Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
The last cartoons I remember watching before the movies were those with Roger Rabbit. I found them very funny at the moment. I was a little kid at the time, but maybe it could be funny today too. I think they don't do that because they have to use that time in lots and lots of trailers (some betters than others I must confess). Anyway, I have another question about cartoons... Why, instead of making only CGI cartoons, don't they keep doing good and old hand drawn cartoons? I know that now even Disney is doing the switch to CGI and just like real actors movies I am not always sure that it's for better...
Joined: May 31, 2002 Posts: 637 Location: Planet Mongo
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:02 pm Post subject:
Roger Rabbit was a brief flickering candle in the darkness. I had hopes there would be more cartoon shorts back then, but it never happened.
You've touched on a few reasons for Michael Eisner's dismissal as Disney CEO. The decline of the animation studio is probably one of the biggest reasons.
Another reason would be that some of the more traditional looking features like "Home on the Range" and "Hercules" were financial failures. It's not the first time Disney lost money on an animated movie. "Robin Hood"(1973) is a semi-classic today, but it flopped so badly the studio didn't produce another successful animatated movie for about 10 years.
Similarly years before, "Alice in Wonderland" also nearly bankrupted the studio. Feature length toons are not always a safe steady business.
Last edited by Hasdrubal on Tue Apr 26, 2005 8:18 pm; edited 2 times in total
Joined: May 30, 2002 Posts: 16 Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 7:21 pm Post subject: Re: Movie Advances - Round Table
DrDestruction wrote:
Speaking as one who has worked in the film industry for fifteen years, all I can do is look at these CG films with continuing dread.
These films are nothing more than a justification to corporate Hollywood that my job should be replaced with that of ten pimply-faced teens who will work for a quarter of what I make. All that does is ensure that the higher-ups in the production abscond with more money in the name of "cutting the bottom line".
After all- why spend money on sets, crew people, property, and other things when you can make those same teens waste months (if not years) creating every single item for the movie in the computer. Just promise the geeks in front of the computer a credit at the end of the film, and they'll type away like the chimps who are probably busy creating what passes for the script.
Maybe because paying those 10 pimply faced kids for months at a time when you and a crew could have built it in far less time for less money?
Even George Lucas, who uses CGI more than most people, used CGI only where it belonged in Attack of the Clones.
Scenes at the Naboo Palace? Done on location in Ceserta, Italy.
Padme's home? Real location.
Tatooine? Back to Tunisia.
Need 1000s of clone troopers? Do it in CG (like who has the money to pay extras for all that at today's pay scale?).
Need Yoda actually walking and jumping around? Do it in CG.
Let's face it, back when films like The Ten Commandments and Ben-Hur were done, you could have a huge cast because extras were paid far far less than today. Now that would have to be done by CG. Jar-Jar Binks was almost done as a practical effect, but ended up being SLIGHTLY less expensive to do in full CG since extensive CG work would have been necessary anyway. Jar-Jar's neck would not allow it to be completely handled by Ahmed Best in a suit due to the creature's anatomical design.
Most films are being done practically where it is appropriate to do so, and digitally where it is appropriate to do so. Your job is secure for the forseeable future....
Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 8:22 pm Post subject: Re: Movie Advances - Round Table
Krasch wrote:
Most films are being done practically where it is appropriate to do so, and digitally where it is appropriate to do so. Your job is secure for the forseeable future....
I wish it were that simple. The fact is that the burgeoning CG trend, as well as the continued problem of "runaway production" (where productions film in places such as Canada and Czechoslovakia for the sake of that "bottom line") has almost completely crippled business I have been a part of for the better part of a decade-and-a-half.
I have seen a great many friends and family lose their livelyhoods in the name of the "global market", which (to those who know better) is nothing more than politically-correct, corporate mumbo-jumbo for "worldwide exploitation of cheap labor".
So no- my job is not secure, and it hasn't been for the last five years. And it doesn't look like it will be secure for the next five...
But back to the topic at hand- I am all for CG if there is a LEGITIMATE need for it. So many productions nowadays slap on every piece of computer wizardry they can to keep with their budgets (a great deal of which were stolen by the studios and producers of these shows), that all the thrill of the movie-going experience is practically lost within the first few minutes of the film (at least this is the case with me). I would prefer to see REAL people performing REAL action sequences, who have to deal the effects of REAL physics- not some simulated digital stuff.
Not every film needs to have copious amounts of CG in it. That's what good film-making is for.
All times are GMT - 7 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Profile
Search
Memberlist
Log in to check your private messages
Usergroups
FAQ & TOS
Log in
