So Slash Film (and other media) are catching on to what selected fanboy sites .. and a few commenters ... have known for some time:
Walt Disney Studios has announced the title for their Holiday 2013 movie — Frozen. All of the Hollywood trade papers are reporting that the movie in question is the Pixar film announced at D23 Expo: Bob Peterson’s “The Untitled Pixar Movie About Dinosaurs“. This is not the case. It seems that the confusion came as the Dinosaur project originally had the November 27th, 2013 date, and it appears Walt Disney Animation has now taken that date for their own release. What is the film? The project formerly known as The Snow Queen.
... When the project was last in development, it was set to be Disney’s next hand drawn animated film after The Princess and The Frog. We don’t know if that is still the case or if it is now a computer animated release. BleedingCool seems to think it will be hand drawn. ...
This is the problem with wandering around studios. You (sometimes) know what's going on but don't want the wrath of management to crash down on you. So you keep your mouth buttoned and wait for The Official Announcement.
So now the word has come that the feature following Wreck-It Ralph will be the Hans Christian Anderson tale. There's other pictures in development but SQ/Frozen is the farthest along. The movie got put up on story reels a long while ago; immediately thereafter, the Main Lot decided to place it on the backburner. (Wasn't Lasseter's idea to do this, but someone who wears a suit.) Then Tangled grossed a lot of money and Frozen got put on a front burner.
And here we are.
Judging from the article above, there are those who can't figure out if the oncoming feature is "hand drawn" or "C.G.I." Bleeding Cool thinks it's still in the hand drawn category. BC is certainly entitled to its opinion, but if anyone is still hazy regarding the movie's format, they can check recent box office grosses for animated features and do a bit of high school math.
And perhaps the clouds will dissipate.
Posts
79 comments:
Steve, do you know if the movie is still planned as a musical?
So, is King of the Elves pushed to 2014 or even further back?
The movie is going to be CG. I think Bleeding Cool has now retracted its previous statement of it being hand-drawn.
But what about Lasseter's intial vision of having one hand-drawn movie every two years?
When money talks, "visions" go out the window.
Now that Ron & John have gone to the dark side, isn't there ANYONE left at Disney working on a hand-drawn feature or even just a short?
I'm guessing that "someone who wears a suit" was Rich Ross?
Snow Queen is now Frozen?
Is it April 1st or something?
What do you mean by saying Ron and John have gone to the dark side? They're still at Disney.
No one cares if it's hand drawn or not. It's not about the medium--it's about the FILM.
The medium DOES matter or else we wouldn't care about animation as an art form.
Well, if you want to work on a hand-drawn feature, there's always this:
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/feature-film/dreamworks-announces-me-and-my-shadow.html
So the Snow Queen film is going to be in CGI. And yet the Lion King, an old-fashioned 2D movie, made around 100 million dollars on reissue.
I bet Richie Wichie believes that happened because of it being converted to 3D. Riiiighhht. And that's the kind of thinking that'll get his butt kicked out the door yet.
So I guess the only question that remains is...how closely will the film follow Anderson's story? IMO, the Disney folk should take a look at the wonderful Russian version that was made back in 1957. Current versions are in sad shape, but there's still enough magic there to make the film a little amazing. I HOPE we're not going to get another princess and wise-guy prince schtick again. That barely worked in Tangled. (But I bet that's what we WILL get, and forget Kay and Gerda...)
Personal opinion only, but I don't think we're going to see a lot of hand-drawn features from Disney that look like hand-drawn features that we've known and loved.
I don't know of any hand-drawn features on the stocks inside the Hat Building, but I get around so little. Perhaps one will percolate up.
Point being, to film-goers, CG vs traditional doesn't matter. The story matters. If it has a soul, they'll go see it. Lion King had it. Tangled had it. Princess and the Frog didn't, nor did Winnie the Pooh.
Directors like working in CG because the sky is the limit visually, and the imagery is infinitely tweakable. Can you blame them? Honestly?
What do you mean by saying Ron and John have gone to the dark side? They're still at Disney.
I mean that their upcoming hand-drawn feature became a CG one (with only a few hand-drawn elements).
This is great news. But Disney, please please PLEASE leave the "snark" out of the script and make the movie magical like Snow White and Cinderella and Beauty and the Beast! Please stop trying to imitate Dreamworks. Please be yourself. The public is dying for a really good Disney animated movie again, which sadly "Princess and the Frog" and "Tangled" were not. PLEASE realize the potential of a story like The Snow Queen. And some great new music wouldn't hurt either. I wish you guys the best.
- But Disney, please please PLEASE leave the "snark" out of the script...
Oh EXCUSE ME, but "snark" is only done at DWA!
Mime jokes in Tangled are NOT snark, OK? They're just plain HILARIOUS!
The public is dying for a really good Disney animated movie again, which sadly "Princess and the Frog" and "Tangled" were not.
The public seemed to like "Tangled" more than you did. Over 500 million worldwide is nothing to sneeze at.
"Tangled" had wonderful moments, most of them were songs. Specifically for me and my children, the “healing song”, reprised through the movie was very whimsical and “atmospheric”... and other great musical moments were when Rapunzel touches the grass for the first time, as well the song under the lanterns. Personally I loved the dance scene, very useful for storytelling. “Frozen” MUST be a musical.
“Frozen” MUST be a musical.
Why does it have to be a musical? Why can't they do something different?
^Yeah, "different" is why the Lion King repeat scored so well.
(mild sarcasm)
Screw "different". Just let it be Disney and let it be GOOD.
**Oh EXCUSE ME, but "snark" is only done at DWA!
Mime jokes in Tangled are NOT snark, OK? They're just plain HILARIOUS!**
Mime jokes, like mimes themselves, are in no way hilarious.
And Tangled's success worldwide only proves how well a GOOD Disney animated film could do. Like I said, people are HUNGRY for that, as the Lion King success proved.
Maybe you dont remember, but Beauty and the Beast has quite a bit of modern (for the time) wink wink nudge nudge moments. I think you're just looking back with rose colored glasses.
Plus, a lot of the animation in that was pure, utter crap.
PS) Tangled made 600 million worldwide, not 500.
I mean that their upcoming hand-drawn feature became a CG one (with only a few hand-drawn elements).
You....dont know what Ron and John are working on other than the cryptic clues Steve's revealed on this blog.
Keep your pantyhose on. Good things are in the works.
**PS) Tangled made 600 million worldwide, not 500.**
And is Rapunzel the equal of Snow White or Cinderella or even Belle? Is Mother Gothel the equal of the Wicked Queen, Jafar, Maleficent, Scar or even Brer Fox?
Tangled was weak tea next to the heady brew that is Pinocchio or even Aladdin. Yes, Beast had some crappy animation in it. That was because the suits decided to churn out a feature a year, as if a good animated film could be produced the same way you produce a Chrysler. And it weakened features like Beast - but Beast is STILL much much better than Tangled.
That's all I'm saying. Disney needs to produce another animated film that's as memorable and magical as Beast and Lion King and Snow White. It's high time it did. If it doesn't want to be a also-ran to Dreamworks, it had better get its Disney on.
Personal opinion only, but I don't think we're going to see a lot of hand-drawn features from Disney that look like hand-drawn features that we've known and loved.
I don't understand what you mean by that Steve.
If you mean visual styles, Disney has adopted a quite diverse palette of styles for their features over the years. From Bambi, to Aladdin, to Hercules, to Mulan, to Atlantis etc, they all have employed different styles based on different artistic influences. So, Disney has been doing that for a while.
If you mean a blend between CG and hand-drawn, this has also been done. It was used most extensively on Treasure Planet where hand-drawn characters interacted in CG environments with CG objects and props. Not to mention having a character who was half-CG, half hand-drawn.
So, in which terms will the new hand-drawn movies look "different"?
Personal opinion only, but I don't think we're going to see a lot of hand-drawn features from Disney that look like hand-drawn features that we've known and loved.
I don't understand what you mean by that Steve.
I mean they won't look like "Pinocchio" or "Aladdin" or even "Tarzan." They will be much closer to "Tangled," "Puss in Boots," (etc.) in visual style.
^Bummer.
So, in which terms will the new hand-drawn movies look "different"?
I guess you're going to have to wait and see. Its nothing you've described, and Im not going to spill the beans here. If you went to the recent Disney Open House, you'd know more.
but Beast is STILL much much better than Tangled
Thats a matter of opinion. I enjoyed Tangled more than Beauty and the Beast.
It's funny, but although Tangled was reminiscent of Disney's old movies with it's story and being a musical, it was actually a refreshment among the typical CG movies produced today. I too enjoyed it far more then Beauty and the Beast, no movie is great in its entirety but I thought it was charming and had many good moments.
Frozen seems to be going for the same thing, being a CG fairy tale musical. I think that's great, now that Pixar appears to be moving into DW waters with its Brave.
I am not sure who is heading it yet but I suspect it could be Glenn Keane.
Brave does have a 'How to Train your Dragon' look. Which looked great and there is certainly room to see more of that kind of art direction styling.
Glen Keane is on Frozen? I thought he was at Dreamworks?
My personal opinion, beauty and the beast is leagues ahead of tangled. My guess is a decade from now no one will ever speak of tangled. It wasn't a terrible film, visualy of course... but the story was far from memorable... don't get me wrong, the film was good but it wasn't anything like beauty and the beast when it came out.
Go watch Beauty and the Beast again. Im not being snarky. Trust me, there's a serious nostalgia veil, that, upon a more recent viewing, reminds you that films from the 90's are pretty hokey. (and the animation is kinda bad)
Yeah, you're right. Beauty and the Beast was so badly animated it was nominated for Best Picture.
Don't buy into everything John K. says.
I'm sorry but... Yay for Disney!
Ok, you all can go back to hatin' now.
Will Ron & John's movie use cel-shading?
Glen Keane is still at Disney but not working on Frozen.
I mean they won't look like "Pinocchio" or "Aladdin" or even "Tarzan." They will be much closer to "Tangled," "Puss in Boots," (etc.) in visual style.
And...by that what do you mean, Steve? haha. I know you're trying to be as discreet as you can, but it's hard to imagine what other possible way Disney can change hand-drawn without losing it's integrity to the favor of CGI.
Remember, steve isn't an artist and can't accurately describe the snippets of things he's seen. Especially when many people who ARE artists cant figure out exactly how they are doing what they are doing
Yeah, I know, that's vague too. Just know things are happening and they are cool
...and never been done before
Everything's been done before.
Wow, even the medium of a movie that's in development is such a secret with Disney.
I don't think that insignificant information constitues a violation of their disclosure agreement.
^It doesn't. The artists there are just pretentious snobs.
Oh name calling. That's mature
The medium of the film is a secret because you haven't seen it before. Look, I said this already. Disney held an open house for people in the industry. I work at Dreamworks and have a buddy over there and got an invite. What they are doing is a new technology that I can barely describe, so I won't try because I won't do it justice. No one is being pretentious. It's an exciting technique that blends the best of both worlds. I think when people see it they will be amazed.
So until Disney decides to unveil what they've been doing, why don't we try to be respectful and not so rude and childish about it, hmm? Why does everyone have to be such jerks? It makes me think people are just being bitter and have a personal vendetta.
Everything's been done before
Not this...
If you work at DreamWorks, I don't see why you can't spill the beans about Disney's projects. Did they even ask you not to tell?
Yes. And I used to work at Disney so I have respect for my former co-workers.
Could you at least share any info about Frozen? haha
I sure wish Disney would stop looking backwards when it comes to choosing projects. Another fairy tale? With lame music by menkin? I wished they'd be more progressive and original. And understand this loud and clear--NO one cares if they do another hand drawn feature again.
Beauty and the beast WAS poorly animated. Especially Belle and gaston. Just goes to show you how a strong story and strong storytelling matters more.
Yeah, but the story was kind of cheesy. Oh well, it was a different time. It was certainly good back then.
I wished they'd be more progressive and original
I agree. At least we have Wreck-It Ralph to look forward to and whatever else they have after Frozen (though who knows, maybe it will be good) Are we sure Menken will be doing the music?
"Poorly?" Really? Compared to what?
Poorly compared to a lot of Disney movies, both before and after. The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast was made when Disney was clawing their way to a comeback. A lot of shots in both those films were pretty bad.
Give examples of scenes and how they were poorly animated, blanket statements don't support your case.
Almost every scene of Belle, but in particular, the scenes with her father after the opening song. Almost all the opening song. There are a handful of nice scenes of Belle (2 I believe) done by James Baxter...but the rest is crap. And the gaston animation is very overdone--bad acting and extremely fay.
The sequence where they are eating porridge. They are both really off model. Also the scene where they are feeding the birds outside. As a general note, a lot of the spacing is even throughout the whole film. There's some brilliant stuff here and there (done by the names we'd all recognize), but even if you'd ask the animators themselves, they'd admit it's not some of their best work. Disney really hit it's second peak (animation quality wise) around The Emperors New Groove, in my opinion.
Nonsense. The only scenes that I found in BATB that were poorly animated were the one after the opening song with her father (as you mentioned) and some of Beast. Glen's Beast and Mark's Belle were brilliant, IMHO.
Well, thats a matter of opinion, isnt it?
isnt it funny how it all ssems to lead to tangled somehow?
Just saying its different doesnt make it so!
Now let the red herring about tangled die and maybe lets actually talk about the article's main issue!
That's what's great about computer animation. It frees the artist up to focus nothing's that are important--like character, and performance. The weak drawings and performances--no matter how rushed--would have been at least consistent had they been animated on the computer.
Belle's scenes were marred by her badly-drawn face. The features swim all over her head, they're often out of proportion and sometimes nearly ugly. I cringe sometimes when I watch BatB. I wish the animators had been given more time. Remember that rumor that Eisner wanted to re-animate all of the Disney classics in CGI? Well, the only one that would benefit from such a treatment is BatB. I'd love to see what it could look like in Tanged-quality computer animation.
Yeah Lion King totally sucked ass
No one here said that. You inferred it. People hear what they want to hear dont they? I said it peaked at Emperors New Groove, meaning it trended upwards over time. Lion King was beautifully animated. It was certainly better than BATB, but I think later films were animated better. Story wise though, you're hard pressed to beat Lion King.
I think Chris Buck (co-director of Tarzan) is still heading this as director. He might have a co-director though. What I really wanna know is if this is a musical.
Didn't infer anything, other than disagreeing with you which was animated better and what the peak of the Disney Renaissance was, The designs for ENG allowed it fo have more cartoony animation but not better. The secondary characters were all old hat formula - honestly they should've given Milt Kahl a credit.
I don't hear what I want to hear, unlike you who only wants to hear that your opinion is right while everyone else is wrong. So if you can stop being condescending then maybe we could have an informative discussion.
Sure, I'll vilify you as long as you are claiming innocent victim. I can't help it if you can't tell the difference between hyperbole and sarcasm.
I went back and re read all my comments and I never did any name calling or anything rude. Remember not all anonymouses are the same person. I simply stated my opinion AS opinion. I think you might just be a bitter, angry person. For me, I'm happy in my career path and am very satisfied doing CG animation. I think it's creatively fulfilling and is visually more interesting than 2d ever was. Just my opinion. Good luck.
Big deal, I'm a CG animator too, but just not arrogant enough to call previously well done animation as poor, just because a few scenes were off model. And I haven't been name calling either, I just chose to stay with the same pretentious and condescending tone you have. Merry Xmas.
I never said it was poorly animated. My post was about which scenes I felt were off model and where I thought Disney animation peaked.
Again, not all anonymous are the same anonymous. You're talking to multiple people here.
Then don't take offense to what you weren't responsible for. That's the anonymous etiquette. Plus you have no idea how many others were disagreeing with you, the same as me.
Hahahaha! You guys are arguing over cartoons. Wow.
HAHAHAHA! And you are reading the arguments. Wow.
u mad bro?
^
Don't make me come in there! Shut up now and go play outdoors.
Let's hope frozen isn't a musical. A especially not if Mencken or the folks who wrote those horrible pooh songs do them.
Snow Queen art here --act dast--I have a feeling Disney will have it pulled down fast. Funny--the artwork looks suspiciously similar to another version being developed at another L.A. studio in the early '90's
http://one1more2time3.wordpress.com/2011/12/25/special/
^fail
that's mulan, atlantis and some other random shtuff
That vis dev is from snow queen v2.0 in the late 90's.
Post a Comment