Slashdot Mirror
Can Hayao Miyazaki Save Disney's Soul?
IronicGrin writes "Even hard-core House of Mouse apologists have to admit that Disney's Feature Animation division has lost its way. After a half decade of pathetic failures (Atlantis) and epic disasters (Treasure Planet), the company shut its fabled Orlando 2D animation studios last year and announced that it was jumping on the computer animation bandwagon. A big motivation for the move to CGI was, of course, the Magic Kingdom's tenuous relationship with Pixar--the source of all of Disney's recent animated hits. But Disney is overlooking a better example of just what its toon team has been doing wrong...right under its nose.
Howl's Moving Castle, which opened this weekend to rapturous critical acclaim, is the third masterpiece from Japan's Studio Ghibli that Disney has released theatrically. Today's New York Times has a feature by A.O. Scott [reg required, blah blah] calling Miyazaki the "world's greatest living animated-filmmaker"; meanwhile, last Thursday, I wrote a column for SFGate.com on why Disney animation, 3D rendered or not, is doomed to irrelevance if it fails to (re)learn some basic lessons from Miyazaki and his cohorts at Ghibli. What do you think? Is Disney destined to fade to black, or can a little Ghibli flavor (mmm....Ghibli) get it back on track?"
No. Actually, anime is for people who like it. If that's kids then fine. If its adults, then fine.
...no.
Any company that can justify stealing from the public domain with no intention to return anything to it has clearly not only drawn up a contract with satan but has also disputed the subclauses, delivered the first two goats, renegotiated paragraph three and taken the whole legal department on a field trip to hell to learn new techniques.
Beep beep.
Because Disney isn't about animation anymore, its about Parks, Hotels, T-Shirts and films signed off by the sort of people who next week will sign off the building of a 500 room "luxury" hotel.
Until Disney drives its animation division as a seperate company run by people (business people) who understand that market it will be doomed.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
PS: Here's an excellent series of articles about what went wrong with Disney feature animation.
just like they abused their relationship with Pixar. IIRC, the announcement that they were closing their 2d animation studio came right before Pixar announced that after their current contract was up they would be bolting from Disney? Why? Because that asshat Eisner assumed that Disney was invincible and Pixar would come crawling to Disney no matter how much they were abused.
I still don't think Disney learned their lesson. Eisner didn't have one creative bone in his body, all he did was bleed dry whatever he could(and took a lions share of cash for himself) while Disney's main properties languished. I suspect the same will go for this relationship.
Monstar L
usually means some pretentious quasi intellectual twats love it and the general public will hate it.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Of course I could be completely wrong and anime would be more than just a fad, in which case this would be a good move for Disney. I guess that's the gamble.
There's no emoticon for what I'm feeling! -- CBG, "The Computer Wore Menace Shoes"
As a start to saving their soul, Disney would have stop trying to extend copyrights every time Mickey Mouse is about to go into the public domain.
Their unconstitutional extension of copyrights in perpetuity has made them about as evil of a corporation as I can think of today.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Disney is more likely to poison Studio Ghibli than Ghibli save Disney from its current evil incarnation.
I mean, come on: It's Disney; they can't do anything without the suits fucking somebody up.
At least the 2D-animation disney that we used to know. They have been pushed off the market by far superior and widespread Japanese animation that fills the same market. Disney has only made it worse by being unoriginal, stealing ideas, and making crappy movies.
After something like "Toy Story" or "Finding Nemo" or "Lion King" (which was not originally planned to be such a big hit!), every subsequent animated film gets compared to it. Not just box office revenue, but also reviews, relevance, etc. And of course, none quite measure up. So they cut animation spending, lay off animators, and shut down animation divisions.
The problem isn't that the subsequent films weren't good films. (Well, some weren't. Others were.) But the problem is that the blockbusters were too good.
Disney just has to get back into the cycle where they produce a range of quality animation (allowing some "duds" as well as non-blockbusters to get made). In this business world, where a single non-blockbuster means you shut down the division, this is indeed hard.
I think the problem is that those who enjoy animated epics are on average quite a bit older than before and simply expect more than Disney can deliver. It's not that their failures are worse than their old classics, it's just that when we have come of age it requires more effort to pay to see the crap.
Simply put, Disney's moves always lacked depth, unless it was a remake of someone elses work.
The japanese master the art of story telling, which it is all about. Disnay is doomed, unless it can come up with good stories. Which it probably never will, it's too institutionalized.
And while I'm bitching... I can't watch Disney crap bacuase of all the singing musical crap, for gods sake S-T-O-P.
I liked (as in didn't hate and enjoyed watching) treasure planet and atlantis as well. Is there some fundamental reason why I shouldn't have?
.: Max Romantschuk
If Walt Disney were alive today, and saw what was happening to his company, he'd be rolling over in his grave!
Wait a minute...
It's sad to see the state that Disney is in. My fiance is an animator, so we've had our fair number of trips down to Orlando. She knows a number of animators, most of which have been fired.
A lot of the animators have started up their own studios though. I think Firefly Studios is one? Regardless, I think the Disney that Walt had imagined is long gone and far from coming back. They need to stop pumping out sequels and start creating movies with good stories.
It doesn't matter what medium the movie is delivered in; it's the story that delivers.
The greatest experience we can have is the mysterious.
- Albert Einstein
The Disney that produced all the most beloved classics was a company started and run with an iron hand by one individual individual with a clear creative vision. Walt Disney was not the avuncular character we all saw on Wonderful World of Disney, but he was, in addition to being a shrewd businessman and (reputedly) chain-smoking tyrant, a person intimately involved in the creative process.
These days Disney is just another mega corporation run by MBAs and Financial types. The movie segment is a small part of their empire which primarily leverages old intellectual property (think "classic Disney films").
Save their soul? I think not.
The always sing too much in almost any of the older films (personal oppinion). Maybe that's the key to get back on track.
Personally I don't think it matters one damn bit whether they go all computer-animated or not.
With an engaging story, well-told, and cleverly animated, you could put a movie together out of ripped-up pieces of construction paper and have it sell (witness Southpark, which is ony about a step higher up on the animation ladder).
All I'm saying is this: if Disney offs ABC (which it owns), I'll mod it up when I get the chance.
"I'm a philosophy major. That means I can think deep thoughts about being unemployed." -- Bruce Lee
I clicked the Howl's Moving Castle link, and couldn't find anythong on Diana Wynne Jones, the author of the book.
I read about 10 or 15 books of hers, and she's good.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
In almost any of the older films they sing too much (personal oppinion). Maybe that's the key to get back on track.
Considering the fact that the only decent returns they have had on animated movies recently have all come from Pixar, one would think that it would take less than 10 years for them to figure this one out!
a polar bear is a rectangular bear after a coordinate change.
I agree, but I think the emphasis needs to be on coming up with something original.
;) )
;)
Every Disney film has exactly the same morals and characters as other Disney films, just with differnt names and appearances.
I'd watch animated stick figures if there was some actual depth to it all, I mean, I realize it is intended for children and all, but MAN!
(on a semi-related note, I wouldn't pay $8 to see stickmen in a theater regardless of how good the plot was, even I have principles
===
Good post, though, old bean, cheers
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
I think its kind of sad that Disney is ditching 2-D and going for the 3-D animation. Its almost like losing an art form. Will there be any 2-D animation in the future, or will everyone eventually switch over to 3D?, Leaving 2-D to the same demise as silent films and b&w film. I think that if Disney put some serious effort into its 2D films, using computers to aid in the effects, while thinking up good story lines, they would be able to continue to make 2D animation a very profitable business.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Why does every company seem to think they need to use CGI in animation these days? Even the very best use of it still make it look out of place, nothing looks as good as everything being drawn in the same fashion.
I like muppets.
not really.
the problem with them is that after they get one blockbuster they milk it, then milk it, then milk it some more(lion king as a perfect example, instead of doing another different film they milked it quite a bit with sequels and attached crap).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
What are you talking about? Just about all I ever do is watch cartoons and have sex or have sex and watch cartoons or have sex while watching cartoons and I have no intention of changing my lifestyle just because I'm turning twelve next month.
A good story is what wins in the end. Take Wallice & Grommit, it would not matter a bit if it was in CGI, claymation or traditional, it would still be good. Disney seem to be trying way to hard and missing the point in their animation work, IIRC they gave up ages ago in their live action films. But they can change, you can get wine at Disneyland Paris.
You don't need a lab to make mud.
A lot of Disney's animators are already big Miyazaki fans; you can see the influence of Miyazaki's films in movies like Lilo and Stitch and Atlantis. It's almost a cliche that whenever Miyazaki is mentioned to people who've never heard of him, someone will pipe up with how much Disney animators respect him. But the animators don't create in a vacuum.
I think you can lay more of the blame for Disney's failures on Disney's management. They need to get out of the way and let the creative elements create. Maybe with Michael Eisner's departure this year we'll see some changes for the better.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
1. Make sure you have a good stopryline
2. Convert it into a good script. Forget the fancy animation for the moment - does the script stand alone?
3. Make sure the cutesy animal sidekicks are actually more funny than they are annoying.
4. Don't ram preachy, christian-values moralising down people's throats - build it into the plot and let people discover it for themselves
5. Don't resort to cheap shots at playing with people's emotions (or if you do, at least be subtle about it !)
6. Songs - if you gotta have them, make sure they are good ones. Kids hate all those slushy sentimental ones!
You know what, I love lots of anime. I can do without the ninja chicks in bikinis and powered armor, but I personally consider Nausicaa to be the greatest animated film ever made, for example.
But to assume that anime would attract the same kinds of audiences as Disney's crap is ridiculous and unsupportable. No, their releases don't get especially good market support in the US from Disney, but most of the Joe Six-packs I know who've seen Princess Mononoke or Spirited Away thought they were either (a) boring as all hell, (b) pointless, or (c) impossible to understand.
Think what you want of these people, but this is the audience that is attracted to movies like Toy Story or Aladdin or any of the dozens of like films: very American, lots of "physical" humor, not especially deep. People want crap like what Disney produces; they just need to rediscover what makes good crap.
I'll content myself with being among the few Americans who enjoy anime, but I will never delude myself into thinking it might ever be mass-market fare in the US.
[ home ]
Miyazaki may be an ubelievably great artist, but his movies will not bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in movie sales, and billions in merchandizing. Therefore, no, Disney won't consider Miyazaki, or his approach, a significant asset to the company as a whole.
What really drives businesses is when there is somebody up top who is passionate about the company and what it does. The big problem with so many is that you have an accountant up top who will drive it slowly into the ground. As it runs into trouble then they resort to texas-style accounting such as Enron and Qwest showed. Disney is in trouble because they do not have somebody up top who loves the business.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I'm not sure that originality is Disney's biggest problem. After all, some of Disney's biggest 2D hits were based on fairy tales and fables (Beauty & The Beast, The Little Mermaid, and yes, Aladdin and The Lion King [based on Hamlet] ). No, I think the big problem is Disney can't seem to find something that audiences identify with anymore. In the 90's, that something was the production value of a cartoon with Broadway musical numbers combined with the best animation Disney had to offer, and decent story telling (Aladdin was nearly completely rewritten before it was ever released).
So far, Disney can't find that niche to milk it. Pixar has managed to find this formula without musical numbers. Can Disney do the same? So far, the answer seems to be a resounding no.
Mercy was given to me by Christ...I must give the same to others.
thats not a joke its been 10 years sence they done anything good when it comes to animated shows. but ten years ago there where doing shows that whent disanly like you knoe dark voilent using all star cast for voices. when cgi hit the market disany quickly fell off the 2d platform.
What do you think? Is Disney destined to fade to black...
... stand there scratching your head wondering, "Where's my profit?"
Fade to Black.... Fade to Black.....Brilliant! A Full length 2-D Disney Animated film about METALLICA! Duh, how stupid could they be not to see this? It was right there in front of them the whole time!
1) Start with aging rockers
2) add a healthy dose of dwindling animation empire
3) make up some story, I mean, any story will do, really, it's METALLICA after all!!
4)
It's early and I think I'm funny, so I must apologize.
I'm too lazy to enter a sig. Hey wait a second! You tricked me!
I think Disney is going to become a company like Ohio Art: They will do one thing right (Etch-a-sketch/the mouse) and all other projects will fade to obscurity (Betty Spaghetti/Home on the Range.
What are the three main things Disney has been doing lately?
- Re-Making everything: Toy Story 3, Herby, Atlantis 2, Cinderella 2, ect.
- Animated feature that have no originality - Home on the Range comes to mind.
- Improperly marketing movies - Treasure Planet was great but it should have been marketed towards teens and not little kids. And I think they only put 4 million into marketing Treasure Planet in the US. While Home on the Range was plastered everywhere and had to have at least $100 million marketing budget.
What has made Pixar so much better then Disney films? Is it the 3D? Not really, its just another way to get a story out. But Pixar does have original stories(Toy Story) with identifiable characters (Finding Nemo) that both adults (Mr. Incredible, Elasta Girl) and kids(Nemo, Dash, and Violet for the teens) can identify with.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
Wasn't Disney animation in the same situation at the beginning of the 90s? Reduced to output like 'The Black Cauldron' (rated Worst. Feature. Cartoon. Ever. at the time). How did they get out of the trough last time?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
http://www.kimbawlion.com/rant2.htm
Howl's Moving Castle may be the third Miyazaki film Disney has distributed in the U.S., but that doesn't mean much unless you live in a major metropolitan area. Those of us stuck outside the 20 largest cities in the U.S. are doomed to wait an additional six months for these title to come out on DVD. Apparently, Miyazaki is a taste that those of us in small towns to medium-sized cities just aren't cultured enough to understand. God forbid that Disney would actually do a wide release of these masterpieces, and actually back it up with advertising.
While the DVD releases have been good, I was under the impression that it was the boys at Pizar who got Disney to distribute Miyazaki's work in the U.S. in the first place. Not that I'm bitter or anything.
You're only as smart as your brain.
Setting aside the fact tht TS and FN were not, properly, Disney films, I don't think that the hits are the problem. Someone at Disney has given up on animation. There have been pretty good films (not ohmygodgottaseeita100times good), and the young audience doesn't really care that much about the nuances of story line.
The best example recently is the Heffalump movie. It's a little-kid movie, not the traditional epic, but its great for little kids (I'd say under 5, maybe up to 7 or 8 depending on the child). We saw it with my 2 year old in the theater. When it came out on DVD, we got it. So, if you were head of marketing, and you had a fairly big DVD release, how would you handle the marchandising? Lots of Roo and Lumpy stuffed animals, right? Midshare, get the kids playing with them. Give them something tangible to reinforce the whole Pooh franchise, right?
WRONG! Not only do most of the retail outlets have nothing in the Pooh line except - maybe - a stuffed Pooh bear that isn't tied to the release at all, but even the freakin' Disney Store online doesn't have a Lumpy. None. Nada. Zilch. Now, they did have two Lumpys in the local Disney Store . And those were left over from the shipment after the theatrical release, when the original (meager) shipment of Lumpy and Roo sold out in about a day and a half. Flew off the shelves, according to the DS worker.
No, in my opinion somebody at the top has purposely set the 2D animations up to fail.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Could Treasure Planet really be considered 2d? Some of the animation, mainly characters, certainly was, but there was a very strong 3d cg element present.
Also, was it really that bad? I liked it. So there.
Disney has been very good at releasing the subtitled works of the Miyazaki films that they distribute. According to a couple of animators that used to work there, it's because there is such a respect of his work by the people there that they feel that they have no right to edit his masterpieces. So, more than likely, they'll have the subtitles and original audio when this hits DVD, which is where I'll see it anyway.
They can take their Military-Industrial Fascist scripwriters and shove them up their own asses.
Get rid of the Bad Psychology, and Disney might have a chance. But for as long as there are 'experts' on "child fantasy" trying to work their 'magic' into the artform of animation, their movies are going to suck.
Want to know what Disneys' problem is? Too Many Psychologists!!
There's much irony in the fact that in his heroic years, Disney used to be a victim of intellectual property rights abuse. First, he was "outlawyered" by his coworker Charles Mintz who basically stole rights to Oswald, The Lucky Rabbit, leaving Disney seemingly without any chance. To get out of this predicament, Disney had to hastily invent another character and thus Mickey was born. But even then, major Hollywood studios have had a virtual monopoly on sound and Disney had no option but use a patent-infringing system known as Cinephone to create the first Mickey Mouse cartoon.
One might expect that being a victim of abuse, Disney should never be abusive to the others. However, in real life it's almost always the opposite. When you are a victim, you don't dream about the perfect world, where nobody is a victim - you dream of the world where YOU are no longer a victim. I think this could partially explain this company's attitude to patents, copyright and trademark. "There was no mercy for me - why should I have it now for anyone?"
Redubbing and distributing other people's works is all Disney is good for these days. They will probably never get back to their glory days because the suits appointed to run the company just can't understand what makes a good animated feature.
I don't think Miyazaki can save Disney's soul either. He's a creative type who makes what he wants to. Disney don't make what they want, they make what their demographics tell them people want. Until Disney changes this, they will change nothing.
Interestingly Disney are required by contract not to cut or change any of Ghibli's films without explicit approval from Ghibli. However John Lasseter of Pixar is the main man behind getting Disney to distribute Ghibli's work in the US which explains why they have been released relatively unharmed.
They _have_ learned that their 2D feature animation business is dead -- that's why they got Pixar to do them a 3D one it and why they're closing the 2D one down now.
They have also learned that their IP holding business is still a winner -- that's why they got the copyright extension.
They have also learned that competition is bad. That's why they got exclusive distribution rights to Ghibli movies and gave them small releases with abysmal dubs.
Summary: Disney still not stupid.
But boy, the dub on that Sen to Chihiro movie was beyond belief. The spooky thing was that all these people were going to it and saying how wonderful and magical it was and all the time it was practically eviscerated by that 'don't compete with our features!' dub job.
Well, I found it spooky.
I dunno about Howl's though. It looks like a return to typical Miyazaki, and that's not an undilutedly good thing.
Ok, I am utterly rambling. But my main point still stands. Disney are survivors, they know which side their bread is buttered and they'll get copyright extensions and lock new creators into hideous contracts and stifle foreign movies if that's what it takes. I still kind of like them though somehow.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Disney's contract with Ghibli requires them to not edit it. Localization in the dub is allowed, as long as the story doesn't take a big hit, but nothing else.
Rumor is, Miyazaki even sent them a genuine katana with a note to that effect attached to drive the point home.
The US box office for Princess Mononoke was $2.3 million, total.
The US box office for Spirited Away was $10 million, total.
Howls Moving Castle is currently playing at maybe half a dozen screens in the entire United States, and probably didn't break a few hundred thousand dollars on its opening weekend.
In comparison, Madagascar made $18 million, just last weekend, and nearly $130 million total US box office in the last three weeks.
Hmm... yeah, I bet Disney is going to get right on that Studio Ghibli thing.
AFAIK, Miyazaki is pretty old and close to retirement age. Even if he "saves Disney" whatever that means, he can't do it for very long.
world's greatest living animated-filmmaker
Why the need to qualify? Why not consider the possiblity that Miyazaki could be the greatest living filmmaker, period?
Of course, the very idea that an artist or an piece of art can be "best" is simplistic, like the idea that you can rank movies by stars. But you can group artists into categories for some purpose, and that in some cases there are categories with only one artist in them. And there's no doubt that among all the animated filmmakers working, Miyazaki is unique in a number of ways. But the very supercategory of animated films is not in my opinion very useful. And in the long term it's going to be harder and harder to draw the line between animation and live action.
So let's look at other ways in which Miyazaki is unique.
He's perhaps one of a kind in the category of filmmakers whose works combine serious artistic merit and broad popular appeal. Or how about this category: makers of narrative driven films that unfold at modest to very slow pace, yet are capable of holding the attention of both adults and very young children?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
They use it for background elements though, and work hard to make it look like the rest of the animation.
u me_2/Issue_1/Ghibli.htm
u me_2/Issue_1/media/Ghibli/2.htm
It started with Mononoke, and continues to this day. Howl's Castle is a 3D animated object, but you couldn't tell it by looking.
In Mononoke, where the boy is charging across the field of grass, firing his bow, the field is CGI, as is the grass. The writhing 'tentacles' on his arm are CGI as well. Watch the extras "Making of" bits on the DVD sometime.
Studio Ghibli has invested money in 3D graphics. They do use it, but they work very hard to make it look like 2D animation
Softimage even has a article on Ghibli and their use of 3D. They have 150 people in that division
http://www.softimage.com/Community/Xsi/Mag/Cs/Vol
http://www.softimage.com/Community/Xsi/Mag/Cs/Vol
Here's a image of a forest scene from Spirited away, when they first approach the area where the spirits' 'vacation center' is located. Oh nos! It's CGI!
But you can't tell it, can you? Why use CGI? Because for set pieces, for backgrounds, it makes relative movement for perspective pieces easier to animate. It makes deep, rich backgrounds easier to do. Else you have all your characters animated over a flat looking background, with no perspective shifts as the camera moves.
So Ghibli uses CG, but not exclusively. It's merely another tool in their chest.
The Lion King was based on Simba the White Lion, which was a Japanese thing by Tezuka I think. They even reused a lot of the scenes (not the actual cels, but the composition).
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Disney's contract with Ghibli prohibit them from editing the movies.
Disney just doesn't get it. Sadly they didn't realize that it doesn't matter if the film is hand drawed, CGI, both or made by blind vestal from tibet. The most important thing is the story you are telling. This is why anime works, and this is why it is travelling around the world. I'm *not* saying the drawing technique is irrelevant, or unimportant. It is *very* important and it supports and creates the mood for the story, but a movie isn't automatically good just because it's CGI or hand-drawn.
Walt Disney was a great story teller. That's why he was so successful. He was all about giving the audience something they really wanted to see. His craft was all about wonder and engagement. (It's not called Wonderland for nothing.) The suits don't get that. Walt was very hands on. The suits don't have the clues necessary for that.
Film studies student question: "What should I show?" Answer: "Whatever tells the story."
I think some this talk where some films are duds based on their box office total is unfair, especially when the US box office total is only refered to. Brother Bear, which in my opinion was a very good film, was discredited on its ~$85 (million) US Box Office, where overseas it got a ~$160 (million) box office total. But that aside, what one does like another may not, it's simply what makes us unique.
"Lion King" (which was not originally planned to be such a big hit!)
The Lion King wasn't planned to be a big hit but it was, of course it wasn't really their movie at all, just a prettier version of someone elses, likely.
The rock, the vulture, and the chain
Too all anime fans who like voice dubbing, F*ck you too!
f*ck us??? god! i can't stand you pretentious arrogent otaku fanboy losers! animation is a VISUAL MEDIUM, when you have to read subtitles, you miss out on the animation and the artwork.
there's nothing wrong with watching a good dub, Princess Mononoke and Cowboy Bebop both come to mind as examples of superb dubbing.
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. RAmen.
I just read that the latest "beetle" movie from Disney will have some "character" of the main character be edited (like nipples under a T-shirt?)
Anyway, what cartoons unikely allow is the triggering of laughter using whatever lever can trigger it, be it politically correct or not (remember Will E. Coyote being run over by a train, playing with explosives, or the pelican that looks like farthing in Nemo, and the so many things happening in Shrek 1 and 2 alike?).
Disney will just not do some things in its animation movies, which takes away some humour levers, and makes their movies just less good. Not really bad, but too bland.
So unless they learn to be a bit offensive again, and make children (and adults alike) laugh with what they have always laughed about... they will fade to black.
Maybe we will see a Beauty and the Beast where the Beast is shaving?
"Disney just has to get back into the cycle where they..."
Make "Herbies Rides Again... Again!" and "The Shaggy D.A. for President" and "The Cat From Outer Space and the Hairball from Helvetia".
*shudders*
I can't imagine what such a note would say that would drive the point home, unless it went something like this:
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I have to say I'm not that impressed. Not that I'm not a fan of Hayao. In fact, being born in Hong Kong, we were used to see his film every so often. What I can say is that the style have changed a lot from the "Vally of wind" and "The castle in the sky". The main character is still always going to be a girl, there will always be flying and transformation, but it is getting more and more difficult to understand how the world in the film works. What I'm saying is that the film will need to be rewatched to truely appericate the depth. Technical wise, it is as good as an animation need to be. Perhaps it will win in the box office, but a film with such different style can't possibly replace what Disney stands for in the late 60' till 90'. Waltz bring the soul of Disney with him.
Those days are over.
Somewhere along the line Disney sold their corporate soul. The magic is gone. I think that happened right about the same time they started threatening to sue day care centers for having Disney characters painted on the walls.
Disney has had their day, now it's time to start the long, slow slide into obscurity. A pathetic characture of their former selves. Like the aged, drunken barfly who reeks of cheap booze and whose soul reflects the casual abrasions of the body, but still sees herself as young and attractive. "I'm Disney, everybody love me!" Not anymore, lady. Go home.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I just went to the zoo this past weekend and saw posters for the Madagascar movie posted EVERYWHERE. I lost count at 58 posters in the main entrance area. With all of this, not once did I hear the kids at the zoo mention one thing about the movie. On the other hand, I heard screams of "there's Nemo" in the reptile and aquatic center. Can you say formula movies do not work? Good, I knew you could.
In God we trust, all others require data.
My five-year-old daughter loves both of those films, and I could actually stand to watch Treasure Planet a couple of times a week myself. (In case the non-parents are wondering, that's what happens when you get kids)
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I'm not sure about box office results, but on Disney's primary portal http://disneyvideos.disney.go.com/ for DVD & video sales Miyazaki movies don't even touch their other franchises. By far the most popular are the princess movies http://disney.go.com/princess/, Winnie the Pooh, and Kim Possible. Eisner opened the floodgates for making sequels to their older movies so there's been a lot of straight to video movies that have been successful relying on the older franchises (Lion King, Mulan, Tarzan) that can make up for lost profits on flops. It should also be noted that Disney has had a certain amount of success over the last couple years with 2003's Home On The Range likelastyear'sHomeOntheRange and last year's Brother Bear http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=brotherbear.ht m which were pretty entertaining. So maybe its fair to say they've learned from Atlantis and Treasure Planet, although I'm not sure if the criticism leveled Disney calling these films disasters is merited. Most movies from all the major studios are lucky if they break even at the box office, once Disney decided to start releasing around an animated movie a year, they've ceased to be an exception to that rule.
No.
Only Disney can save Disney, and that's if Disney wants to change.
Ghibli can offer inspriation and help in reminding Disney what they could do if they so choose to do so, and take chances again.
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
Howl's Moving Castle is his worst movie
Doesn't mean it will work in the future.
There seems to be an obsession with media execs that people want things based on a formula. They don't wantto take risks, or want originality. They want to repeat success.
And this is really really stupid.
Make an action adventure with swordfights and dogfights set in space in 1977 and you have a huge success. You've just made Star Wars. Do the same in 1978, and you've made a rather lame Star Wars rip off. In the early 80's everyone was trying to copy the formula, but the successes were the films that did things differently.
Disney is run by money men. People who are very good at working out money and merketting, but when it comes to imaginative ideas, they need to realise how clueless they are.
It was just achingly beautiful, and if you love the "Spirited Away" score, then you will also love the "Howl's moving Castle score. Clearly the same musicians must be at work here.
The downside was Billy Crystal's voice that sort of took the scenes with it a little over the top and pulled the movie out of the fantasy land into our world of mundanes (similar to what happened to Shrek 2). However, the animators always pulled us back into that strange and wonderful land, but sometimes there was this tug of war. Imagine watching Lord of the Rings with Gimli having a Brooklyn accent!
The theatre was packed and the audience was mostly adult, and well engaged (well, this is New York). My girlfriend and I were having a little spat before the movie but it was all forgotten by the time it ended.
Maybe Joe Six-Pack likes the over-the-top voicing by comedians but I don't. Perhaps he should take a cue from Christian Bale who played Howl in an understated and totally believable way that fit the story perfectly.
Newsfollow.com
In fact Atlantis was more closely a ripoff of the anime series Nadia: Secret of Blue Water. Plot point after plot point maps from Atlantis to the earlier series, character designs are similar...
Its always been a company with a brief spurt of serious creativity followed by a long period of expert sucking.
Disney is back where they were in the 70's. One bad family movie after another. One forgettable animated feature after another.
I think what is more suprising than their fall now is the fact that they stayed at the top during so much of the 90's. They had several decades of nothing prior to that.
More specifically, if you restrict yourself to anime, you've cut your audience--some people just won't see it or else consider it crazy, far out, and inaccessible (because, let's face it, a heck of a lot if anime is crazy, far out, and inaccessible, just in an entertaining way). And, like American animation, there is some very good anime (Cowboy Bebop, a choice I hope is non-controversial) and plenty of lame ones (I'm not going to cite any examples because that's just begging for flamewars. Think so some anime you hate and put it here). Hence, you've restricted your market by your choice of style, but anime is just that-a style. It's no guarantee of quality by any means, and Miyazaki has done some amazing work, (though let's be honest with ourselves--Mononoke and Nausicaa were more or less the same movie), but part of that may be because he hasn't whored himself out as a profit moachine, but rather as a dedicated animator, and you don't need to convert to and anime-based approach to find that, you just need a Disney willing to hire people (like those who work at, say, Pixar) who share his dedication.
And, though it's responding to flamebait, American animation isn't crap. I would go so far as to say that it's objectively better than Japanese animation. Please don't take this as an insult to anime, potential flamers, (Bebop is in fact my favoritest show ever, blah blah blah), merely an observation. The drawing in American animation tends to be less elaborate than that in anime (also somewhat less stylistically limited. It's a rare anime that doesn't include at least one of the following: drawing hair as an impossibly elaborate system of spikes sprouting of characters' heads, "expressive" eyes that take up half of people's faces, or chins likes knives). However, the animation is much better. The elaborate drawing required of anime, and in particular its frequent conversion from the still medium of manga, results in a great deal of scenes defined by minimal physical movement, or action scenes that jerk through a series of 1-second stills. Conversely, American animation, especially Disney, is always very, well, animated. Compare something like Trigun or DBZ (as examples of shows in which motion is very important) to Aladdin or Beauty and the Beast and the differences in the way motion is portrayed are just phenomenal, and there's more and smoother motion in American animation, hands down. Miyazaki's work is to some extent a partial violation of this tendency--Studio Ghibli's work at times reaches American fluidity--but the fact of the matter is that, in general, American animation is objectively better as animation. American animation tends towards the fluid and anime towards the static and elbaorate. I'm not saying either is "better," but any contention that work like Disney's represents "crap" represents the work of someone who enters a battle of wits unarmed.
You could say Nintendo should be in a similar position, working mostly with their back-catalog of intellectual property and such, and yet I don't see them sinking into the same problem that Disney is finding itself in.
Just like other animation industries, the quality on the anime depends on the series, the studio, the time it was produced, etc. You can get animations which were good at the time (ie, Dragonball Z) but that doesn't compare to today's standards. You can also get cheaply done animation (Sailor Moon) that will hold true to the most "Iron Man-ish" static animation.
However, if you have a look at some top-tier animes, like Naruto (some episodes) and FLCL (all the series -- watch it!), or some special stuff like Animatrix's Beyond, you'll see the best kind of 2d animation done, ever (with a small bit of 3d at times).
In the end, however, it's not only about the technique but about the story. That's why anime like Naruto can mix almost static character+background parts with incredibly complex fighting sequences and it will 'feel' ok: it's because the technique is not the *most* important thing. I think the western world will never 'get' it. Just ask Marvel...
I wonder how much "selling out" has to do with this. Just this week there's a story going around about how voice actors are losing their jobs to big-name celebs. The focus seems to be making animated movies more like their "real" counterparts. So you get movies that are basically Men In Black or Beverly Hills Cop-ish but animated.
As for Anime, while I may be impressed with what these artists are able to do, I'm not sure that is the path for Disney. Personally, it seems if you're not a general follower of the genre you'll find watching it a bit confusing. Most of what I've seen has very fast dialogue and often a hurried feel. That's just a lay-persons observation. I'm not saying it's crap or anything, but I know the zealots will hammer me for "not getting it."
The problem with Disney is, that it is run by a bunch of beancounters who only value law if it fits their quarterly results and value art only as a scetch on the dollar.
What makes Miyazaki so great is not the fact his work is 2D, or that it's anime, it IS that he's a storyteller. While the current 'fad' of Computer Animation may help a company like Pixar, their belief in quality story over special effects and marketing is what makes their movies. John Lasseter, Pixar's executive producer, is a huge fanboy of Miyazaki. Pixar walks the talk of every other animation company out there, they put story first. Can Disney do the same? No, not until they stop creating characters around age demographics and market appeal, period.
As far as I am concerned, Disney has always been about seducing children to the dark side. After all, Mary Poppins was a witch who took her charges to a meeting of her coven. Then there are films like "bedknobs and broomsticks". Or clips like Mickey as the sorcerers apprentice. Can anyone think of a Disney film that has promoted faith in God... didn't think so. The trouble is that our whole culture has become so hedonistic and pagan, that the devil no longer *needs* Disney, he has video games teaching children to cast spells and make pacts with demons before most of them can read.
"Sic Semper Path of Least Resistance"
... in the culture. One of the reasons I like a good bit of anime, as opposed to most US crap, is that the Japanese do *not* pull punches, on the good stuff. None of this "this supervillian can destroy civilization... but any five-year-old can stop them, though no adults can", and people *die*, and do not come back. No "they fired 20,000 rounds, and but all I got was this artistic scratch on my arm".
Can anyone here see Disney putting out something where (thinking of Nausicaa here) the heroine's father gets murdered, or another main character's sister, or other relatives die, and don't come back?
Fat chance. "Oh, we have to Protect Our Little Dears, God will take the souls of the Departed, They're All OK...."
mark "I know, all of you are immortal, too"
Don't get me wrong - the animation quality of his films clearly beats everything else in the world hands down, he's got tons of imagination, the critics love him, and he's an institution in Japan. But his storytelling style is dull. Far too often his films go like this:
1) Protagonist(s) go somewhere they've never been before
2) Various unrelated showy magical stuff happens
3) The end
In other words there's little continuity or focus, and the storyline merely serves the visuals. I'm looking at you, Spirited Away, Totoro, and Kiki's Delivery Service. Such would appear to be the case with Howl's moving castle. Alternately, it's beat-you-over-the-head ecological fable (Princess Mononoke, Nausicaa).
Now that's not to say I haven't seen Miyazaki films that I liked - Castle in the Sky was a superior film, Castle of Cagliostro was the best of Lupin, and Porco Rosso had a sort of classic European feel to it. The trouble is the critics always go ga-ga over the visuals regardless of the other fundamentals (as they used to and still sometimes do for American blockbusters). So I'll be seeing Howl in the theaters, but I won't be recommending it to anybody until I do.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Excuse me, please, but what rapture are you talking about? Howl's Moving Castle has not made it to Cedar Rapids, and probably never will. And frankly, having read the Diane Wynne Jones novel, I'll probably skip the theatrical release entirely and wait for the DVD -- so I can watch it without hearing Calcifer's voice rendered in Billy Crystal's wokka wokka. There seems to be a new Hollywood insider "in thing", viz., voice acting in a Miyazaki film, and frankly hearing Crystal, or Patrick Stewart or even Uma Thurman for that matter, really really spoils the effect.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
For my money Satoshi Kon is better, and arguably on his way to becoming more popular that Miyazaki among adults.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
They bought the rights to two fine series of cartoons done much more imaginatively than whatever they have been pumping out -- Rocky and Bullwinkle and Betty Boop. They make a little revenue from them, but they keep the characters shackled so as not to compete with the mouse or Ted Koppel.
This movie made me re-evaluate my opinions of Disney. I thought Lilo & Stitch was a beautifully animated, imaginative story that didn't feel like it was bashing little kids with morals and pretty princesses, unlike pretty much everything else Disney did on their own.
And they not only haven't done anything else like that, but they ruined it with the follow up "movie" and the tv show that it lead into, based on everything I've seen.
I've never liked Disney, but you know, there are plenty of alternatives. Heck, there were alternatives when I was a kid - I saw The Last Unicorn, Dark Crystal, The Secret of NIMH... we need more cartoons and kid's movies that are a) accessible to adults as well and b) have meaning, not just a moral.
Is there another kind of corporation?
Kids still love "The Little Mermaid," "The Lion King," and "Beauty and the Beast." These are all viable franchises, both as animations and as stage shows. Why? Because they tell a good story.
It's all up to Disney. The 2D animation form is highly relevant and even the work Disney was doing just a few years ago is popular.
Does anyone really believe that the success of the Pixar films is due primarily to the technology they employed?
I'm not suggesting that Disney should go in for "South Park" style material, but the success of "South Park" shows that even the crudest "limited animation" techniques--a la UPA in the 1950s--can achieve commercial success today.
If Disney's institutional memory has forgotten how to make good 2D animations in just a few short years, OK, but that's their own failure and they shouldn't blame it on the technique itself.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Another question: there have been four Pooh theatrical releases over the last four years. For the fourth one, how much promotion is required? How much is acceptable?
Pooh has been everywhere in recent years. That alone could be why Disney didn't market the movie. Maybe they didn't need to.
I don't think they're setting up 2D to fail. At this point, they're just ignoring it. Why push Pooh when you know that The Incredibles is guaranteed to do well and bring in buckets and buckets of merchandising money?
Goo goo g'joob.
It's all about the stories, stupid.
Seriously, one has only to look at cartoon network to understand that the stylistic medium is hardly the prime determinate of quality. Ranging from Futurama, Family guy, Justice league and others to ATHF, PowerPuff Girls, Ed, Edd, & Eddie back towards your Trigun and BeBop and the insurmountably great Samarai Jack. You can quickly surmise that how the characters are drawn hardly relates to the quality of the show and/or movie.
Disney has truly grown decrepit in it's stories, loosing a huge portion of the charm and power it's former greats (Bambi, snow white, pinochio, Dumbo, cinderella, lady & the tramp, sword int he stone, sleeping beuty, 101 dalmations, etc...) to the current onslaught of crap.
Pizar's astounding sucess stems NOT from it's medium of choice but through it's incredible story telling captivation.
I Personaly am saddened that one of the great artistic styles truly pioneered by disney itself will slowly fade and possibly die simply because disney is incapable of hiring talented writers. I love anime, however there's a great degree to be said about all the various styles out there including what is literally the heart of being a "cartoon". While realism in films such as Akira are astounding and well appreciated, the fluidity and artistic impressionism of films such as fantasia, Beuty and the beast and even others (south park, simpsons, etc...) shouldn't be sacraficed.
Suffice to say, no matter what form of animation Disney uses it will all go to squat if they don't change how they produce their storyboards.
--Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
...trotting out the rotting cadavers of cartoon characters ages old.
They need to fire their CEO and board, close the parks, fire all of the "political agenda" writers and start over as an animation company. Outsourcing talent from Japan or Pixar will not improve their game.
I can tell you what spelled the death of Disney.
Direct to video
My kids would rather see Land Before Time XIX than Cinderella 2. Has Disney (not Pixar) even released any animation over the last three years that didn't have a number after it?
My kids certainly don't have the fondness or loyalty to Disney that my siblings and I had in the seventies...
at least the way it's been in the past ten years. Pretentious movies, without soul and without characters.
As for ghibli, the only thing I hope for, is the old man Hayao to continue doing is job. He's old and probably tired. Let's hope.
need i say more?
indierock / punkrock band photos and more... http://www.digitaldefection.net
This really bugs me, I am in the animation world. Not as a bean counter, not as an animator. But as an editor and sound engineer.
I totally agree that disney has to go back o its roots and to drop a whole lot of execs and most important of all. To DUMP the disney formula.
The one that has, songs every 5 minutes, and a stupid comic relief.
Walt, bless him, was a man that believed that it was the story combined with the imagry that created a picture. He put HIS company on the line many times to get a picture out.
Mind you he also had some fantastic failures as well. But in the heart of it, WALT was the business man along with Roys father, and they fought tooth and nail sometimes. But now we have people who are NOT animation people trying to control the movies with demographics and test markets and control groups.
Treasure planet and Atlantis were not bad movies. I have seen the original art and the scripts and was amazed how much was dropped and changed for fear of offending kids.
I think that a main point in this continent is that Animation is catagorized unto itself. Any movie that is CG or 2D is just animation. But if we look into it we see that there are Dramas, Comedy, Childrens, Horror, and all varieties of animation.
Example. The animated Spawn series. Faithfull to a point of the original comic, it was merely catagorized as animation. But it is hell and gone from being disney family. Its down right brutal and horrific. gives the Sopranos a run.
Family Guy, is NOT for kids. But people THINK that it can be.
If you do a comparrison to the way Miyazaki makes films and the way Walt made films, you will see nearly identical methods and approaches, and passions for what they are doing. Asking, "Will this be the best picture it can be?" instead of "Is this picture rigged well enough to maximize profit from its varied demographics?"
Animation is Art , AND animation is business. One has to come before the other, and if done correctly the money will follow it.
In one market at least (Seattle) two versions are being shown simultaneously, one in Japanese with subtitles, the other dubbed. So you have the choice of adulterated or not.
that a country who's citizens feel inept in their ability to innovate, who's animation studio's used Donald Duck's big eyes for all of it's animated characters, is now ahead of american animation studios in terms of originality and storyline.
This just goes to show, that Disney, with its huge corporate culture, has lot its sense of where it came from. Where's the magic when we don't care about any of the Disney characters anymore?
Only if they do away with their shitty cutesy family films. N0 0NE WANTS THAT SHIT ANYMORE DISNEY, TIMES HAVE FUCKING CHANGED, S0 EITHER CHANGE 0R FUCKING DIE.
to the mods, this is not offtopic, nor is it a troll or flamebaiting, this post explains why Disney is fucking losing, it's natural selection at work, because they will not fucking change for a new era, an era that loves movies where they hold nothing back.
We are lucky that we live in a time/country where the worst thing a major business does is extend copyrights. It used to be something like working young children to death in factory.
All of the forces of the universe cannot save Disney in its present form. Should they produce better works, they might hold on to some blind and hardcore Disney fans. What Hayao Miyazaki can do is begin a reshaping for Disney. Very few companies can make so many blunders and have a chance to stay afloat. They should take the hint and redefine themselves to stay alive.... because I don't see longevity for this company if they blunder this time.
The Crimson Dragon
Eisner came in with a grand plan to cut costs. It worked in the beginning, the profit margin went up. But they were hoping that the quality would stay up. Tough, but good quality needs a lot of cash and love thrown at it. The management went the way of the bean-counters rather than that of the creative types. Thus, creativity went slowly, but surely, down the drain.
Maybe Disney can be saved... but it'll have to die first. I mean it'll need a big disaster for it to find its creative roots again, and shake off all the other entertainment industries it sucked its tentacles into.
BTW, they're not alone in following this venue. Shrek-makers Dreamworks SKG are following the same lead. 2 movies a year... pump, pump it out! (BTW, CEO Jeff Katzenberg is a manager from Disney) He's counting on cooped-up creators to pump out the juice. How long until they run out of breath? They already planned two more shrek derivatives...
Misleading titles? Inflammatory blurbs? Keep in mind that Slashdot is a tabloid.
Or a World War.
I'm the parent of two young children. Frankly, a lot of the more recent stuff from Disney or for that matter Dreamworks strikes me as a bit offensive compared to the stuff from Ghibli. It isn't just a question of artistry-it is a question of values.
Disney had a soul to begin with.
Eatherway, I don't see a death nell in the future of Disney based on the last few years. Disney is infamous for throwing as much sh** as they can agenst that wall to get at least a few that stick.
I recall people saying the same things about Disney when Fantasia was reliced, same was said of Tron. Others though when they reliced Oliver & Company after a chain of failed and/or lackluster films it was all over.
Save the soul of the Mickey Mouse cashmachine, you would need to have a soul there to start with. Is this the death rattle of Disney? No, definatly not.
I don't want to see Disney come back. I want Disney to go down in flames. Let Disney serve as a lesson to all who decide that the proper way to earn money is to change laws.
I've boycotted them ever since I discovered the atrocity that is called the Sony Bono copyright act, and I'm elated to find that they're contributing to their own demise.
www.eissq.com/BandP.html Ball and Plate System. Amuse your friends. Crush your enemies.
Wow, you just described about 99% of movies produced with your amazing anime formula. I challenge you to find a move where the follow three things DON'T happen:
1. Protagonist(s) go somewhere they've never been before
Wow, how uniquely Anime! Or not... for a movie to be interesting, the prot. needs to grow/change/ "go somewhere new." Whether it be a cop action flick ("new" = new partner, new city) or a romantic comedy ("new" = new boyfriend, job, etc), this is a generic concept.
2. Various unrelated showy magical stuff happens. Showmanship in a movie? Good thing nothing "magical" and showy didn't happen in any non-Anime children's movies. Like Snow White, Dumbo, Emperr's New Groove... oh wait...
3. The end For the sake of argument, let's say you *meant* to say that nothing actually happens. This is so obviously a misconception, I don't need examples.
you try to dismiss all Anime as unoriginal, when it's no less so than other movies. In fact I feel the case could be made that it has better "fundamentals" than "classic" animated movies.
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
Americans generally have more interest and respect for photorealistic images than stylized ones. Pixar's movies could have been done as 2D, but they got a bigger audience by making them 3D. Disney will probably attract a bigger audience to their own movies by going 3D, but if they don't improve their stories, they still won't get quite as popular as Pixar.
Anime could get a lot more customers by going 3D, so a possible breakthrough movie is Final Fantasy 7: Advent Children. Unlike American game developers, Japanese game developers would rather be making movies, so if Advent Children sells well, then all the other Japanese game companies will probably start making CG movies. They just need someone to prove that it sells.
Miyazaki won't make 3D movies because he's not comfortable with computers and his movies already make plenty of money, and he's close to retirement. Ghibli is an extension of Miyazaki himself; he only hires people to help him make the movies he wants to make, and he doesn't seem to have much of a succession plan.
Pixar, Ghibli, and Disney all need to watch out for Nintendo. Sony and Microsoft have pretty much driven Nintendo out of video games. But if Nintendo starts making CG movies, they could make them with as good or better than then best of Pixar and Ghibli's movies, and for under $30M per movie.
I don't think Disney'll survive much longer, which is a shame. When Disney started stealing from anime and all that (Kimba.. no, Simba... I am your father) and then started to dabble in other divisions, trying to outdo the Japanese (that Jungle Book DDR-imitation comes to mind).. they pretty much doomed themselves to a slow death.
I mean, it's like copying someone else's work and releasing an inferior product! Just... like... some other company I know...
Miyazaki's their only hope to survive, but alas, there are even other ways for Miyazaki's work to make it to the states.
Will anime last? Will anime last?
Are you kidding?
I thought anime was just a fad during ROBOTECH. I thought I was the only one who worshipped at the altar of Star Blazers.
And this is back in the day when you couldn't get anime at the local Blockbuster, when the only way to see anime was to have a friend (or a friend of a friend of friend) send you copies of tapes that originated in Japan.
We sat in darkended rooms watching 10th gen copies of tapes that were so blurry by that time you could barely see the characters or hear the sound. Just look up the history of the CFO (Cartoon Fantasy Organization) for that bit of madness.
Yeah, anime is just a fad, that has lasted 30+ years so far in this country alone, with no sign of abating. Anime is now glutting the animation market, you can barely find a cartoon on TV or in the video stores that *isn't* anime or anime-based, or anime looking.
Cartoon Network, to their credit, is producing a lot of animation with a variety of styles, and much of it is quite good. But, their action-oriented stuff is generally anime-looking (teen titans, justice league, etc. etc.)
Star Blazers will have it's 25th anniversary IN THIS COUNTRY (the USA), in September. That's Star Blazers, not Space Cruiser Yamato.
And, despite the crude looking animation, it's still one of my favorite shows, one of the hallmarks of anime everywhere, and still a fairly strong seller on DVD because of the power of its storyline and characters.
Yeah it's fad. A Fad might be the current hupla surrounding the re-release of GATCHAMAN, which you might have seen as Battle of the Planets (or Eagle Riders or G-Force). I saw the DVD preview for that recently, and jumped out of my seat.
But anime appears to be here to stay. Consider the fans of Astroboy, now aging into their 50's, who are still fans of Astroboy, or who, at least, can fondly remember the opening song.
And what would your childhood have been without Speed Racer, currently enjoying a breif stint doing Geico Commercials (because everyone remembers the show!).
Yeah, anime is a fad. It's a fad that has already lasted an entire generation, and kids who've been fed a steady diet of Pokemon are now turning to Love Hina (as my nephew is), and then soon Evangelion.
I'd dropped out of the anime scene until I came across something called "Big O" on Cartoon Network. That show was so friggin amazing that I became an anime fan again, practically overnight.
I'm in my 40's. Please, tell me this is a fad. Because so far, it's outlasted my entire wardrobe.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Frankly, there is no way the movie is going to make any money in the U.S. It looks like it will actually make less money than Spirited Away. And the reviews are such that I doubt it will get an Oscar either.
You can complain that this is due to the movie's limited release, poor marketing, yada yada, but the sad truth is that this movie has just opened about 20% wider than Spirited Away, and has made about 20% less money in those theaters. Where are the legion of fans? And since people are tending to like the film less, there won't be superior word of mouth either.
Ok, bringing this back to Disney, if a movie that makes over 220 million world-wide can't command a word-of-mouth of over a few million bucks in the US, what does that say about potentially *less* popular 2D offerings in the US? It means a lot of marketing money, for less punch. Better to spend the marketing money on 3D, where people are still vaguely interested just for the pretty graphics (though this fad is indeed dwindling).
That all said I am a huge Miyazaki fan, visited his museum in Japan, watched all the movies many many times... I am however realistic. I will pimp the movie to all my friends but I roll my eyes whenever someone mentions a conspiracy to keep Miyazaki down in the US.
Disney has a soul?
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
A small feature on the Pixar Exhibition at the Studio Ghibli Museum: http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/museum/pixar/
Ok so I may be showing my age but I remember when I was little seeing this cartoon about a boy who gets sold to this street musician and they travel the french countryside.. this looks to bet set around the same time.. even the characters seem to have some relevance. Ok there are tanks but it does have the feel of the 19th century. Like the beginning of the industrial age.
The book that Remi is based on 'sans famille' or Nobody's Boy was written around 1878 by Hector Marlot. 51 episodes were made and it was the saddest things ever.. one by one he lost everyone around him.. even his dogs.. I think at some point we were forbidden from watching it because we would endup crying at the end of each episode.
It also has aspects of another cartoon.. the magical enchanted prince.. like Candy Candy.. from memory she was always chasing this guy in red tartans...
I'm glad that I saw them when I was a kid together with Mazinger, Robotech, StarBlazers, Heidi because the larger than life characters do not have the same charm when you are older. By the same token I do not own a tv these days.. I think I have done enough tv watching for a lifetime.
It is interesting that the popularity of the DVD and the video player has meant that saturday morning cartoons series are not as popular as before. I'm not aware of 100+ episode series like Candy Candy being made today. The simpsons doesn't count because it works in all levels while those cartoons only appealed to kids.. yes I remember dad had to buy another tv set because the kids would get up way too early on saturday to compete for the control of the tv. He could not stand them :) . I see his point these days.
I think the film looks great.. I will have to convince one of my nephews to see it with me.
mbbac
I don't think Disney has much of a future in the cel-animation market anymore. I think with the recent wave of anime being imported to the States, Disney will stick with their best investment, Pixar.
They already knocked off their entire cel-animation department, and hired a few 3D animators to make a new feature. It's obvious that they feel that 3D is the wave of the future, when it really wasn't that.
The answer was obvious. Their stories sucked.
I feel for the cel-animators who lost their jobs.
However, I also feel that because anime has been imported like mad recently (Adult Swim, Miyazaki, Ghost in the Shell 2, etc.) that Disney, or some other distributor will take the golden reigns in marketing a new era in 2D animation.
I'm a 3D artist/animator, so I really hope that these animators have just as much job security as I do.
As long as Disney continues to be a pro-establishment machine deviced to brain-wash the minds of the young generations with its quasi-religious pink-colored movies, it is condemned to eventually fail. With all the money Disney has, and they are not able to compete in quality with japanese animated films, and both have really talented people, the difference is tha the jap guys don't need a Vatican & Political approbal before start the production of a movie.
Disclaimers: posting AC 'cause I don't have a /. account; despite voicing disagreement, this post is not intended as a troll; and finally, I'm posting under the influence of a headache and no caffeine.
;)
That out of the way, could you be any more condescending? The tone of your post is that of a fanatic who can't seem to grasp that views other than his own might be valid. You handily dismiss those who don't appreciate anime as unenlightened Joe Sixpacks, then handily compare movies intended for relatively mature audiences in one culture to kid's movies geared towards another culture.
I'm no Disney apologist. There are a few of their movies (sorry, some of their "crap") I still enjoy as an adult, but I take them for what they are--films intended for a much younger audience. And yes, there're a lot of Disney releases I just don't dig on at all. They're largely formulaic, they use overt cues to manipulate audience emotions, and in the end are generally about as spiritually fulfilling as a Snickers bar. But I like Snickers now and then.
Anime I've put an honest attempt into finding a reason to like. Akira, GitS, D, Bagi, Cowboy Bebop, others I can't recall anymore--hell, I even tried watching some of the tentacle features (guh) to see if they revealed what I was missing. What I found is that I like some aspects of anime--there're some gorgeous backdrops, cool costumes, and nifty atmospheres created in some. But ultimately the characters are generally stereotyped, one-sided, and generally annoying, and the storylines are fragmented, formulaic, and/or require more intimate study of foreign cultural references than I'm willing to put forth for the sake of a frikkin cartoon. Ultimately I find anime about as spiritually fulfilling as...diet cotton candy.
That's my take. You don't have to agree with me; different strokes, after all. It's your one-sided viewpoint which does you a discredit.
-the real Urocyon
Anonymous only 'cause I'm too lazy to create an account (and someone else took my username already anyway)
And, apparantly, a Joe Sixpack
Go and see Totoro.
Then tell me.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
How does he define a "pathetic failure"? I would say that Atlantis was an "almost" movie. It had all the parts, but the ending was sloppy, and the Atlanteans were not well thought out. I left the movie feeling let down, but wouldn't consider the movie pathetic.
As for Treasure Planet, "epic disaster" seems overwrought. I actually enjoyed the movie. Maybe I'm just a sucker for anything related to Treasure Island. The Ben Gunn robot was annoying, but after snapping on my OADSC (Obligatory Annoying Disney Sidekick Character) filter, the rest of the movie wasn't bad.[1]
[1] Well, it did suffer from the "What More Could Possibly Go Wrong?" cliched ending. But that seems to be an epidemic in a lot of movies lately, not just Disney. The characters have to accomplish a difficult task, but in order to pound it into the audience that the task is difficult, a series of incredible, impossible-to-overcome problems spring up. The characters must solve these problems, then the original (difficult) task is completed almost as an afterthought. The Flight of the Phoenix remake did this, and it drives me crazy. --Oops, I didn't mean to slip into a rant.
Anonymous Kev
Proudly posting as AC since 1997
(Finally got a dang account in 2004)
A children's story which is only enjoyed by children
is a bad children's story... No book is really worth reading
at the age of ten which is not equally (and often far more)
worth reading at the age of fifty. (C.S. Lewis)
It's Disney - all their original animation is done by other companies now and they are just a distributor middleman who can be replaced just as easily by someone else.
They're a lame horse now, and it's time to put them out to pasture and out of our misery, animationwise.
"My God...it's full of trolls!"
Anyway, Disney lost its soul a long time ago, with it watered-down adaptations of children's literature and corny, shallow cartoons. Consider their biggest contribution to the English language: Mickey Mouse. Nobody who has seen the castrated satyrs in Fantasia can truely believe that Disney has a soul.
I'm a hobbiest animator and part time animation/art instructor. Disney's big problem is to little story. Although I love the look of a well animated film it's the story that makes or breaks the film. Even a simple story told in an imaginative way works (Star wars episode 4). Complex stories with ROTTEN special effects also work (Dr. Who) and of course great stories, great effects, good humor excellent movies (Pixar). Disney has become too hollywood. Nothing special, nothing new, rehashed, over produced, dull and boring. I think they had the right idea, fire some people and start fresh, but not the animation department (wrong target). Instead hit the folks with the problem, management, writers. Unleash the artist/animators, let them do what they do best. Make an extremely open, friendly, positive creative environment for the animation department. Be willing to take a risk. Don't follow the age old habit of doing it "that way" because we've always done it "that way". If Disney would only make an incubator for ideas to flow and get the management out of the way they could make some great films. Don't believe this then look at Pixar and Studio Gibly, they seem to have caught on to the magic.
That's because the Slesinger "Deep Pooh" lawsuit is still being appealed. I'm sure once the lawsuit is finally resolved, Disney will crap out faux Americanized Pooh merchandise until the landfills are full of it.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Don't screw with our movie or this carves a square piece out of your abdomen.
Could have fooled me.
To me Studio Ghibli has replaced Disney. I used to love Disney stuff back in the day, but somewhere along the road the magic was just lost. I figured I was just growing up. Then along comes Ghibli with amazing movies like Totoro no Tonari, Sen to Chihiro, Mononoke, Kiki, Laputa and throws me right back where I was. A child all over again. And it feels good. The Ghibli universe (or rather universes, since every universe is more or less unique) is just pure magic. Pixar does a good job of capturing some of the same magic. I very much enjoyed The Incredibles, Monster Inc. and so on. But what about Disney? Well, I did actually like Treasure Planet. Perhaps because I loved the original story and had it on audio casette, so I knew it by heart. But Disney managed to visualise it and retell it in a totally different way - but were still true to the spirit of the story. That's the only Disney story I've really enjoyed in recent years. Brother Bear was ok, but not exactly spectacular story-wise - though I did love the animation. It seems to me, that Disney is like Apple were in the years before Jobs came back. A chicken running around without its head. I guess they can make a comeback some day. In fact I sort of hope they do, even if we have Studio Ghibli and Pixar to fill the void.
Against the grain
Can good storytelling save a company which has focused more and more on story clichés?
Hmmmm, tough one. And no, I'm not joking. On one side, we have a public which has never appreciated japanese animation. On the other hand, they're yearning for more, and are sick tired of hollow stories. Make up your minds guys.
Have you seen the push for Madagascar? It's insane, but it creates "buzz".
And, imho, with big projects like the Disney animations there must be a massive payoff to justify the expenditure. Ignoring it _is_ setting it up for failure. I believe that to be true of any hollywood "blockbuster".
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Because it was 10x better than anything they did. They tried to spike it from getting the best Animated Oscar so their own PoS (Treasure Planet) would get it.
Disney is too far gone to ego and hubris to ever change. It's just the way it is. Pixar? You know a big reason why they left? They saw how Studio Ghibli got spiked, and being big fans of their work, (The people working at Pixar actually did the sub for Spirited Away..and it was actually pretty good, for a change) were worried that the big mouse would eventually do the same to them.
Yeah...I'm a little bitter about this. I hate ego and hubris. Especially the kind of eating a poison pill just to screw yourself over because of it.
Goku can kick Mickey and Totero's ass.
;)
The easy part was getting the brain out, but the hard part was getting the brain out.
If the earliest Mickey Mouse cartoons went into the public domain, the character itself would also become public domain. Although more recent Mickey cartoons would still be copyrighted, anyone could start making their own new Mickey Mouse cartoons. Or t-shirts, or watches, or lunch boxes... One would only need to be careful to derive their Mickey drawings etc. from the public domain works, rather than later versions.
(Lurking down here in the AC dept: nobody will read this but wotthehell!)
Treasure Planet could have been a great picture if the suits had allowed it. Unfortunately, their insistence that "No Disney Film Runs More than 100 Minutes" meant that there wasn't enough room (in the 91 minute running time) to fit in the storytelling, the obligatory musical number, and the "oh, wow!" animation/special effects. I found it tremendously irritating that again and again they would get started with something neat, only to let it fizzle-- because they had to stick to that 91 minute window. Sad.
(For comparison: Disney's live-action Treasure Island (1950) - 96 minutes; Victor Fleming's Treasure Island (1934) - 110 minutes; Star Wars "Episode 4" (1977) - 121 minutes original theatrical length)
Disney has a soul ???
I am a little disappointed with his latest films. They all have the creativity and beautiful animation that he's known for, but the stories are kind of lacking. If he stayed on track with his older films, he could have owned Disney.
Usually the slow and steady downfall of a corporation comes when the last of the founders or their children leave the corporation. Typical examples Disney, HP, well IBM is more the exception than the rule. But especially in companies which were foundet upon art or frontier technology this downfall can be seen.
Usually the creative people who drive the company and which had relative freedom and security guaranteed by the founders (because they knew that some things only pay off in the long term) come under the yoke of some MBAs, who always seem to hate free thinkers, they get the pressure of having to secure quarterly results, and usually they are driven away or give up internally, and the quality and art goes down the drain.
The last step is first the dissolvment of entire departements which drove the company research or artwise, then the company becomes a brand only, and the main protagonists which ran the company qualitywise into the ground leave the scene with a golden handshake.
Recent examples as I said have been Disney, the entire record industry, which seems to be more busy buying themselves draconian laws, to keep their revenue up than funding art (which sort of drove them until the late 70s)
Also HP is a typical example of such a company, which took a record dive once the last relatives of the founders were driven out.
I expect apple to go the same way once Jobs bites the dust, and ditto for Microsoft once the founders are not there anymore.
The reason why Ghibli or Pixar can drive the animation scene currently is, because they could build or keep a relativ freedom from corporate beancounter greed, which always runs art or construction quality into the ground (art research and technology have lot in common, they need relativ freedom to thrive and free thinking people not driven by quarterly hire and fire greed)
Given the current state of affairs, I would not really mind seeing Disney going the way of the dodo, to bad that some of the original Disney family are still around seeing their old family company being rammed into the corporated greed graveyard (not financially but artistically)
LTLLNTIS
Face the wheel! I hope they hit the ground hard.
For what it's worth, that factoid was embedded in a quote from Berkeley professor Russell Merritt. Didn't think I needed to factcheck it, but I should have--it's obviously based on out of date information.
> I found it tremendously irritating that again and again they would get started with something neat, only to let it fizzle.
I think you're quit wrong. A few things got compressed, like combing the characters of the Squire and the Doctor. But they actually expanded on some themes over what's in the original. For example, emphasizing Silver's role as a surrogate father figure in Treasure Planet added a layer of emotional depth to the plot.
"Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries!"
Isn't Ghibli better off if their works aren't tainted by Disney? Isn't DISNEY better off if they don't fuck this up for themselves by putting their stink all over it? Why does Disney even need to be saved at all?
So...that means...everything on Adult Swim is for children? Even Aqua Teen Hunger Force? Sheesh. Even an adult like myself can still enjoy a cartoon more than MTV.
the rapturous critical acclaim is among critics who don't know jack about Miyazaki and don't have the frame of reference to tell his good works from his bad works. Most critics are going to say it's amazing because they don't want to be seen as 'Dunb' or 'Out of it'
c le?AID=/20050609/REVIEWS/50601002/1023) this is an inferior movie when compared to his other works.
Among people with a clue (for example Roger Ebert who is very knowledgeable about the director and very animation friendly http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti
p.s I feel Miyazaki is horribly overrated some of his stuff is ok but most of his work leaves me completely cold.
The reason they can't is, of course:It takes a lot of effort, lead time, and risked capital to get the merchandizing machine up and running. They cannot afford to have a dud with that money at risk. They cannot afford to waste a summer with no fad to profit from. And, they cannot afford to have anything distract the public's attention from the buying frenzy.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
i duno I have seen some good Japanese Animation. Some not so good. My top faves include some of the classics. I liked Akira not for the story, nor the tech, but becuase it is such a horrible done B movie it makes it amusing. I liked the first part of Escoflone, the second parts were nyeh. My point is the better Disney animation were fun wimsicle and told a story, and not to much cheese or sap. The first aladyn told a story, (I fast forwarded through some of the sapy music.) Castle in the sky and Ninja Scroll tell stories, and are fun even my 2 year old nephew runs around chanti Lua! Lua Lua. However don't champion anime to much, some of it is terrible, not the C or B movie kind but the: I-want-a-refund-from-netflix-this-was -a-waste-of-money kind. (Xtrgiest, and the Samura Showdown come to mind.)
Live in the Boston area? The Kendall is showing both the dubbed and the subtitled versions, take your pick.
Exactly. Plus, when they advertise their movies, how much effort do they put into showing what the story's really about? All they show is the fancy graphics and the celeb voices.
Madagascar, at the moment, is making me plain sick. They're spending millions on advertisement (with even a Nascar painted with their logo) but so far, looks about as inspired as a... rock. Sorry, I couldn't think of anything as uninspired as a zoo breakout, trip on a boat, living in the jungle. Is that really the whole plot? Animals dig out of the zoo, sneak onto a boat, then find out the jungle isn't as great as they hoped. I ain't watching it until I hear some good reviews about the story line, and I'll laugh if this turns out to be a flop. (though knowing kids today, it won't)
"That's so plausible, I can't believe it!" - Leela
"My other pet peeve is using famous movie/TV actors for the voice talent."
;-)
It's always been done that way, you're just too young to notice
A few examples:
Pinocchio: Jiminy Cricket, voiced by Cliff Edwards (big in vaudeville and movies, he's the guy who preimered the song "Singin' in the Rain," in the film The Hollywood Revue of 1929 (1929))
Peter Pan: Captain Hook, voiced by Hans Conried (remember Fractured Flickers?-- appeared in 64 films prior to Peter)
Alice in Wonderland: Mad Hatter, voiced by Ed Wynn (vaudeville and stage, was the Texaco Fire Chief on radio, later appeared in Mary Poppins); March Hare, voiced by Jerry Colonna (another radio person-- but appeared in 34 movies, member of Bob Hope's USO touring company); Cheshire Cat, voiced by Sterling Holloway (141 films-- mostly bit parts-- "character" voice for many radio dramas)
etc, etc...
Well, he would say that. He spent his whole life writing children's stories for fifty-year olds.
I keed, I keed! I love the Clive Staples Lewis! I keed because I love!
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I grew up on Disney cuz of my mom (of course). But I also got a early dose of anime not in this country. The earliest anime ive watched is Mazinger Z, Gatchaman, Candy Candy (chick stuff) and some others i cant recall. Now I liked that stuff too cuz it was different look and feel. But as I got older I got smarter. One thing that pissed me off was that American cartoons didnt follow continuity and didnt have a ending (like smurfs). I started looking for toons that had more plot and thats what attracted me to Anime. The only few american toons to follow plot and have an ending was Gargoyles, Exo Squad (anyone ever seen this on dvd.. of course not!). Gargoyles was by far Disney's best item.. but it was "TOOK DARK". WAAAAAAA we'll scare of little kids and they will think Disney is evil.. Ah if they only knew. And for the record Im not totally bashing Disney. They are just lacking massive creative substance. I did enjoy and do own things like Toy Story 1 & 2 and Definitely enjoyed The Lion King (even though they somewhat ripped that off, Kimba...) This is what i think of disney. Yes they are a money grubbing empire.. But nothing will save Disney. It has become Cult-like no different than star Trek or Star Wars. What will keep Disney going is that the current disney fans will have children who will show them the world of Disney. So disney fans breeding disney fans. If I evever had kids Ill show them both Disney and Anime.. I'll let them choose and embrace what they want to. I figure as anime becomes more popular and starting to ensnare younger audiences thats whats taking away from the Disney Empire. As someone pointed out earlier eventually Disney will be nothing more than a place where you go to visit (at $50-$75 a head) and buy loads of merchandise.
There's no Freedom like UFP-dom
(Wow, somebody actually reads at 0!)
Agreed about Silver, but they missed a great chance with Captain Amelia (and they could have made a fun subplot out of interplay with the Doctor-- cats and dogs, indeed). Missing "oh, wows!": More scenes in the port before sailing, where's the planet interior when Jim and B.E.N. sneak away to take over the ship? Again: oh, for another 10 minutes!
Their better output is outsourced. "Disney" doesn't just distribute Pixar and Ghibli; they also distribute Vanguard Animation from the UK, ("Valiant"), and Walden Media from New Zealand ("Narnia"). Disney is really more of a distributor than a studio now.
Once the Pixar deal runs out, Disney's distribution pipeline may run dry. Then what?
Animation alone cannot pull in the audience. What is lacking is *storytelling* and that takes writers.
Disney has lately been doing quite a lot of something that they pooh-poohed in the discussion on at least one DVD: more of the same. If cute spotty dogs sell once, sell 'em again. Some days it seems that everything coming out of Disney is "a II movie". Don't give us more dwarves. Let stories end, and tell new ones.
I haven't seen _Treasure Planet_ so I can't say whether it's good or bad, but I've seen the trailer and the concept miserably fails the laugh test. The animation is darned good but what it's telling me is *stupid*.
When most of your new stuff is either ridiculous or retreaded, don't expect to do well.
There is some hope within the industry that Bob Eiger will mend some fences that Eisner has broken (starting with Pixar). Eisner is/was a notorious micro-manager. He did manage to turn around Disney when he came on board, but he hung around too long and became surrounded by yes-men.
wow, if they can just hire more special effects people, obtain more technology, more computers, more graphics.
but the main issue with disney is the utter lack of talent in STORYTELLING.
but that won't be addressed, just need more pixels. that'll fix it. that and maybe some cowbell.
Toootorooo, Toootoroooo...
Toootoro, Totoroooo...
Tonari no To to ro Totoro To to ro Totoro...
Interesting. I never thought of _The Abolition of Man_ as a children's story.
Raise your hand if you can tell me with a straight face that Disney would have green-lighted Spirited Away.
Anyone, anyone, Buler?, no, didn't think so.
Miyazaki-san comes up with some crazy shit and it turns out to be brilliant. But noone in old-school Disney is capable of recognizing it as such before the dollars start rolling in. In fact, I would bet the script for Spirited Away would have been labeled an unmarketable acid trip if they had read it without hearing how much it made in Asia.
Let's face it, Disney has gone down the path of the Dark Side and forever it will dominate its destiny.
[n.b. I'm talking about the suits who run Disney, not the grunt animators who probably understand]
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
It fails to mention that The Lion King is not Disney's original story, but was instead plagiarized from Kimba the White Lion.
By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
All the passholders voted for most-liked and Howl's Moving Castle was WAY up there at the Seattle International Film Fest - showing to record crowds and the tickets sold out even before the festival started showing films.
I think it was third-place for ballot voting for all movies, but that's because not everyone votes scientifically or compares them like the full series passholders do.
So, yes, it may be a harbinger of good future things, especially if the English dubbed version isn't censored from what I saw in the Japanese version with English subtitles.
yes, I'm the Will Affleck... in the program book.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Read the book! Haven't seen the movie yet but the book is by one of my favorite authors, Diana Wynne Jones. Some of her stuff has been compared to Harry Potter, except that her's came out years earlier. Good stuff.
"And Miyazaki can put warm, fuzzy messages about friendship, family, loyalty, etc. into his movies without triteness, cloying sentimentality or song-and-dance routines"
You've hit the nail on the head for a key reason why Miyazaki's film work so well - they often manage to create an emotional response in the viewers. This is no mean feat as most live action movies cannot achive this same goal. This emotional connection delivers an experience that the audience recognizes as truth without feeling that they have been manipulated - something song and dance rarely can deliver.
Disney is simply delivering what American parents want.
...and yet parents are simply not bringing their kids to Disney films anymore, so this comment certainly isn't the case. They might still be conforming to "the idea," but theyre not delivering anything in reality, so they certainly DO have to figure out what to change.
the trademark is for Mickey Mouse, not just the modern version. i'm pretty sure that an image's natural evolution is covered under trademark law, otherwise, corporate logos and characters would fall into public domain the instant a single dot of color or arrangement of elements was changed.
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. RAmen.
back in feb04, sylvain chomet ( les triplettes de belleville (2003)) contributed an interesting article to the times opinion page about the cartoon characters (definitely no longer free reading) that make the decisions at the mouse. it's not very complimentary.
nor should it be...
REPORT ALL OBSCENE MESSAGES TO YOUR POTSMASTER
I've shown Miyazaki films to a number of people (family/friends) and very few of them came away impressed by anything but the animation. Most people thought it was wierd and/or boring. They certainly didn't seem emotionally connected.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
My two young boys love Treasure Planet. It feels like so much of the stuff put out by Disney lately is aimed at girls. Perhaps that's just the paranoid, overly-macho aspect of me, but I can't help but feel that Disney is more interested in entertaining little girls than boys lately (excluding Pixar). Treasaure Planet was a total boy movie. It dealt with the struggles of a young man entering adulthood. It wasn't perfect, but it was better than most of the other Disney films I've watched lately. I loved the soundtrack too :-)
Forget the whales - save the babies.
can you imagine Disney of today doing a show where the main character's mother is killed shortly into it?
Just out of curiosity, have you seen The Hunchback of Notre Dame recently?
Imagine a horde of fat greasy guys dressed as Sailor Moon, katanas in their dorito-dusty hands, storming the gates of Disneyland.
I'd buy that cartoon.
So, maybe he's onto something here. The characters in his stories struggle, but don't fall into the trap of demonizing their enemies. It's touching, really. He's not saying that Good will vanquish Evil, he's saying Good can transcend the very division of the world into Good and Evil.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
People are getting tired of Cinderella's castle. They want Howl's castle instead.
Having only seen the trailer, (which by itself convinced me to see the film - Studio Ghibli is GOOD!) I have only brief images of that walking building to go on, but that would be an AWESOME experience. Technically challenging o do anything like it, of course, but well worth it!
There's a scene in Charles Stross' novel "Singularity Sky" where a character goes riding around town in a Baba-Yaga-house-on-chicken-legs, which idly munches other buildings while waiting for the boss to get back. Gotta power that gadget somehow...
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
None of this matters until they decide to play them on more than 3 theatres in the entire country.
I live in the heart of Silicon Valley where you would expect to see a higher concentration of people interested in this stuff than the national average, and I can't find a theatre playing this unless I drive 30 minutes into SF.
GITS2:Innocence was playing for all of... 1 week? in one artsy theatre in Palo Alto, and Steamboy never made it. This is pathetic.
The story from Studio Ghibli VP Steven Alpert's "Mononoke Hime" Diary:
January 27 (Tue) - Meeting with Harvey Weinstein in New York. In January we had our first meeting with Miramax since the decision was made for them to release MONONOKE HIME. Suzuki-san brought Harvey Weinstein a present from Japan. A Japanese sword (not a real one, but one that looked exactly like a real one, except the blade was not sharp). We had heard that Harvey Weinstein sometimes has a very bad temper, and we notices that the other Miramax staff in the room looked very worried as he took his present from its sheath and examined the blade).
Suzuki-san asked Harvey Weinstein to please accept the present, and remember: "MONONOKE HIME, no cut." ---they crank out the same old stuff...
I just think it's sad how Disney doesn't relese the stuodio ghibli flims on a wider basics .I feel that if disney were to relese Howl's moving Castle like Sprited away after it won best film they would make a hell of alot more money.Sad to say disney has no balls anymore & puts all the cash behinde films witm Miss Duff &Miss Lohand wich are sure to be boxoffice flops then make up the cash with the DVD releses. Disney seems to be afrid to take the risk to market these flims better to reach a wider audidence. Like I said at the start if they did all they'd have to do then is sit back & watch the cash wave roll in.
For one, when I was a kid I really enjoyed Mickey Mouse, Tom and Jerry, and the like. I don't know whether I would have enjoyed all these politically incorrect japanese creations, that teach nothing to kids, except what they already know and are born with, such as how to rub stuff in each other's faces, and show off how my pokemon is bigger than your pokemon, and my uber-power-crystal-ring beats the pants off your uber-power-magic-sword. What ever happened to Hans Cristian Anderssen's stories, and LaFontaine's fables? Why is it that the only way to get someone's brain tickled anymore is by eyecatching ching-boom-explosions and fast-fast-fast action where you can't catch your breath, let alone meditate or think over things. And why do you think that computerized classrooms will teach kids more than a simple chalk and blackboard, and a teacher with a heart and devotion. Or for that matter 3D stuff will be automatically more entertaining than hand-drawn, 2D stuff, with meaning and content?
While its work is focused on animation, its mind and soul are focused on your wallet. This is where it begins and ends with Disney. Money.
Disney has a soul?
Now, THAT's news.
The sounds like a job for Stoppard!
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
How can Hayao Miyazaki save Disney's "soul"? Disney is just a distribution company for Ghibli works. If all Disney's in-house productions suck then their soul is already dead.
"No amount of technology will make a bad story into a good one." I recall reading that this principle was set in stone (literally) at Pixar's headquarters.
Disney (and DreamWorks, for that matter) has forgotten that gee-whiz 3D rendering doesn't automatically translate into a great movie. They like to blame the failure of their 2D features on hand-drawn animation being passe, but they're just kidding themselves. The movies tanked because the stories sucked - due to lack of quality voice acting, direction, or bad writing.
Disney going anime would have old Walt just spinning in his grave. Would you silly geeks please do some research on Walt Disney's legacy and figure out that he left more than just brand name for a creep like Eisner to get rich off of?
I haven't researched this myself, but I'm pretty sure Mickey Mouse is a trademark and, as such, can't just be used anyway anyone wants to use it just because ``Steamboat Willie'' goes into the public domain. Is there a lawyer out there who will confirm this? Again, I haven't done the research, but I don't think you have either, so please don't start so quickly implying your guesses and opinions are factually correct and the other guy is automatically wrong, all right?
After Spirited Away, Miyazaki can coast for miles and miles before he has to buff up his laurels for an audience that hasn't seen the film yet. And yes, the English dub is the issue. Disney has so loaded the soundtrack with Big Names making minimal contributions (or negative contributions in the case of Crystal) that the Miyazaki direction and Diana Wynne Jones story are slimed under the dreck. yes, I'm the grikdog... in the gas mask.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
I'd rather go play Chrono Trigger or Final Fantasy if I wanted to get my "epic storyline".
Mickey Mouse is protected by copyright and trademark.
Then why do I see Popeye, Superman, Bugs Bunny, and other presumably trademarked cartoon characters on the covers of VHS and DVD compilations of pre-1964 animated short films whose U.S. copyrights were never renewed? A trademark is designed to communicate the origin of a good; once copyright in Plane Crazy, Gallopin' Gaucho, and Steamboat Willie expires (and some claim it already has), a prominent notice to the effect "this is not a product of The Walt Disney Company" should suffice to distinguish between Disney's works and someone else's follow-on work. Comedy III v. New Line Cinema, 200 F.3d 593 (9th Cir. 2000): "the Lanham Act cannot be used to circumvent copyright law. If material by copyright law has passed into the public domain, it cannot then be protected by the Lanham Act without rendering the Copyright Act a nullity."
After Spirited Away, Miyazaki can coast for miles and miles before he has to buff up his laurels for an audience that hasn't seen the film yet. And yes, the English dub is the issue. Disney has so loaded the soundtrack with Big Names making minimal contributions (or negative contributions in the case of Crystal) that the Miyazaki direction and Diana Wynne Jones story are slimed under the dreck. yes, I'm the grikdog... in the gas mask.
He'll probably coast for kilometers, is my guess.
I think the only downside to Howl's Moving Castle is the (very japanese) war-time atmosphere, with the bombs and all, although most US audiences will love it anyway.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
they are asking YOUR representative to extend the copyright
I was too young to vote (age 16 years and 1 month in November 1996) when the 105th House was elected. Therefore, how were any of the representatives who in 1998 passed the Bono Act and the DMCA "my" representatives?
How cute of you to assume Disney actually HAS a soul to save!
There's no way Miyazaki (or even all the world together) could save Disney's soul, because Disney Corp has sold it to devil long ago.
There's no soul to save, only quarterly revenue reports to write. Well, Miyazaki's movie will make them look better, no doubt.
The moon is not fully subjugated. I demand a second assault wave preceded by a massive nuclear bombardment.
Well, until anime gets away from every character looking like a doe-eyed 12 year old it will never be accepted by the masses. There are some really cool things about anime but it being full of artistic cliches is definitely annoying.
The meme police, They live inside of my head
I used to love Disney movies as a kid, but the last 5+ years of Disney has been crap. Like the old saying goes, "they don't make 'em like they used to".
Some of the older disney movies I enjoyed (1970-1990):
The Rescuers, The Rescuers Down Under, All Dogs Goto Heaven, The Fox and the Hound, Lady and the Tramp, 101 Dalmations, Robin Hood, Aladdin, etc.. (there is probably lots more that I can't remember)
% cat Disney* Mickey* Minnie* *mouse* > /dev/null
Ironically, everyone in Japan complained about the aboslutely HORRID voice acting by Kintaku, who played Howl.
The first 5 minutes of the movie were "Wow, he's so bad ass because he's keeping it cool in the face of danger"
After 2 hours, "he's... still... keeping it... cool... EMOTE DAMN YOU! EMOTE!"
--------
Nothing can be done before the tremendous power!
RabidComics
Have you ever actually watched anything that you're talking about? That kind of action-oriented stuff is *everywhere*. Not just in Anime.
And while we're on the subject, there are plenty of *good* anime series that *arent* about action. Niea Under 7, Serial Experiments Lain, Twin Spica, and Windy Tales, just to name a few. They're all really great series. With the exception of Lain, they lack all of the action-over-drama and speed-over-character-developent stuff that you're bitching about.
Pull your head out of the sand and *look* for the stuff you're asking for. It's out there, both in live-action and animated forms, from all over the world. It just doesnt play in major movie theatres, because the trash that does play there panders to exactly what you're complaining about.
I really enjoyed the old disney cartoons. Doesnt somehow make japanese animation somehow more sucktastic that it doesnt follow the old vanilla consistancy that those shows had. They had mindless slapstick humor in them instead of mindless speed-high action.
SRSLY.
Often, when Wikipedia.org is down, Answers.com is still up. Would you rather have a Wikipedia article from Answers.com or a 503 error from Wikipedia.org?
phsycial appearences are everything. The majority of americans will take anime very likely and would view any thing anime as just another pokemon movie. I believe the reason americans aren't giving anime a chance is because it doesn't look american. don't get me wrong plenty of people would go see animation for the quality. But my thoery is like with food ---if it looks bad but actually would taste good, would u try it? vs. if it looks good but actually taste like bad would u try it?------ I just saw that editing of Ghibli is not allowed, but would it be possible to remake it? using the same script? In other words have american animators redraw the movie using the same script (maybe different chracter names). We'll have the best of both worlds this way.
The katana was delivered personally to Mr. Eisner. The attached note read, simply, "No cuts".
I'd rather listen to Vogon poetry than have to sit through one of those formulaic pieces of Disney crap.
My wife has given up asking, she knows what the answer is.
Even I enjoyed Monsters Inc etc. though, which I think, says a lot coming from someone who watched Hammer House of Horror at 8 rather than Mickey and Donald.
Not Free SF Reader
For what it's worth, I'll have to take something back from the previous post. I DO fault Miyazaki for adding a pointless war plot to Howl's Moving Castle and thus making a mess out of it. That was stupid, especially since in doing so he threw away big chunks of the original storyline that actually helped it make sense. Whatever he tried to do, it ended up as possibly his worst movie so far. Aside from animation, there's very little left to it. Bad, really bad.
Heh, what do you expect from a company that "regrets" to announce that their quarterly profits are not rising as fast as they did the previous quater.
In other words:
1- They are making a profit
2- The profit is greater than last quater
3- The profit is still rising
4- But it's not rising as fast as it was before
Many companies would be more than happy with just #1.
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
D'oh... I really can spell the word 'quarter' if I try. I have quaternions stuck in my head for some reason. =P
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF