Coming on the piece late, but how can TIME Magazine say things like this?!
... While Disney's hand-drawn-animation unit stumbled on for a few years before the company mothballed the format and bought Pixar, DreamWorks went fully CGI and totally Shrek-ish. Hits poured out of the studio at a frantic rate, two or three a year: not just three Shrek sequels (which have topped the Toy Story trio with $2.5 billion in theatrical revenue) but also Madagascar, Kung Fu Panda and the current Megamind. ...
Just because Corliss puts Pixar and Disney animated features on his "Ten Best" lists gives him no leave to tout Jeffrey's place this way. He'll end up giving the impressionable wrong ideas.
Posts
21 comments:
He conveniently forgets DW's first few films, Prince of Egypt, Road to El Dorado, Antz, That Horse Movie, Sinbad, Flushed Away--all technically financial flops when factoring in budgets and marketing.
^^ Yes, the "impressionable" seem to have some wrong ideas in thinking that DW Began With Shrek.
When actually, Shrek was the one freak fluke factor (and then half due to historical timing) that got them out of the hole that Katzenberg had dug for himself and the entire late-90's 2-D industry with El Dorado, Sinbad, and the Horsie.
(Egypt at least got some Tangled-style word of mouth, and Flushed wasn't technically "theirs".)
And even then, Corliss seems to be picking on the exact same bug that got '01 audiences in a frenzy in the first place: "Look, it's picking on fairytales, and fairytales mean Disney!...Take that, Michael Eisner!"
Seems like fans have been going to the sequels, and every other DW movie since, trying to recapture May '01, but unlike Corliss, I don't live in a plastic bubble.
You guys aren't reading what he's writing. He doesn't say that DW opened as a CG studio like Pixar. They went CG and at a certain point, abandoned 2D and never looked back. Unlike Disney which is still trying to nurture hand-drawn, DW doesn't have a hand-drawn heritage to to live up to.
Umm okay, let me spell this out for you steve. Because he aint saying anything negato towards your love thy dreamworks.
In Plain english. So you'll have the pleasure to understand.
Disney no do hand drawn animation anymore.
Disney buy Pixar
Disney on verge of future success
Dreamworks makes a lot of films
Dreamworks makes more films then Disney
Shrek franchise makes more money then Toy Story franchise
Dreamworks has other movies making money too
How about your take your lips off of Jeffrey's bottom for a few seconds, pretend for a second like you might be wearing rose color glasses and admit it, your bias. Cause I've never seen you jump to any other studios defence this quick when something negative(misconceived) comes out.
Um....shrek franchise no make more money than Toy Story franchise. Toy Story evergreen. Make billions in merchandise. Shrek no sell any toys.
Toy Story make-em much more than Shrek.
Cars and all that it supports make more money than all shrek movies put together.
That said, I loved Madagascar 2.
God, the lack of reading comprehension here is astounding. The first commenter didn't understand what Corliss wrote. The second one not only can't read, he can't write a clear thought. Hatheway misreads both Hulett's sarcasm and Corliss' piece. The next commenter promptly changes the subject to something he'd rather talk about (we've seen too much of this guy's perseverance about Cars and merchandise).
I think most of you silly fanboys need to look up the word 'tout,' and read Steve's comments with a smirk on your face.
perhaps you didn't get the memo but sarcasm doesnt come across on the internet.
okay thanks for playering../sacasm/sarcasm/sarcasm.
Disney no have enuff development.
So Disney no have production in pipeline. So Disney lay off production staff.
perhaps you didn't get the memo but sarcasm doesnt come across on the internet. ...
Funny. I've always been able to pick it up.
But then, I graduated from high school.
I wish Disney would get moving in development. And no, what little they have now simply won't cut it.
Many years ago, Walt told his brother Roy, "Let's either get back in the business or get the hell out."
Congratulations Steve, was that Whoopi Goldbergs school of musical nuns or Antonio Banderas school of latin dance thugs?
I'm more inclined to think you went to Jon Lovitz's High School High.
But go ahead and tout your fabulous high school education. (Congrats on being among the 68% of americans to actually get their diploma) You must be so proud.
Also, thank you for not refuting the claim that your bias towards Dreamworks Animation. It would be nice for you to actually admit something oppose to just get defensive towards those that criticize you.
?????
Amazing how easy it is for some people to get their panties in a wad. Mellow out, dude, you're reading way too much into this.
That's just what we need: One more misguided Captain Obvious asserting that it was "smart"for Disney to drop 2-D features, while DWA, unencumbered by "tradition," was "smarter" for dropping them sooner.
The actual Disney tradition is to make great 2-D features. Whenever they do that, the films succeed. If you build it, they will come.
Blaming the medium, or technique, if you will, is like ticketing a car for speeding, ignoring the driver.
Then again, Corliss' article plays like so much of a news-free flat-out corporate smooch-for-hire, you'd think Microsoft had pulled some strings with Time to promote Shrek 4 on Blu-ray.
But then, as pointed out, it reads like you wouldn't HAVE to pay Corliss to do that much hired smooching, as his mind still seems stuck in that long-ago mania of seven years ago when DW Can Do Anything Because Shrek 2 Was a Hit...Sad, really.
"The actual Disney tradition is to make great 2-D features. Whenever they do that, the films succeed. If you build it, they will come."
No it isn't. The "actual" Disney tradition is to make GREAT FILMS. No one cares if they're traditionally drawn or CG or puppet. NO one. Walt would be doing only CG films if he were around.
I don't doubt that. Yes, Walt was involved in a wide variety of creative projects. He certainly would not have ruled out CG, in fact he would have probably put some kind of original spin on it, but that's not the question here, or the subject of the article. The question is, would he have shut down 2-D altogether, especially out of business, rather than creative considerations?
I don't think so.
Yes, he would shut down hand drawn (all films are 2D).
The question is, would he have shut down 2-D altogether, especially out of business, rather than creative considerations?
He had actually pretty much decided to do that shortly before he died, but he was convinced to pretty much let the animation department run itself, and as long as it didn't lose too much money, he was okay leaving them alone to focus on Disney Land and Epcot and other things.
Although the sense was that he had a little less passion for animation after the 40's strike left an aftertaste and changed the dynamic at the studio.
Even when he was fooling with new animatronic gizmos and dark-rides, however, his instinct was still to use it to tell an actual story...He didn't play with things just because they were neat-o.
Walt didn't care as much for 2D as he did for making great films. If he'd have made it as a live action director (his first choice), we might not have had the Walt Disney we all know.
Post a Comment