or obvious it is that it's not, since we experience realistic humans on a day to day basis and are experts on it
it was a problem in the past, but with the development of motion capture and more powerful software, anything can be done these days, and less limititations means more choices, such as the choice to go super realistic or less so
the vid in this link is a pretty good example of hyper realistic superheroes
  -
If I recall correctly, the uncanny valley was a pretty big problem for Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.
Far as style goes, how realistic would it really have to be?
Here's Strange as drawn by his original artist:
Ditko didn't really have all that realistic a style. His characters tended to have really square heads with highly exaggerated features (Strange's eyebrows are the most noticeable here) that would work fairly well in animation. Look at Peter Parker's head in the original Spider-Man run for another example; it's almost like a cinder block.
Now, that's not the best image in the world to see Strange obviously, but it's a good illustration as to why the series would work best as an animated film; namely, there's just no other way to really pull off the backgrounds. Sure, you could go the Phantom Menace route and have almost every set be mostly animated, but why not just go ahead and animate the whole thing if you're going to that much trouble?
Complicating things since 2009.
-
No, he pitched a crossover.
It wouldn't work since Sandman is owned by DC while Marvel owns Dr. Strange.
I understand Neil Gaiman's love of Sandman but I don't see why it needs to be a requirement for anybody who wants to use characters from Sandman to ask for his permission. I guess it's because they don't want they same thing to happen with him that happened with Alan Moore.
Although, Neil Gaiman DID use a LOT of DC characters in Sandman.
Actually, according to Wiki:
"I'd rather see no Sandman movie made than a bad Sandman movie. But I feel like the time for a Sandman movie is coming soon. We need someone who has the same obsession with the source material as Peter Jackson had with Lord of the Rings or Sam Raimi had with Spider-Man."[20] Gaiman is currently working on a movie adaptation of Death: The High Cost of Living.
Okay okay, fair enough (although Sandman is actually owned by Vertigo, but since he borrowed DC characters there could be a relation).
hidden for length
[hide]However, on the DC comic characters comment (not sure about the implication), he was doing a panel (somewhere on Youtube, that is) where talked about using DC characters, and getting permission for them.
Apparently he wanted to use the Joker in the Dr. Destiny storyline, but he had just 'died.'
Gaiman: Well yeah, but he'll get better.
Editor: Yeah, but we need him dead for about 3 weeks.
(I'm paraphrasing, but this is what he said all in all).
So he used the Scarecrow.
Not to mention that when he used Superman in 'The Wake', he originally intended for Clark to be tucking his cape into his suit, like his version of 'I'm in my underwear' dream.
DC said this was 'irreverant.'
Not sure if this addresses any issues, but it's still an interesting tidbit.[/hide]
@taboo:Sort of. The closer CGI gets to reality, the more unsettling or obvious it is that it's not, since we experience realistic humans on a day to day basis and are experts on it
it was a problem in the past, but with the development of motion capture and more powerful software, anything can be done these days, and less limititations means more choices, such as the choice to go super realistic or less so
the vid in this link is a pretty good example of hyper realistic superheroes
That vid seems to be a good case in point (though I ain't no expert, obviously).
From what I can fathom, the physics and everything looks good (and I mean really good), but something about the faces and suits really bug me.
Like the closer you get to realism, the more the unrealistic parts stand out.
Maybe you can't really get it at all (100% I mean).
And that's not even getting into the slight nerd rage I experienced when I found out Superman let all that happen (because he could clearly hear it all going on).
Tangent:
I wonder who would be a good voice for Matthew if Sandman was animated? -
Sure, you could go the Phantom Menace route and have almost every set be mostly animated, but why not just go ahead and animate the whole thing if you're going to that much trouble?
well it never stopped James Cameron Lol
but yeah, when i said "more choices" that includes live action hybrids. Choosing pixar specifically, is choosing to make an entirely animated film that's obviously going to be less realistic.
  -
well it never stopped James Cameron Lol
James Cameron has as much use for common sense as a fish does for a bicycle.
As a side note, Topless Robot had a brief blurb about the Avatar-based porn film Hustler is making and noted, hilariously enough, that they've managed to recreate or even outdo the multimillion dollar Navi CGI creations with a couple hundred bucks worth of paint and fake ears.
but yeah, when i said "more choices" that includes live action hybrids. Choosing pixar specifically, is choosing to make an entirely animated film that's obviously going to be less realistic.
Like I said though, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Doctor Strange never was the most realisticly drawn series to begin with and can get by with a lot fantastic elements than a slightly more grounded series like Spider-Man could. Pixar would need to move away a bit from their traditional character designs, but nowhere near as much as people might think.
Complicating things since 2009.
-
@RobbyBevard:
No Terek, nobody wants to see Pixar do Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, or LotR, or Avatar style realism, or even Reboot.
It's funny you of all people are saying this, because you should know better that comic book artists don't draw everything in disgustingly hyper-realistic, and that's a gross perversion of what I was originally suggesting anyway.
Plus, the main girl in FF: TSW was cute. :wub: Check my signature one in a while.
Back on Pixar, we've yet to see them do something serious when it comes to humans. The humans they've depicted thus far are all heavily stylized and very distinct. You could argue until sunset that it's a creative choice. The same could be said about Oda and his unwillingness to kill off characters. There comes a point where that "creative choice" will hold the studio back. Saying "they could do it" isn't any different from dismissing Pixar's lack of a non-Princess, independent female lead. It's just talk until they actually bite the bullet and do it. And, after a few days of reading all these anti-compliments of Pixar's writing, art and animation, I'd rather see Pixar prove them wrong rather than hold silent on the issue(s) year after year.
-
James Cameron has as much use for common sense as a fish does for a bicycle.
I don't understand your analogy. Fish have no use for bicycles as modes of transportation or tools in exercise, for they do not have the proper physical structure to utilize them. Even if they could, as they live in bodies of water, a vehicle whose design heavily involves traction would be nonsensical. James Cameron, on the other hand, as a member of the human body, would have a use in natural sound judgment. It can aid him in his day to day life quite extraordinarily and may even prolong his existence if routinely employed. I am afraid I don't see a connection with bicycles and common sense….....
-
It's funny you of all people are saying this, because you should know better that comic book artists don't draw everything in disgustingly hyper-realistic,
well they certainly aren't on the more stylized side of things (for the most part)
There comes a point where that "creative choice" will hold the studio back. It's just talk until they actually bite the bullet and do it.
so like… Do you live in a fantasy lala land where pixar movies are made by one person with one style, who produces an infinate number of movies a year which all look exactly the same
what bullet do they need to bite anyway? Who exactly are they proving anything to?
-
@Gigglepuffy:
I don't understand your analogy. Fish have no use for bicycles as modes of transportation or tools in exercise, for they do not have the proper physical structure to utilize them. Even if they could, as they live in bodies of water, a vehicle whose design heavily involves traction would be nonsensical. James Cameron, on the other hand, as a member of the human body, would have a use in natural sound judgment. It can aid him in his day to day life quite extraordinarily and may even prolong his existence if routinely employed. I am afraid I don't see a connection with bicycles and common sense….....
Maybe he should have said "James Cameron uses common sense about as much as a fish uses a bicycle".
Or maybe he means that James Cameron is so out of touch with reality that he as evolved outside of the capacity and necessity of using common sense.
Or maybe he just used a piece of the common old whimsical feminist quote "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" that most people would recognize these days as simply saying "it's useless".
