I'm worried /co/, Is Disney starting to damage the animation industry.
>highest grossing films
>people only see them because of the Disney brand
>other animation studios don't get any views or buzz
>people don't seem to be talking about How To Train Your Dragon 2 but they're still talking about Big Hero 6
> Oscars are corrupt and bias and everybody seems to accept that
> there are people that actually think Frozen is the best animated movie of 2010s
(all of this includes pixar, people always mix up the two)
not a troll, this is honestly how I feel, am I overreacting?
people nowadays think it's for really little kids only and fewer children/teenagers are interested in seeing them
it's been a thing for a while now, even though Disney only really started ensuring their movies got higher ratings in the last decade or so
>Disney only really started ensuring their movies got higher ratings in the last decade or so
Since Tangled, to be exact. Also, I'm sure that people didn't give a F about the G rating when they they watched Toy Story 3 in theaters. TBF, they still keep the G ratings for sequels to other feature films that were originally rated G and for their Disneynature series.
>>highest grossing films
>>people only see them because of the Disney brand
It's funny how until, like, Tangled, maybe PotF, this wasn't a thing for a long-ass time. Between Lilo and Stitch and the before-mentioned movies, Disney was basically cancer.
Even just judging by the trailers, Disney's nature docs seem to be extra watered down and simplified so that they can market them to "whole family" audiences and have parents bring their little kids to them.
And Disney thoroughly tainted the young medium (which had existed for a decade at that point). We were lucky that gems like the vastly superior Warner Bros. shorts were made at all.
people wouldn't see animation as solely for kids if walt disney hadn't ruined its reputation in america. compare japan, they made animations for whothefuckever.
nah, since shrek set a new bar
Disney has been ruining the animation industry since the beginning. It's thanks to them that animation is seen as Kiddy Shit. When so many gens of people grow up with Disney they think that animation by default should ONLY be what Disney craps out like inoffensive politically correct drivel. Case in point, look at the theatrical release of Princess Mononoke, so many moronic parents thought it would be safe cause "animated" but they were pissed when they saw the violence in the film.
I'm more concerned with how their recent push to make live-action versions of their famous animated films gives off a message that the animated versions are somehow less legitimate
Even though the new Dumbo and The Jungle Book will be mostly animated movies anyway, but that's realistic looking so we call it visual effects, even though it's barely different from being a cartoon
It wasn't America's religious nothing, it was America being nurtured for DECADES by the House of Mouse that watered down even the fairy tales they adapted into being "family friendly." And please spare me the whole "But Disney has done dark stuff!" yeah? Well only as a side effect because the original source is much darker to the point there's no choice but to let dark themes slip in (like Hunchback of Notredame).
Disney knows that pussy pansy Americans have grown up and associated animation ONLY with their work and because of this they've created an eternal loop of animation being censored garbage. I respect WB more because they fund those DVD movies like Batman Under the Red Hood outside of also delivering family friendly entertainment (Looney Tunes in recent years). But Disney? Stick to the same old generic formula.
Even now just thinking about that retarded "Destroy! Destroy! Destroy!" scene from Big Hero 6 pisses me off. HTTYD2 may not have been that great, but it definitively tried more to impress audiences.
Disney tried to get animation regarded as a legitimate art form up until Fantasia bombed. That project was his magnum opus and he had all kinds of hopes for it, only for the public to reject it outright. Then Dumbo - an inoffensive, family-orientated film they made as cheaply as possible to get some money in the bank - was welcomed with open arms.
Disney just saw the writing on the wall, shrugged and said "We're going to make family-orientated films from now on; it's where the money is". The only reason we got a film like Bambi before the Golden Age was out was simply due to Bambi being far too along in production to justify axing.
Sad thing is it looks like we're gonna have to get used to it. Every Oscars the award will either go to Disney or Pixar - no other animation company need apply.
I'm already waiting for the inevitable when HTTYD3 loses its last chance at an Oscar to Frozen 2 or whatever drivel Disney pushes out that year.
But what annoys me most are the fans. Holy shit. It's bad enough Disney managed to soil animation so that people feel like to be good animated films have to be kid-friendly (which is why I think HTTYD2 lost the Oscar- it was TOO dark), but on top of that Disney/Pixar fans are some of the most obnoxious people on the planet. They literally obsess over everything from these companies and act so smug like Disney is the only animation company that matters.
There needs to be a revolution in the American animation industry, otherwise the house of mouse will continue to overshadow every other animation studio.
Disney Studios lost creative direction after their Renaissance period (starting with the Little Mermaid and petering out around Tarzan at the latest) fizzled out. Tangled seem to give them more momentum as a studio again.
Having said that I found both Tangled and Frozen to be fairly underwhelming films, albeit for different reasons. So I'm not really sold on Disney having entirely "got their groove back". But then when Frozen's something like the fifth highest grossing film EVER it makes me concerned.
The problem lies with Disney non the less becaus they sparked or got the ball rolling on the first impression of the medium of animation. And they presented it as sing alongs family friendly crap to Westerners.
Japanese also took inspiration from Disney's work BUT they never omitted how harsh and horrible some story themes can be. So Japan's early creations for animation did not sugar coat things like violence. This is why their culture sees no problems if a character in a kid's show aims a gun and shoots someone to death with it (like in Togashi's HxH).
That first impression is highly important and Disney fumbled it up eternally. Japan on the other hand was rewarded much more so than Westerners in the long run, but not censoring things like alcohol, smoking, violence, etc in their animation and even doing series with ongoing plots early in their history they've ensured the option of "dialing things down" should they choose it.
In America it's the opposite, you do NOT want to ever push the envelope and rock the boat because if you go past G/PG rating you are asking for controversy in animation.
To the Japanese adult (Seinen), Shounen, Shoujo, etc is open for business because they approached animation differently. To them its just a medium, a medium that can have multiple demographics. To Westerners animation is kids stuff and never allowed to be more....until The Simpsons and let's be frank we're now stuck on the "adult" cartoons must be like The Simpsons loophole where you NEED crass content like nudity, a couple of mandatory swear words, etc to prove just how "adult" it is.
Western animation is a mess.
Very much so. A number of factors came together to leave the animation medium where it is and, unfortunately, one of them was Dumbo.
I'll honestly be surprised if it EVER manages to climb out of the hole it's been thrown into. The 90s was the perfect time for that to happen, but for whatever reason it just didn't.
>The problem lies with Disney non the less becaus they sparked or got the ball rolling on the first impression of the medium of animation. And they presented it as sing alongs family friendly crap to Westerners.
Snow White wasn't designed as a cynical "family friendly" work. It was simply designed as a movie. They weren't trying to make something in the vein of a Silly Symphony short, they wanted to make a movie with proper dramatic weight. You're looking at it without context. Yeah, it seems pretty toothless NOW, but it wasn't in the 30s.
It was also cast in the mould of a musical because those were riding high in the 30s.
The seed of cynicism was honestly planted around Dumbo's success versus Fantasia's failure. After the second world war was over their big comeback number was Cinderella and THAT's where things are definitely set in stone.
Is HxH really considered to be for kids in Japan? I remember it having some particularly brutal death scenes. Admittedly I have only watched the remake, so I don't know what the original was like.
The western market is a mess, I grant you, but Japan has its own problems. You're still considered an oddball if you're an adult who likes animation over there. Yes, even stuff like GitS.
By contrast, they're all rather chill about manga.
>give creative control back to cartoonists
>take cartoons off of tv and put them back into the theaters
>learn solid drawing fundamentals and animation principles
>take inspiration from real life, rather than other cartoons
He sounds about 100% correct, imo.
One problem with getting rid of the "only for kids" stigma is that people want it to happen all at once. This leads to "adult" cartoons like Fritz the Cat and Cool World, which only succeed in driving people away from the idea by conflating "mature" with excessive swearing, violence and sex. It comes off as crass. When instead the change should be an organic, natural one to demonstrate that animation is a creative medium and not a single genre.
We need to start pushing the envelope again like we were around the 90s.
I honestly thought A:TLA might have kicked off another TV animation renaissance for a while, but then all the good shows got cancelled in short order.
No, they are not.
No in Argentina, not in the US, not in the western world. Specially in the US.
In fact us right here are the oldest people around who care about cartoons as a serious medium. The only way this situation would be solved is having /co/mrades as Disney and the TV publishing companies' top dogs AND having them willing to waste millions making good non-children animations for years just to make people accept animation can be adult audiences.
Then and only then that notion would be lifted and adult animation would get a real chance here.
I myself get annoyed that everything must have a happy Disney ending
Cause I just saw leafie hen in the wild and that'd fucking blows a lot of movies out of the water
>Don't give a F
Fuck just say it anon
I think we have an underage ban here
It sucks that it's the only two types of cartoons, kid shit and "adult" sitcoms. You are right, cartoons should not have the need to use excessive swearing, sex, and violence to prove that kind of thing. The west has no company that will support that kind of thing and because of that people are in such a dryspell for adult animation that they claim that Rick and Morty is something great when it's really okay at best. The only cartoon that does play off the edgy stuff well is The Venture Bros.
It's even more depressing having it all, then loosing it.
I'm an animator who started producing animations and putting them on youtube in 2010. By the humor/spread i started gaining a lot of views.
Because of this i was able to produce 1-2 videos a month (sometimes less), and the money was amazing. I was earning 3-5 thousand dollars a month, and happily doing what i loved.
Then this all changed in 2012. Because of that retarded replygirl spam crap youtube decided to change their alogrythm completely and instead reward videos that were 10 minutes or longer and uploaded regularly (we're talking once a day or more).
This resulted in a complete nose dive in CPM/linking of animations everywhere on youtube as its impossible for animator to produce that many animations that fast. What instead happened was letsplays/vlogs came to the front of the site and completely took over.
For a while i attempted to make enough videos to keep up, but it was a pointless task. Despite getting 2-4 million views a month, my earnings are now under $900 a month (and sometimes less, like 450 in january).
In an effort to kill replygirl, youtube pretty much killed off the animation industry that was just taking off.
At this point i had to go back to working as producing animation just doesn't pay enough for bills due to the impossible for animator algorithm system, it really sucks. I'll probably do a few animations a year if i can, but its tempting to just quit alltogether now.
If you wanna read more on it:
>and because of that people are in such a dryspell for adult animation that they claim that Rick and Morty is something great when it's really okay at best.
This is also why you have people getting far too obsessed with emotional moments like the stuff in Steven Universe. They need an animated outlet for these emotions and latch onto the best candidate they can find.
>"It's not just a kid's show!"
Yes, it is. It IS a children's show. It is literally made for children. So is Batman:TAS and likely every other cartoon you enjoy. That doesn't mean they can't have dramatic weight or emotional impact, but goddamn these shows are not substitutes for what could be genuine "adult" animation.
Action cartoons are dead unless you count those shitty marvel toons and even then they add "humor" and episodic nonsense.
It's sad that the last action show we had was fucking goddamn Korra.
I believe the only Looney Tunes to be censored are stuff involving blackface. And even then that's only concerning reruns, since WB released all of THOSE cartoons on DVD.
You still get reruns of old Looney Tunes involving smoking cigars and shotguns to the fact etc.
Yea man, i was really hyped for all the new animators that would come out of it. But youtube is rewarding quantity, not quality. I really really hate letsplays. REALLY.
If it weren't for patreon i'd be homeless right now, its a big help.
>Action cartoons are dead unless you count those shitty marvel toons and even then they add "humor" and episodic nonsense.
I don't. The shows that leapt to mind were Motorcity, Sym-Bionic Titan, EMH and Young Justice.
Don't talk to be about the state of Marvel's TV animation department. Just don't.
Really, they were meant for everyone.
My point was, Disney hurt animation, but it was alright when we had the WB shorts to balance it out.
I blame (post-Flintstones) Hanna-Barbera/Filmation/etc. for really dooming cartoons to Saturday morning kiddie shit.
>In an effort to kill replygirl, youtube pretty much killed off the animation industry that was just taking off.
This really stings, since the internet is supposed to be the ideal platform for launching any creative endeavour. I hope you're doing okay, anon.
Having said that, for all YouTube's dickery, I think it's good that folks like Pendleton Ward are trying to use it as a way of bypassing all the network exec shit.
It's becoming (or is already) a monopoly. Soon there will be cities owned by Disney, and everyone will have to wear Mikey hats and a smile at all times OR THEY'LL BE PUT TO LABOR IN THE RADIOACTIVE MINES!
>Greg and Genndy will always get shafted
>The only "adult" animation America wants to see are Simpsons and Family Guy clones
>Disney continues to make a terrible influence for animation
The 70s and 80s were a pretty dire time for animation, overall. The 90s did a lot to bring it back, but then good ole' 9/11 made all the soccer moms pay extra-close attention to little Jimmy's TV shows and we lost a lot of ground.
>It's becoming (or is already) a monopoly. Soon there will be cities owned by Disney, and everyone will have to wear Mikey hats and a smile at all times.
KILL THE MOUSE
TAKE HIS HOUSE
KILL THE MOUSE
TAKE HIS HOUSE
Will there ever be a time where American cartoons will have cool fights like this, but without the toxicity of waifufags and moe that anime has?
another way animation studio is weird: when you mentally catgorize a film, you think of the director, right? you don't think of it as a 'universal' or 'columbia pictures' film. but you think of animated things as being dreamworks or disney or pixar, unless it's directed by someone standout like brad bird or john k.
you don't think elsa was literally the most complex character ever, and merida is ariels brother's sister's cousin's former roommate? DO YOU HATE ALL JOY
Yep, if it's in WSJ kids are gonna be reading it. Still, it's even if it wasn't targeted at children it's not like they're gonna stop reading and consuming violent shit. I remember my little sis was telling me how popular Attack on Titan was at her school.
>Admittedly I have only watched the remake, so I don't know what the original was like
It's pretty much completely faithful to the manga thanks to Basedhouse.
Ugh. This comment about latching on to emotional stuff in Steven Universe really hits home. I did the same thing with ATLA.
Even though there are loads of enthusiasts, there's not enough of us to justify a real investment in mature storytelling in animation.
>I think it's good that folks like Pendleton Ward are trying to use it as a way of bypassing all the network exec shit
Of all of the fucking people why did it have to be Pen? I have seen all of those cartoon hangover shorts, they are all terrible and capture the spirit of post season 3 Adventure Time.
>Mickey, Pixar and the Muppets for the kids
>Princesses and fairy tales for ladies
>Marvel and Star Wars for Gentlemen
Welcome to the Disney World, motherfuckers.
>I'm really surprised this isn't pissing off everybody ever.
Pissed off pretty much everyone in the thread talking about Disney's film releases for the next three years. Nothing but wall-to-wall despair on the subject, though most of it was overshadowed by the American live-action remake of Ghost in the Shell.
>overbearing perfectionist who can't schedule worth a damn or work within a budget
>works are almost exclusively for television and not films while advocates a short-form cartoon distribution model that is no longer economically viable
>rarely bothers staying on model and has trouble showing adequate motion/tweening issues
>learned entirely by copying other cartoonists
ATLA would have been a spark if ANYTHING ELSE had come out around that time that was at the same level. Remember Avatar was in its last season and was ending around the time Toonami was cancelled and CN started going completely to shit. No DC universe show to fill the gap either. Nothing really filled the hole and thus that spark went out.
Yeah, the 90s was probably the only shot animation really had
The only time it worked was with Bob's Burgers, King of the Hill and Home Movies. Too bad two out of the three is dead.
Action shows and animated down to earth adult sitcoms are dead.
>Implying Maka isn't moe
>Implying literally every girl in that show isn't a waifu
I'd throw Kaguya in there as well.
The way I see it is that in the future, looking back, the general public will still love Big Hero 6 the most, but film enthusiasts will have higher regard for HTTYD2, Song, and Kaguya.
Honestly at this point I really hope HTTYD3 holds nothing back and provides the most gritty, emotional ending to a trilogy possible. Forget pandering to soccer moms and Disneyfags who can't handle a little darkness (really, people bitched that they didn't like HTTYD2 because it was too dark for them), if you can't beat Disney at the Oscars/box office - curb stomp them with quality.
>Most japanese people think cartoons/anime are for kids.
While that is true, that doesn't change that multiple anime are made for different demographics. See the difference here is that casual Japanese people thinking cartoons/anime are for kids but there exists anime for older demographics. In America, casual Americans think cartoons are for kids and there are zero cartoons for older demographics (That aren't Simpsons and its ilk)
>The way I see it is that in the future, looking back, the general public will still love Big Hero 6 the most, but film enthusiasts will have higher regard for HTTYD2, Song, and Kaguya.
Kinda like how all the animation fanatics always make sure Iron Giant gets a mention?
>While that is true, that doesn't change that multiple anime are made for different demographics.
But then we reach the question: does that matter if the public still hold you in contempt for expressing interest in animation? That stigma still exists, it's just less pronounced.
Cartoons are the genre to which animation is best suited.
If you can't do that well, you'll never do any decent dramatic/serious animation.
The concept of a "comedy ghetto" in animation is like saying music is stuck in a "melody ghetto" or "rhythm ghetto".
True enough, but we're talking about the animation age ghetto.
I'm just trying to say that peoples' insistence of "why can't we be more like Japan?" is somewhat misplaced. Grass ain't a whole lot greener over there.
I'm not saying we should be more like Japan, I'm saying we should at least have some fucking options other than "lelcomedy series" because that's literally all that matters over here.
No, an ad-hominem attack would focus on how he's apparently something of an ass with grabby hands. In this case the man's work history, output, and work ethic don't gel with what he's espousing.
I just did. Some of the stuff could be claimed as difference of opinion, but his ideas about getting cartoons back into theaters won't work from an economic standpoint.
And his history, as he's a long-term, famous member of the animation industry, is of great importance, especially when he's advocating changes within that industry that don't line up with his own, current, practices.
>Cartoons are the genre to which animation is best suited.
Sci-fi/fantasy are the genres to which animation is best suited.
Disney is not helping, I don't deny that, but I don't think it's truly their fault. Society has a thing against what is considered "kiddy shit". Look at other industries like videogames. They have plenty of adult themes in them and it's still looked down.
>the most gritty, emotional ending to a trilogy possible.
Anon, the director said it's gonna end like the books, and we already know what happens there. So that's a yes to the answer. The kids and parents' butthurt will be epic and I
will cry like a baby.
Disney slowly, painfully earned back its position with each film through the late 2000s into the 2010s. Dragons 2 had the whole summer to itself and a mcdonalds promotion and it flopped. Deal with it, you're getting a third movie anyway.
>his ideas about getting cartoons back into theaters won't work from an economic standpoint
>Some of the stuff could be claimed as difference of opinion
No, it can't.
Tell me why good drawing, creative control and real life inspiration are bad.
For fuck's sake, it shouldn't be this difficult.
>Sci-fi/fantasy are the genres to which animation is best suited.
Not at all, evidenced by the fact that 99.9% of sci-fi/fantasy animation desperately attempts to emulate live action.
Exactly, America will never get that kind of thing again and the only reason why Bob's Burgers is watchable is because it's done by One of the co-creators of Home Movies. I would say Bojack might be upthere but the animal people in Hollywood kinda kills it.
also muscials. actually, probably anythin. you;d never say 'to which live action is best suited' and they're both just mediums
vidya is in a different sort of place though, because it's stuck in a different ghetto...the greyish fps ghetto. they're still seen as an adult thing, just a childish adult thing.
The Wind Rises is the best animated feature of 2014
Not 2010, the best animated feature of 2010 was Toy Story 3 not Frozen.
I am so fucking tire of stupid kids thinking that stuff that did happen a year a go are really old. For them 6 months is like a year or two and one year is like 3 or 4.
there is more to videogames than AAA titles, there are a lot of independent devs who create real works of art. there is more to animation than features and series, but shorts aren't really publicized as much as they ought to and aren't taken seriously.
I'm not saying it's super attacked like it used to be, but it definitely still has stigma.
And to be honest, the same can be said about animation. A couple of animating movies, humor silliness mostly, have been more socially accepted, like Shrek.
So that's a "no".
Now, you have a legitimate point in that humor is harder to do than drama, but by that logic he should have at least one dramatic piece to his name.
(Also humor is subjective, but I don't find his work funny.)
Video games have a similar problem in numerous ways: society brands them as juvenile, creators want to use the medium to convey stories/experiences and the fans are far too impatient to have them be just as accepted as film, TV and books.
The big difference is how people want video games to be regarded as "art" RIGHT NOW. This instant. Largely to be vindicated for all that time spent playing them.
>Nobody gives a shit if you play video games as long as it doesn't define your identity
John K. states (correctly) that animation is best suited for cartoons. I don't know what you mean by "his type" of cartoons but he hates it when people try to copy what they perceive to be "his style".
He hates contrived pathos and animation that attempts to emulate live action rather than take advantage of its own medium.
From reading his blog, I've seen him tout the merits of a wide variety of drastically different styles of art and animation, from both comics and cartoons.
Humor isn't harder to do than drama.
That's the thing.
It's a lot easier to do a good, funny cartoon than good, serious animation.
Yet we can't even do that anymore.
That's why I think it's insane that you're all creaming yourselves at the idea of leaving the "animation age ghetto" when 99% of cartoonists today don't know who the fuck Preston Blair was, and only know how to draw Disney expressions.
I really hate that Muppets has become so exclusively a kids' property. I know it's always been mostly all-ages in that it never did stuff that was totally inappropriate, but actually focusing on kids has led to a huge lack of care in the details and a ton of restrictions for the storytelling. A lot of the original show is artsy skits and jokes about opera or old standup, right alongside standup and lame puns. The whole appeal is that it never talks down to anybody or degrades itself, it's a show that knows when to go for a laugh or try and make something more sincere.
Disney hasn't made a decent looking movie in forever.
Look at their newest movies. Boring, smooth, "realistic" motion. Nothing like the great exagerated motions of the past.
Watching Pinocchio or Bambi just do a walk cycle was more interesting than anything that ever happened in Frozen.
Well aware of that detail. Adults in Japan have no quarrel with other adults reading manga like One Piece. In the USA however? Say you like comics and you are mocked (unless you use the Graphic Novel defense to save face).
Again the West is seriously messed up.
All I have to say is look at Rabbi's Cat.
It's an adult movie in the sense I'll not show it to my 6 yr old sister because it goes way over her head, but if she wants to watch it, she can. If she likes it and decides to watch it over and over, she'll even be exposed to great stuff and themes while growing up, and gradually understanding them.
But more to the point : it's not dark, gruesome, vulgar or anything of the sort. It's a beautiful movie with great messages that doesn't think you need to be able to tell your child to go to bed while laughing at a dirty sex joke to feel adult.
That's because "comics" in the west is synonymous with "super heroes". Which is ANOTHER pervasive, wretched problem plaguing a creative medium, but not the one we're talking about right now.
Western animation however IS paying for it's mediocrity. Ultimately in general kids prefer to watch anime on stream websites where they can get their Action violence fix because in Western animation they cannot get this. About the only product that kids enjoy in the West that delivers on action violence is videogames. T rated games at that, something that Western animation will not mimic.
Animation isn't really best suited for cartoons, that's just something cartoons can do exceptionally well. Every medium has at least one genre or school of thought that the medium easiest applies itself to, but to say that the medium should only be that certain style of storytelling is narrow-minded at best. Comedy isn't as intrinsic to animation as rhythms or melodies are to music (and even then music can vastly differ on the importance of those aspects, with some genres being interesting and worthwhile without even bothering with them.)
>but to say that the medium should only be that certain style of storytelling is narrow-minded at best
Not even John K. says this, though.
>Every medium has at least one genre or school of thought that the medium easiest applies itself to
And, as my point has been this entire time, if we cannot competently apply the medium to this genre, why are we trying to take the next step?
If you're a movie studio, adding a cartoon short to the beginning of a film will increase expenses while not bringing in any additional revenue. If you're a movie theater, adding a short decreases the number of times you can air a film in a given day and decreases the amount of advertisements, which you charge for airing, while not increasing attendance.
Creative control is a double edged sword. It can lead to great, innovative, creative productions. It can also lead to bloated, narrow interest pieces that are overbudget and late. There is a reason why the auteur movement in Hollywood died out by the early 80s. John K has shown that he can't work a budget or timetable, has issues working with his staff, and can't see from the point of view of the studio. Real life inspiration is fine, it's just weird that John K says that but doesn't approve of realism in cartoons and himself learned his craft by copying Hanna-Barbera and spend his career emulating Bob Clampett. Good drawing is entirely subjective and doesn't hold weight as an argument.
Sci-fi and fantasy animation break the restrictions on the genres that are found in live action, less so now that CGI and visual effects have gotten a lot cheaper, allowing for things that couldn't be done in live-action to be presented.
>John K. states (correctly) that animation is best suited for cartoons.
That's like saying that live-action is best suited for live-action.
And Preston Blair was a Disney animator.
>If you're a movie studio, adding a cartoon short to the beginning of a film will increase expenses while not bringing in any additional revenue. If you're a movie theater, adding a short decreases the number of times you can air a film in a given day and decreases the amount of advertisements, which you charge for airing, while not increasing attendance.
Fair enough. Put them on the internet instead.
T.V. is dying, and frankly, a terrible place for animation.
>Creative control is a double edged sword. It can lead to great, innovative, creative productions. It can also lead to bloated, narrow interest pieces that are overbudget and late.
I've never seen anything worthwhile come from an executive boardroom or focus-testing. I'll take a few bloated, narrow interest pieces over that any day of the week.
>Real life inspiration is fine, it's just weird that John K says that but doesn't approve of realism in cartoons and himself learned his craft by copying Hanna-Barbera and spend his career emulating Bob Clampett.
Ed Benedict influence is window dressing. I've seen more original expressions and unique acting in the Spumco cartoons in anything since 1940s Warner Bros, which is where he gets it from.
>Good drawing is entirely subjective and doesn't hold weight as an argument.
No it's not. That's like saying there is no objectively proper way to hold a guitar. You can't animate something that isn't drawn properly, at least not well.
>That's like saying that live-action is best suited for live-action.
Cartoons - Stylized, exaggerated drawings.
Animation - The illusion of movement/life.
>And Preston Blair was a Disney animator.
>He hates contrived pathos and animation that attempts to emulate live action rather than take advantage of its own medium.
what can this even mean besides 'animation is for wackily animated cartoons '?
For starters, in the words of Chuck Jones - "Why do animation if all you're doing could be done with live action?"
Come up with ways of conveying dramatic themes that take advantage of the animated medium. John K. himself said that his favorite Disney moments are the moody dramatic bits that aren't cloyingly cute (like Maleficent's scenes in Sleeping Beauty).
I get the feeling sometimes that all you people want are '80s Filmation Saturday Morning "action shows" with bigger budgets.
>I get the feeling sometimes that all you people want are '80s Filmation Saturday Morning "action shows" with bigger budgets.
I wouldn't be surprised if that would satisfy a lot of people here.
>I get the feeling sometimes that all you people want are '80s Filmation Saturday Morning "action shows" with bigger budgets.
I can't speak for anyone else but on the subject of action shows I'd like characters with swords that could actually cut living flesh.
Or actually, does anyone remember this miniseries from maybe the late 90s called Invasion America? I would be okay with more stuff like that.
Internet isn't a great place for animation. Why take 4-5 months to make something and then put it on YouTube only to get view blasted by LPers who spend like an hour to get 500,000 views?.
>I'll take a few bloated, narrow interest pieces over that any day of the week.
No, you'll take the few bloated, narrow interest piece that you like. The problem with niche pieces is that they usually get niche audiences and that means not a lot in the way of revenue. You cant keep production running if you can't pay for it. Also, Star Wars and Clerks.
Original expressions or unique acting does not indicate anything about the quality of the work itself. They are a great component and not necessarily appropriate in a given situation.
False dichotomy. The way you hold a guitar can be vital to the absolute function of the guitar itself. If it's drawn, chances are you can animate it no matter what it is.
Preston Blair being a Disney animator is important when the negative claim is that people are drawing like Disney and you're using him as a comparison.
>Come up with ways of conveying dramatic themes that take advantage of the animated medium.
This came up in a conversation with a friend about Fantasia not too long ago. They didn't find it at all impressive.
>"What, not even Chernabog?"
>"The devil guy? I guess. I mean, I could see that being done in CGI."
>"But it wasn't done in CGI. It was done by hand. In 1940. Think of what films were like back then and compare it to THAT."
That's what animation should always strive for. Not at the expense of capturing reality when necessary, but it should always be able to cast of those limitations when appropriate.
Obviously the solution is to find a platform other than YouTube. No sense trying to escape the tyranny of TV execs and ratings only to be forced to try and appear Google's algorithms.
The internet's still the best platform for creative endeavour, though.
>No, you'll take the few bloated, narrow interest piece that you like.
I'll take any.
Creative control may have led to these bloated interest pieces, but that's offset by the great works they've created.
Nothing of value has been created by committee.
>Original expressions or unique acting does not indicate anything about the quality of the work itself.
Not by themselves, but you can't have great work without them.
>They are a great component and not necessarily appropriate in a given situation.
When are they not?
>The way you hold a guitar can be vital to the absolute function of the guitar itself.
Not at all. I can punch the strings over the soundhole and make music. I can use it as a percussive instrument.
>If it's drawn, chances are you can animate it no matter what it is.
You can make it move. You lose the illusion of life when it melts or can't tell what's happening.
>Preston Blair being a Disney animator is important when the negative claim is that people are drawing like Disney and you're using him as a comparison.
Preston Blair is good for basic drawing principles. The foundation. The flaw with Disney is that's where they stop. They rarely if ever use any unique, original expressions, but a few recycled cliches that may have, at some point, been inspired by real life. That's to say nothing of Blair's talent himself, by the way.
>walt disney, of all people, is responsible for making animation for children
Look me in the eye and tell me Fantasia was made with kids in mind, I fucking dare you.
It was centered around classical music, one of the most "mature" interests that exists. Just because a work isn't full of swear words or innuendos every two minutes doesn't mean it's for children.
Wasn't Walt Disney infuriated when Fantasia was about to premiere and people were asking him if it was good for children? Like Walt was angry that people summed up his company's work as just entertaining that demographic alone.
>Nothing of value has been created by committee.
I just said Star Wars, the massive franchise whose high points are considered to the times when its creator didn't have absolute creative control. Star Trek too.
>When are they not?
When their use would be inappropriate to what you're conveying on screen.
>Not at all. I can punch the strings over the soundhole and make music. I can use it as a percussive instrument.
Now flip the thing over and try to play. Plus if you want to be technical the normal way you play a guitar is punching the strings in a perpendicular, downward motion.
>You can make it move. You lose the illusion of life when it melts or can't tell what's happening.
The illusion of life isn't a requirement of animation, only movement.
>I get the feeling sometimes that all you people want are '80s Filmation Saturday Morning "action shows" with bigger budgets.
I get the feeling sometimes that all you people want are endless gag takes.
>How come disney movies are considered childish but not ghibli movies. They're both about as kid-friendly as each-other.
They're foreign. Foreign is exciting.
But anon, lets players DO work hard, they have to do editing,video editing, sound editing, and find ways to keep the audience entertained, they dont just play a game and record it
>Is Disney starting to damage the animation industry
The Walt Disney Company is the largest media conglomerate in the United States. Bigger than News Corp, bigger than Time Warner, bigger than Viacom. They're fucking massive. They practically are the American animation industry. Pixar was their last serious competitor in Disney Studio's particular field — that is, movies that parents and kids can watch together. That worked out well for Pixar, huh?
>Animation is for kids is entirely Disney's fault.
This is bullshit.
Until the Hayes Code, cartoons cursed, had sexual innuendo, drugs, alcohol, nudity. From 1934 to 1968, none of that was allowed, and all foreign animation with that content was completely and totally censored. If you're wondering why cartoons = kids, don't blame America's "Puritan roots" from the fucking 1790s, blame the 20th century and three decades of cartoons NOT BEING ALLOWED to do anything adult. Instead, you get animation like Fantasia, that tried to be "adult" in terms of artistic maturity, rather than themes or content. Adults did not exactly go wild for it.
Once the Hayes Code was gone, it took a few DECADES for people to see animation as anything but pitiful kiddie shit. It did eventually happen, though, and Disney was the one to do it. Think about Who Framed Roger Rabbit, published by Touchstone Pictures, owned by Walt Disney Productions. It sure as hell wasn't made for six year olds.
These days, Disney doesn't even put out big G-rated movies beyond cheapo nature documentaries because being 100% squeaky clean doesn't cut it any more. But Disney still has a lock on the market, and it's the biggest possible one that can appeal to the most amount of people. Are they failing to innovate? Yes, and it's no accident that Pixar started going down the tubes after Disney purchased them. But animation is fucking expensive, and producing for the adult market alone isn't a slam dunk yet.
There are people who thinks that Disneynature films should be rated PG. Monkey Kingdom, specially, since there are 2 deaths of monkeys, one from an alligator and other from another monkey clan.
It's a maymay, cunt.
Although he actually criticized the obsessive otaku culture.
made 4 or so actually good movies that stood out from the Disney shit of the time, then descended into batshittery and made like 7 that were far worse.
also weird/ugly mouth movements for speaking animation that you can never unsee
Close but not really. He was a Disney head animator, during Rescuers he went to his directors and asked why they were removing everything that made Disney movies beautiful. After not getting any answers he left and 71 other Disney animators followed him. He started a rebellion against a giant (and lost)
Not true. Here's all the animated movies that are better, pleb.
>Wreck It Ralph
>Ernest and Celestine
>The Tale of Princess Kaguya
>The Book of Life
>The Lego Movie
I can go on, but you get my point. Any of these is better than Frozen.
I can't believe all of you are forgetting the awesomeness that is Europe in terms of animation. Compared to America, the animation industry is thriving (nearly twice the amount of movies being made from 2013-2018), and has for a very long time.
Animation is also used to tell a variety of stories, and not all of them are just for kids. The concept of medium blending is also more welcome there, and is used in stories like biopics like Waltz with Bashir, >>71542466, or pic related.
Now are these all famous in America? No. Will they make a lot of money? Not here. But at least take it as proof that people are still managing to tell complex, interesting stories that utilize all types of animation. Proof is below.
That's because disney told them stop.
No, seriously. That's what happened.
Tangled, released in 2010. the first disney movie that made some money
Toy Story 3, released in 2010. the last pixar movie that had a critical acclaim
then what happens? Cars 2, Brave, Monsters University. All fucking garbage
What happens at disney? Winnie the Pooh, Wreck-It Ralph, Frozen, Big Hero 6
Yeah, it's totally a fucking coincidence.
The Tower of Dreams--animation/live action hybrid
There's still more creative output. More animated movies are being made.
Will this lack of creative output bite Disney in the ass eventually? I think it will.
But it's still an entertainment company. They're selling what amounts to a luxury product.
This amount of creative sterility is sure to cause either a backlash or a growing sense of apathy/resentment towards Disney, and I think it's already started. Why else would Disney start buying up other intellectual IPs?
>Why else would Disney start buying up other intellectual IPs?
gee i dunno maybe they want to expand their business?
And besides disney has already figured out how to cater to the most common demographic and people will always eat their shit up
>expand their business
There's more to it than that. By buying up all these other IPs, Disney conveniently gets to avoid coming up with their own stories to tell (or versions of public domain works, or whatever.) The only Disney movie in pic related that isn't Pixar that tells its own story is Moana.
I, for one, am looking forward to when Disney movies start to hit the public domain. Then we'll see what happens to their profits.
>I, for one, am looking forward to when Disney movies start to hit the public domain
Oh and unless im forgetting theyre already lobbying congress for an indefinite term extension act if im not mistaken
As much as i hate disney those faggots seem to cover all the bases
>I, for one, am looking forward to when Disney movies start to hit the public domain.
Someone doesn't remember what happened the last time America's largest media corporation's precious IP got close to going public.
It's worth noting, though, that companies like Google and Amazon might be opposed to this shit, and that's not even taking into account people on the internet that would be opposed.
I'd say there's at least a fighting chance/
yes because clearly congress always does whats best for the people when it comes to big business hell theyll just hide the act under a new immigration law like they always do and you'll never see it coming
I think something like this would raise enough of a media ruckus that they wouldn't get away with it.
Again, though, the Internet. I'm not saying that what happened with SOPA or PIPA will happen again, but at least there's the potential to do so.
>Disney's live action Ghost in the Shell
Do you really think western audiences would watch anymore animation if Disney didn't exist? No, it would just boost Dreamworks slightly and the smaller animated projects would get similar box office numbers.
Google and Amazon are actually bigger than Disney Corp. these days. You can still be correctly cynical about our dumb ass Congress and think there's a chance Disney might get outspent for once.
The fact that there's already black market Disney stuff out there is, for me, hilarious.
>Yeah, the 90s was probably the only shot animation really had
You could always wait for the inevitable collapse of society in 20 years and watch as animation and other mediums are reborn.
>that companies like Google and Amazon might be opposed to this shit
Only because Copyright laws is the only thing that prevent google to sell out completely. They already legally own everything in the google search cache, as well as anything in gmail and google doc, and run their data sniffer on them legally. Without copyright they can just extend the bots to site they don't even own.
Im reading down through all of these comments saying that the west thinks animation is kidde shit,
it really pisses me off, can we not do something about it, like start a hashtag movement?
When the concept of the show was a spinoff of a completely different genre that wasn't doing that well in sales to begin with, they probably didn't have to give a shit.
Every iteration of Soul Eater ends like shit, it sucks.
I think it just ended. NOT was basically a slice of life manga about characters who weren't good enough to be in the main character class, literally.
Not-good-enough goes into NOT (Normally Overcome Target) and are basically regular students in class while the good students get into EAT (Especially Advantaged Target) and actually go out and kill shit.
>john k has views that all animation should be his type of wackily animated cartoons
He has literally never said that.
> he doesn't like dark serious things or realistic things.
His favorite parts in classic Disney movies ARE the dark and serious moments.
What he hates is cheap pathos.
>> Oscars are corrupt and bias and everybody seems to accept that
That implies malice. People not knowing the other movies exist isn't intent. Just a lack of knowledge in what they're voting on. Is it morally wrong? Maybe. Maybe they should make people watch all the films. That would be a hoot.
HTTYDD wasn't that great and it had a ton of buzz you dunce. Tangled best movie. 7AM for lyfe.
how is it that video games which were once assumed to be kids stuff, now be seen as a general consumer base of all kids and adults, but animation isn't
video games were only around for a fraction of the amount of time.
>Could a movie starring anthro animals ever be given mature themes? Or is that also forever doomed to be "for the kids?"
It's actually only very recently that animal stories have been seen as anything other than highly political, or at least moral. Aesop, Reynard the Fox, the Uncle Remus books, "Animal Farm". And some of the most indelible works of children's fantasy of the last century are highly political.
Just because Dreamworks use "talking animals" as a shortcut for creativity doesn't make stuff like Watership Down and Rango any less great.
>Sci-fi and fantasy animation break the restrictions on the genres that are found in live action, less so now that CGI and visual effects have gotten a lot cheaper, allowing for things that couldn't be done in live-action to be presented.
This depends really. I would've thought that the trouble with a lot of the effects-driven movies of today is that they're trying so hard to merge live-action with their newfangled effects and try their best to pass it off as pure realism, when you can always tell that its fake and it'll be outdated in the next few years.
Whereas in the case of animation, the whole thing is completely unreal, there's no need to try their best to have the SFX mimic the real world as much as possible. I mean, with animation you can do anything, and surely the work would be equal to a live-action production at any rate? With animation you don't have to worry about props and set construction, lighting, actors getting sprained ankles or whatever. Is it true that animation is really that more expensive than live-action?
Animation's a very costly undertaking. CGI animation even more so. If something goes awry or needs extensive revisions then there's a lot of time and resources gone to waste on animation that is now unusable.
Stuff like that's even plagued Disney in the past; development of The Black Cauldron was basically hell.
>The 90s was the perfect time for that to happen
How so? Funnily enough I thought most of the "darker" non-kiddie animated films came out of the animation "dark age" aka the 70s and 80s.
>Animation's a very costly undertaking. CGI animation even more so.
I think it's a bit funny just how much films are getting stuffed full of CG animation (ffs, there's going to over 6 more Star Wars films, no doubt crammed with CGI), when there's already a risk of the film's being flops - isn't that happened to John Carter?
>If something goes awry or needs extensive revisions then there's a lot of time and resources gone to waste on animation that is now unusable.
I can see what you mean about that, but how many props and sets even get reused that much nowadays?
When people talk about the "Dark Age", they're usually talking about the revenue/recognition those movies recieved during that time. A lot of the stuff released then are cult classics.
Videogames always had violent ones since their debut like the Nintendo Power magazine showing Simon Belmont with Dracula's decapitated head. Videogames never were kiddy shit alone (something Nintendo tried to make them be back when they were #1 and thankfully third party developers broke out of Nintendo's grip during 3D gaming's beginning).
It also helps that even if some uptight shitty douchebag thinks of gaming as juvenile by adults we're living in an era where men are adopting a "Fuck society, I'm gonna play my games and hobbies and let this shit pile collapse."
I can't fucking stand the stigma behind animation
Me: what do you think of cartoons
random doucebag: cartoons are for kids i don't bother myself with them, my sister forced me to go to toy story 3, it sucked.
Me: oh, well whats your favourite tv comedy?
Random doucebag: Family guy
that you shouldn't be a part of a committee that judges the officially 'best' movies of that year
the tomorrowland was the only one i saw, but i was in england. america might be different
>I can see what you mean about that, but how many props and sets even get reused that much nowadays?
It's not so much about them being "reused" on other projects as giving you the option for multiple takes or even reshoots after primary filming has completed. Very little of that applies to animation since (aside from say, backgrounds) any alterations mean going and fixing it frame by frame. And each frame costs you something.
Principal photography on a film lasts a few weeks. Developing an animated film takes years.
>Disney doesn't even put out big G-rated movies beyond cheapo nature documentaries because being 100% squeaky clean doesn't cut it any more
>being 100% squeaky clean doesn't cut it any more
I don't know m8. I doubt that The Princess and The Frog was softier than Tangled.
>John Carter died not because of cgi
Well, actually, one of the big contributors to the budget and development getting hideously out of hand was Andrew Stanton looking at FINISHED CGI SCENES and say "Don't like it. Start over."
And he did that multiple times. The money that pissed away is extraordinary.
There was a massive upsurge of creativity and care with both film (Disney was in full swing, catapulting them back into relevancy after languishing since '66) and television.
The 90s is referred to as "the animation Renaissance" for a reason.
Animation is a medium, and mediums tend to be pretty resilient. Worst case scenario is that large scale animation in America goes out of vogue for a while. But then small scale studios will eventually pop up, and there will be a renaissance.
>> Oscars are corrupt and bias and everybody seems to accept that
It's been like that for decades. It's a bunch of Hollywood circle-jerking, and everyone should just acknowledge it at the meaningless trash it is.
> there are people that actually think Frozen is the best animated movie of 2010s
To be fair, outside of certain niches most people don't watch animated films. There is still a very prevalent opinion that animation is for kids.
>But then small scale studios will eventually pop up, and there will be a renaissance.
>implying it wont go full cgi with small scale studios funded by american tax dollars
a animation collapse would make animation in america simillar to canada
It actually is. Your shitpost speaks truth. The more generic, safe, and approachable the media. They less red tape, and more money they can get.
Corporations literally produce shit because it easy to produce and is the most profitable.
>Corporations literally produce shit because it easy to produce and is the most profitable.
The lure of mediocrity. It's always the unwritten rule that companies won't take creative risks when there's guaranteed money to be made from being average.
Which is especially sad when those companies are as vast as Disney, with trillions in the bank, and they still balk at the idea of spending a dime more than they have to.
The general audience "eat it up" because they're conditioned to expect it from the medium. Whenever some inattentive parent stumbles into a screening of an animated film they never bothered to look up, they get annoyed because they expect it to be utterly toothless.
Hell, this goes beyond just animation. I had to watch some clueless saps take their toddler in to Pan's Labyrinth because they figured "it's a fantasy movie. That'll be fun for little bobby"
they eat it up because thats what they want not because of some conditioned bullshit there have been many animated movies that is different from the norm but the general audience doesnt want it because its different they want something balnd and repetitive like starwars 25 and Toy story 16
People deserve shit and they get shit
Just to give you an idea, shows like Fist of the North Star, Saint Seiya, Ginga Nagareboshi Gin, Detective Conan, Attack on Titan, Claymore, etc. were aimed at kids in Japan. And all those have grim and violent content. Japan feels all those are in the same levels Avatar: The Last Airbender was here.
>The general audience "eat it up" because they're conditioned to expect it from the medium.
The words "this doesn't seem appropriate for children" are probably playing in my personal hell somewhere. The weirdest part is that I don't even know what those people WANT a cartoon to be. It's like the instant there's some kind of drama or tension they think it's bad. Do they want all animation to just be Care Bears or something? How would THAT entertain kids?
Parents don't like it, but oftentimes kids appreciate darker stories more, and what's more, they remember them. Look at Bambi or the Lion King, for instance.
Reminds me of an Ogden Nash poem, where he advocates people who want to please kids to get themselves eaten by a bear.
It may not be Care Bears, but anyone else GLAD that Winnie Pooh's last movie failed? Fuck that really inoffensive kiddy crap. I know it hurt the state of 2D animation which is a shame, but Disney made something that not even the demographic of 9-11 would watch. Especially when competing against the final Harry Potter film.
Putting it simply it's satisfying when shit like that ends up failing.
Speaking of wishing ill on people who want to simply pander to children with inoffensive content, didn't the creator of Where the Wild Things Are tell parents to go to hell for annoying him about the film being safe enough?
>Japanese also took inspiration from Disney's work BUT they never omitted how harsh and horrible some story themes can be.
Partially wrong. You can Tezuka for animation and comics escaping the age ghetto in Japan. Disney was a huge influence for him and he did do a lot of stuff aimed at kids that was just as family friendly as the stuff Disney made.
The difference is that after he got a reputation as a famous kids cartoonist he started making mature stuff targeted at adults, proving to the mainstream that animation and comics weren't exclusively kiddy mediums.
Basically it would be like if Walt Disney went from Snow White and Cinderella to movies dealing with erotic and violent themes as well as things like rape and genocide. Obviously this never happened.
Tezuka didn't put edgy stuff in his work for kids though, that's a misconception. He just proved the medium itself didn't have to be exclusively for kids.
As with the comics medium, censorship is the blame for animation being regarded as disposable trash for kids. The Hayes Code back in the 30s, much like the Comics Code, stifled the medium and prevented it from growing and evolving into something respected by the mainstream.
It's really fucking annoying.
>Basically it would be like if Walt Disney went from Snow White and Cinderella to movies dealing with erotic and violent themes as well as things like rape and genocide.
Dang, now you made me really want this.
That would mean Walt Disney would've had to have been a risk-taker, rather than an ultra-conservative type. He'd only ever push the envelope in terms of creative innovation rather than any kind of social commentary.
Worth noting that America's really the only place that suffered this, and that places like Europe and Japan consistently release both comics and animated works for adults as well as kids.
I will never understand Americans they always say one thing and do another
its like pedophilia, on one hand america is scared of pedophiles and pictures of naked children on comics on the other they got shows like that kid pageant and dancing shows where they sexualize kids in levels only pedophiles can dream off
Its just confusing
Yeah I know that was my point, that's the reason these mediums turned out so differently here in the West than in Japan even though they had the same roots. Tezuka was basically the Japanese Walt Disney but with a completely different personality.
Apollo's Song >>71561651
Most of Tezuka's stuff is really good though. Try Ayako and Buddha too. His kids stuff like Astro Boy is also great.
>I will never understand Americans they always say one thing and do another
Where were the bastards crowing about "muh freedom" when the fucking Hayes and Comics codes were being planned and rolled out? That's what I'd like to know.
because he stayed conservative, hell what do you think would happen if he showed mickey giving minnie drugs on the big screen or if they had sex? theyd call him a dirty commie
Everything not conservative back then was basically communism
screaming "muh truth justice apple pie and the american way" and "die commie scum"
Yea but now i have to see whoopis stupid black face explaining shit in teh 40s when all i want to see is fucking cartoons.
They do that in disney comics from the past too.
WHAT MICKEY DID HERE IS BAD YOU SEE.
Fuck off i just want to see mickey punch a savage tribal or go adventuring.
>Shōnen, shonen, or shounen manga (少年漫画 shōnen manga?) is manga aimed at a young male audience. It appeals to a large age group, though its primary audience is under the age of fourteen.
They do but that's not really the same as what Tezuka did.
I'm talking about like rape, kidnappings, child murder, etc. in addition to war.
>The bad thing is that no one else wanted to create those kinds of stories either.
Tezuka did, as well as a number of other less edgy but still adult-oriented works. That's the main reason the animation and comics industries evolved so differently in Japan.
It doesn't, the cultures surrounding these mediums were crafted almost singlehandedly by Walt Disney and Osamu Tezuka respectively.
Tezuka just used the popularity he gained from imitating Disney in a way that Disney was never willing to and it made a huge difference.
Blaming Disney for the sad state of animation in the US is like blaming KenTacoHut for the obesity epidemic. They're a symptom, not the disease itself.
And I bet it'd be easier to get increase the average fitness level in the US than it would to get the country to take cartoons more seriously
Disney has been a cancer for decades. They have only a handful of actually good movies and the rest is either overrated as all hell or just pure shit.
The way things are going though, they'll soon own pretty much the whole entertainment world and will be the ones who decide what we get to watch.
I wish they would just fuck off forever.
I know and I'm saying there wasn't much of a difference at the time. Japan is even more conservative than the US really.
Perhaps the only real difference is that Tezuka was a licensed medical doctor and could have been very successful practicing medicine but chose animation and comics instead, which gave these mediums a bit more legitimacy as art forms in the eyes of the Japanese.
A lot of Marvel and DC's direct-to-video films are rated PG-13.
Also, The Simpsons Movie.
Well unfortunately Disney knows what makes $$$. Otherwise their Disney Princess Shit wouldn't continue to be profitable. Women are the biggest source of profits for Disney, they know what women like. So they'll never go bankrupt. They've been making Disney Princess movies since their first film.
The Disney "Princess" brand only manifested after the year 2000 due to some suit trying to come up with new ways to squeeze old IPs. Snow White was chosen to be their first feature-length work for lots of reasons, but it wasn't down to merch or trying to appeal to women. Hell, Snow White didn't even HAVE merch.
I dunno about how it is now, but in the 70s the Japanese Parents Associations were regularly up-in-arms over the violent and lewd content in manga, especially the stuff by Go Nagai, who would regularly get heckled, even at airports, by hissy Parents Association members
That would explain why modern Shounen series do unrealistic bullshit like "Hey let's have a War Saga where NO ONE dies." Ultimately their culture submitted to being politically correct on some level.
It reminds me of this documenttary I saw about the whole Video Nasties moral panic in the UK, and they show this clip of a bunch of 9-12 year olds happily talking talking about the latest ultraviolent zombie film they saw, and yet fuckers like Whitehouse were crying about how it was daging for kids. She was too busy giving awards for 'wholesome entertainment' to rapist paedophiles like Jimbo Savile at any rate
I assumed it was also because of how formulaic nearly all animu series are today, with their cliches and stock characters, etc
In a.way you can see a similar problems here jn the West, with fanboys now getting control of what they loved - like how the new Doctor Who is completely run by hackish Doctor Who fanboys. Hell, I remember reading an interew with Joe Dante, where he laments how Hollywood is now 'an overbudgeted B-movie factory' now, overrun with fanboys and nostalgics
>I assumed it was also because of how formulaic nearly all animu series are today, with their cliches and stock characters, etc
Prioritising the otaku market is slowly but surely throttling the anime industry in Japan. It's all becoming on homogenised moeblob.
Olaf's animation was relatively decent (only because he's meant to be a gag character) and if Get a Horse counts it was great. But I can see where you're coming from.
One of the reasons I liked Princess and the Frog was watching some of the character animations, especially Dr. Facilier and a few others. Movement can speak as loudly as words when it comes to characterization, and it's why I love animation. Frozen's movement felt lacking, and this was right after Tangled, which was good in that regard.
Eh, it wasn't that horrible. I appreciated that it didn't have any references to modern culture like viking smartphones or a viking McDonalds.
It dealt with serious and essential issues like prejudice and coming of age and the main character didn't just miraculously win at the end, or at least didn't get away scott free. That's rather rare in these types of movies. Other than that it was pretty generic.
However, when a movie gets its own series you usually know it's shit somewhere deep down.
>Eh, it wasn't that horrible. I appreciated that it didn't have any references to modern culture like viking smartphones or a viking McDonalds.
This was one of the things that I felt really fell flat in Brave. A lot of the humor (visual and verbal alike) in that movie just felt very awkward rather than...y'know, funny.
I did say "one" of the things. I'd just rather not derail the thread by talking about how underwhelming I found Brave.
I'll say this, though: the visuals were still up to Pixar's usual standards. While that's not enough to redeem the storytelling shortcomings, it's still damn pretty.
Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker was the first one I remember being PG-13. They even had to do a "edited" cut for it after 9/11, but luckily they held on to the uncut version later.
The only Disney related things I don't have to force myself to watch are Alice in Wonderland and Legend of Sleepy Hollow, maybe the first Fantasia. Most of their other stuff is overblown bullshit.
>Just adding a one off gay joke at the very end in Paranorman created a shitstorm.
Same thing happened with HTTYD2.
Funny thing is had they not mentioned it beforehand it would never have been apparent. It was so fucking subtle.
That's what I honestly believe killed it at the BO.
NO!, Fuck NO!
I don't care how autistic this sounds but im going to do everything i can to make sure that dosen't happen
If HTTYD loses to Frozen 2 it will be an unforgivable crime against cinema.
I'm going to do everything I can, and so should YOU.
125 posters ( aside from a few troll); don't want Frozen 2 to eat up all the awards, don't want the mouse to keep stangling the industry and Don't want animation to still be seen as kiddie shit. But all we do is bitch and complain about it
Do something, I don't know, Start a hashtag movement, raise awarness, call out on oscar bullshit. surly 125 people are enough to do something? Don't be lazy... get shit done
Nobody beyond my immediate circle of friends is still talking about Big Hero 6. People I know only in passing / my fucking parents are still talking about How to Train Your Dragon 2.
Please try again.
Honestly I think the best thing to do is self-promote the hell out of good films the Academy would overlook.
For instance, it looks like the Oscar this year is going to Inside Out (seems like early buzz is solid and because its Pixar so long as it is halfway decent it's getting that Oscar). Also coming out this year is The Little Prince, which looks unbelievable. Promote the hell out of the latter, make memes of it (so the public/internet will take notice), hashtag that shit to the point where the Academy will be forced to vote based on which film is actually best.
Regarding HTTYD3, make sure people know about the franchise in the next few years so it will have more popularity going into that award season.
It's not just muppets. Anything that is made to be appropriate for the whole family is deemed "for kids" these days, like the looney tunes. This is disregarding the fact that the looney tunes regularly features characters getting drunk or smoking. But it's animated, so LOL ITS 4 KIDS.
>Everyone I know told me BH6 was good
>It's one of the worst animated movies I have ever seen
How the fuck is Disney pulling this off? Is people just going "Is Disney so it's good?".
How about we put our passion of animation, film and story and get ourselves into the industry?
We'll be the new wave of creators and we will make the good stuff, then, people will start to expect it.
BH6's problem is just how BORING it was. True to it's origins (Man of Action aka Ben 10) it is just dull. And to think that people want BH6 in KH3 to steal the spot of a more deserving film.
Disney has been cancer for DECADES
Don't worry, by 2017 that will be fixed.
That was done by a major anime studio, not John K.
Genndy Titan getting canceled was a good thing, Dezaki needed to be happy on his death bed.
Also if theres one thing TMSGuy ever did right, it is this, read it.
>the general audience do want cartoons that challenge the norm.
>They just want the generic cartoons and thats why it will never change.
Explain how Space Dandy & Blue Jacket Lupin got made as they were made as a "fuck you" to the monsters who are running the industry.
I mean that It does not fall under the vains of Family Guy or Bobs Burgers.
If you mean All Ages shows like Tiny Toons & Animaniacs then noone has done that yet in this decade, I do hope that New DuckTales fixes that however.
anything below 4 million is a dead though in execs eyes in the US
and you do realize that detective conan is the repetitive formulaic cartoon like old scooby doo you guys hate right?
I enjoyed Big Hero 6 until the third act where it turned on its heel and declared "We're a superhero film now!". That was jarring.
I don't know how you can call it "one of the worst" animated movies ever, since the animation itself was great. Better than Tangled and much, much better than Frozen.
>people don't seem to be talking about How To Train Your Dragon 2 but they're still talking about Big Hero 6
What's the matter, are you upset that BH6 was a better movie?
i think it's more worth sending around the idea that academy people are hacks who only vote disney-pixar. it might shake a few of them out of their torpor if they notice we'll ridicule them if they vote disney-pixar again
The animation category/award is itself a way of ensuring that animated movies can never swipe awards from "real" films. It's contempt disguised as a accolade. Made all the more hollow by the fact that many judges don't even bother to watch all the nominees.
If any assholes from /tv/ or the oscars need proof that animation is not just kids stuff, they should watch this video
Also how did comics escape the stigma of 'just for kids'?
>Also how did comics escape the stigma of 'just for kids'?
They didn't. You can throw examples to the contrary at people all damn day, they'll still shrug and inform you that "comics" are just about superheroes and inherently childish. People will go and watch the film adaptations because they're just that: films. A medium seen as legitimate.
The reason that the stigma isn't broadcast as prominently as the one against animation is because comics, quite simply, do not matter in the eyes of the mainstream. You're lucky if your book ships 15k, for fuck sake.
>Also how did comics escape the stigma of 'just for kids'?
They haven't, people still think comics are for children, they see the movies as complete and separate entities that only share names
>That was done by a major anime studio, not John K.
The same "major anime studio" that made just as much vapid toy peddling shit as any other company for the western market around that decade? The same "major anime studio" that mostly did just subcontracting for guys like DiC and Disney
(no, they didn't do that for just Zorro, and no roundtable talk mostly revolving around Sherlock Hound's ever gonna change that brah) working on just as much other vapid toy peddling shit for them? The same "major anime studio" that almost went bankrupt because their pipe dreamed dickhead of a boss shoved most of their money into a fucking mess of a movie in the hopes that they would "reach the same level as Disney"? Fucking K.E. K
b-b-b--but muh mir! tms can do no wrong!