|
The two things I knew about the Lego Batman movie before going in were A.) don't look up the plot beforehand and B.) it's super gay so I had a lot of fun watching everything knit together. Also the brief glance of Lego Michael Keaton Batman had me dying. His memorable lips on a Lego face were too much. Beachcomber posted:How about Bat-Mite? Bat-Mite might get me to see the movie. Sorry, no Bat-animals and even though he's in some other Lego DC stuff Bat-Mite didn't show up. There's not really anywhere you could've fit him without derailing the story, I think. I could see them finding room for him in a sequel, though. Along with the different Bat-animals.
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 20:15 |
|
|
Krypto the Super Dog was in it, laying down some phat beats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Klungar posted:Krypto the Super Dog was in it, laying down some phat beats. That was the Wonder Twins' dog.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Unmature posted:That was the Wonder Twins' dog. The Wonder Twins had an alien monkey named Gleek, didn't they? Like, I know what you're talking about, but I don't remember who they were, just that they weren't the Wonder Twins.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:The Wonder Twins had an alien monkey named Gleek, didn't they? Correct. There is a Wonder Dog but he belonged to Marvin and Wendy, not the Wonder Twins
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Correct. There is a Wonder Dog but he belonged to Marvin and Wendy, not the Wonder Twins And that, Wonder Twins, is why branding matters. They should have learned from Batman.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:And that, Wonder Twins, is why branding matters. They should have learned from Batman. Well they're both biting off Wonder Woman's thing anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Well they're both biting off Wonder Woman's thing anyway. Don't the Wonder Twins turn into, like, buckets of water and dinosaurs? That's nothing like Wonder Woman.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Drifter posted:Don't the Wonder Twins turn into, like, buckets of water and dinosaurs? That's nothing like Wonder Woman. It is a joke based on their name.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
That's just sloppy branding.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Don't ask about actually quite important Marvel superhero Wonder Man
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
starkebn posted:I hope you weren't one of the people in this thread saying they didn't like the animation during You're Welcome. And how about the Shiny sequence? I think the You're Welcome sequence is extremely good, I think that Shiny is surprisingly poor. I mean, I love the song, but the animation seems lackluster and the environment is not very rich. Furthermore, someone earlier compared it to Friends on the Other Side, and I agree, but not in a good way. The point of the song in Princess and the Frog was Dr. Facilier showing his hand, and revealing that his voodoo wasn't just cheap tricks and cutesy fortunes. When the color palette shifts over in the Shiny sequence, it doesn't really represent anything or happen for any particular reason other then it looks kind of cool. Everything about that sequence is kind of convenient and feels a little lazy. Oh, here is the cage where Moana has to hang out while the song isn't about her. Here is the green slime. The curvature of the cave and the light on top looks almost exactly like the cave in Little Mermaid. Tamatoa moves like a video game boss, and two smallest pair of legs just dangle and don't even seem to support the character of the animation on his legs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Hedrigall posted:I haven't seen Cars 2 btw, is it worth it? (PS I hate the redneck truck)
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Hahaha Pick, I'm glad you're not my animation supervisor, I'd probably kill myself :p But I do agree that the movie felt a little bit like a video game. The progression from the grunts, the Kamakoa, to the funny mid-boss, to the final big bad. But with a twist! A lot of the people who worked on the movie have also spent time at the video game studios around where Disney is located, so the narrative progression of video games may have seeped into their story structure. Which is why a lot of older animators complain that the story reeks of formula, despite the great songs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
I thought Pick was referring to what we were discussing earlier, with Disney's CG library not having the design range of its 2D library. Or even Pixar. Which I entirely agree with, so maybe that's why I interpreted it like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Correct. There is a Wonder Dog but he belonged to Marvin and Wendy, not the Wonder Twins Goddammit that's right. Stupid forgettable twin characters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Das Boo posted:I thought Pick was referring to what we were discussing earlier, with Disney's CG library not having the design range of its 2D library. Or even Pixar. Which I entirely agree with, so maybe that's why I interpreted it like that. Sort of both, actually. It's sort of a twofold issue, with overly-literal "video gamey" animation, and a restricted range of design on the assets themselves. I'll see if I can do a quick mock-up of how I might have made Tamatoa a little more visually interesting for example, if I remember (and I fully expect some people will hate it!)
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
It's a fair complaint, I suppose. I mean:Andorra posted:What I don't like about recent disney movies is how characters
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
Shadow Hog posted:It's a fair complaint, I suppose. I mean: Counterpoint: they don't look the same This is like that dumb thing I've seen posted that had Steven Universe, Gumball, Dipper and I think Clarence and was like CARTOONS ALL LOOK THE SAME NOWADAYS I mean sure if you're an idiot
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
I think it might be because unique character designs and squash and stretch animation could be a bit more of a minefield in CG than in traditional animation. I'm not sure if stylization, like Hercules' cinnamon-bun ears, would translate as well. So you either have to make your characters even more quirky and idiosyncratic in appearance or hew as close to traditional human attractiveness as you can. Disney wants to keep their princesses photogenic and pretty, so that dictates the aesthetic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Macaluso posted:Counterpoint: they don't look the same Except Go Go Tomago in the middle there; she kinda stands out and I'm not sure why she was lumped in here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
My complaint is more with backgrounds, for example, than female character design in isolation. You can only really tell if a setting is from Frozen or Moana based on what it literally is (e.g. tropical beaches or snow). Meanwhile, you will not mistake a background from Sleeping Beauty with one from Beauty and the Beast or Home on the Range. Obviously, LEGO Batman looks different than most animated films (which we take for granted because it's LEGO on the tin), and Trolls looks entirely felted and super weird, as does Madagascar, and The Croods, and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. Pick fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Feb 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Disney has a very limited view of what an "appealing" (aka cute, marketable) female character ought to look like. Every now and then they deviate from this standard a little bit, but it's variations on a theme.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
starkebn posted:Oh and watched "Storks" the night before Kaguya, I found some of the jokes amusing but it was really just a crazy bunch of plot ideas mashed together for the sake of having something there. Don't regret watching it but didn't think much of it. I liked this song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFuFm0m2wj0 It's funny watching the amazingly designed monsters just try to kill her over and over again with these bright colors and beautiful scenes. The movie could have ended right at the end there with her death and been one of the most groundbreaking animated films ever made. As for the Disney movies all looking the same, yeah they've got the same character designer (Jin Kim) getting all the designs animation-ready. He's basically responsible for their house style.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Shadow Hog posted:The eyes are pretty similar across the entire set, at least - even across completely different species. Sure. But Pixar is guilty of the same thing and I never see those same complaints about them. And don't get me wrong, I fully understand if the complaint is that they aren't super interesting design wise. I think Disney tends to play it a bit safe compared to something like Trolls or Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs or even like Madagascar. I also loved the designs in Storks but I can understand why people might not agree. But the complaint about the Disney girls looking the same is nonsense to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
There's literally nothing wrong with Disney developing a house style: it unifies their brand, it will be kind of a signature of this era of their output, and really there's tons of variation, I mean compare Maui to Elsa to Nick Wilde to Wreck It Ralph to to to
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Shadow Hog posted:Except Go Go Tomago in the middle there; she kinda stands out and I'm not sure why she was lumped in here. Except she doesn't stand out and fits right in? She's obviously more ethnic than Rapunzel or Elsa, but so is Moana, and they all look like they belong to the same movie. They all have variations in facial structure, hair styles and skin tones, but the actual aesthetic is the same. Macaluso posted:Sure. But Pixar is guilty of the same thing and I never see those same complaints about them. Because they do put in the work to make their movies feel different from each other even when the base CGI foundation is similar. You'd never confuse characters from The Incredibles for characters from Up or Wall-E because they all have very distinct designs, and what's more they have more variety in their settings, with Cars and Ratatouille and Monster's Inc. all having way more variety in their designs because they simply don't have many humans so they can go all out. We're not talking about the basic similarities of CGI because even now we've only just barely started breaking away from having every CGI movie look the same, we're talking about the aesthetics of those CGI movies, and Disney is really being pretty bad about having one very limited, unified aesthetic. Hedrigall posted:There's literally nothing wrong with Disney developing a house style: it unifies their brand, it will be kind of a signature of this era of their output, and really there's tons of variation, I mean compare Maui to Elsa to Nick Wilde to Wreck It Ralph to to to Yeah, it's not a bad thing, it's not affecting the quality of their output and probably is saving them quite a bit of money having one specific style so artist can jump from feature to feature and not have to be retrained on how each movie is supposed to look and feel, it's mostly just disappointing when you compare the way Disney handled their traditional animation to now and seeing the huge variety they used to have narrow down to a set palette of specific design principles that are deemed the "most appealing" and "safest".
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Disney's house style >>> Illumination's house style. Maybe if Illumination's movies were good, I wouldn't hold this opinion, but as is, I have a Pavlovian "ughhh" reaction every time I see Illumination's house style. I particularly hate it in The Lorax, where I don't think it fits Seuss at all (to say nothing of how bad that movie is on a script level).
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
Macaluso posted:Sure. But Pixar is guilty of the same thing and I never see those same complaints about them. I complain about Pixar as much as I can possibly get away with! <  >
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
I dunno, Pixar seems to have a better range of style than Disney. You can pick on a sense of underlying aesthetic with a lot of their films (not all!) For example, The Incredibles has obvious industrial design overtones (am I thinking of de stijl or futurism?)with a sleek, angular design to its world and characters. The furniture and architecture is 60's minimalist and it's pretty well reflected in the extreme shapes of its characters.  Even the traditionally feminine figure eight form is stretched to its limit and punctuated with with straight, sharp lines. All the major female characters have a sharp and distorted shape to them, even with Mrs. Incredible who's the most rounded. Helen's forearms and calves are exaggeratedly pinched, same even goes for her hair.  Compare that to something very organic like Brave, wherein the character design embraces natural curves and textures in correspondence to the wilderness around it.   These characters would look extraordinarily out of place in The Incredibles and vice versa because one emphasizes exacting shape and simplicity, the other is all about loose, organic design and texture. And I was trying to use mostly feminine examples since they tend to get samey for "must be pretty" reasons, but I wanted to point out a thing in Up. Ellie's cardinal shape is a circle, so it doesn't quite illustrate the point as well.  Carl is just such a softened square. Look at the edges on those ears! It's not harsh enough for The Incredible's aesthetic, but not organic enough for Brave. His ears always amused the hell out of me, though, they're such clunkers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
I don't think it's an unfounded criticism, but it's a little overstated--Pixar has 13 feature films, not counting sequels. Disney has well over 30 2D-animated movies (many of which look super similar to each other) so it's easy to pick out the outliers. The "samey" 3D Disney movies number maybe 6 or 7. So there's going to be plenty of time and opportunity for them to diversify their art direction. Also the issue of samey "appealing" female leads is somewhat distinct from the house style issue, I would say. Frozen is pretty egregious on that point, haha.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
Pick posted:My complaint is more with backgrounds, for example, than female character design in isolation. You can only really tell if a setting is from Frozen or Moana based on what it literally is (e.g. tropical beaches or snow). you're also comparing 2D animated movies made across a way longer period of time with CG movies made 2 years apart from each other that probably have a huge proportion of shared animators. comparing Dumbo to Pinocchio would be a little more fair, and you'd find a lot more similarity between those two (for example).
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:you're also comparing 2D animated movies made across a way longer period of time with CG movies made 2 years apart from each other that probably have a huge proportion of shared animators. comparing Dumbo to Pinocchio would be a little more fair, and you'd find a lot more similarity between those two (for example). I don't think it's really comparable, because we're talking about the history of feature-length animation generally. There's no reason for it to substantially regress in its variability over any period (except for technical reasons, such as early CGI). I would say Disney was at its most varied near the end of its "Modern" period (post-Renaissance), with films like Atlantis, Treasure Planet, Emperor's New Groove, Home on the Range, Lilo & Stitch, and Brother Bear. And they do retain design staff from this period.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
I think my POV is that I would certainly like to see Disney adopt more varied designs, especially for its female characters, but it doesn't offend me terribly at present. I think Pixar has the 'advantage' that they essentially span the creation of modern CGI animation, so a lot of their changes are driven by technology. Actual female human Pixar characters are also fairly few and far between, whereas there's a few in basically every major Disney film so far. We'll see where Disney gets to in a few more films. I mean, we know that disney *can* do varied character designs, see e.g. Big Hero 6. Backgrounds are trickier. I'm not sure what people would suggest have very distinctive backgrounds in 3d animation? Fangz fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Feb 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Hey there's a chance I might be able to see Aladdin live before it finishes up in Sydney but it's a bit of a tough sell to my boyfriend. I don't think he liked the stage version of TLK very much. Is it a good production? Worth say $80-90ish a ticket?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
You could always go yourself. Luckily, since it's a Disney stage musical, even if he's not there people will still assume you're gay :iamafag:
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
Eh, I'm happy to go to movies by myself but a theatre production is another thing... idk, maybe my mum will want to see it 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
I guess I'm unsophisticated and watch each movie on it's own merits. I'd rather not bother looking at the last few movies and get disappointed they haven't changed enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
I'm not really disappointed, I just really admire when animation can create something thoroughly unique. My all time favorite animated sequence is the creation story segment in Watership Down.  It's just if and when it happens, I'm super jazzed about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 20:15 |
|
|
Hedrigall posted:Eh, I'm happy to go to movies by myself but a theatre production is another thing... idk, maybe my mum will want to see it Aladdin's my favorite disney cartoon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 01:30
|
|