Disney animation thread

Ubiq

I've pretty much gotten a Chicken Little vibe from Tangled the minute that the name change was announced and the feeling only got worse after the trailers began coming out. I haven't read the review, but my expectation for a while now has been that the artwork will be fine to great, the story will likely be meh at best and derivative at worst, and people hoping for more than that are probably wasting their time.

I'll see it in theaters because I haven't missed a Disney release (well, besides Bolt, which I skipped because of the Chris Sanders situation) since Dinosaurs? Atlantis? Which one of those came first? Anyway, I'll see it, but I'm not expecting much from it.

Satsuki

I never got a "Chicken Little" vibe from it. Chicken Little made me cringe from the very beginning.

Here's a review from Variety:
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117943999?refcatid=31

According to him, the movie suffers from a bit too much "snappy one-liners" and falls between Disney Classicism and self-conscious storybook quality ala Shrek, but the old-fashioned quality prevails under a long-gestating fairy tale and "sturdy narrative carpentry."

Oh, and apparently the climax has a "splash of blood" that earned the movie a PG rating. I forsee gouged out eyes!!

Insider2000

@Satsuki:

I never got a "Chicken Little" vibe from it. Chicken Little made me cringe from the very beginning.

Here's a review from Variety:
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117943999?refcatid=31

According to him, the movie suffers from a bit too much "snappy one-liners" and falls between Disney Classicism and self-conscious storybook quality ala Shrek, but the old-fashioned quality prevails under a long-gestating fairy tale and "sturdy narrative carpentry."

Well that doesn't sound good.

Oh, and apparently the climax has a "splash of blood" that earned the movie a PG rating. I forsee gouged out eyes!!

Holy shit, GONNA WATCH DIS MOVIE!

Thank you Disney for realizing that children can handle certain things!

Satsuki

Well, the early reviews (all two of them) aren't overly encouraging, but they're not saying the movie is complete shit either. Enough to give it a chance and decide for yourself.

Yeah, and the blood in the climax, too.

Insider2000

Oh I'm going to see it no matter what. The chances of seeing it in theater are starting to seem slimmer (not cause of the reviews, but due to life related reasons), but I don't let reviews control whether I see or like a movie.

Kaiolino

I won't watch this movie in cinemas either, but that's only because Disney keeps insisting on only releasing Dutch dubbed versions of their animated movies. That includes Pixar, which pisses me off even more.

One point for Dreamworks.

Oksa

I just saw the new trailer for Cars 2 and I must say that it didn't look promising. The one thing why Pixar has always been the best 3D animation maker is that their movies are not generic. No dull plots, no stupid action scenes, no annoying lines. They even made a superhero movie that wasn't just shooting and running. And now we're going to have cars shooting each other, racing in Japan and driving through explosions. Sounds very unoriginal, but I hope Pixar will surprise me.

If it wasn't for Disney, we would have get Newt and not a sequel to a movie that already had an ending.

@RobbyBevard:

uhm… if Pixar said Newt was having story problems that were insurmountable... I'll trust them on that. I don't think Disney said "Hey, cancel this film you've done preproduction on." I'd hope that what happened was they said "This isn't really working, what else can we put on the schedule that we can do from scratch in three years?"

And Cars II is going to be what its going to be. A sequal to Cars, what is considered by many their most off film, and was their least grossing theatrically since their first two films... but also the most merchandisable. If they're having fun with it, well, at least they're having fun with it.

I must admit that I didn't really know why Newt got cancelled. It just seemed so original that it was a bit frustrating to see that cancelled and Cars 2 coming.

And Cars wasn't the best Pixar movie, but it was pretty good for one starring speaking vehicles. And because the only reason for the sequel is that Disney wants to sell more Cars related toys, I don't think they're having that much fun with it. I don't get that right Pixar feeling from the trailer.

Robby

If Pixar said Newt was having story problems that were insurmountable… I'll trust them on that. I don't think Disney said for no reason out of the blue "Hey, cancel this film you've done preproduction on." I'd hope that what happened was they said "This isn't really working, what else can we put on the schedule that we can do from scratch in two years, since Bear and the Bow still needs 3?"

Pixar ramble[hide]I don't think Monsters Inc. needs a sequal at all, but their track record has earned them the benefit of the doubt. They wouldn't do it unless they had a good story to go with it, they say time and time again thats why they haven't done an Incredibles sequal, and Toy Story is like a perfect trilogy, where the third film might actually be the strongest one of all.

And Cars II is going to be what its going to be. A sequal to Cars, what is considered by many their most off film, and was their least grossing theatrically since their first two films… but also the most merchandisable. If they're having fun with it, well, at least they're having fun with it.

Part 1 had a lot of nuance and character stuff and background detail and visuals I came to appreciate after it reran endlessly on the Disney channel. Still at the bottom of my Pixar list, but there's a ton of good stuff in it, and the ending hits all the right notes. I'm sure that whatever the sequal may be, it'll ring true in the characterization and payoff.

Pixar's delivered some of my very favorite movies, and none of their movies are bad, they're allowed a couple misses before I start doubting them. Even Cars 1 wasn't really a miss, it just wasn't as good as the other stuff and the character design is creepy.[/hide]

Plus, on top of that, Pixar's TRAILERS are almost always bad. I personally have never found a Pixar trailer to be entertaining. Then the movies go on to be the best written and best executed things around. I think it's because the humor is all character driven, not really situational, which makes it harder to convey in short bursts. And they're pretty good about not revealing a lot past the first act.

Ubiq

@RobbyBevard:

Plus, on top of that, Pixar's TRAILERS are almost always bad. I personally have never found a Pixar trailer to be entertaining.

You didn't like Mr. Incredible's struggle with his supersuit?

True enough that most of their early trailers are terrible though.

Robby

Not really, it came across as a weak fat joke, and from that I thought the entire movie was going to be about an overweight superhero, which felt extremely one note and dull, and had been done. That gave no real hint of the family, the spy element, or really… anything about the movie. Even the actual fat jokes in the actual movie were pretty subdued and short.

Iron Giant and Emperor's New Groove also both had a lot of trouble with their commercials... because again, most of the humor was character driven and needed lots of setup.

ANYWAY.

I just made a new thread for Pixar discussion since it comes up so frequently, this can carry over there.

http://apforums.net/showthread.php?t=30732

Or, it can just stay in the Disney thread and we can forget it ever happened.

Either way.

Robo Gorilla

This post is deleted!

Pochipochi

I think all trailers look awful. When it comes down to it, you're basically peeling apart the film and manipulating scenes to try to appeal to an audience for the sake of marketing. Thus, being "true" to the film basically never happens and you have to just read-between-the-lines and work off of how the trailer looks.

It's rare that a US film trailer impresses me, or makes me go "I want to see that."

Tsukishima

@Holy:

It's rare that a US film trailer impresses me, or makes me go "I want to see that."

On the contrary some trailers don't make me want to see the movie because they are basically a summary of the whole story.

Smudger

How to Train Your Dragon had some of the worst previews I've seen for a while. Though it may not be tied in with this franchise, it is still suffers from the usual faults that tend to plague animation companies nowadays.

I usually have to look at two or three trailers to get a rough understanding of plot and shit. And even then I can still feel a little lost.

Another film I didn't quite get in the initial stages of advertising was despicable me. It turned out to be exactly the opposite of what I expected. Though still funny.

Darkstorm

I had to literally force my friends to see How to Train Your Dragon after they saw the previews.

Smudger

How do they mess it up so much.

Do you think there's a genuine reason behind the poor advertising campaigns or is it all run by some obscure talentless morons.
(advertising group)

ChesCa

@Darkstorm:

I had to literally force my friends to see How to Train Your Dragon after they saw the previews.

You did the right thing.
Also, Megamind was surprisingly good, believe it or not, though I'm disappointed to hear that it was a carbon copy of other movies. Possibly even Minion, my favorite character.
On Topic: Speaking of bad advertising…while I don't watch television anymore, I still get hit by ads in my mall (there's like these kiosks that play animated/live action clips and ads). The one for Tangled...I don't remember the whole of it, but it was pretty short and the meat of it was the Prince guy and Rapunzel poking their heads in the screen, giving each other the 'looks like we're in this together/we're pals' look, and then ducking out. Also Rapunzel swinging on her hair and the Chameleon.
I know I'm being shallow, but that look...it gives me bad feelings about the movie.
It's like how I knew Beverly Hills Chihuahua was going to be bad when George Lopez called the characters wacky.

Robby

@Cuddles:

It's like how I knew Beverly Hills Chihuahua was going to be bad when George Lopez called the characters wacky.

I knew Beverly Hills Chihuahua was going to be bad when I heard the title.

ChesCa

@RobbyBevard:

I knew Beverly Hills Chihuahua was going to be bad when I heard the title.

Don't get me wrong; I already knew I wasn't going to watch the movie when I saw the trailer twice (one of the downsides of watching Wall-E twice), but a celebrity endorsement where said celebrity can only think of the word 'wacky' to describe the characters put it on Master of Disguise levels before I even saw it.

The Dude

@Satsuki:

Wasn't that the general consensus for PatF last year?

I loved it. Still do. It was a breath of fresh air and made me want to see it again after leaving the theater.

The UK trailer for Tangled kind of makes me want to see it. Really I'm just a sucker for swashbuckling and snarky heroes.

Satsuki

So am I. And yes, the UK trailer was vastly superior to the US one. (and when I said general consensus, I meant the critics)

That said, I think Disney is pushing Tangled way more than PatF.

LOL.
i8PSnYUPyzk

MagiciteKefka

Just watched Princess and the Frog for the first time, and it was pretty good.

Facilier was just awesome.

Smudger

@RobbyBevard:

I knew Beverly Hills Chihuahua was going to be bad when I heard the title.

Has anyone here actually seen this movie? Or perhaps just anyone in general?

Robby

@Smudger:

Has anyone here actually seen this movie? Or perhaps just anyone in general?

I hope not.

Ubiq

@Smudger:

Has anyone here actually seen this movie? Or perhaps just anyone in general?

It made about $150 million dollars at the box office so presumably somebody saw it.

ChesCa

@Ubiq:

It made about $150 million dollars at the box office so presumably somebody saw it.

Paris Hilton and Tinkerbell.

Smudger

The rest is made up of plane passengers.

I've been stuck on 7+ hour flights tons of times, and no matter how much you fight it you'll end up watching some kind of poop in your boredom.

Cyber-Robin

@Satsuki:

That said, I think Disney is pushing Tangled way more than PatF.

Might have something to do with it being their 50th Classic (ok I know they don't slap the classic label on them till they're out on DVD now but still.)

Kinda weird that it's been 20 years since Beauty and the Beast

Dark Lord Zenigame

…can you really call a movie a "classic" when it hasn't even been released yet?

Robby

@Dark:

…can you really call a movie a "classic" when it hasn't even been released yet?

Sure, its on Disney's official numbered list, which basically guarantees it'll get re-releases for decades to come.

Unless its like the Black Cauldron, Pocahontas, Atlantis, the cow thing, or one of the war films, in which case it'll just be discreetly released and they'll pretend its not one of the numbered ones.

Lion King is the last time I really remember them seriously pushing the numbered thing as a selling point, as if it was part of an undeniable lineage of quality. "The 32nd animated feature from…" They stopped doing that when the films began hitting annually, and/or being cgi.

PatF might have done it too, being the "return to form" and all.

They also sort of pretend Mary Poppins is part of that list.

Cyber-Robin

Here in the UK all of the films get the number on the DVD case. Except for Bolt which didn't (although it jumped from 47 on Robinsons to 49 on Princess and the Frog so we can assume that is 48)

But I don't think they use it as a selling point. At least not for Pinocchio (labeled as the one that caused people to wish again.), Snow-White was labelled as the first, Beauty got the awards and Bambi is his favourite. So yeah XD I think Dumbo got something when it was re-released too.

Charzonsos

@Smudger:

Has anyone here actually seen this movie? Or perhaps just anyone in general?

I seen it… it was horrible... I mean, it was just... they threw in mystic crap called like the inner dog or something for the chihuahuas... also, George Lopez's character got less screen time then the prissy female Chihuahua (the advertisings, for me at least, lead to the assumption he would have a bigger role), and his character was annoying in general. I did not like the film at all.

quotLCquot_Lapen

Posted this in the Epic Mickey thread but just to get some added exposure:

FUCK. YES. They better have a Wurlitzer Organ doing the BGM I swear to Walt I would cream my pants.

Sai-chan

Awww, Oswald. I haven't seen much of him.

Nobodyman

@LC:

Posted this in the Epic Mickey thread but just to get some added exposure:

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f167/LC_Lapen/1290216198845.jpg

FUCK. YES. They better have a Wurlitzer Organ doing the BGM I swear to Walt I would cream my pants.

That's all well and good, but what in the hell is Open Season 2 doing adjacent to it?

quotLCquot_Lapen

@Nobodyman:

That's all well and good, but what in the hell is Open Season 2 doing adjacent to it?

I'd assume that alphabetical order dictates that Open Season would come before Oswald. That or they mantain some sort of epicness standard where they have to counterbalance something with suck by sticking something with win next to it.

Satsuki

More early reviews of Tangled are out, and they're universally positive (7 reviews, 100% on the tomatometer):
http://www.boxofficemagazine.com/reviews/2010-11-tangled
http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/tangled/5163
http://www.iamrogue.com/movies/movie-reviews/theatrical-reviews/item/1708-movie-review-tangled-is-absolutely-delightful.html

DartG

!
Will do moose stuff for plane ticket

Nobodyman

So I actually sat down and watched "Oliver and Company" for the first time the other night. I had seen bits of it before, but this is the first time I've seen it all the way through. Overall, a pretty solid movie. The characters and the actors who played them were great (Cheech Marin in particular was great as Tito). The story and pacing were good aside from one or two scenes that I felt dragged a little bit. As for the music…well, we all know the "Why Should I Worry?" song, which is just awesome, but the rest of it is pretty so-so.

A few minor complaints though:

Dogs don't eat cats - For the first 10 or 15 minutes or so of the movie, the writers seem to be under this weird misconception that dogs eat cats. It's mentioned about three times. Newsflash: They don't. At least, they very rarely do.

Winston is the worst babysitter ever - Seriously, the guy has like zero control over Jenny. I mean, for a while it was fine and was played for comedic effect, but what really set me over the edge was when Jenny just strolled on over to the part of town, unsupervised, for Oliver's and......Winston knows nothing about it?! How the hell did that happen?

How/why did Fagin get a loan from Sykes? - So why exactly would a crime boss loan money to a street bum and what did Fagin use the money for? I know this seems like a trifling thing, but I feel it deserves an explanation.

Sykes' lack of screentime - As far as villains go, Sykes is pretty badass. Every second he's on screen is pure Disney evil at its finest. But that's just the problem, he didn't have very much screentime. He only appeared at the very beginning and the very end, so he didn't have as dominant a presence as other Disney villains.

But those little problems aside, it's still a great movie and is definitely underrated. If you haven't seen it, check it out.

Malintex_Terek

My modern impression of Fagin was he was a guy who lost big on Wall Street and couldn't leave NYC. No way Sykes would lend a huge load of cash to some random bum.

Senshi Mizaka

^
I agree wholeheartedly. Oliver and Company isn't exactly my favorite. It's pretty low on my list of the Disney Dark Age, but I still enjoyed it despite the flaws in animation. There were a few moments where the plot could have been fleshed out, but you can justify that they didn't because of time constraints. Or at least that's my view on it. It's true that Sykes was a cool villain, but he didn't really have enough time to shine.

And speaking of the Dark Ages: I got a copy of The Great Mouse Detective, but I haven't hat the time to watch it.

Robby

@Nobodyman:

Sykes' lack of screentime - As far as villains go, Sykes is pretty badass. Every second he's on screen is pure Disney evil at its finest. But that's just the problem, he didn't have very much screentime. He only appeared at the very beginning and the very end, so he didn't have as dominant a presence as other Disney villains.

For a long time during production, Sykes was going to remain ominous and off camera the whole movie. Just an arm or a silhouette or whatnot, and the dogs.

Wasn't until late in the production they realized they needed a full design for some of the stuff they did in the last 10 minutes.

Nobodyman

@RobbyBevard:

For a long time during production, Sykes was going to remain ominous and off camera the whole movie. Just an arm or a silhouette or whatnot, and the dogs.

Wasn't until late in the production they realized they needed a full design for some of the stuff they did in the last 10 minutes.

And that very well may have worked, but even then I think it would've been better if he made one or two "appearances" in the second act.

Ubiq

@Nobodyman:

How/why did Fagin get a loan from Sykes? - So why exactly would a crime boss loan money to a street bum and what did Fagin use the money for? I know this seems like a trifling thing, but I feel it deserves an explanation.

Sykes is a loan shark; as a general rule, loan sharks aren't too picky about who they loan money to so long as they get repaid.

It's been a while since I watched Oliver and Company, but wasn't there a scene where Fagin was watching a ball game and was crestfallen at the result? If I'm indeed remembering that correctly, Fagin was probably a compulsive gambler who would borrow money to make bets. He most likely did well enough that he could get totally repay Sykes from his winnings or could steal enough to make up the difference. By the time the film rolls around, he'd hit a solid losing streak and kept borrowing more money to try and win it back.

Nobodyman

@Ubiq:

Sykes is a loan shark; as a general rule, loan sharks aren't too picky about who they loan money to so long as they get repaid.

Even so, it would make sense if they lent the money to someone they were reasonably sure could repay them. They're not gonna make money if they hand out loans willy nilly.

It's been a while since I watched Oliver and Company, but wasn't there a scene where Fagin was watching a ball game and was crestfallen at the result? If I'm indeed remembering that correctly, Fagin was probably a compulsive gambler who would borrow money to make bets. He most likely did well enough that he could get totally repay Sykes from his winnings or could steal enough to make up the difference. By the time the film rolls around, he'd hit a solid losing streak and kept borrowing more money to try and win it back.

I don't remember a scene like that, nor did I get the impression that Fagin was a compulsive gambler. At least not in the version I saw. The one I watched was on Youtube, but I guess it's possible there could be an alternate version out there.

Kaiolino

Can somebody clear up the whole Kimba thing for me. A friend of mine, who is a Disney whore, says that the Kimba similarities are completely made up (I never saw Kimba myself) and that this page (http://www.kimbawlion.com/rant2.htm) is full of lies.

Robby

Its not surprising you never saw the series since it like, came out in the 60's? And the manga was the 50's?

That page is full of TRUTHS. Disney animators ripped/homaged an anime source, while the execs in charge may have been less aware. (Or at the very least, have to publicly pretend they had no idea.) It may be off on some of the behind the scenes stuff, but it all sounds accurate, since the visuals and scenes that are the same are, well… visuals and scenes that are the same

They do that.

A lot.

See also Rescuers Down Under/Nausicca flying sequences, Great Mouse Detective/Castle of Cagliostro clock tower sequence, and Atlantis/Nadia.

But yeah. Lion King has a TON of similarities to Kimba in scenes and visuals. Right down to them both having black spots on the ears, which isn't really a typical lion trait. That page lists a pretty good chunk of them. Hell, the earliest production art even had Simba as a white lion.

I mean, they had a mandrill shaman, a colorful bird advisor, some hyenas, evil scarred black maned uncle named Claw, the stampede, the father in the sky after the little lion runs away from home... the biggest difference actually is that Kimba/Jungle Emperor Leo had humans in it, and being a series, a lot more to it in terms of themes and well... episodes, and followed Kimba all the way to his adulthood, having children, and then his death. The actual stories were pretty radically different, but a lot of the SCENES were very similar.

Really. Just watch the first... 5 minutes of the movie and pretend Circle of Life is playing.
87xT2GYxyro

Matthew Broderick even thought he was working on a Kimba remake.

Another fun fact. Kimba's name originally WAS Simba, but there were copyright issues with a sports drink at the time or something. (Well, its Leo in the Japanese regardless.)

Satsuki

sigh
http://blog.movies.yahoo.com/blog/177-disney-will-stop-making-princess-movies-because-boys-think-theyre-icky

Apparently Disney is abandoning the princess and fairy tale genre for a while. An undefined while.

I'm all for trying something outside of the princess formula, but this article gives me a bad feeling. Like they're trying desperately to mimic whatever makes money instead of setting the standard like they used to.

Jarhead

I sorta hope for more musicals and good villians.

Also,
C7sYaCxpscM
Too bad the rest is average.
EDIT:
374xW4zZbZA

Ubiq

@Satsuki:

Apparently Disney is abandoning the princess and fairy tale genre for a while. An undefined while.

Doesn't sound like Lasseter is putting much stock in Tangled being a hit if they've already wrote off the genre.