CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

Disney Halts DTV Sequels! Hooray!

*happy dance*

Wow, the feeling that just passed through my body due to this news is superior to that of a mother cradling her newborn baby in her hospital bed.

That is just awsome^^ maybe now they'll be focused on more QUALITY films, rather than spewing out new titles every here and there. Good things take time to make...

Mere words cannot express my joy.

Thank goodness someone finally knocked some sense into those people. XD

Tom Dincht wrote:Wow, the feeling that just passed through my body due to this news is superior to that of a mother cradling her newborn baby in her hospital bed.

*gives tom 5 points* xDD

With the mention of Meet the Robinsons 2 and Chicken Little 2, were those actually in the works, or just a sort of example to what he stopped? I think it's awsome because Pixar knows how to make good sequels. Sadly enough, I have yet to see Toy Story 2 but I still hear great things about it^^

Toy Story 2 was actually an excellent film as many have said.
I prefer it over the first.

It blew me away to see a good movie with the number "2" in the title, that had remotely any connection with Disney whatsoever.

Tenshi no Ai wrote:With the mention of Meet the Robinsons 2 and Chicken Little 2, were those actually in the works, or just a sort of example to what he stopped? I think it's awsome because Pixar knows how to make good sequels. Sadly enough, I have yet to see Toy Story 2 but I still hear great things about it^^

Well, Pixar didn't have a hand in Chicken Little or Meet the Robinsons, nor did they have a hand in the other Disney CG movie, "The Wild". Pixar is the one animation company that I can trust to make a good movie nowadays, though, and I will definitely suggest that you see Toy Story 2 as soon as possible, because it was as good as, if not better than, the first movie. XD

Thats nice. Good going. Not a huge disney fan, but quality is always better then quantity.

Kenshin17 wrote:Not a huge disney fan, but quality is always better then quantity.

I just remember back in the day, when their full feature lengths, when the whole "33rd full-length animated feature" were a huge deal, and hearing how it took YEARS to make it. I think some classics like Peter Pan took 5 years to make, or something along those lines. It was decades ago, afterall. I think The Little Mermaid and a few of it's processors (Beauty and the Beast, Alladin, The Lion King) also took some amount of time to make. But look at the results!

Sad, how some kids will come into work going "Chicken Little! Chicken Little!" I refuse to watch that wretched looking movie (no offense if there are any fans, it just looks bad^^), but I think there's one difference: Chicken Little today, gone tomorrow. It won't last, not like Disney Princesses and so forth of yesteryear...

A little off topic, but yeah^^

Tenshi no Ai wrote:Sad, how some kids will come into work going "Chicken Little! Chicken Little!" I refuse to watch that wretched looking movie (no offense if there are any fans, it just looks bad^^), but I think there's one difference: Chicken Little today, gone tomorrow. It won't last, not like Disney Princesses and so forth of yesteryear...

Oh, I couldn't agree more. I mean, when you look at most of the animated films that get put out today, they may be funny or something for a few years, but they aren't timeless. The thing about Disney's old animated films like Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King is that they're timeless. The Lion King is almost 13 years old, and yet if you watch it today, it still packs a punch. Try that out with one of the Shrek movies 13 years from now and see if it's as funny, since most of the jokes are based around pop culture.

Now that's not to say I didn't like the Shrek movies (that I saw, anyways); I was able to enjoy them. But they won't be as good years from now; they aren't "classics". And there are other CG films these days that I downright loathe (Madagascar, Over the Hedge, etc.) that use the same "pop culture" formula, and those won't (rather, shouldn't, in my opinion XDD) be considered classics years from now, either. What I love about Pixar is that they make sure they have a good story before they even start animating. They make sure that their movie would be good in any sort of storytelling form before they render it as CG.

Anyways. Enough of my animation rant. XDD

Radical Dreamer wrote: And there are other CG films these days that I downright loathe (Madagascar, Over the Hedge, etc.) that use the same "pop culture" formula

I guess it's like if we were to watch a movie from the 90s and making jokes about the macarena or something to the like^^

[quote="Radical Dreamer"]Oh, I couldn't agree more. I mean, when you look at most of the animated films that get put out today, they may be funny or something for a few years, but they aren't timeless. The thing about Disney's old animated films like Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King is that they're timeless. The Lion King is almost 13 years old, and yet if you watch it today, it still packs a punch. Try that out with one of the Shrek movies 13 years from now and see if it's as funny, since most of the jokes are based around pop culture.

Now that's not to say I didn't like the Shrek movies (that I saw, anyways)]

I see your point.

Pixar movies are never about pop culture.
Most of the humor from Pixar movies come from how they take special characteristics of certain things such fish or monsters (the movies are obvious) and utilize them in real life events.

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, I'll explain in my next post.

My reaction to the news?......(starts singing and dancing to "Halleighluia Chorus")...
Hopefully that means more good films....there's always the possibility that Disney might somehow do something that would make them lose this chance....

Hopefully, this means more original timeless movies....

Scott Weinberg writes: "Good news all around. Plus, get this: Disney CCO John Lasseter has called the upcoming Tinkerbell movie "unwatchable." Ouch.

That's amazing. John Lasseter is the winner. I heard about the Tinkerbell movie earlier, and I can say that I was quite disgusted by it. I love that he said that, though. XD

So basically what your saying is Pixar good, and Dreamworks bad. Yeah I agree. Believe me in my childhood, I would always watch the Lion King. Don't make jokes the Lion King was all the rage in 1994-1995. And so were those other movies that you guys have just mentioned. Dreamworks pictures are funny but only because as others have said before that they are built around popculture and thats true. I hate Madagascar, its probably the worst movie ever made. I can't believe I saw it. Don't see it, its humor is a little sick and stupid. I almost feel like Dreamworks is "dumbing them down a bit just for laughs and not that good feeling that you should get when coming out of a movie for example Pixar. Now Im not saying Shrek was bad or anything. I just think they should of probably just stuck with just the first one and to stop there. You see when you make a sequel you are sorta taking away the feelings that you remember from the first one. And plus remember the Pixar movies teach a simple but good lesson. Like Beaty and the Beast, just because something is ugly or mean doesn't really mean that on the inside. And there are others but I can't think of them at the moment but they are there believe you me! Well thats all of my rambling.

John Lasseter is offically the Hayao Miyazaki of American animation. And continues to be my hero.

Good job Mr. Sir, good job.

The problem is that while Pixar has a lot of creative freedom, even now that it is part of Disney, the Disney animators (which is a seperate department) have little or no creative freedom. The "Creative Executives" keep meddling so much in the movies "to make them good" that it's impossible for the movies to actually be good. It seems that the more successful Pixar is the more and more constraining and stiffling the atmosphere become for their colleagues in Disney's Burbank animation department. And unfortunately this is causing a lot of ill-will towards Pixar and John Lassetar who are sadly maligned only because they have the freedom to be good at their jobs.

One of the first films I ever remember ever seeing was Snow White And The
Seven Dwarves back in the day before they started having sequels.Of course
Disney was still alive in those days('60s).

they're seriously going to make a tinkerbell movie?! you gotta be kidding me XD

Alexander wrote:John Lasseter is offically the Hayao Miyazaki of American animation. And continues to be my hero.

Good job Mr. Sir, good job.

I totally agree. BTW (this is a little off topic) Hayao Miyazaki and John Lasseter are best friends. It's true!

I can be a bit dense at times, so pardon me if this is another sterling example.

But why is the absence or cancellation of product cause for celebration?

Yes, the Disney sequels were bad. Not very worthy at all. My response to them was not to spend any money on them. But if other people like them and buy them, then good for them. Why would I begrudge them their crappy movies as long as they don’t begrudge me mine? A lot of folks would likely express similar joy if it was decided anime would no longer be sold here in the US.

I knew of a guy who went so far as to write an angry letter to ADV to protest their plans for making a live-action Evagelion. If you don’t think a live-action Eva could possibly be any good, then don’t buy it. Why actively attempt to prevent those who may be interested in it from realizing their dreams?

But I digress. Good business decision on Disney’s part. I’m kind of emotionally neutral on the whole issue, though.

I think it might be a reaction to when Eisner was in charge since his era saw a lot of the sequels that were produced.

Because crap should not be allowed to be made D:

Yep.
To be fair though one of the best animated Disney movies in years was Mulan.

All hail John Lasseter. He's the one man that can save Disney from sinking to the depths.

termyt wrote:I can be a bit dense at times, so pardon me if this is another sterling example.

But why is the absence or cancellation of product cause for celebration?

Yes, the Disney sequels were bad. Not very worthy at all. My response to them was not to spend any money on them. But if other people like them and buy them, then good for them. Why would I begrudge them their crappy movies as long as they don’t begrudge me mine? A lot of folks would likely express similar joy if it was decided anime would no longer be sold here in the US.

I knew of a guy who went so far as to write an angry letter to ADV to protest their plans for making a live-action Evagelion. If you don’t think a live-action Eva could possibly be any good, then don’t buy it. Why actively attempt to prevent those who may be interested in it from realizing their dreams?

But I digress. Good business decision on Disney’s part. I’m kind of emotionally neutral on the whole issue, though.

To counter your argument:

Normally I would feel bad with anything being canceled, as anyone would. But there are two factors to consider here.

1. American animation with a few exceptional films has really sunk since the 1980's and early 90's when it was in a Renaissance era. New ideas were being presented, sequels were there but not so heavily thick, classic after classic animation was being made, and animation in general was being taken more seriously and held with higher respect. Now, I'm not saying sequels are bad. After all, I've seen a few that I throughly and even a small few I enjoy more then the original film. But I view animation as an art form that takes an incredible amount of time and dedication. The main reason I don't like these constant sequels recently is because the people with this talent are being forced to do what Disney or whatever any other animation company demands them to do. Thusly, they have no creative freedom. They're basically animating for money as the first priority. And as someone who appraises art, I feel this is shameful towards it.

2. The second being the rise of 3-D animation. When Toy Story came out, it was a phenomenon. A revolution even. No one had done something to this scale ever before. But it wasn't just the animation, Toy Story had what any good film needed: A strong firm story with good flow, good character development, and just a generally well done plot. It had done a revolution, but the story was still there too. But after that happened, 3-D animation went from being a revolution to a novelty to the norm after 2-D animation was basically crushed by ever major animation company in America (Including the infamous Disney cut of every 2-D animation studio they owned in 2005). But the biggest problem of all was the leading of generic stories and themes in most 3-D films. Focusing primarily on comedy and pop-culture, some fans of animation (me being one of them) felt distressed. Having a few of these films was okay, but too much is always too much.

So, to sum it all up, I'm happy with this announcement because I want animators, story tellers, and just anyone who works at any animation company to breath out and use their imagination instead of having to be suppressed because a company cares more about money.

Alexander wrote:To counter your argument:

Normally I would feel bad with anything being canceled, as anyone would. But there are two factors to consider here.

1. American animation with a few exceptional films has really sunk since the 1980's and early 90's when it was in a Renaissance era. New ideas were being presented, sequels were there but not so heavily thick, classic after classic animation was being made, and animation in general was being taken more seriously and held with higher respect. Now, I'm not saying sequels are bad. After all, I've seen a few that I throughly and even a small few I enjoy more then the original film. But I few animation as an art form that takes an incredible amount of time and dedication. The main reason I don't like these constant sequels recently is because the people with this talent are being forced to do what Disney or whatever any other animation company demands them to do. Thusly, they have no creative freedom. They're basically animating for money as the first priority. And as someone who appraises art, I feel this is shameful towards it.

2. The second being the rise of 3-D animation. When Toy Story came out, it was a phenomenon. A revolution even. No one had done something to this scale ever before. But it wasn't just the animation, Toy Story had what any good film needed: A strong firm story with good flow, good character development, and just a generally well done plot. It had done a revolution, but the story was still there too. But after that happened, 3-D animation went from being a revolution to a novelty to the norm after 2-D animation was basically crushed by ever major animation company in America (Including the infamous Disney cut of every 2-D animation studio they owned in 2005). But the biggest problem of all was the leading of generic stories and themes in most 3-D films. Focusing primarily on comedy and pop-culture, some fans of animation (me being one of them) felt distressed. Having a few of these films was okay, but too much is always too much.

So, to sum it all up, I'm happy with this announcement because I want animators, story tellers, and just anyone who works at any animation company to breath out and use their imagination instead of having to be suppressed because a company cares more about money.

I agree 200%. I don't believe I can add anything else to this post that would further express my view on the matter. *applause*

It would be nice if Ghibli Studios held a seminar for the Disney people on how to make animated movies.

@ Alexander- Great job for stating all that. I believe it completely.

Every animated movie thats made today doesn't have to be 3-D. Yeah sure they may look good, but a 2-D movie can be better as well. I would rather see a 2-D movie with a great story plot and ending than a 3-D movie with comedy and pop culture stuff as others have a stated.