DR board game?!?

Dubble · Post by **Dubble** » Wed May 16, 2001 12:04 am

OK looking at this comment I'm....daunted. *L* Not to mention late and also out of my depth. (Arno, I can't draw eitehr! )Er..First off I saw somewher a comment about some jokes losing they're funnyness from dubbing. Its true. *L* I've seen Alladin in greek and the genie just wasn't as funny. And they used the same actor who dubbed goffy which was a tad confusing. *L* But an example'd be..Do you remember when Aladin gets out of teh cave? and the genie turns into a sheep and says 'Have I been caught sleeping? alright you baaaa-d boy, but nomore freebies!' or something similar. The baaa a sheep makes and the bad just makes no sense in greek cuz bad in greek is a totally different word...does that make sense? *L* Heh, RAMBLE.Uhm..which Disney films I like? Err....Beauty and the BEast, Lady and the Tramp, Aladin, Teh Little Mermaid, Fantasia, The Rscuers Down Under (Eagle music! ^_^) 101 Dalmatians..There are prolly other's but I better stop now. *L*I BADLY want to see Fantasia 2000! *wonders if its still on at the IMAC cinema*I kind of think I agree with Arno...assuming I understand what he's saying. *L* What I think is....they shouldn't worry so much about the next big achievemt rreally....And its so elaborate and stuff now, cartoons seem like such a big deal now..Like....you have all these famous actors doing the voices and it just seems...odd. I'm not expressing this very well am I? and I prolly shouldn't hit send on it, but do you sort of get the idea of what I'm saying? It seems like people care more about who's doing the leads voice, and what technology is used rather than a simple, nice, for kids storyline that walt disney would've picked. *L*Ok, now I think I sound like I hate modern cartoons and I don't at all. *L* OkayI'll stop posting total nonsense again.

And I'm gonna regret hitting send but oh well. *L*

Kiva · Post by **Kiva** » Thu May 17, 2001 2:17 am

Dubbers> I think I know what both you and Arno are saying. My point is, where does a good story, and the use of big-name voices and technology become mutually exclusive? I love the advances of animation technology, and my opinion still stands that I will always admire Dis for pioneering new techniques. I could argue that this Glen Keane generation of animators is doing what Walt did decades ago. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif">When advances help to enhance the story, then that's what using the technology is all about. There were some flops, like "Titan AE." (sorry Titan fans...) <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif"> But I think that was a prime example of where weaknesses in production weren't saved at all by the coolness of the animation. Was it the concentration on the technology that weakened it? Probably not... Movies in general seem to be more of a "big deal," as you said. But "Ben Hur" and "Gone With the Wind" were mega-projects and "big deals" in their own time. In the same way, animated movies of Dis were huge undertakings. Peggy Lee, Mickey Rooney, and other people who were huge stars, did the woices for Walt-generation animation, just as Eddie Murphy, Michael J Fox, and Robin Williams are lending their talents to movies now. I know you didn't mean to sound like you hated modern movies, and I certainly don't mean this as any sort of flame. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif"> I'm also quite interested in what other people's views are.... <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif">------------------
Mighty power of the pencil to you!![This message has been edited by Kiva (edited 05-17-2001).]

Kiva · Post by **Kiva** » Thu May 17, 2001 2:43 am

Spiritwolf> I'm talking purely about box office numbers. Titan AE's failure to produce decent money when it was released into theaters meant the relatively early demise of Fox's animation department.Which was kind of a bummer since everything had potential, but fell apart somewhere. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif">That's what I mean by a flop. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif"> ------------------
Mighty power of the pencil to you!!

SpiritWolf · Post by **SpiritWolf** » Thu May 17, 2001 9:53 am

To be honest, I can't understand why some thought of Titan AE as a flop. I guess so many people went in expecting too much of it, a new Star Wars or whatnot (and I could never stand those films anyways) and came out finding they'd watched a kids movie.Though many would say Alice in Wonderland is a kids movie. I went in not sure what to expect when I saw it, not having read the reviews and after having seen it, I was pleased. I respect it for all that it accomplished, personally. Who wants more than Titan AE? Not me, that's for sure.[This message has been edited by SpiritWolf (edited 05-17-2001).]

SpiritWolf · Post by **SpiritWolf** » Sat May 19, 2001 2:55 am

Ahh. I'm sure it was. It takes a very odd type of mindset though to enjoy Titan AE I'd wager. An adult who can enjoy the same things a child can and probably for the same reason. It was basically only a grown up spacial fairy tale after all.That's the only thing I can think of. It was odd though, I enjoyed that but I can't say I did Star Wars so ... I dunno.

Kiva · Post by **Kiva** » Sun May 20, 2001 1:03 am

Spirit> *L* I'm betting a ton more people saw Titan AE through video rentals and DVD sales. I'm one of those folks who saw it in the theater and actually HOPED it would do well, too.... but I guess it just didn't appeal to enough people at first glance to get them to go into the theaters in the first place. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif">------------------
Mighty power of the pencil to you!!

Emambu · Post by **Emambu** » Mon May 21, 2001 12:55 am

Kiva: I always thought that the reason Titan AE failed was because it was such an expensive movie to make. The total costs ranged upwards in the tens of millions. It's almost like it was doomed to fail right from the get-go as there was no way it could turn up a profit. I've often wondered why it was so expensive to make that film. I mean, I know it relied heavily on CGI but so did other animated movies (Toy Story, Anastasia) and they weren't as expensive - comparitively. Where did all this extra money go? Voice actors? It's too bad because I thought that Titan AE was a step in the right direction for American animation. Ah well, maybe Shrek or Atlantis will help dissuade in misconstrued belief in America that all animation is for kids. 
---Emambu

Arno · Post by **Arno** » Mon May 21, 2001 3:03 am

You know, I have thoughts on this subject, but nowehere near as clearly defined as some other people. If it sometimes looks like I don't know what I'm saying, that will be the reason. *L*Kiva has some really good points, mainly in mentioning Ben Hur and Gone With The Wind. And naturally A good story, good voice-acting and the use of new technology is not mutually exclusive. In fact, as long as we're talking about Disney, I'm only theorizing, So far they seem to manage all three quite well.My concern is about where this could be going. I think that for any animation movie to succeed, it must do well in all three things I've mentioned before: storytelling, voice-acting and animation. I would even be so bold to place them in that direct order of importance, though each are strongly dependant of one another.Terrific voice-acting with a poorly animated character won't do. A wonderfully animated character with a great voice spouting cliches won't do. Now, what I am worried about is one of these fields taking too much precendence over the other. I think that few people go to a Disney movie to see a good story. Doesn't mean they're not getting a good story, but that is most likely not the foremost thought on their minds. When such movies are promoted, we get to see the most impressive scenes, we get to hear the biggest names that voice-acted the characters. Never is it mentioned "it has a good story too".And that's where it could go wrong. It has gone wrong for so many regular movies. Personally, I found Jurassic Parc dull. I couldn't help it. A more clear example would be Last Action Hero. And what I'm afraid of is that that is what animation might become should the latest technology become the norm. I love animation, it can bypass so many of the restrictions working with actors and props can bring. So I'm hoping it won't fall into the same "bigger, better and absolutely no content" trap.Now, this is more an idea than that it has any solid basis in fact, but I think it could be that that is why efforts from other studios often prove unsuccessful. They pour a lot of money in big voices and flashy animation, but lose track of the fact that if you want to reach an adult audience (and often, in such cases, they do), they need a good, solid story. Judging from reviews, that happens very little, and so animation remains something that can look pretty, but in the end, 'is for kids'. Meanwhile the studio notices it has pumped a fortune into animation and decides that obviously the fault lies with the fact that it was animation.The last block of text is mainly bartalk though. ie, no research was done, or knowledge put to use, to come to this 'conclusion'.

It's 1AM, I don't think I made myself quite clear, but hopefully some sense can be picked out of the nonsense.

Kiva · Post by **Kiva** » Mon May 21, 2001 3:07 am

Emambu> Good point... production might have had a high staff turnover rate. People say Titan was passed through the hands of dozens of writers and other key players, which both lengthens the schedule and bumps up the cost. Maybe that's where a lot of money went. As far as voice actors go... well, Drew Barrymore WAS a leading actor. Anyone know her rates? I hear Sean Connery is $150,000 an hour. YIKES! *L* And since you mentioned Shrek... YES !! YES!!! Everyone go see Shrek!!!! *ahems* Er... I mean....... while I don't think Shrek will really help dissuade the animation-is-for-kids belief (despite grown-up humor, the characters are still too "cute-n-fluffy"), I KNOW adults will love the movie. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/biggrin.gif"> <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/biggrin.gif"> <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/biggrin.gif">I think Atlantis and especially Final Fantasy may do more in the way of convincing people that animation isn't just for cuddly forest critters and talking toys. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif">Bow> *L* I wanna reply to your post later... yours came in as I was typing the post to Emambu out... <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/wink.gif">------------------
Mighty power of the pencil to you!![This message has been edited by Kiva (edited 05-21-2001).]

Arno · Post by **Arno** » Tue May 22, 2001 1:28 am

How odd... Everyone who has seen Shrek is urging people to go see it. I wonder what could make them do that...

I should go see it when it comes out here...

Sivade · Post by **Sivade** » Tue May 22, 2001 10:08 am

I don't mind all the fancy-pantsy technology used in the movie business anymore. It's come really far n' all. But I really do miss the good old hand-drawn animation. There've been some great movies of course, doing CGI. But frankly, I don't want to see hand-animation go bye-bye. CGI is great n' all, but not what I would call 'Animation'. *shrug* That's just me though.Steamboat Willy is where it's all at. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif">

Sivade · Post by **Sivade** » Fri May 25, 2001 12:16 am

Well, I know I'd pay more to see a hand-drawn film than a CGI one. There's different levels of skills in play. I know CGI isn't easy by any means, but I just remember that animation involved using a pencil and drawing a figure, rather than plotting coordinants into a computer followed up by connecting dots and using all sorts of tools to make it look real.There's different styles and all to animation, but I just like hand-animation better.

Arno · Post by **Arno** » Fri May 25, 2001 4:34 am

Well, I would call CGI animation... It's telling to me that Kiva's boyfriend used to work for Disney animating Gargoyles, and now he is doing CGI animation. I assume there's a lot more to animation than how you draw it.Having said that, I do like traditional animation and what can be done with it. And I don't think it will be replaced. To be honest, the biggest problem with CGI at the moment, I think, is how new it still is. Traditional animators have a huge amount of past experience from past animators to build on, but CGI animators have had to reinvent the wheel. The CGI I remember from years back was a lot more wooden, and it seemed full of 'neat' camera tricks that felt distracting to me.
I would think that with more time to learn how to use this new technology to its fullest potential (and how not to use it) it could be just as good as the regular hand-drawn animation we know. I imagine it would take a lot more time though...I'd be interested to hear the afformentioned boyfriend's opinion on this, really... Or, more realistically probably, Kiva's. *L* Kiva?

Kiva · Post by **Kiva** » Sun May 27, 2001 1:31 am

Bow> *L* I never got a chance to reply to your last post...I see your point, and maybe we're basically agreeing with each other and hitting different facets of the same argument. *L* In the end, how uninteresting a packed-with-technological-advances movie becomes a matter of opinion, and is in turn, reflected in the success with critics (which may be arguable... hehehe) and the box office. For instance, I'm a huge Jurassic Park fan while you're not. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif">Now, regarding CGI animation... Bow, yeah, you're not the only one who thought CGI was distracting in the past. *L* Things just didn't blend as seemlessly into non-CG as they do now. But it's come a long way. My boyfriend's opinion on this? Yes, he had to learn to use new tools to do the same job. And it would be a bit difficult to go back to traditional animation. In fact, I can hardly get the boy to DRAW anymore! <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/wink.gif">As far as the opinion of how people have been using the new technology... well, some folks in Hollywood have a problem with the Final Fantasy project (as stupid as THIS sounds). They're worried about CG actors replacing real actors. The FF animation director put it this way: "Yes, maybe we could... but why would we want to?" Gee... musta been tired when I wrote this. Typofest! <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/wink.gif">------------------
Mighty power of the pencil to you!![This message has been edited by Kiva (edited 05-27-2001).]

Arno · Post by **Arno** » Sun Jun 10, 2001 1:10 am

Sivade> The impression that I get is that animation is hard in any form. Be it drawing pictures in such an order that it appears as fluid movement, or plotting coordinates in such a way that it appears that a computer-generated character is actually moving realistically, it is both hard. And in the end, may require the same type of skills.They're not hiring traditional animators to do CGI for nothing I'd think.

Kiva> Well, we're probably not too far apart, if we're apart at all. *L* Except maybe on Jurassic Parc.

So there's little to add, really. *l* I respect both kinds of animation, is what it comes down to. And I've seen lacklustre CGI and lacklustre hand drawn animation, so...Another interesting point brought up though, CGI and real actors being replaced. Personally I tend to think it wouldn't get that far. I mean, ASIDE from the extra effort required, they still need voices, not to mention they need ACTING. Why make a beautiful romantic movie completely from CGI? *l*And there's always theatre, where MOST actors earn their living, I gather.

Kiva · Post by **Kiva** » Mon Jun 11, 2001 2:15 am

Sivade> I think I can see your issue with prefering the acrylic-on-acetate look over the 3-D textured look of CGI. However, whether it's using a computer or a pencil, animation still involves the same principles to get anyone to believe that whatever is on screen is more than pixels or paint. Bow> *L* Do not be dissing THE PARK! Otherwise if you ever visit THE PARK on Kauai, I shall sic my evil T-Rex on you! They're REAL, I tell you! REEAAALLLL!! <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/wink.gif"> <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/wink.gif"> *L* You did bring up a whole new issue on where CG animation is going. That brings me to the rated PG-13 Final Fantasy and what I think it might do for animation. I'm curious as to how many people will see that film without realizing at first that it's 100% CG. That may get more mainstream people to see and respect animation as a media for any story, not just comedy or fairytales. I'm trying to be purely unbiased, though. Which may be impossible. I'm tainted... <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/wink.gif">As for if CG "actors" getting closer to replacing real actors, well, a guy from the Screen Actors Guild and basically asked if anything would stop animation studios from eventually finding a way to create synthesized voices and eliminating the need for actors entirely. Will they? Well...real people bring sponteneity (sp?), quirks, and, well, HUMAN-NESS that animation will likely never be able to duplicate. Again, to paraphrase Andy, the voice actor has a certain personality, and an animator can bring out some sort of spontineity, but since animation is planned almost frame-by-frame, it loses some of that.On a related note, though, Aki (the lead FF character), has been "asked" for beauty tips, and she's gone as far as to beat out a few models to become one of "Maxim's Top 100." Rumor has is that she may be starring in another movie, un FF-related, but still as herself, making her one of the first virtual actors ever. No, really! I'm serious! <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/biggrin.gif">------------------
Mighty power of the pencil to you!![This message has been edited by Kiva (edited 06-11-2001).]

Arno · Post by **Arno** » Sun Jun 17, 2001 12:40 am

Kiva> Well, that's one thing about human actors over animated actors I guess... I think, when it comes to animation vs. live acting, there's advantages and disadvantages to both. You already mentioned the advantages of live actors over animation, well, the disadvantages are pretty abvious too. *L* Look at Road Runner. Now imagine using live actors.Wasn't the Inspector Gadget movie just a smashing success?

As for Aki, I find that somewhat weird, but I assume that, hopefully, it is all a bit tongue in cheek... I do hope this isn't going to Roy's head?

And just one more thing: dinosaurs are all extinct. Just so you know.

Kiva · Post by **Kiva** » Mon Jun 18, 2001 2:02 am

Bow> *L* But the Road Runner isn't a human, so that doesn't count! <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/wink.gif"> Naw, just kidding, I see your point. The great thing with animation is that you can create things that obviously don't exist in reality, or "safely" put a person in a situation that no sane person would willingly put him or herself.Inspector Gadget... *L* someone shold take Matthew Broderick out of our misery... <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/wink.gif">Honestly, Aki's realism completely blew me away the first time I saw her. I can imagine it threw Square off guard to field questions concerning what she carries in her purse and how she stays fit. (Don't know what weirdos asked THAT...) *L* In a way, I'm also in the picture as people ask if I ever get jealous of her. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/wink.gif">Does it go to Roy's head? Well, no... I'm quite proud of the woman he's become! <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/wink.gif"> *L* Dinosaurs are EXTINCT??!! *sobsniff* Yeah, right... next you'll be telling me that it's not Santa Claus leaving presents for me at Christmas!! <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/wink.gif"> <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/wink.gif">------------------
Mighty power of the pencil to you!!