Media Megaforum

HOODWINKED
hpkomic at 1:20AM, Jan. 28, 2006
(online)
posts: 943
joined: 1-1-2006
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD IT BURNED

I didn't pay to see it, but I almost walked out it was that bad.

I can't wait until the CG animation bubble bursts and we get less crappy movies.

Since there are no less than 15 CG films coming out this year, I think it's gonna happen soon.

Thank. God.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:50PM
ozoneocean at 10:37AM, Jan. 28, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,999
joined: 1-2-2004
That's the trouble with CrappyWood… Once they spy a novelty they rape it for all it's worth.
SO we get Toy Stories about Antz having a Bugz Life fighting Toy Soldiers while almost Finding Nemo, following a Shark's Tale to Monsters Inc during the Ice Age and running into Shrek.

Novelty upon novelty… Sure you can make decent films in any medium, but to make a pice of shit in CG simply so it will sell is what they love to do.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
Terminal at 10:53AM, Jan. 28, 2006
(online)
posts: 5,505
joined: 1-6-2006
Damn you Pixar. Damn you and your well crafted movies seemingly screwed us all.

Trends, what ever happened to the video game movie trend. That died out quick (Driver, Crazy Taxi, some other shit).

.: Myxomatosis :.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:09PM
ccs1989 at 12:12PM, Jan. 28, 2006
(online)
posts: 2,656
joined: 1-2-2006
At least we have The Incredibles.
http://ccs1989.deviantart.com

“If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.”
-Henry David Thoreau, Walden
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:37AM
Hawk at 12:29PM, Jan. 28, 2006
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
I pay particularly close attention to the CGI movie industry. And I think that in the time the bubble WILL burst and people will realize that they have been fooled. You see, corporate suits decided that becasue Pixar's movies and Shrek have done so well and Disney's Home on the Range did so poorly that people simply loved these movies because they were CGI.

The truth is, Pixar's movies were just great movies and deserved that attention no matter what form they were in. 2D animation was wrongfully abandoned.

I hope to see 2D animation make a comeback. All it's gonna take is several more awful movies like Hoodwinked. And just you wait, we'll get them.


Myxomatosis
Trends, what ever happened to the video game movie trend. That died out quick (Driver, Crazy Taxi, some other shit).

Give it a minute… there's more on the way.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:45PM
Terminal at 2:31PM, Jan. 28, 2006
(online)
posts: 5,505
joined: 1-6-2006
Well, Pixar seems to really care about their movies. From all the little things they hide to how well they animate, to even the way they make their dvds (Change the audio language on one of their DVDs). You can see they craft their movies with the intention to make them great. That`s one company that cares about CGI.

I miss 2D animation.

Wait, Didn`t Disney close down one of their animation studios (in Florida, I think) to make a new CG animation studio?

I always wondered what would happen if Disney made a animated remake of A Clockwork Orange? That there, that would put 2D Animation back on top. All you need is controversy.

Yeah.

Wait, BloodRayne came out. I didn`t even knew they were making a movie about it.

.: Myxomatosis :.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:09PM
isukun at 10:09PM, Jan. 28, 2006
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
They did, but now that Disney bought out Pixar and Steve Jobs is the primary shareholder, he is closing down Disney's 3D studio and reopening their 2d one.

You may want to check your info again. Steve Jobs doesn't have that sort of power, nor is he the primary shareholder. Steve Jobs was the primary shareholder for Pixar, but he's selling off his shares to Disney in exchange for a seat on the board of directors. Not that I would trust Steve Jobs in charge of Disney anyway. He's a businessman through and through. His past decisions prove he's willing to create a half-assed product if it cuts costs, can sell on name recognition, and entices customers with cheap gimmicks. In a way, what he's done in the past looks a lot like what Disney does now.

What is far more promising is that John Lasseter will now be the head of feature animation at Disney. Having an experienced animator run the animation studio is a step in the right direction for Disney and Lasseter has shown an interest in 2D in the past. Whether they will make that move is still up to the higher ups, though. On the plus side, however, it wouldn't be a major move since Pixar hired a lot of the 2D animators Disney laid off. I still wouldn't get my hopes too high, though.

You see, corporate suits decided that becasue Pixar's movies and Shrek have done so well and Disney's Home on the Range did so poorly that people simply loved these movies because they were CGI.

It took a bit more than just Home on the Range for Disney to make that decision (considering the 2D animators were laid off before the movie even hit theaters, I seriously doubt Home on the Range even had anything to do with it). Sales started to decline after Tarzan. Emperor's New Groove really set them back and may still be the worst selling movie they put out (despite it's cult appeal). Disney was considering the move back then. Even with Lilo and Stitch being a relative success (it made more than it cost), Disney's 2D features were just not selling like the 3D titles coming out of Blue Sky, Dreamworks, and Pixar. Dreamworks made the same assumption when their own 2D movies failed to pull in the bucks at the box office. Warner Brothers also shut down their studios (they now rely almost exclusively on Korean animation studios).

I hope to see 2D animation make a comeback. All it's gonna take is several more awful movies like Hoodwinked. And just you wait, we'll get them.

I doubt it. Most studios are set up for 3D now. Plus it doesn't make much sense to claim the medium makes no difference and then say they'll switch back to 2D when a bad 3D movie hits. If anything, they'll realize their mistake and try to make better 3D movies. creating new 2D studios to supplement their existing 3D studios would cost more. The corporate suits still run the company and have final say on where its money goes.

.: isukun :.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:03PM
ozoneocean at 10:28PM, Jan. 28, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,999
joined: 1-2-2004
Iskun's right. There's no way they'll invest in 2D in a big way again unless they're convinced it will sell. The American corporate movie making industry isn't really about taking chances, innovation or quality. It’s about following the safe path of what will sell.
-Not a very intelligent way to make creative products, but that’s not how business is run there.
The only way they’ll start going back to 2D in a big way is if someone else makes a huge success out of some good 2D films. So maybe we’ll have to rely on the good old Japanese to save 2D animation yet again?
It’s either that or small innovative independent companies and creators, like always. Until then, look forward to more shit. Great stinking piles of it.

Oh, and you can be very sure that if someone outside does come along and rejuvenate the 2D market, some big corporate Disney-like company will claim the credit. As usual.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
Mazoo at 10:34AM, Jan. 29, 2006
(offline)
posts: 601
joined: 1-2-2006
The CGI bubble might have already burst. I just saw a trailer for the new Curious George movie, and it was 2D, and it really didn't look half-bad. Maybe I'm pining for the old semi-disney-ish style of movies, but I think it might be pretty good, considering it IS a kid's movie.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:56PM
Hawk at 10:45AM, Jan. 29, 2006
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
isukun
I doubt it. Most studios are set up for 3D now. Plus it doesn't make much sense to claim the medium makes no difference and then say they'll switch back to 2D when a bad 3D movie hits. If anything, they'll realize their mistake and try to make better 3D movies. creating new 2D studios to supplement their existing 3D studios would cost more. The corporate suits still run the company and have final say on where its money goes.

Nobody said anything about switching back. I'm hoping to see new 2D studios, or more prominence from existing 2D studios.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:45PM
Ronson at 10:54AM, Jan. 29, 2006
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
I like the quality of some of Futurama's animation that used 3D software, rendered in a 2D environment. I think something like that will be what 2D animation morphs into.

A Clockwork Orange by Disney, by the way, would look like this:

The main character - a bully who lost his parents and was merely lashing out at the world - causes all sorts of destruction (graphitti and kicking over trash cans) until it climaxes with him committing the biggest crime of all - shoplifting from an elderly couple.

He may even call them names.

Eventually, he gets caught by the cops and they reprogram his brain to not do bad things ever again.

But that is bad as well, so he breaks his program …

and then realizes that the police were right (but were still wrong with the mind control) and that being good was better than being bad. He joins the police force and eventually finds a kid who is bullying the other kids and tells the kid his story (this would probably be the framing device, so that no matter how bad the main character is, we'd realize he became a policeman eventually).

Oh, and there'll be a sidekick. Either a talking lizard, cat or Orange Clock.

It'll be a musical, of course.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
isukun at 4:52PM, Jan. 29, 2006
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
My sources are mostly from local papers like the Washington Post. I've been a bit skeptical about some online sources lately.

Here's how the deal works. Disney is buying Pixar outright. In order to pay for the company, Disney is offering their stock in exchange for the Pixar stock. Jobs was the capital shareholder for Pixar with 51% of their stock.

Disney, however, is a much larger company than Pixar. Since they are trading in stock of equivalent value, Steve Jobs' holdings in Disney don't offer him the same level of power he had with Pixar. With 51% of the stock in a company, you can run the show. Jobs now has about 5% of the stock in Disney, however. That puts him on the board of directors and gives him voting rights on corporate decisions.

Basically, what he can do, is vote with other board members to approve or veto corporate decisions. With a 5% holding, though, he needs another 45% of the company to back him up in order to influence the company. In the meantime, the issues that the board vote on still come from the company officers like CEO Robert Iger. Jobs can't simply come out and say “We're closing our 3D studios and making 2D studios instead.” He doesn't have that kind of influence.

What's more, I doubt the board would back him up on it. After all, Disney didn't buy Pixar for its 2D capabilities. Plus Steve Jobs isn't buying into Disney to revolutionize their animation studios. It's a nice perk of the merger that Lasseter will be CEO of Disney animation, but that wasn't Jobs's intention. He's more interested in tightening the relationship between Disney as a major media giant and Apple as a media provider. It offers good incentive for Disney to give exclusive rights to Apple to distribute their properties for the iPod edging out their technologically superior competitors with exclusive content.

.: isukun :.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:03PM
Hawk at 12:53AM, Feb. 3, 2006
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
Though the Disney/Apple situation certainly does have interesting implications, Jobs isn't the best part of this buyout.

John Lasseter is now the head of Disney Animation. I think it could mark the beginning of a good time for Disney. Why will it be any different? Well, they ditched Toy Story 3. Lasseter says that if they don't have a good enough story, there won't be a sequel. They don't want inferior sequels. How is it that over this last decade or so, Disney could not grasp that?

Also, Lasseter says he wants to bring back 2D animation. The irony of that coming from the head of Pixar is funny to me, but a welcome gesture. I think this guy knows animation.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:45PM
isukun at 6:36AM, Feb. 3, 2006
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
It's not that ironic when you consider he got his start in 2D with Disney. He probably has a much better idea of what makes a good film than the execs at Disney.

I read on CNN.com that Jobs IS the single largest shareholder now.

Jobs is the single largest shareholder. Your initial post made it sound like you were claiming he owned over half the company as that would be the only way he could make executive decisions on his own. That claim isn't true. His actual holdings are closer to 5% which doesn't give him the power to close or open anything without the consent of the company execs and 45% of the board. Iger is still running the company, not Steve Jobs.

.: isukun :.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:03PM
SpANG at 10:16AM, Feb. 5, 2006
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
He's not… quite dead, sir!

.: SpANG! :.
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:51PM
Mazoo at 2:04PM, Feb. 5, 2006
(offline)
posts: 601
joined: 1-2-2006
*Whack!*

Now he is!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:56PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved