Disney buys Pixar... and puts them in charge

I'm sure that you've all heard the news, but I'd like to hear what you all think about the deal. D'you think that this might be the final nail in the coffin for 2D animation? Or maybe under Pixar-direction 2D will make a comeback?

Here's some articles about it, in case you missed it:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11078874/site/newsweek/
Google News Related Stories[=http://news.google.com/?ned=us&ncl=http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/13736804.htm&hl=en]Google News Related Stories

I'd like to think that under Pixars direction, 2D animation can stage a comeback of sorts. But I have to admit that things do not look good for fans of this artform. I think that what is needed is an infusion of new artists that are willing to dedicate themselves to 2D (Classical) animation. Unfortunately, the education and training that one must undergo to become a Classical Animation artist takes many years before one can even remotely hope to call his or herself a sucessfull animator. Even after the formal education process is over, the learning process never stops. There's an oppurtunnity to learn something everyday if one just keeps their eys and ears open. I know I digress, but in short I'd say that unless something happens soon, traditional animation as we know it is dead.

i disagree in part. it may be dying but it is far from dead. i think the traditional art will make a shift from being made in us to other countries like japan were 3d art. does not have the same effect.

I'd like to agree with you on this one Lee but when I look into the not too distant future and see nothing but CG animation projects coming down the pike, I have to stick with my original statement that at least for now, as far as this country is concerned, 2D Classical animation is dead. Maybe some day (provided that we can get enough individuals that are willing to put themselves through the rigorous training process required to become a top-notch animator), we may see a rebirth of this artform. I myself would love to see this happen. But alas, this process could take years if it ever does happen... :? :?

I think Disney only bought Pixar because their contract was to expire this year.

As for 2D animation...there are too many companies in Japan, America, and Europe who produce it for it to die out.

It'll be the same as always before... Pixar will improve Disney, but Disney will degrade Pixar.

I used to be a Disney fan, but I lost my faith in Disney long ago.

Although they did just recently produce possibly the most awesome movie of all time, the Chronicles of Narnia, which I don't think anyone could have possibly done a better job of, especially when it comes to being a faithful rendition of the book, but when it comes to animation, well, all Disney can do is suck. They already shut down their traditional animation studios, and all they do now is horrible video sequels that are outright blasphemous (How and why would you make a Bambi 2!!!!)

Obviously, Disney these days is stupid and narrow-minded, they think that just because they made a few last traditional animated movies that sucked and failed at the box office, they think that traditional animation is somehow 'obsolete' and that no one likes it anymore. This is obviously not true from all the anime people still watch.

Pixar wasn't my favorite either, I think Dreamworks does a better job, Madagascar has to be the funniest and best CG movie I've seen so far, and although Incredibles was good, it seemed a little overdone. And that was Pixar on its own, all the movies they made under Disney's whip weren't nearly as good.

...But maybe since they kind of put Pixar in charge Disney won't hold their potential creativity back too much, and they'll still come out with good stuff. However, the 'Cars' movie I've heard about doesn't really excite me that much.

It'll be the same as always before... Pixar will improve Disney, but Disney will degrade Pixar.

I do wonder, though, if that'll be the case. It seems like Disney has put Pixar at the helm of the old animation department at Disney. I think it will be interesting to see what happens from that. If Pixar is given as much autonomy as they have been when Disney just distributed their films, I could see very good things coming from it.

Obviously, Disney these days is stupid and narrow-minded, they think that just because they made a few last traditional animated movies that sucked and failed at the box office, they think that traditional animation is somehow 'obsolete' and that no one likes it anymore. This is obviously not true from all the anime people still watch.

I don't know if that's the entire reason for dropping 2D or not. Certainly, I could see it being a factor, but the nice thing about CGI-based films is being able to much more easily reuse the objects, textures, and models from previous films to create all the "wonderful" spinoffs and sequels that we see from Hollywood or not. I still believe it's a bad move, but it at least explains their reasoning.

Pixar wasn't my favorite either, I think Dreamworks does a better job, Madagascar has to be the funniest and best CG movie I've seen so far, and although Incredibles was good, it seemed a little overdone. And that was Pixar on its own, all the movies they made under Disney's whip weren't nearly as good.

I haven't seen Madagascar (mostly because of this[=http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/madagascar/]this), so I can't comment on that, but so far I've enjoyed nearly all of Pixar's movies (possibly excepting A Bug's Life) better than either of the Shrek films, and they seem to like to do some releases that just make me think 'ripoff' (witness Antz released alongside A Bugs Life, and Shark Tale released alongside Finding Nemo). In fact, Finding Nemo and The Incredibles are probably my favorite animated flicks of the past 10 years or so. And in any case, all of the movies that they've made so far have been under their existing production/distribution contract, so they've techinically been "under Disney's whip" for the whole time.

...But maybe since they kind of put Pixar in charge Disney won't hold their potential creativity back too much, and they'll still come out with good stuff. However, the 'Cars' movie I've heard about doesn't really excite me that much.

Well, Cars was being produced before this all went down, so we'll have to see. I admit that I share a bit of misgivings about Cars, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for now. I'm hoping that Disney sees the value of what they're getting though and doesn't try to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

Actually, Disney was not the one in charge of Narnia's production. They only distributed it.

I was not really impressed by the film mainly due to its director. He came off as a very snobbish person in his interview about the film. And where does the respect to the author go? C.S. Lewis did not want his books made into films.

Not to mention there is already a live action Narnia, made by the BBC. The next two films Disney plans to make have already been made as well >.> Silver Chair and Prince Caspian.

As far as CGI terms go in believability, as in trying for realism...right now the best CGI I've seen is from Final Fantasy: Advent Children. And yet, Mr. Adamson claims the Magician's Newphew can't be done because it would be too effects intensive. I beg your pardon, Mr. Adamson...but what of these films?

1. Time Machine
2. King Kong
3. Lord of the Rings
4. Contact
5. Final Fantasy: Advent Children
6. Polar Express
7. Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within
8. The Matrix
9. Sin City (which is 95% CGI)

Do you mean to tell me you can do everything in all those films but you can't do simple world creation? Not even in 2015?

Will there be a Toy Story 3 after all.

Will there be a Toy Story 3 after all.

Nope. That was one of John Lasseter's first official acts; killing off Toy Story 3's production.

I was wondering whatever happened to Toy Story 3.

I've been meaning ask for a long time...does NIMH 3 actually exist, or is it a rumor like I think it is?

I was wondering whatever happened to Toy Story 3.

I've been meaning ask for a long time...does NIMH 3 actually exist, or is it a rumor like I think it is?

Nope. Rumor. The only thing that exists is the IMDB entry, probably submitted as a joke or something. http://www.thornvalley.com/commons/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16

I haven't seen Madagascar (mostly because of this), so I can't comment on that, but so far I've enjoyed nearly all of Pixar's movies (possibly excepting A Bug's Life) better than either of the Shrek films, and they seem to like to do some releases that just make me think 'ripoff' (witness Antz released alongside A Bugs Life, and Shark Tale released alongside Finding Nemo).

...I see what you mean there, I didn't even bother going to see Shark Tale, it looked horrible, but Madagascar was a good movie, it was hysterically funny at times, and it had a very interesting new stylized form of animation, and as far as plagiarism goes, as of recent it actually seems the tables are turning, as Disney seems to be working on what seems to be sort of a complete ripoff of Madagascar.

http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/thewild/
http://bvim-qt.vitalstream.com/TheWild/TheWild_Trailer1_3000.mov

Nope. Rumor. The only thing that exists is the IMDB entry

Not anymore, they took it off a few months ago. I think my "It doesn't exist" review(which counted up to 18 users who agreed with me) and all the dead-end assumptions with the forum discussions gave the admins the idea that the whole thing was one big empty 'hole'.

Not to mention that the question on whether or not the film was actually made and concerning the mistake on IMDb is where they got the information from, has still yet to be e-mailed to me by Bluth and his crew. Perhaps it was too personal of a question to ask, I guess.

On the subject with Pixar and Disney being reunited, I think I can see good potential now that Pixar seems to be receiving the attention and funding it diserved. Both of their movies from both Toy Story movies to The Incredibles, they haven't failed at any of their movies yet, at least not to my expectations and the many other critics and box-office rates. I really look forward to more production from them in the future.

As for CGI animation in general, I think it's really proved itself worthy, in some cases of course, and maybe not as much as 2-D(though many 2-Ds these days aren't really well-planned and thought out as good as they used to). On the good side though, movies like Finding Nemo and Ice Age really have captured my attention, and I guess Madagascar fits in with the bunch too, even though it seemed to lack in some places concerning humor, but still descent.

Dreamworks on the other hand is indeed another story, from the movies I've seen such as both Shrek movies and Shark Tale they don't quite equal to the 'satifactory' to Pixar. Even though I laughed my head off at the premier of Shrek 2, seeing the film a second time just doesn't seem to be all that much fun anymore(same goes for the first movie), it's really one of those one-shot type of things, the excitement just doesn't stay like in most movies. As for Shark Tale,..............let me just start by saying that the quality was a bit impressing, but if you REALLY like themes centered around "Hip-Hop" and "pop-culture", the usage of old fashioned mediocre jokes, not to mention hearing the same ones WAY more than once(I lost count of how many 'wanna-be funny' slow-motion sequences there were in this film.), and a less important "Mafia" spoof(this just tries to drag on as "humorous throught the film :roll: ), then perhaps this film is for you. Otherwise, not funny or very pleasing at all.

(How and why would you make a Bambi 2!!!!)

Whoa there, I don't think we can make judgements unless we actually see this movie for ourselves. What catches my attention is that it still in 2-D format(one close enough to the original) and it doesn't look all the much altered from it;s original form, though the characters are much more loud and active than they were years ago, I still have my suspensions for this film.

Of course, I still don't see why this would be called a "sequal" or a "2" when Bambi grew up in the first film, yet this movie has him and his friends back to their young age and on misc adventures. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this be some kind of prequel or maybe something that should be best fit for another title?

Yes, I do agree about the film entitled "The Wild." It does look like a rip off Madagascar.


Speaking of which, what is with all the companies being suddenly interested in making cute furry little animals?

Madagascar came out and it was like...

The Wild.
Over the Hedge.
Open Season.

The only one of those that I really have an interest in is Over the Hedge.

Speaking of which, what is with all the companies being suddenly interested in making cute furry little animals?

Duh, it sells. Everyone loves cute fuzzy little animals. I know I do.

What do you mean all the sudden? Most Disneyesque stuff has always been about cute fuzzy animals. It's not like it's anything new or different, just a sudden coincidental trend, probably due to the fact that before now it wasn't as easy to animate furry animals in CGI.

What I mean is the sudden fascination among these companies. "Everyone's Doing It." would be the appropriate term.



Question. Would it sell if someone made a story in which these furry creatures were not to be cute, but very serious and realisitc? lievil grinli Because that is what I do.

(Whew..I'm back, finally! I had major problems with my old, beloved Toshiba laptop last month, and so far as reliable operability goes, she's gone to that great computer factory in the sky...I'm typing this from a brand new Toshiba, one with a widescreen monitor and the lappy herself being about half the weight and thickness of my old one. Plus, I now have DSL, woohoo! Makes editing my websites take no time at all: I used to have to wait ages for the site builders to load).

Personally, I don't think 2D is dead: my brother(one of them)talked with someone from the film industry, on the internet, I believe. Anyway, whomever he talked with said that he thought that as time goes along, CGI will lose it's 'newness', and nostalgia for old-style animation will set in. I, for one, certainly hope so! :)

On a side note, I have Bambi 2(however, I don't much care for the title, as it is misleading: the film is in fact what is known as a 'midquel'...I would have much preferred the original working title, Bambi and the Great Prince of the Forest). Despite any preconceptions, it's a great film that stays true to the original: even the animation itself is very similar. I've heard that even some of Walt Disney's ideas that didn't work for the original film were put in this one. I don't know of any examples, though.

Ah, furry animals that are serious? Look no further than Watership Down or The Plague Dogs: these are the only animated films of their kind that I know of. There need to be more like them. But, alas, it is not to be. Animation directors these days cater to the younger generation. Martin Rosen was willing to take a step away from the ordinary, which is why I love these films with such profound intensity. TSoN, and the Bambi films also have, to a lesser extent, this realism, and are thus also ranked among my favorites.^^

I'm not meaning Watership Down level. I'm talking above that. Such as suggestive themes and adult situations.

I don't see how suggestive themes are 'realistic' when it comes to animals: they aren't as complicated as humans, and everything goes on instinct, at least so far as 'we humans' know. That's not to say I'm opposed to such material, I'm just making a point. A lot of people would be opposed to it, however, which might hurt its market value.

The adult themes are not the focus. And the reason why you can't see them as being complicated is because you're not familiar with the world I created yet. These animals are a lot more complicated than usual furry stories.

I can't really explain seriousness and realism with what I'm talking about. It isn't like Watership Down or the other "furry" novels. I suppose one would have to read it to find out what I mean.

i have always believed people need to explore the imposiple. because often we as humans mistaking unlikely as imposible which is why i think we may want to always keep an open mind to how intil;egent animals are i mean. are we humans in control of our cats or do they control us. if you think about how their roll has change from a tool to something we pamper. it makes you wonder who is really in charge.

I've been thinking about that ever since I was about 11. XD And I take it zoos would be their holiday resort? (Well, the ones that do take care of the animals like they should, anyway).