1. Welcome to the Muppet Central Forum!
    You are viewing our forum as a guest. Join our free community to post topics and start private conversations. Please contact us if you need help with registration or your account login.

  2. Help Muppet Central Radio
    We need your help to continue Muppet Central Radio. Show your support and listen regularly and often via Radionomy's website and apps. We're also on iTunes and Apple TV. Learn More

  3. "Muppet Guys Talking" Debuts On-line
    Watch the inspiring documentary "Muppet Guys Talking", read fan reactions and let us know your thoughts on the Muppet release of the year.

  4. Sesame Street Season 48
    Sesame Street's 48th season officially began Saturday November 18 on HBO. After you see the new episodes, post here and let us know your thoughts.

No More 2D Animated Films At Disney

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by ToonGeek, Oct 13, 2012.

  1. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    "I've got sand in my NOOOOOOOOOOOOOSE!"

    Somehow, I feel this is hysteria, because they didn't exactly say they wouldn't make any more... just that there aren't any in the pipeline. I honestly don't think they had any, regardless of how WTP and PATF did. There was talk about a 2-D animated version of an obscure Marvel thing, but nothing has came out of that yet.

    If Disney won't do it, it's up to another animation studio to be brave enough to try a complete traditional animated film. Just as long as the script is good.
  2. Muppet fan 123

    Muppet fan 123 Well-Known Member

    Somehow I don't believe this, all we got is that link that MrBabySpencer provided. I see no reason why Disney would just say no completley. They can't drop 2D just becuase Princess and the Frog wasn't succesful. It just simply wasn't a good movie!!
  3. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    They probably don't have a 2-D project in mind at all because they simply didn't. If it's a cost thing or based on logistics, that's debatable.

    Plus, Princess and the Frog had a little too much pressure on it. Like the Superman Returns movie did. If it was supposed to succeed, it was supposed to usher in a new era of that film, and if it didn't, it wouldn't and they'd have to start again. yet, they released P&F at a time when kids were more interested with the CGI Chipmunks sequel, so I doubt quality really entered into it.
  4. SuperGzilla12

    SuperGzilla12 Active Member

    Well, while we don't have any definate proof, I wouldn't be surprised if this was true.

    The Princess and the Frog and Winnie the Pooh were kind of, I guess, experimental projects to see how 2D animation would do in the box-office. Neither of them did well, so I wouldn't be surprised that Disney doesn't want to take the risk again.
  5. jvcarroll

    jvcarroll Well-Known Member

    News like this stirs people up and maybe that's a good thing. Maybe it's exactly what needs to happen. Maybe it's deliberate in order to get people behind 2D animation again. Who knows? :confused:
  6. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    WTP suffered from being Flanderized to a baby franchise, and frankly, over exposure of the character from Disney over the past decade and a half. And for being released opposite Harry Potter. And for being barely an hour in length. It shouldn't have been a summer movie at all, honestly. It seems like it would have at least gained some traction with a winter release. That Gnome thing got dumped in the winter, and since it was the only family film, it did well. THAT'S the audience it should have got.

    The sad thing is, Disney was going to launch a classic Pooh franchise on that movie, trying to undo the damage of My Friends Tigger and Pooh and the whole baby franchise mindset behind the bear. It's just like when Looney Tunes BIA flopped and they cancelled plans for a series of Daffy Duck shorts and instead rebooted it with the terrible Loonatics series. So I guess Pooh's doomed to have another pre-preschool friendly reboot.

    PATF, other than what else was discussed, shouldn't have been the movie to bring back the 2-D franchise. They should have had something with more of a cross gender appeal to it first. I swear, they tanked with Brother Bear and Home on the Range (the first one really doesn't deserve most of the crap it gets, the second one is just 90 minutes of mindwarp) so they could go on to CGI films. But like I always say, Disney got flack for doing Princess films, then they got flack for not doing Princess films. They can't win!

    Maybe, but it seems more along the lines of panicky misinterpretation. I just don't think Disney wants to do a 2-D film because they didn't want to. From what the rumors say, there's to be a partially 2-D/CGI hybrid film from Dreamworks (Me and my Shadow), so that might just be the kick in the pants. Still, I know Lassiter hates the DTV sequels and somehow lets Tinkerbell movies get a pass... but we need a 2-D animated Mickey and co project of some kind.

    My dream is still a traditionally animated "Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck" movie, but apparently the US hates Duck family comics, and everyone would think it was a Ducktales movie and complain that Launchpad isn't in it.
  7. Princeton

    Princeton Active Member

    One criteria is that the character has to have a song, so the only princesses that are excluded are Kida and Eilonwy.
  8. ToonGeek

    ToonGeek Active Member

  9. Oscarfan

    Oscarfan Well-Known Member

    So, it's not like they're completely done with 2D films, just none are in the works at the moment.
  10. Slackbot

    Slackbot Well-Known Member

    I've heard this before, and people freaked out about it then too. And then Disney changed their minds and made more traditional animated films. So, my feathers remain unruffled.

    Even if they do go to CGI, well, it won't break my heart. Look at Paperman. The story didn't interest me, but the animation was wonderful. I'll bet if you asked the average moviegoer they'd say it was hand animated. We've come a long way since Tin Toy, and the technology's still developing.
  11. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    Like I said before, Princess and the Frog flopped because it went up against the second Chipmunks movie. Disney stupidly gave that hideous Christmas Carol movie the stronger Thanksgiving slot because, at the time, Christmas movies didn't automatically mean failure. Not to mention it was a princess film and that somehow emasculates 5-10 year olds, which is why Tangled had to be called Tangled and marketed like a Shrek wannabe instead of what it was. And yes, there's also a bit of race that enters into that.

    But there's no reason why Pooh should have failed. It was a clear younger alternative to the Harry Potter film, and it shouldn't have been completely eclipsed by it. But then again, WTP has been Flanderized on purpose by Disney to be a preschooler franchise, and preschooler movies are instant fail. It was a beautiful film, it should have had an audience... it didn't.

    The unfair thing is to compare both movies to Wreck it Ralph (which doesn't get nearly the merchandising it should outside The Disney Store) and Tangled. They were stronger films because they were stronger concepts. Ralph ensured an adult audience of gamers and 1980's nostalgia heads, and they were treated to a sweet story with the video game cameos being icing. I haven't seen Tangled, but something tells me it's a stronger film storywise than Princess and the Frog.

    The real sad thing is, due to the poor performance of Pirates, Frankenweenie, and Paranorman (the last of which was released in a dump month), we're probably not going to see any studios warm up to stop motion either.
  12. jvcarroll

    jvcarroll Well-Known Member

    I don't buy the marketing or timing cop-outs. Tangled and Princes & the Frog also suffered from muddled stories and that was evident in the ads. I don't know why Pooh failed. All I can say is for some reason I still haven't seen it. I respected the attempt, but it didn't look very interesting.

    If Disney would release an animated picture with quality storytelling like Little Mermaid, Beauty & the Beast or Lion King, they'd have another hit. The problem is that they keep making Pocahontas, Brother Bear and Home on the Range level fare.
  13. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    By that logic, the second Chipmunks should have failed. Quality seldom enters into it. Tangled made a respectable amount at the box office, but only after they kept screwing around with the film's marketing so boys would like it. But they made the right choice that time and gave the film a proper before Thanksgiving release. We all know, the week of Thanksgiving leads to the week after Thanksgiving where no one sees a film at all until near Christmas time. That's why The Muppets opened strong, but failed to keep up. I'm quite sure if Disney switched release dates of P&F and ACC, P&F would have made a justifiable profit. But instead, they went with a movie no one wanted to see and doomed P&F to suffer against more irritatingly kid appeal Chipmunks 2. Again, what would you rather see if you were a 5 year old boy? An emasculating Princess film or a bunch of squeaky rodents making pop culture jokes you really don't understand?

    But the real problem? The pressure. There was TOO much pressure for this film to succeed (similar problems with the last Superman movie). It took forever to get the film into production, they had to keep bowing to pressure groups complaining the movie was too racist or too white. They constantly had various people breathing down their necks with the true goal of making yet another princess doll to sell to kids all the while trying to pay lip service to the 2-D animation studio the last guy destroyed by lackluster concepts in dump months. Toy, incorporating an African American Princess, 2-D animation... story must've been way down on the list.

    As I always say, Disney gets flack for making princess movies and then they get flack for not making princess movies. Why are Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin their classic revival hits? Because they just found the formula and it worked for those movies. Then Pocahontas came along, they pushed for Oscar Bait, and without the wacky sidekicks or even the least amount of fun (tossing it away for a hamfisted moral), the formula was basically there screaming and flailing to be noticed. Then they had the unfortunate task of having to do not princess movies (of which Lion King and Lilo and Stitch were the only successful ones), and then once they went back to Princesses (P&F and Tangled), they had to play with subversions and aversions, and they spent so much time playing with something, the original charm got lost.

    So Disney can't do anything because they'll be chided no matter what, and constantly is compared to the first 4 films of the 90's, which were, let's face it... flukes. As in they were organic and not heavily labored to stand up to anything.
  14. jvcarroll

    jvcarroll Well-Known Member

    I disagree.

    The Princess & the Frog and Tangled suffered from really bad storytelling and poor character development. You can certainly claim the Chipmunks suffered from that too, but they had the advantage of history behind them. People already knew who they were so the writers could be lazy. They also were following a paint by number toon-to-CG popular trend that Garfield, Scooby Doo and others have benefited from. It doesn't always work, but more often than not it does.
  15. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    But Tangled did do very well at the box office. There's something to the release date and marketing there. P&F could have made just a little more money had it got a better release date. I don't think story and character development matter as much to the intended Barbie doll buying demographic. Look how many crappy films us adults have nostalgia goggles on for. People actually like We're back: A Dinosaur Tale and unironically enjoy Tom and Jerry the movie! :eek:

    I do agree that there's something to a film that should have been well done when it wasn't being considered a failure when a movie that's meant to be a lazy, cynical cash grab anyway has such low standards that you actually look for the good qualities. I mean, I actually liked Smurfs because I thought it was going to be so bad that it would have worked as childhood killing shock therapy, and was amazingly shocked it wasn't even close as terrible as I thought it would be. All the while writing off the dumbness already shown in trailers. Remember, I was the one railing the most against the film. Still pretty lousy, though. Though I don't honestly get too disappointed by films I think I'm going to like (though I find missing opportunities from time to time). TV shows maybe. I really wish Rules of Engagement didn't suck so bad that I intensely hate it. I really wanted to like a show with Patrick Warburton and David Spade, consider the Disney movie they're in I'm a huge fan of.

    As for the 2-D movies... did production stop on the big Mickey and Co project they were planning? I know that the first time they vowed not to do 2-D, that was all Eisner and it was all based on the overreaction of Treasure Planet flopping. Brother Bear and especially Home on the Range were meant to be flops. That was them taking a dive and just cranking out stuff as an excuse to say "we just don't know what's wrong, except they aren't CGI." Even though Dinosaur was a hit for some reason, and Chicken Little did so so, they weren't really having the luck they thought they would with CGI that wasn't Pixar. No wonder Disney bought them out.
  16. jvcarroll

    jvcarroll Well-Known Member

    Er...not really. While it made some box office dough, it fell $60M short of it's production budget domestically. That is not doing "very well" at the box office by any measure. They had a healthy release date and there was sufficient marketing in place. It just wasn't a very good movie. The songs were forgettable and the performances were too. Name a special moment beyond the few animal sidekick asides. Ultimately the public had very little to latch onto not matter what the marketing.

    This case keeps getting made for John Carter too. Once and for all, the marketing wasn't great, but neither the title change nor the ads were responsible for the lagging box office. The movie tries to tell so many different stories yet neglects to tell even one of them well. It's enjoyable, but the direction of the piece doesn't lead the audience to really care about the conflict or the characters. This = Bad Writing. I have no doubt that these pictures would have been hits under Brad Bird's direction - - no matter what the marketing looked like. Seriously, try to cut a better trailer to John Carter. It really can't be done. It still would have fizzled with a restored title and cushy summer release date. Keep in mind, I'm saying this about a movie I own on Blu-ray. There's a lot to like about it. It's also a good example of directorial hubris.
  17. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    I fail to see why they only care about domestic. It made most of its money overseas, granted. I don't see why that's not considered successful enough. My favorite story? The low budget Powerpuff Girls movie made back just over it's budget, but was considered too much of a flop, they didn't want to release it overseas theatrically.

    But above all, the thing that annoys me about Disney whining about how one of their animated movies are under-performing? The fact that half their classic Walt made crown jewels were pretty much financial failures. Pinocchio? Flop (mainly due to the war). Fantasia? Big flop the critics and audiences hated for being dumbed down and too pretentious. Alice in Wonderland, the very same version that everyone pilfers for parodies and halfbaked adaptions (leading to the confusion that Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum are in that book instead of Through the Looking Glass). The film that forever linked Mad Hatter with Ed Wynne. Not only did it flop, but Disney hated it. And worst of all, Sleeping Beauty. The film that...aw heck... Disneyland was completely founded on that movie. It flopped so bad, Disney almost got out of the animated film business altogether with that one. And each and every one of those is considered a massive classic, and a staple of merchandising.

    The point is, Disney movies... sure, they make money theatrically, but they never end it right there. The real money is home video, rereleases, and merchandising. The real flops never find a place in either of them, but Disney films continue to turn profits well after their original releases. Disney films are essentially meant to be discovered on DVD. Even the bomb films everyone initially hated get second chances. Even the ones Disney likes to Snub (Black Cauldron and Emperor's New Groove, which actually did make money).
  18. mr3urious

    mr3urious Well-Known Member

  19. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    I like how they're firing half the home video staff because they screwed up the DVD releases and just put the special features all on Blu-ray. No one's going to buy a vanilla disk with just the movie for 20 bucks. They're going to wait for the day when they'll never get a Blu-Ray player and just get everything off Netflix (and all the while, they whine about piracy... which accounts to 0% of potential audiences. Pirates who can't pirate often just do without).

    But really... 2 non-CGI animated movies don't do extremely well (only one of the two even flopped) and they panic like chickens with their heads cut off. As I said before... Gee... P&F might have done better had you not released it opposite the Chipmunks and Avatar. Seriously... NO ONE wanted to see that horrid Christmas Carol retelling. If they got that slot, maybe we'd be looking at a ...gasp... THIRD not-CGI animated movie since 2008 before you call it quits. And it's your own fault for babying the WTP franchise up.

    Now that I think of it, as much as we hated the "cheapquels," some of them should have still been in production. They really should have reconsidered DTV movies featuring characters that aren't Tinkerbell or Planes (which is jumping the gun... 3 movies? The first one didn't even come out first).

    Yeah, I know we all need to do some rebranding to save all of the exact money that you can make off of Avengers Toys alone. But come on... at least try one more 2-D film before you call defeat.
  20. jvcarroll

    jvcarroll Well-Known Member

    Honestly, traditional animation needs a true artist to helm future projects. Someone with a comprehensive vision. Maybe this will have to take place outside of the studio system and that could actually make them better. Tim Burton's greatest achievement is bringing stop-motion animation back to the mainstream. For that, I can overlook his decade or so of meh.

Share This Page