Monday, November 29, 2010

Tangled posts second-best Thanksgiving opening numbers ever

And do you remember who is in first place?

In 1999, Toy Story 2 grossed $80.1 mil over the five-day weekend.


Anonymous said...

Not only that, it is the biggest Disney feature animation opening ever.

Yes, I realize that's not adjusted for inflation, and it was a 5-day weekend, but still, a major, major success!

Anonymous said...

2D is dead.

yeah, I said it.

Anonymous said...

I could have sworn John Lasseter and co. were having a bad year. What happened?

Not to be a wet blanket because I'm really glad for the animators who did the actual work on this thing, but boy, this just feels like it's going to embolden the new regime to keep pushing what they're pushing.... Meanwhile, talent like Chris Sanders and Brenda Chapman who dare want to take risks will be pushed into doing something more "safe" - because hey look, it's working!


Anonymous said...

The films in Disney's Lasseter-approved pipeline are far from "safe," and you dont know all the details of Sanders and Chapman's removal from their films.

No need to *sigh*. There's no tragedy here.

Floyd Norman said...

In the motion picture business there's always tragedy for someone.

"2D is dead." yeah, as I enjoyed "Tangled" over the weekend that thought was running through my head as well. I truly hate to say goodbye to an art form I've loved all my life - but it does look like, game over, man. Game over.

Anonymous said...

Pooh is in 2D, and isn't Musker and Clements' movie going to be in 2D as well (whatever that may be?).

Anon@7:31 - John Sanford and Floyd Norman seem to know enough about Chapman's removal from their films, and it sure didn't sound good for the artists... Sounded like the current regime could use a bit of humble pie... But oh well.

Anonymous said...

"Meanwhile, talent like Chris Sanders and Brenda Chapman who dare want to take risks will be pushed into doing something more "safe""

HA! Sanders was removed because American Dog was awful. I saw it. It was awful.

Have no idea why Brenda Chapman was moved from her film, but putting Mark Andrews in her place is hardly what I'd call "playing it safe."

Obviously, you know nothing of what you're spouting.

Anonymous said...

"2D is dead."

No one cares.

And it's not. Just make a great film.

Anonymous said...

Princess-type fairy tales are dead.

Oh wait. Huh.

This is what's astonishing to me. How do people live in this same world, and consistently come to the wrong conclusions, over and over again?

If Tangled should teach people anything, it's that there's always a way to do something that will excite the public. Nothing is truly dead. But you have to find what that way is.

If someone made a kickass traditional 2D movie, with a kickass story, and fresh perspective, there's no reason it couldn't be a success. But it would be very creatively difficult and challenging. It's a lot easier to simply imagine that "it's dead."

Anonymous said...

2D is dead if Disney makes boring, soulless, by-the-numbers stuff like Princess and the Frog, which looked like one of the direct-to-DVD movies. Not to say that they weren't competently done, but nowadays a 2D movie has to blow people's socks off.

Here's how to give 2D a shot in the arm:

1. Make it as beautiful, layered and detailed as Pinocchio. That movie's still the gold standard for 2D animated films.

2. Make sure the movie's got a good story, duh!

3. Maybe Disney needs to get back to the talking animals. Find or create an animal story that's as strong and emotional as The Lion King. Surely that's not impossible?

Anonymous said...

A) No one, and I mean NO one, cares about "beautiful, layered, and detailed" if the story and more importantly characters and STORYtelling aren't great.

And B) PLEASE make it better than The Lion King.

Anonymous said...


That was LA Times spin, taking one of Ed's quotes out of context.

Derrick said...

>>>2D is dead if Disney makes boring, soulless, by-the-numbers stuff like Princess and the Frog, which looked like one of the direct-to-DVD movies. Not to say that they weren't competently done, but nowadays a 2D movie has to blow people's socks off.<<<

I agree completely.
I think the real hero here is Glen Keane, he is the man who pushed this movie from (almost) the beginning . He expended eight years or more trying to figure it out how to make a CGI movie (animation and look) appealing under the Disney standards (though it began at Disney with Dick Zondag's Bowler Hat Guy) and making again an "outdated fairytale with no excuses". His work was the inspiration for many artists to do their best in this picture. Rapunzel became one of the most sincere Disney characters, a solid basis and a strong starting point for any script , something really special.
"The Princess and the Frog" didn't have such heroine, it seemed just a manipulative infomercial for afro-american little girls and mothers, an uncomfortable and bizarre spiritist fest. An inconditional love for traditional animation sometimes is very dangerous and blinding. 2D IS NOT DEAD.

Anonymous said...

"2D is dead." yeah, as I enjoyed "Tangled" over the weekend that thought was running through my head as well. I truly hate to say goodbye to an art form I've loved all my life - but it does look like, game over, man. Game over.

All right, show of hands: How many can LOOK ME IN THE KEYBOARD and HONESTLY say the audience thinks this is a "CGI film" in the sense of genre?

Yeah, we know, "the audience are sheep-like dopes", keep saying it if that'll make you feel smart...But say "CGI", and best they picture Pixar, at worst, they picture Dreamworks--In the audience's mind, if it's was made on a machine and has snarky jokes, it's Shrek, and if it's got a fairytale and a princess, and they liked it, it's Disney and Disney makes 2-D. (Qv. all those comments about the audience passing the first Pink trailer off as "a Dreamworks ripoff".)
I'd venture to say that if it wasn't for the 3-D, a good majority of the audience didn't even notice what format it was in--And in word-of-mouth over the next week, half of the recommendations will be convinced it was "really" in 2-D, simply because it "should have been". Ask your disinterested friends and neighbors if you doubt.

You can industry-prognosticate all you like, but Never Underestimate a Reputation. :)

Snegurochka said...

Alan Menken said in his last interview with the success of Tangled, there will be a re-evaluation of the project SNOW QUEEN in Disney Animation, as there are many artists in Disney that want and desire 'Snow Queen' in CGI (not in 2D :( )

Menken admits that the story of Snow Queen is very complicated but only find a story worthy of its protagonist.

Read here:

It's about the TANGLED OST, but the interviewer asks if Snow Queen will be traditional animation.

Anonymous said...

...will be convinced it was "really" in 2-D, simply because it "should have been">>>

You are right. The general audience does not discuss animated films in terms of whether they are 2d or 3d. However, for the general audience, traditional 2d is the equivalent of black and white or silent cinema.

There are great films without color or sound and in theory one could make another great film without color or sound. But for the general audience, sound and color represent more sensory information for their money. Once they saw technicolor and heard voices coming from the screen, they never really went back.

I think CGI/3d/Digital represents a similar bump up in visual information on the screen. Once the audience got a taste of it, they saw 2d animation as passe and not worthy of the big screen.

Tangled is the 2d aesthetic done even better in 3d. Final nail in the coffin.

Cody S. said...

The 2D/3D and Color/B&W/Sound analogy almost fits - but I hardly think it's as clear cut as that. How do you explain stop-motion continually popping up? Corpse Bride and Wallace and Gromit didn't necessarily light up the box office, Coraline did, but then Fantastic Mr. Fox didn't; and there are still more in that medium heading down the pipe.

I don't think, from a mainstream perspective, the medium matters as much as does the freshness of how it looks and how interesting the story is.

But it's all hyperbole anyway. Folks will always think what they're going to think, and even if a 2D flick is a 'success' there will be folks on both sides of the fence yelling at the other.

Anonymous said...

I wasn't suggesting 2d would completely go away. But I do think it will only exist for the mainstream as an occasionally seen novelty format - very much like stop motion.

Remember Schindler's List was in black and white and still attracted a mainstream audience. But this didn't send hundreds of studios scrambling to put B/W film into production.

I think 2d films for the mass audience will be few and far between probably forever.

Anonymouse said...

People are leaving out the fact that 2D can cost close to 4x less than a CGI film to produce. As much as Lasseter and Catmull are unpopular around these here parts, they were one of the initiators of bringing traditional animation back. I don't see why they'd stop now just because Froggy didn't do as well as Tangled.

Production-wise, if Froggy really did cost $80 million to produce and Tangled cost $260 million (due to development problems yes, the next won't cost this much, but just sayin) - it doesn't take a genius to see that Froggy will have an easier time becoming more profitable (in relation to its budget).

I've read that Winnie the Pooh is costing somewhere between $35 and $50 million to produce.

Disney could easily release a March or October 2D film with that budget and still expect profits. In baseball terms - 2D films can be the singles while they can swing for the fences with CGI films.

Floyd Norman said...

Sure, 2D will always be around. It's just that it can never again compete head to head with a film like "Tangled."

I love hand drawn animation, but after seeing how the audience reacted to "Tangled," 2D will now be regarded much like an arty black&white movie. Some will love it, but we've lost the mass audience forever.

Anonymous said...

I have an idea:

How about if Disney makes its next Musker and Clements flick in Hand Drawn animation but with digital stereostipic 3D ?, sort of like what they did with Beauty and the Beast in 3D recently.

That would be very interesting to watch.

Anonymous said...

anonymouse, I don't know how you can exactly blame Rapunzel's development problems on CGI.

Rapunzel's story development occurred during 4 different studio management regimes, each pulling the movie in a direction different from the boss before. That would have happened if it was CGI or not.

Look at production costs, not story costs. You have to make a story no matter WHAT medium you use. And that process is exactly the same for both.

yahweh said...

I hate to say it, but I think Floyd is probably right.
I've been convinced for sometime just from my own observations that audiences embrace CG in a way they won't embrace 2D (except for that very short period with Disney - and ONLY Disney).
Trying to justify making a 2D film that with the argument CG costs a lot more and 2D can be made for 80 or 50 million means you're already willing to suggest 2D needs to be the cheap stepchild of animation and not worthy of the big budgets that studios are obviously willing to pay for CG.
Now that CG has had a 'princess' hit and 2D failed with one regardless of whether you argue one was better than the other the money people will see it as CG vs. 2D and CG won.
Will there be more 2D after Pooh? Probably, but don't expect Disney - or anyone else - to get too excited about it. 2D will join the ranks of Clay and Puppet animation and be viewed as more of an 'arthouse' type of film and won't be expected to make huge money.

CG is considered film. By the studios and by the audiences.

Anonymouse said...

Anonymous @ 10:18

Not blaming it on CGI at all, the reasons you mentioned are what I meant by "development problems" that caused it to be that high. Without those, my guess is that the budget would have been around the typical Disney CGI film - $150 million or so, which is still much higher than Froggy's or Pooh's budget.

Bruce Wright said...

I'm going to take a contrary view on the "death of 2d", based on experience from the earlier history of CG.

I remember the period where people said that hand drawn was the only way to get warm characters, and nobody would pay to sit through a movie starring cold plastic CG.

What changed that was Toy Story.

Before that, nobody could see any reason to challenge the conventional wisdom of the day. It was obvious to everyone except those quixotic fools at Pixar. But in hindsight it's crystal clear... and here's the reason:

People are very good at imagining new versions of things they've seen before. What's much harder is imagining the next thing. Nobody knew the whole world wanted Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs until it was made. Ditto Disneyland. Before those, all people could imagine was what had been done before, and as good as those 3 Pigs were, nobody could imagine sitting in a theater watching that for two hours. Disney's folly. A sure box-office bomb... until it suddenly wasn't. Until it came out and it was what the world wanted more than anything... yet didn't *know* it wanted.

One week ago, "conventional wisdom" was that sincere fairy-tale musicals were passe. Tangled was going to bomb.

But a funny thing happened. It turned out that this was the film that the world had been wanting, yet didn't know it. Or Hollywood didn't know it.
When Pooh comes out (which I have seen), I think the world will again have the same reaction. It will be another film that they would have wished for, if only they knew it was possible.

The 2d film after Pooh will be the same. What it needs to be (and I have confidence) is yet another film that everyone always wanted, even if they themselves couldn't have imagined wanting it beforehand.

Anonymous said...

The problem is that audience's have pretty much seen 2d animation's bag of tricks. Anything 2d still had a corner on was soundly outdone with "Tangled".

I think you have been a bit long at the Kool-aid counter with the "Pooh" thing. "Tangled" was good, but let's not get too fantastic with the implications.

Bruce Wright said...

"The problem is that audience's have pretty much seen 2d animation's bag of tricks."

I don't think that's actually true. I think the look of (broad, commercial) 2d has been artificially nailed to the floor circa 2000 to avoid it "looking like cg".

I think that's an artificial and arbitrary line in the sand.. "hand drawn looks like this for now and forever".

If Toy Story and the other CG films had never been made, the look of 2d would have kept evolving.

The mistake is to try to make 2d LOOK like Tangled or any CG film.

The path ahead is to make something new. What if you made something that made people say "I don't know if it's 2d, CG, hand-drawn or how the heck it's done... it's *amazing*!"?

Again to my point. It's easy to imagine the past. It's hard to envision the new. Do not constrain the future to what's already been done.

Anonymous said...


sorry, dude. 2D hasn't changed significantly since since 101 Dalmatians and the advent of xerox using the animators actual drawings. Even that was just a cosmetic change. The addition of CG tricks and some fancy texture mapping ala Tarzan has helped, but essentially the look has stayed the same.
The truth - whether you or i like it or not - is that audiences respond to CG in a way they never did with 2D.
Go back and ask yourself how many CG films would've been huge hits if made in 2D...
Some maybe would've done ok, but I REALLY doubt Nemo would've even worked in 2D much less been a hit or Cars (though that wasn't a huge theatrical hit). Shrek might done okay, but probably wouldn't have been nearly as big and Up might have been okay as well. But would they have done BIG numbers...? I doubt it.
The B&W and Color analogy is pretty close to being right on. 2D will continue, but fall into the art house category more times than not. Assuming it doesn't fall into the Pooh category - for little kids.

Anonymous said...

I think you're proving Bruce's point.

You're right that 2d hasn't changed much in 50 years. THAT'S exactly the problem. A lack of imagination.

A carbon copy of Disney's traditional "house style" isn't going to excite too many people. But a uniquely fresh approach--one we HAVEN'T seen before--combined with a brilliant, new story with a fresh new perspective, probably WOULD attract significant attention. It can come from a risk-taking visionary, but likely not from Disney's old guard.

I think Bruce is fundamentally correct. It's hard to comment on what we have never seen yet, because we don't know we want it yet. I have doubts that a Pooh retread will be a big hit, but I DO think a very fresh, uniquely graphic 2d movie would change perception significantly.

Anonymous said...

One week ago, "conventional wisdom" was that sincere fairy-tale musicals were passe. Tangled was going to bomb.
But a funny thing happened. It turned out that this was the film that the world had been wanting, yet didn't know it. Or Hollywood didn't know it.

I'd say Hollywood DIDN'T know it. (Particularly as they were coming up with every cockamamie theory as to why audience "hated" P&tF to entertain the idea that maybe they might've, y'know, not hated it.)

To understand just what Tangled accomplished, learn one thing and learn it well: THE AUDIENCE ARE NOT IDIOTS. They know what they like, they know what they hate; they can have good memories, bad memories, oh yes they can carry grudges, and under the right circumstances they can even forgive-and-forget.
And to understand that is to realize just how much Chicken Little was a wound that festered for four years with the audience and never really healed. The hype on Frog was incredible and it promised one thing only: We Will Heal. "We're bringing back ink-and-paint fairytales with Alan Menken music and pretend everything since '99 never happened; we're going to turn back the clock and take back what once was ours." Nice promise, if they could keep it--Audiences certainly wanted to believe they could keep it, and...well, if to say they were betrayed by the final product might be a little too strong, they certainly had their hopes disappointed by it: Every technical element from the 90's was carefully put in place, but with a rushed script, thrown-together story and largely unmemorable or even unsympathetic characters (even Tiana came off as a cranky wet-blanket), the result was as flat and flavorless as canned gumbo. Even defenders of the movie said "Oh, they're just warming back up, give 'em a second chance!"

Fairytale musicals GOT a second chance--This time, we had Rapunzel channeling Ariel, Flynn imitating Aladdin (with the lizard playing Abu), Goethel imitating Ursula; we even got the comedy relief sweet-tough-guys from "Mulan", and the songs hadn't been this calculatedly faux-Broadway since "Hunchback"...Everything the audience remembered about What 90's 2-D Disney Did Right, and as 12:20 pointed out, the audience is going to subconsciously end up retroactively remembering this movie as being in 2-D whether it was or wasn't. Why?--Because they remember the 90's 2-D renaissance as having emotions to the characters and story that they could care about, and most of the CGI films they remembered since then didn't. Just what exactly was the audience waiting for to "come back", anyway?

But then, they'd waited this long, and if Frog couldn't deliver on The Promise, what was one more year, if they could finally get it right on the second try?
"CGI won"? "Game over, man"?...Shame on you, Floyd. SHAME on you. You're fifty Walt-era years old enough to know better, and the movie was directed by kids half your age. (Glen Keane, OTOH...) ;)

Anonymous said...

I think someone might be mistakenly projecting some of their inner drama onto some imagined general audience. Let's state the obvious and say that most people who post to or visit this forum are not a good proxy for the general audience.

Most people go to the movies for a few hours of diversion. When something works for them, they respond. Unfortunately, after-the-fact analysis of what and why something works rarely yields anything tangible. But we can see general patterns of what people have been responding to over the last decade and in animation it has mostly been to CGI.

Before computer imagery came along and took the limits off all visual possibilities in film, animation was in fact the best way to tell certain fantastic stories. There was a real need. Something better has come along to fill that role.

And I think dead Uncle Walt would agree with me.

Anonymous said...

But we can see general patterns of what people have been responding to over the last decade and in animation it has mostly been to CGI.

Last time I was in the 'plex, I saw the Tangled audience respond to another new CGI film with the corporate Disney name on it.
Believe it was called "Mars Needs Moms".

...It didn't go over very well.

Anonymous said...

You're missing the point. One crappy film does not a pattern make.

The pattern is that there has been no big 2d animation hit for a decade or so. The pattern is that 2d animation topped out for the general audience with Lion King.

Meanwhile, there have been a ton of big CG hits during those years. Patterns.

yahweh said...

Stop trying to talk sense to these kids who wanna feel good and think everything has been healed and double rainbows will now be an everyday occurrence.

Those of us who are willing to acknowledge that 2D is no longer the audience's cup of tea don't have to prove anything. we can point out the obvious and all they will do is talk "what ifs" and magic unicorns that the audience doesn't know it wants to see yet.
Que sera, sera.

Anonymous said...

And I think dead Uncle Walt would agree with me.

Dead Uncle Walt reduced everything to story. STORY, STORY, STORY.
When the animated Alice failed at the box office, he blamed it on not having enough pathos.
When Peter Pan did likewise, he quickly tried to suit his one theory to fit "unlikable characters". Even when the explanation was perfectly rational (like Fantasia losing money on stereo and being hacked to pieces by RKO), his first one gut instinct was to put the blame on the audience not finding any emotional connection to the story or characters.

Before you're going to throw a lot of holy ashes in our faces to justify some low-rent post-Frog knee-jerk cynicism, try asking the old-timers--In the words of Lloyd Bentsen, senator, you're not Dead Uncle Walt.
Walt would have been the first...the put Tangled's credit where credit was due: We cared about the characters, wanted to follow them, and had some basic emotional involvement in whether they lived or (in Flynn's case) died. There is no story without that connection.
Brother Bear couldn't do it. Atlantis didn't even try to. Emperor's New Groove and Home on the Range managed it in spite of themselves, it seems to be the only parts that audiences remembered from Lilo & Stitch, and Princess & Frog kept trying to but had its mind on other things and fell short.
Even Bolt could only manage a decent show of it in the last third, and it was only heavy rewrites that got it back into Meet the Robinsons at the 11th hour.

That, friend, is the "diversion" that audiences--who are under no obligation to pay $10+glasses--go to see. Anything else is called an "annoyance".
And until someone notices that the right ingredients were summoned back out of the distant past regardless of the technology of the day, the one bit of luck IS going to be seen as a fluke bit of luck, and audiences are still going to ask when they're ever going to "bring it back".

Bruce Wright said...

Well said.

Anonymous said...

OBVIOUSLY story is important. It is also the most intangible part of the process. Easy to analyze in hindsight, but very difficult to actually conjure. It is a black art. No one really knows whether a story is working until the audience responds (as you tediously point out above).

The general audience no longer has a desire to see even a good story in black and white or without sound. Their behavior over the last 10 years seems to indicate that they also are not much interested in stories told with imagery made from big, flat masses of color painted between dark outlines.

Anonymous said...

Their behavior over the last 10 years seems to indicate that they also are not much interested in stories told with imagery made from big, flat masses of color painted between dark outlines.

Again, that's rather empirically hard to tell: We haven't HAD good stories for the last ten years. Period.
Atlantis showed how we hadn't had good stories in 2-D, and Chicken Little showed how we hadn't had good stories in 3-D.

(Oh, except for the big, shiny 3-D Pixar stories that all the paying grownup audience tears up at, sniffles over, and then tries to nominate for Oscars...Maybe that's what confusing you.
People, listen to yourselves: Has Disney gone so long for ten years without a non-Pixar hit that they've forgotten what a hit looks like, and tries to rationalize that it was "probably a flop anyway"? Here's a hint--It's when the audience LIKES you, and remembers afterwards what the story was about. Oh, come now, you must remember, used to happen all the time during the 90's; ask somebody if you don't.)

Anonymous said...

Back in the 90's the novelty of 2d animation had not yet been outdone by the novelty of CGI. Even terrible films like Pocahontas took home 346 million worldwide.

The 90's ended a while ago.

You have a very simplistic view of how story relates to boxoffice.

Cars. Very mediocre story. 462 million worldwide.

There have been many Dreamworks films with sit-com style comedy writing and poor character development. And guess what? The mainstream audiences went crazy for it.

The only real pattern concerning boxoffice is that CGI films did generally very well over the last decade and 2d films did generally very poorly.

Story sometimes mattered and sometimes did not.

yahweh said...

The bigger point to taake into account is during the wonderful LionKing days of animation ONLY and I mean ONLY Disney was able to bring in an audience for 2D.
Now many, many studios are able to bring in audiences for CG and as already noted not all of them are gems (not all are hits either), but we are actually closer to what happens with live-action films than ever before. Some films are hits and some aren't and it really doesn't matter per se what studio creates them.
So, despite my personal preference for 2D, these are much better times for animated films than ever before. Not so much for animators since there are no real CG animation stars and I doubt there will ever be a bidding war for any of them as happened back in the 2D days of LionKing.

Anonymous said...

We need to be clear here. When we discuss bad BO for past 2D films being because the stories sucked that's not accurate. How good a story is only comes into effect on the second weekend for the most part.
Now if you want to discuss bad BO being because of bad PROJECTS being chosen that's different. That would account for the first weekend being weak.

Anonymous said...

Well then, to be Captain Obvious, it's pretty clear that audiences WANTED to see this picture--Either sight-unseen, knowing full well that there would be an (ick!) princess in it who would (gag!) sing, or on the more informed strength of having seen extensive pre-screening and web clips.
Either way, it sounds as if virgin audiences were attracted by the product, and NOT by the hypnotic lure of Happy Shiny Solid People....As already discussed at length, we know it wasn't the first teaser, which promised them all those contemporary hyperactive yuks that Dreamworks and Sony offered, and with glasses, too.

So..we wait. With no major opening for next week, we get to see which is stronger, Harry Potter on established franchise and audience word of mouth, or Tangled on reputation and audience word of mouth. If it stays up at #2, that usually means they liked it, and if it increases slightly, that means a lot of people went out and told their skeptical friends to go see it. And they don't normally form enough of a bond with the movie to go out of their way to do that for Happy Barcode CGI of the Week that just happens to show up.

(I know...that's what usually happens to Pixar movies, and you're just not used to it happening to anybody else. Hey, get that surprised look off your face--It's not easy, but once in a while it does happen.)

Anonymous said...

Are you done captain?

Derrick said...

People wanted to see this picture indeed, the first trailer was horrendous, but the later ones were very appealing (and not only for gay boys as people here said ) the humor, the action and the look of the film in the trailer were key points. perhaps the general audience can't talk technically about how good this movie looked at first sight, but the art and dedication in this were crucial.
If John & Ed really want to resurrect 2D, make a traditional animated movie with the Pixar trademark at Pixar.(with Brad Bird for example) and in 3D.(like someone just said)
I wonder why only M&C are the only one confirmated duo mandated to make "original " 2D movies at WDS.. I love their work, but I'd like to hear about another VIP talents in the task too. IMHO.

I see stupid people said...

"2D is dead. there I said it"

and all the sheeple bleating in agreement. (the same ones who a week or two ago were bleating that Tangled would be a big flop.)


Ok, this place has become the new Animation Nation.

Good bye. Turn out the lights when you leave.

Anonymous said...

Lord no, animation nation is filled only with 2 or 3 people who post things no one responds to. But mainly their traffic his died off because of how repulsive their new website design is. It's REALLY ugly. They ought to at least hire a designer.

Anonymous said...

"Dead Uncle Walt reduced everything to story. STORY, STORY, STORY."

No. He didn't. Disney made plenty of lame films, some of them animated. And he always concentrated more on Character and Storytelling than plot.

And sometimes he was downright lazy.

A saint, he ain't.

Anonymous said...

Althoug now 3D is more popular,but there are still a number of people love 2D.Agree?
2d barcode in visual basic .net

Site Meter