Animation Source Forums

all they care about now is money.

THIS.

True they've gotten a bit cheep and have resulted to the style of animation that to me lacks in creativity. ...ugh... this'll be difficult to explain...
I'm more into traditional art than digital. You get more in tune with your work, and a real feel for the piece. And to bring out effects with your own two hands instead of a brush tool? Just a great feeling.
Sometimes however, I color in digital cause my scanner's dead and coloring in digital is quicker since I loose interest in coloring quickly with certain pieces.
So I kinda have a respect for it even though I don't care for it AS much as the old fashioned way. BUT, done right, it looks fantastic. When they dropped the sequel junk,
Disney started bringing out a great new generation of classics, and as Reb said, I can't wait to see what they have next for us. (I believe it's 'Brave'?)

-sigh-

If people love Disney so much, then they'd stop complaining get over the fact that things are gonna change to keep up with the amazing techonology we have available nowadays. Princess and the Frog and Tangled are just two examples of fantastic new movies who by far live up to Disney's fantastic reputation. Infact, these two are better than some of the classics :/

One thing that really annoys me is when people say 'Walt would hate what Disney are doing now.' Since when were you Walt Disney?! I personally think he would have found CGI incredibly exciting because things can be made to look so realistic. But no one really knows, and no one has the right to comment frankly.

Just my two cents.

Does that include Disney channel? Cause seriously. ...it needs an exorcist.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. When it does include Disney Channel I can see what they mean :/ That channel is just...uuuurgh. (The worst thing is, my whole group of friends watch it D: And love it...I just ignore them when they talk about it. Heck they even made me watch Camp Rock...xc eurgh)

But when it doesn't include Disney Channel, I find it's just people who can't except change.

^ *agrees*
Camp rock? ...wow... just wow. I fear for the youth. And pity them.
They don't have tv as nice as we did growing up.

To return things back to the main topic, if I may...

Naturally, nothing will ever be the same as they once were before. That's a normal part of life and living, so it's normal that a company such as Disney would begin to change. Just... get used to it, people. Times and people's tastes are different and changing, and I agree that not every film needs a sequel or a continuation... though I would have loved to see what surprises Disney could have done.

Disney is doing well in my opinion. In the feature animations, I will agree that "Princess and the Frog" and "Tangled" were some of the better animated films I had seen recently, compared to many other studios' releases. Both films actually were wonderful additions, giving us some "modern" yet updated Disney Princesses in the form of Tiana and Rapunzel, as well as showing movie and DVD/Blu-ray audiences that the Disney Studios can still excel in the dying art of traditional 2D and the more popular CGI/3D animation styles. Their channels and live-action works, however... ugh, I don't really like them much. Let me stick to the classic Disney cartoon series and movies; many of the acting and characters featured in the classics are much more believable than anything on those networks right now.

Returning to the sequel/continuation business.... Yeah, it was all for money purposes, but you have to admit that some of their ideas were done really well. Of course, they have had some... ugh, terrible ones too [don't make me name them again... there's a bunch that are AWFUL.], but everyone's going to fail at some things. I'm guessing that's why the big guy in charge right now halted all projects on these sequels/midquels/prequels/story continuations, save for the Tinkerbell franchise. At least those films are appealing and good, even with the CGI Tink [hearing Tinkerbell with an actual voice still takes some getting used to for me!]... so it makes sense that its success is making more money for the Walt Disney Company; trust me, I've been to Disneyland this past summer, and it definitely shows what's popular and marketable to everyone. Heck, even "Tangled" is getting its own continuation story early next year, but as unnecessary as I know it will be, I think I could allow it, given how appealing the characters and the story were to me. I'm sure it's all due to the popularity and the surprising success of the film in theaters and DVD.

And Roi: "Brave" is actually Pixar's next film, and Disney's is "Wreck-It Ralph"... I think? Argh, I could be [and probably am] wrong, but I know that Disney & Pixar are both starting to ride on the 3D re-release cash cow when "Beauty and the Beast", "Monsters Inc." and some of the more popular films return to the big screen in necessary 3-Dimensional glory.

The oldies are still film GOLD, even today. ...I wish more studios could just go back to the good-old days and create some wonderful pieces that would be great to see against today's slew of potty humor and pop culture references in animated movies "for kids and families". That would be awesome.

- Juuchan17

To be completly honest, with the exception of princess and the frong +tangled the majority of animated films, sequels and tv shows that disney are churning out by the bucket load these days belong in the trash can never to be seen again.
They really lost their spark after Treasure planet ... the only other movie I can think of after that is Brother Bear ...

Aristocats 2 would have been intresting ... I would have liked to have seen that, after all it has more going for it as a sequel than the majority of disney movies
The only sequels ive ever liked are LK 2 and Lady and the tramp 2 .. Ohh and Bambi 2 <3

IMO - Disney is doing considerably better than previous years, however it is not the golden bastion of animation yet. Finally there is a very slow move towards films with improved-quality stories and real effort put into the artistic style that is chosen. It's not going to improve overnight from the old sequel-itis, and it never was. It will take a lot of time, maybe even a couple more years before we see real differences seeing as a lot of projects were shelved or cancelled not so long ago.

I used to hate the advent of CGI movies but now I can appreciate the exciting changes they bring to animation. Hell, CGI is and has been used in 2D movies for some time now with interesting results.

Pixar is an interesting case because now it seems they are starting to do the whole sequel thing. If Toy Story 3 is anything to go by, then I think we can expect some pretty good stories out of them. But time will tell.

Disney Channel... don't get me started there.

New releases Wreck-It Ralph and Brave: Wreck-It Ralph seems interesting because it is yet another CGI movie Disney has chosen a specific art-style for... 8-bit. That and I'm a bit of a geeky one Brave has me cautious since the booting off of the original director, and I fear that the same thing that happened with Bolt will happen here. But again, time will tell. (also strong female lead woooooo)

As for the 3D re-releases of old movies: that is all old hat for Disney. They have been re-releasing older animated movies to theaters for decades. At least it includes this new 3D stuff.

Disney seems to be regarnering interest with it's return to cel animation, some of it's CGI affairs like Bolt are also pretty well done. Hell they even seem to be trying more stuff with Mickey now. I admit it seems a bit more in the background compared to how it was say, a couple of decades ago.

I'm mixed about the sequels, while I admit the halt may be for the better, it was done just as they seemed to be putting some valid effort into them, a lot of the later sequels were better crafted and actually intended for cinema releases (eg. Bambi 2 was superfluous and obviously can't quite compare to the masterpiece that is the original, but actually rather good stand alone and enjoyed by many fans of the original).

I'm interested in many follow ups that were planned. I also heard there was a Pinocchio sequel planned as well, would have been interesting to see what they done with that, especially since the original had so much stuff they couldn't have really gotten away with these days (I really get the feeling they wouldn't be able to resist giving the villains karmic payback they so lacked in the first film). There was also a third, more experimental Jungle Book film planned that may have involved Shere Khan making peace with Mowgli.

This is the first I've heard about an actual Aristocats TV show however. Interesting that they were still interested in expanding films into full shows. Admitedly Disney could use some more nostalgic TV cartoons.

Certainly Disney movies are changing, even Snow White looked different than 101 Dalmatians... the big thing is should Disney completely do away with the hand drawn pen and ink and go completely CG.... perhaps Disney needs a balance. Kind of like back in the 50's - 70's there were the live action and animation films -- do some CG and some hand drawn.

Even the music in the movies showed a change of the times! Bottom line is everything started because Walt loved storytelling, animation and technology. A company has to make money and pay it's employees, but that does not take them off the hook for producing a good product. Perhaps it's because we all know and can see the love and loyalty that went into each movie, and short and television show.

Oh all this is making me nostalgic! I'm gonna watch some #SleepingBeauty #vod!! So love the pen and ink!

YAY! Disney Family Movies. http://disneyfamilymovies.com

They've always cared about money; technology changes over time, and CGI is in (since Toy Story came out). I know that The Disney Channel is a pile of ****** and Disney's sequels suck *** ...although I wouldn't be surprised to see a new sequel of a classic a few years from now, those are probably the only terrible things about the company now.


So CGI isn't animation? Since you're talking about modern Disney, that's what I'm gonna assume what you mean. They've been using CGI since 1985 on The Black Cauldron and started to use it completely since 2002 (except for The Princess & The Frog). Compared to traditional animation (which I prefer) the process is nearly the same

Anyway, about the company, I also think they're out of their rotten era (2002 - c.2008) and I believe Frozen is in the same league as their Renaissance-era movies (but they're still not a good as they were 25 years ago).

But, god I miss the traditional animation days...all that character is gone now

P.S. The Rescuers Down Under is the only good sequel