My money was on historical roller derby musical comedies, but who knows it's all up in the air. The problem is that straightforward adaptions have a lot of darker material in them. And so either Disney promotes it as the dark-gritty real adaption that people want to see, which has been done before, or they take out all the naughty bits and market it to a wider audience but loose a lot of artistic creativity. So instead they take the story in a wildly different direction, losing faithfulness to the original story but having more room to do something new.
Also, I feel like there wouldn't be much of a point. The original tales, or at least the Grimm adaptions, were made as cautionary tales with a lot of heavy Christian values weaved throughout. Pushing them into the modern age loses a lot of that context, so they look unnecessarily darker and edgier than they probably were intended to appear.
Tangled also had a pretty troubled production, getting retooled from another Shrek-lite (it was during that period in Disney's history) into a more straightforward tale. Honestly, I think becoming a lot more sincere was the best decision for the film.
I could see the artstyle moving even closer to 2D animation. Kind of like what Paperman was trying to do, just actually feasible for a larger scale film. Part of that will probably include trying to break that smooth look of the style, giving it a few more edges and bumps to make it appear more physical.
edited 20th Jan '16 11:19:27 AM by InAnOdderWay
It wasn't so much troubled as "he considered the idea and didn't make it." He wanted to do it as a short but opted to do "The Ugly Duckling" instead - which won him an Oscar, so good on him. (And it was fairly faithful to Andersen anyhow.)
Roller-derby comedies can always still be the next big thing. All it needs is that one hit movie.
I don't think you couldn't do a straightforward fairy tale film these days, though... There are some tales that would pretty much be unadaptable, sure, but there are still many that you could do something with. Nobody outside of Japan has done a movie version of "The Wild Swans," for example.
And you don't have to stick to the Western fairy tale canon. Other countries have their own fairy tales that deserve to be better known... Oh, wait - in an age when anything is cultural appropriation I don't think you could get away with it. Still, those countries are doing something with it. Didn't Studio Ghibli produce a film about the tale of the Bamboo Princess?
"They say I'm old fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast."@0dd1, I thought The Good Dinosaur had its heart in the right place and liked the overarching message but also felt like its writing was very weak overall. Very beautiful backgrounds, though.
"Tangled" style?
I think they're referring to the artstyle / designs when they say that.
has a clue, but it's usually not the correct one 0.55% of the time... I don't see how the Tangled art style is different than any Disney movie that came after it. They're pretty much the same.
The style used in Tangled is basically a 3D adaption of the same style used in a lot of other Disney animated canon works, and was also used in Frozen. I distinguish it from the style used in, say, Wreck it Ralph (though I guess Big Hero 6 uses it as well).
So is the style of Big Hero 6, and Wreck-It Ralph. THOSE also look and move like a 2D Disney animated film. I.... really see no difference. None. Unless you think their modern settings play a factor in it.
edited 20th Jan '16 6:27:34 PM by kyun
most newer disney moves look similar, thay may be going for a specific look and feel to there characters
Insanity is like falling upThey actually don't. What they have in common is that Disney puts a lot of emphasis on details. They are playing with different textures and put a number of flourishes in the background. Disney hasn't put that much emphasis on the backgrounds since Sleeping Beauty.
But the actual style is very different. Tangled and Frozen are kind of similar because Tangled is inspired by old European Art while Frozen is inspired by the Scandinavian art style, and those two are not that much apart to begin with. But Big Hero 6 is definitely inspired by the anime style and Wreck-it-Ralph changes the style slightly depending on the computer game, but it has way less flourishes and more, well, "stuff" in the background.
To be fair it is the case with pretty much every single studio. It also works for Dreamworks, and Aardman, and even Ghibli. It's not really an issue to have a "signature style".
Pixar might be the exception.
On another note - Zootopia's out in three weeks \o/.
My huff is that we'll never see King of Elves.
Also the fact Newt got shelved due to the fact too many Nervous Guy/Streetsmart n Sassy Girl animal animated romance movies came out.
I wanted to see that two-headed snake critter
I'm having to learn to pay the priceMy criteria for judging if two movies share an artstyle is, "Put together wearing the same kind of clothes, would the characters from both series look they belong into the same world?"
And Tangled, Big Hero 6, Frozen, and even the 'real world' sections of Wreck It Ralph do fit that for me...
I don't see what's wrong with having a signature style. It helps distinguish you from your competitors.
"They say I'm old fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast."I just wish Disney wouldn't copy and paste their "standard CGI female face" onto all their girl characters...
I've got fanfics for Frozen, Spectacular Spider-Man, Crash Bandicoot, and Spyro the Dragon.Pretty sure that the case with Frozen was more time constraints than anything else. No idea about the deal with Moana.
If it happens in the next few Disney films after that, you'll have an answer - they're lazy.
"They say I'm old fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast."The reason for Frozen's somewhat fragmented script is because they literally had to rewrite it until a year before its release because the film was stuck in Development Hell for way too long. If anything, the reason is the ANTITHESIS of them being lazy. Can't say much about the character designs though. Maybe it's their 3D modelers.
edited 21st Jan '16 11:04:58 AM by kyun
The character designing is where they may be lazy. How smaller companies who do CGI for TV can have more diversity in their female characters' faces and yet big companies don't is beyond me...
With some of the choices taken in the script, though, you have to wonder if the time constraints made them think "Eh, let's keep it this way, they'll never notice."
edited 21st Jan '16 11:21:34 AM by Aldo930
"They say I'm old fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast."I have to defend Disney here: The faces might look kind of similar on pictures (I guess mostly because that is the sweet spot between CGI and the good old Disney house style), but once you see them in movement, they don't look similar at all. They have all different habits, another mimic and a few details which just make them look different.
Plus, I am actually more bothered that Anna ended up a worse version of Rapunzel is nearly every aspect than about some similarities in their looks.
Oddly enough, as for all most of its original adult designs (save Cedric) are uninspired and bland, Sofia the First actually manages to nail the classic Princesses' looks in CGI, making them look different and distinctive while also keeping them true to their originals and like they believably could inhabit the same universe. And on a TV budget.
TV CGI is nominally supposed to be not as good as movie CGI.
How exactly can people behind a TV show have different female faces in their character designs, but not the people who make big-budget movies?
edited 22nd Jan '16 7:49:51 AM by Aldo930
"They say I'm old fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast."Because budget was never the problem in the first place. The problem was likely a mix of troubled development, having a lot of other things to deal with in the film, and time constraints more than it was budget issues or laziness.
Am I the only one who's noticed that Disney's adapted a ton of old TV shows into movies... And most of them suck?
The Mr Magoo film sucked. The Inspector Gadget film sucked. The Underdog film double sucked.
The only good one was George Of The Jungle...
"They say I'm old fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast."
A lot of animated Disney films had trouble productions. The Little Mermaid was being proposed when Walt was still alive, right?
Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?