MovieChat Forums > Home on the Range (2004) Discussion > NOT THE LAST DISNEY ANIMATED FILM !!!

NOT THE LAST DISNEY ANIMATED FILM !!!

posted 21 years ago by tuti1403
14 replies | jump to latest

That´s exactly what you read, folks
"Home on the Range" is not the last animated film (CGI are made by Pixar and distributed by Disney)
There´s a movie called "Rapunzel Unbraided" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0398286/)
being made with the voice talents of Kristin Chenoweth (actress from Broadway musicals) and Reese Witherspoon.
I´m glad to know it !
The best thing I´ve heard in the last days.
What do you all think ? Is it gonna flop or what ?
I´m very curious to see it since I read there´s a twist in Rapunzel´s classic tale but we´re gonna have to wait until 2007... :(
It´s about time Disney brought back another fairytale like Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty...
I wish them all the luck !!!

http://www.eonline.com/News/Dotted/0,165,1-2-0-0,00.html
Reese Witherspoon looks to let her hair down in Disney's Rapunzel: Unbraided. The actress is in talks to lend her voice to the animated feature, which stars Broadway belle Kristin Chenoweth as the titular imprisoned princess with long locks. The modernized retelling has a boy and girl (Witherspoon) getting mixed up in the classic character's fairy-tale adventure.

[–] DisneyFan05 21 years ago

wow!...really, are you sure it's a Disney movie?

Make love, not war

[–] scoll15144 21 years ago

it's also being directed by one of disney's top animators, Glen Keane.

[–] ojr55 21 years ago

Of cause it's not the last animated film, Diney are making the Mulan sequal and the emperos new groove sequel. Also, i dont think that people would allow, or want disney to stop doing animated films, there would be a public outrage wouldn't there. Pixar and Dreamworks may be the big boys now in animated films but people still love and always will love 2d animation.

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lesmislover 21 years ago

Why does the Emperor's New Groove need a sequel? I thought it was pretty well wrapped up and there is no need for a sequel.

The sun will rise!
http://geocities.com/lesmisforever

[–] jamiealger 21 years ago

here , here , just ask the kids , Disney animation will never die , so long as it is sold , i will always buy it and you can't beat disneyworld to make a childs dreams come true . Something Pixar and the like , can never achieve .

[–] tcutbirth 21 years ago

Where did you ever get the idea that Disney was done with animated films?!?!

They are no longer planning on producing "Traditional", cel-look, "2D" films, in favor of producing 3-D computer graphics films.

Rapunzel Unbraided, BTW, is CG. Computer Graphics are a type of animation.

Watch, "Traditional Animation" will stage a comeback, and Disney will come along, like a dog sniffing another dog's bum, and try to pick the torch back up. This is cyclical. Disney needs to realize that for Pixar, all along, a huge part of their success has been STORY, plain and simple.

[–] Spleen 21 years ago

Rapunzel Unbraided, BTW, is CG.

So in my book it doesn't count. I don't care if CGI continues to get produced by the studio.

Computer Graphics is a type of animation.

Technically, yes, but it's not the same kind of thing as hand-drawn animation and you know it.

Watch, "Traditional Animation" will stage a comeback...

I doubt it very much, because this:

Disney needs to realize that for Pixar, all along, a huge part of their success has been STORY, plain and simple.

...is just false. The Pixar movies 1995-2003 have not had better stories than their Disney counterparts. They haven't even been all that different; they've certainly been less varied. And in any event, CGI features, regardless of quality, regadless of the studio that produces them, do better than traditionally animated features, regardless of quality, or the studio that produces them. This may be, as you say, "cyclical", and traditionally animated films may one day stage a comeback. But that day won't be soon. The public needs to have its taste completely re-educated for that to happen.

[–] JU5T1CE 20 years ago

...is just false. The Pixar movies 1995-2003 have not had better stories than their Disney counterparts. They haven't even been all that different; they've certainly been less varied. And in any event, CGI features, regardless of quality, regadless of the studio that produces them, do better than traditionally animated features, regardless of quality, or the studio that produces them. This may be, as you say, "cyclical", and traditionally animated films may one day stage a comeback. But that day won't be soon. The public needs to have its taste completely re-educated for that to happen.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is just a steaming pile of horse plop!

Pixar releases (with the exception of "A Bugs Life") have been well over par, they are more popular at the Box-Office and out-selling ANYTHING on DVD that the Mouse House animators have been able to produce internally in the last decade.

Pixars stories are well written and humourous, with some extra funnies for a more Adult audience which keeps us parents entertained, the Pixar team also don't resort to sugar coating their characters, providing patronising dialogue and then filling their schmaltz with happy songs to pad out their failing story-lines.

I also give Disney 10 years without Pixar because they don't know their arse from their elbow. I watched this tonight with my kids... they were BORED and SO WAS I!!! They ONLY funny bit is the two bulls running along side the train towards the end of the film.

Disney's move to CGI will NOT help them if they continue to produce mindless drivel. Whether animated by hand or computer, if it stinks, it stinks.

[–] Spleen 20 years ago

I've yet to see Home on the Range. Let's assume you're right about it and it's no good. You're still wrong about everything else.

Disney's move to CGI will NOT help them if they continue to produce mindless drivel. Whether animated by hand or computer, if it stinks, it stinks.

I'm afraid Disney's move to CGI will help them, so long as the mindless drivel they produce in CGI is of the same standard as the mindless drivel they would have produced otherwise. All else being equal a 3D CGI film will do better at the box office than a 2D traditionally animated film. The "all else being equal" includes quality. This is undeniable if you look at the relative box office results of 3D and 2D animated films. I don't know why you're trying to deny it.

Pixars stories are well written and humourous, with some extra funnies for a more Adult audience which keeps us parents entertained...

You're ignoring the wild success of the Shrek films, which aren't Pixar releases (although they're even more successful at the box office) and which - although they certainly do have patronising dialogue - don't have any of the qualities you attribute to Pixar films. Somewhat fancifully, I might add. The Emperor's New Groove and Lilo and Stitch outdo all Pixar releases in the criteria you mention, yet didn't have a hope of doing nearly so well at the box office as even a minor CGI release like Ice Age.

CGI is far more popular with audiences than traditional animation - and obviously, far more popular with you, too. There's a popular myth that the reason for this is that it just so happens that recent 2D releases have been less well made, but this is just a lie that the audience tells itself in order to flatter itself, a pretence that something other than its own taste is at fault.

[–] lgab 20 years ago

CG means computer generated, not computer graphics, CGI means computer generated images, IE images rendered out of a piece of software, as oppose to being drawn by humans, even if they happen to use computers to draw, it aint CG.

CG is either animated or simulated, but CG-animators doesn't work with the final look, they're basically working with stickfigures, pure motion in other words then let the computer generate the images out of that. In cell animation on the other hand, each frame is drawn by hand, and the animator needs to be both an artist in visual and motion design. In CG, the process is devided by many people and computers, so it should be a more effective way of working, thus the huge amount of all-CG-movies being made (now that computerpower is relatively cheap and fast)

Mandatory emoticon dispensed.DON'T PANIC

[–] tcutbirth 20 years ago

Yeah, I'm familiar with the acronym, just being lazy. I usually type, "CGI", but just decided to go along with the terminology being used in the thread.

What's worse than truncating that acronym, though, is the common misconception held by nearly every non-industry person I talk to about this, that is, that CGI really is computer generated, like computers create the characters and the animation. The lady down the street from me has a son attending Digipen, yet she informed me, "It used to be animators that made the movies, now computers just do it all,". When I attempted to correct her on that point, that animators use computers, much like an artist uses a brush, as a tool to achieve their end, she hurridly changed the subject. The ignorance...

[–] lemurlou 20 years ago

So coming back to the original subject -- "Home on the Range" was the last traditionally animated, 2D, theatrically released Disney movie. Disney will continue to use 2D in the low-budget sequels and other home videos, but all theatrical animated releases will be animated in CGI. Do I have that correct?
Personally, I think that is too bad. I liked the first few CGI movies, just because they were new and different, but I've always really preferred the "old" style better, although I don't like the angled-look that was used in "Home on Range" and "Hercules." I liked the backgrounds in "Home on the Range," though, even if the character drawings weren't that good.

[–] goodkarma2 20 years ago

If Disney really doesn't continue traditionally animated movies, they'll lose everything their company was based upon. People who really loved their "drawn" movies won't like CGI. Toy Story has proven that this medium doesn't work the same way movies like Aristocats, for example, work.
We're surrounded by 3D things all our life. 2D animation shouldn't be seen as something old and worn out, but rather as a way to enjoy story telling from a different angle.