Finn said:...but could be it's just another reminder of the sad fact that we've become older than we'd like.
kongisking said:Pinocchio
As in stage plays? If so, given how said stories are really public domain fairy tales that are hundreds of years old, that's hardly the same thing. And even if they'd be inspired by the Disney flicks, they'd still be nothing but adaptations. It'd be like suggesting you've seen the Seven Samurai after watching the Magnificent Seven.Spurlock said:To be fair, in the past, my schools have put on plays for Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast which I was forced to watch, so you could say I've seen those too.
russds said:Interesting topic, I've read much about already. I simply love animation, and have all my life. Regarding 2D hand drawn animation continuing, I think it boils down to kids' view of 2D movies. I think it's much the same as us adults watching black and white movies/shows. Sure, the bottom line is a good story, characters, music, etc, and there may be artistic reasons to do black and white (Schindler's list, The Artist, Paperman, etc.) but kids' eyes demand more now. I already see it in my sons eyes when we decide to watch a movie:
Beauty and the Beast - "this is old dad, it looks different, it looks old"
Toy Story 3 - "Ok, this is a movie, this is what i'm used to".
Attila the Professor said:The black & white limitation that people have is a heck of a lot worse, of course
Attila the Professor said:How does he feel about Beauty and the Beast as time goes on?
russds said:... but my eyes are used to more.
Montana Smith said:Could be just a question of taste.
I don't think I've seen any of the 2D films mentioned in this thread. Certainly not more than a few minutes from any of them.
The Fox and the Hound was on TV the other night. The backgrounds were nice, but the action in front of them became so sickly, sugary sweet that I couldn't bear it any more. After five minutes I switched it
Finn said:So if something that was 50 years old back then was still rather fresh to us, why something that's 30 years old now is such a strange thing to some of the modern kids?
russds said:I already see it in my sons eyes when we decide to watch a movie:
Beauty and the Beast - "this is old dad, it looks different, it looks old"
Toy Story 3 - "Ok, this is a movie, this is what i'm used to".
Spurlock said:Yikes, didn't know some felt so strongly about 2D animation. I mean, what am i supposed to do? I was a boy with an older brother. When would anyone suggest watching movies with princesses and singing?
Forbidden Eye said:It feels weird to actually have to recommend Disney movies to someone, but I say watch Disney's first five movies(Snow White-Bambi) these are universally regarded as Disney's best and are worth watching for a better understanding of pop-culture, and are hugely entertaining on their own right. If you somehow don't enjoy at least one of those films, you have my ok to quit(not to say you wouldn't enjoy more modern films like Aladdin or The Lion King).
I suggest you google the term "Brony".Spurlock said:Yikes, didn't know some felt so strongly about 2D animation. I mean, what am i supposed to do? I was a boy with an older brother. When would anyone suggest watching movies with princesses and singing?
Indeed. When take a closer look at Disney's full-feature animated lineup, you noticed that there are plenty of pieces that could be hardly be regarded as nothing more than healthy, classic adventure romps that don't just possess a thing or two a male viewer can enjoy, but are more or less made with them in mind. There's The Sword in the Stone, Jungle Book, Robin Hood, The Black Cauldron, The Great Mouse Detective, Aladdin, The Lion King, Hercules and Tarzan, and I might even have missed some. Even if you look only at their names and try to work out what they're about, it would feel kind of peculiar to figure that they're simply about "princesses and singing".Forbidden Eye said:Even more intriguing is that you generalize them as "princess" films seeing how the majority of their films are either about talking animals or male-centered stories like Pinocchio or Peter Pan. I think that speaks more about Disney's petty marketing than anything else. They've struggled with the stamina of being "just for kids" for a while now, but in recent years, thanks to all the crappy princess merchandise, they've ended up getting a reputation for being "for girls". Disney's hopes for a larger young male audience was likely a big motivational factor for the Marvel and Lucasfilm acquisitions.
True, stop-motion animation *is* older than hand-drawn but only by 2 or 3 years maximum. The first use of stop-motion was in 1897, done by George Méliès, the famous cinematic special-effects innovator (who I'm sure you're familiar with) from France. It was a short advertising film with children's alphabet blocks that moved around to spell the advertiser's name. Unfortunately, the film is lost and the name has been forgotten over time.Finn said:And I happen to know a perfect method to try this particular one out: Stop motion animation. The dolls used to make them certainly look eerily familiar to modern CGI animation, despite the method being actually even *older* than hand drawn.
In addition to your fine, adventure-romp list, there's also "Atlantis: The Lost Empire", "Treasure Planet" and "The Jungle Book 2".Finn said:Indeed. When take a closer look at Disney's full-feature animated lineup, you noticed that there are plenty of pieces that could be hardly be regarded as nothing more than healthy, classic adventure romps that don't just possess a thing or two a male viewer can enjoy, but are more or less made with them in mind. There's The Sword in the Stone, Jungle Book, Robin Hood, The Black Cauldron, The Great Mouse Detective, Aladdin, The Lion King, Hercules and Tarzan, and I might even have missed some.
Well, I was never trying to paint it as significantly older. But in case somebody understood it as such, good addendum.Stoo said:True, stop-motion animation *is* older than hand-drawn but only by 2 or 3 years maximum.
No wonder I missed the first two, since they are from early 2000s, when I'd already kinda grown out of the age group for whom the new Disney feature was a must see.Stoo said:In addition to your fine, adventure-romp list, there's also "Atlantis: The Lost Empire", "Treasure Planet" and "The Jungle Book 2".
Thanks.Finn said:good addendum.
Same here because I've only seen those 2 on video. (They are decent adventure films and worth watching for anyone who is interested in adventure films.)Finn said:No wonder I missed the first two, since they are from early 2000s, when I'd already kinda grown out of the age group for whom the new Disney feature was a must see.
I do remember that "Jungle Book 2" was theatrically released (in North America, anyway) before appearing on DVD, otherwise, I wouldn't have bother mentioning it. Since the story was related to Rudyard Kipling, I was paying attention. If it doesn't count then it doesn't count but I can recall it being on the big screen before hitting the home video market.Finn said:And I'm not sure if mentioning a direct sequel to an original counts, as those are direct-to-dvd and therefore not considered parts of the official lineup*. Apart from the Jungle Book, I think the Lion King has a full-feature sequel too, and Aladdin has two, if not three. And a bit of googling reveals even more.
*There is one exception, though: The Rescuers Down Under.
Give "The Jungle Book" a go, mate. It's a 'bare necessity of life' ♪ ♫ (it's also a 'bear necessity' but watch the movie and you'll see what I mean).Smiff said:I've seen enough clips of these films to know that they're so far down on my things-to-watch list that I doubt I'd live long enough to have to resort to watching them.
Stoo said:Give "The Jungle Book" a go, mate. It's a 'bare necessity of life' ♪ ♫ (it's also a 'bear necessity' but watch the movie and you'll see what I mean).
Montana Smith said:It wasn't much of a laugh as it turned out it was a musical. And you can't fast forward cinema showings unless you walk out. It was mind-numbingly boring.
John Lasseter said:?Often times when you see something that is so hand-drawn, you?re always noticing the artist and the artwork, and it?s something inbetween you and getting caught up in the story. But not this film. This was amazing how you just get swept up in the story.?