|
GrandpaPants posted:This discussion just reminded me that Tomorrowland was crap after the first act :-( I would say the film's pretty alright until they actually reach Tomorrowland (and that includes the kid George Clooney scenes). And the scene with Keegan Michael-Key is kinda weird conceptually.
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 17:26 |
|
|
I almost wonder if they're hiding something. Like, say, the movie is all about dimension hopping, and that each universe is animated in it's own style. Like, imagine they got the clearance to use The Lego Movie world for a brief gag. Or more importantly, semi-adapting the newspaper strips like so:  
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
Wreck It Ralph 2's villain should be the entirety of the Disney Princess canon. It would have to be a major retread of the first, but goddamn it I need it,
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2018 02:46
|
|
|
Anybody else seen Early Man yet? Just got back from it, and can honestly say that it's not bad. I certainly don't think it's Aardman strongest work but still has their charm. Didn't entirely expect it to pretty much be a (just in case people are very nitpicky about this not-really spoiler) Football (Soccer) film. And as such it feels extraordinarily British, more so than ever, and probably hits harder if you actually watch Football. It kinda feels like Cars where the creative lead just made a film about his passion and ignored the audience all together. Not really uproarious, but still very pleasant.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2018 06:03
|
|
|
lelandjs posted:I wasn't thrilled with the idea of a Lion King remake (or, heck, any of their remakes so far) but if that post earlier is accurate, then they are doing something different with the property. Lion King does deserve a more nuanced take on the story than the original children's film offered (it is, after all, Hamlet). What if it's literally the text from hamlet, but every line ends with Meow? Maybe roar if they're angry.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
The category is bullshit because the entire ceremony is bullshit. But as people have said, it's a number of people who barely have any knowledge of, or barely acknowledges, an entire field of art being asked to decide which is the greatest example of the medium. It's like people who think documentaries are either concert films or people telling depressing stories about how hard it is not to be white, and asking for their honest opinion of the best example. And taking their opinion at face value when every year they give it to the yearly Rolling Stone film. Worse is that the entire process is so opaque. Is there any responsibility for the voters to watch 'every' nominee that's not nominated for Best Picture? Is there an option to abstain from voting in a category? Does the Academy try to emphasize and educate their voters to abstain if they cannot have an educated opinion about the nominees? (Warning, unsubstantiated and barely remembered recollections) Add to that how easy it is to game the system if your in the Hollywood inner circle. When you're Disney, you can blow obscene amounts of money to campaign for whatever Disney/Pixar film you figure will have the easiest time to win. A benefit that most of the nominees in the category will never have. And (if I'm remembering second hand info from probably a decade ago) it's the previous nominees for the category that vote for what will eventually become the small number of nominees the entire Academy will vote for. And considering Disney and Pixar contains the largest number of nominees by far, it's easy to imagine the number games they play to guarantee the field they compete against.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2018 07:17
|
|
|
'The GRINCH: Well if Boss Baby got a nomination'
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2018 08:52
|
|
|
Pick posted:No I mean oregon is bad. Stay away. Stay in Florida I'm pretty sure we're done Florida and Oregon talk already, but isn't Oregon just Florida without the heatstroke making things weirder? Rural areas filled with Rednecks, weirdly progressive metropolitan cities, everything being kinda off? Pretty much the difference being Oregon is more subdued and Florida is coked out of it's goddamned mind.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2018 08:01
|
|
|
I doubt they're that poor. Certainly not great wages, but probably a fairly livable salery. I'd more assume they never have the time to eat anyways. Who has time to wait 20 min for a meal when you gotta get 20 frames done in 15 minutes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
I think the De La Cruz thing was so tidy due to the fact that it's a movie meant for kids (Read: Grown up idiots who don't like to think about their movies), and didn't want to leave them with an (spoilered just in case) emotionally confusing and karmically unjustified note. Tidy endings make for happy audiences, and happy audiences make for great word of mouth.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2018 05:52
|
|
|
Jon Faverau is a flawed but excessively competent director. He has a talent as someone who understands the audience of his films and knows what to give him. Jungle Book may have been unnecessary but he kept it from being embarrassing or regurgitating the original. And I can respect that. Even my favorite film of his, Chef, is a fairly self-indulgent and oddly paced ramble. But it's fun as a leisurely paced road movie about a (flawless) man trying to become better through self care (even if he is unchanged at the end). All your faves are problematic. Both morally and artistic works. Dehumanise your self and face to bloodshed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2018 07:32
|
|
|
Yeah, but probably not to the kid inside those situations. A movie, that says extremely similar things that Uncle A loving Monster does, might make them think their situation is normal. That it's best to accept the abuse, that it's normal, that they shouldn't seek help or try fighting it. I'm not going to say that it's a likely chance that world and this movie would overlap, but as a society we should actively fight a movie which makes a joke out of someone (who has a distinct power over the other character) making someone uncomfortable by touching them in a sensitive (emotionally and physically) area.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2018 07:42
|
|
|
I think it's just a bad poster. There's nothing to suggest that it will inherently be a bad story or take away from the giant scaley cat shenanigans. It might be fine if they present the conflict as nature vs domestication conflict. For example, if Toothless' behavior is in line for an animal trying to attract a mate, and it's affecting the plot that Hiccup is dealing with. Rather than increasingly personifying toothless, and he's putting a ho in front of his bro in their buddy cop style adventure. Though I concur with the sexual dimorphism. Also, really don't like the fact that the title makes it sound like a midquel spinoff rather than a proper sequel.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2018 03:41
|
|
|
Unmature posted:Does anyone remember the live action Fox Family Addams Family show? John Astin cameod as Gomez's dad. I remember it playing all the time on the Canadian children's channel in the later post-prime time, pre-late night slot. Probably cause it was a Canadian co-production, and so fulfilled the Canadian Content requirements. I'll be frank I was too young to give a fair or accurate judgement of how good it was as a show. But what I can recall is that it was a fairly faithful adaptation of the Sonnenfeld films, if lighter by necessity. Of course they couldn't get Raul Julia or Christopher Lloyd or any of the original cast, but the replacements were probably the best they could on a cable budget, and the cast certainly tried. Like I said, it was lighter out of necessity, and felt a little more domestic and softer than the movies. But in that sense, I guess you could probably say it was more of an adaptation of the 60's TV show that was painted by the films, rather than adapting the films. Though their Wednesday was lifted directly from the movies, and I honestly think she was just as good as Christina Ricci.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2018 07:36
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Yeah, I did notice that at the police station, the cop complaining about the family's illicit superhero-ing stated that they had infrastructure in place to handle supervillains like the Underminer. Except that we never see them mobilize anything that might plausibly have stopped his machine, or save the people we see the family saving. It might have been cool to see just why things didn't outright go to poo poo within months of the superhero ban going into effect. It might be that those who are investigating and reporting the events are looking at 'Mr. Incredible directly confronts Underminer, and in retaliation he sends his giant machine on an unstoppable cruise control. Said giant device causes mass damage that his family only mitigates' and thinking 'Mr. Incredible through both direct and ineffective action, cause a giant machine of death to attack the city' without giving the shadow of the doubt that releasing the death machine was an inevitable part of Underminer's plan regardless if he was directly attacked. But laws work otherwise, so they can only assume the best case scenario. Being if the factors that allegedly caused the incident were never involved, then the incident would not have happened. And so, Mr. Incredible cause mass damage and was a liability. So what the cops are likely talking about is liability mitigation (disclosure, I do not know lawyer terms and are making them up as I go along) through insurance, and possibly a response team to crisis events. Not infrastructure repair, non-act of god disaster relief, strike teams, or anything more pro-active. But that does bring up a point that is unfortunately unexplored in the film. Namely, the battle between reactive and proactive justice. Even a little argument that it's theoretically possible that, if the Parr Family did not try to stop villains, then uncaught supervillains repeatedly performing crimes could be more costly (with ripple effects to the community, the city's reputation, and economically) than one giant battle with collateral damage. Not that it has to be necessarily true, but it would be an interesting theme to explore.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2018 07:47
|
|
|
I do feel like by the 3rd episode (which is as far as I've gotten), it's starting to pull of that early Simpsons/Futurama quality of intelligent silliness. Maybe not as much, but that groove is starting to develop. Plus, from what else I've heard that it's trajectory goes up the further it gets along. To contextualize it, you would never say that the first Season of the Simpsons was the show people fell in love with. The elements are there, but early on they feel like they're filtered through a slower, mundane lense. Futurama was lucky to hit that stride early on, but both the first and second episodes both feel off compared to the show we're all familiar with. I just lay hope that this show is somewhere between those extremes of 'Took a season and a half to get it' and 'Three episodes, pretty much'.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2018 02:59
|
|
|
The point of Big Hero 6 is to make Disney money. Generally, the agreement is that any effort that goes towards making that product deserves compensation. Certainly Disney could have created bespoke artwork and compensated whatever artist made it appropriately. But they chose not to so they wouldn't have to. The artist certainly did not seek permission from Disney to make it. But they still payed in order for it to exist, be it resources or time or both. That artwork was used in a product whose purpose was to make money, and the artist was not compensated for that effort. Art is not free, and Disney certainly has the resources to pay for it. They had the option to go about the proper way of compensating that artist for their work, or going through another artist under their employ to make it. Instead, the artist paid to make that art and Disney is the one making money off of it. It doesn't matter that Disney owns the characters, the artist got scammed.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2018 04:42
|
|
|
The view this situation no different than if it had been completed and solicited to Disney, except they decline it but use the artwork anyways. The only difference here is artist's agency has been completely removed. I don't view this as an IP issue, this is a workers right issue. A worker worked hard for it for no pay. A company with the resources to pay for it is profiting from not having to pay for it. It's scummy when a blog aggregates people's work and without compensation or attribution. It's scummy that disney took someone's effort, and didn't compensate or attribute them. Disney holds consumers under the obligation to pay for their product. It's only fair that Disney is held accountable to pay for whatever product they use to make that product.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2018 05:04
|
|
|
I'm not even suggesting that the fan artist should have been paid. Honestly, I think Disney should have done the most morally defensible thing and have one of their employees make it. Or if they truly thought that specific artwork by that artist benefited their product, commission them for original artwork. I am not decrying fan creations as an inalienable right. It has as much of a right to exist as much as IP law does (to clarify: the segmentation of creation rights is a stupid and dirty construction created to make rich people richer). But as long as we're forced to live in a capitalist society, then institutions such as Disney have an inherent responsibility to compensate their workers. In this case, the labor of an individual was used uncompensated nor consulted. I won't argue IP or whatever, but I will fight for someone to be paid for their work. In this situation, the actions of the corporation either deprived someone compensation for their work, or deprived someone else of the opportunity to earn pay off their work. SomeJazzyRat fucked around with this message at 07:43 on Aug 22, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2018 07:29
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:Guys, "Disney" didn't do anything. Nobody at "Disney" is looking at your fan art. Nobody. They don't give a poo poo. There is no plausible connection between ripped-off fan art appearing in the background of one shot of one scene of one episode of one of their million cartoons and the corporate monolith exploiting the small time artist. This is an ideological fantasy born out of the delusion of fandom, that by simply defining part of your identity around consumption you somehow meaningfully impact upon its commodity. I only used 'Disney' as a shorthand for the people in the corporate structure who facilitated the Big Hero 6 tv show. If I didn't, I would have to go through the credits and research and figure out who the bg artist, layout supervisors, lawyers, network execs, or whoever. And I certainly do not know the structure of an animation studio/TV network to understand whose responsibility it was to keep stuff like this incident from happening. By the time I could, the conversation would have already swapped to another tortured grousing about Boss Baby and 'What if Bee Movie was actually... Good?!?' So instead I used the Royal 'Disney' to decry the corporate structure to allow it to happen But yeah, I'm mainly peeved off at this situation just coming off the coattails of the whole IGN plagiarism debacle. That kinda colored my whole opinion. I think really I just want people who would actually do the work and not steal art to be the ones to head this industry. A lot of talented artists and business people who would kill to be working on a Big Hero 6 were denied the opportunity, and instead jerks who caused this situation got it and caused this. Das Boo posted:Don't take credit for other people's work. It doesn't matter if you can make money off it or if you think they'd be okay with it. Don't take credit for other people's work. Robindaybird posted:This is the heart of the matter, not the bullshit about socio-economic wankery or if fan art should be profitable venture. What I was pretty much trying to get at. My mind has been poisoned by too much socialism memes.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2018 07:53
|
|
|
I know standard animation student textbooks are The Illusion of Life, where Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnson explains their experience working in the early days of Disney, the people they worked alongside, the process of creating an animated product, and the technical aspects of animating. As well there's Richard Williams' The Animator's Survival Guide, which is a much more technical explanation of the techniques of animation (from what I heard, there's a thick section of the book dedicated to nothing but illustrating walk cycles). As for books about animation about non-animators, I've heard several strong reccomendations for Sick Little Monkeys which illustrates the history of Ren and Stimpy. And not necessarily about animation, but the book DisneyWar is an expose about Michael Eisner's tenure as CEO of Disney from pre-Renaissance to it's near downfall again.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
Hey everybody, every first year animation student's favorite Merry Melody is back with a fresh new look for a new generation. This ain't yo daddy's Dover Boys. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0U8iL38xfM
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2018 05:53
|
|
|
Larryb posted:Avatar (the cartoon) is coming back as a brand new Netflix-exclusive live action series penned by the original writers: There's nothing to even suggest it to be so, but I would really dig if they were actually a sequel series. Have some optimistic, PG rated, martial arts fueled Game of Thrones shenanigans with the gang learning to be adults and leaders.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
I think it's just that they had no idea what they were doing when they hired Lord and Miller for Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs, and got real lucky. And since then, both minions and The Lego Movie came out and they've been chasing their own dragons. Probably would be better off trying to do something new rather than aping the rest of the industry, cause it's fairly evident that Illumination/Disney/Warner's Lego Features have captured their respective markets. Reminder, Sony killed both Lauren Faust's Medusa feature and Gendy Tartakovsky's Popeye film (which looked gorgeous). So unless your last name is Lord or Miller, or even Sandler, as far as Sony's concerned you can go gently caress yourself.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2018 02:59
|
|
|
I was hoping that the pigeon aspect is just a gag sequence in the film, with the general premise being Spy Shenanigans with over the top gadgets. But if it turns out the elevator premise is 'Spy turns into bird', then my enthusiasm is deflated.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2018 04:13
|
|
|
Pick posted:A Bug's Life 2. DO IT. I DARE YOU TO BRING BACK Christopher Plummer YOU COWARDS.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2018 05:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 17:26 |
|
|
I didn't consider how weird it was, but this entire time I was expecting them to just use the same model they use for the game, only prettified and with a more vinyl collectable doll texture to him. But it's not nearly as weird as that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2018 21:51
|
|