Disney/Pixar In General

I'm pulling for Moana myself, but I'm not going to be mad if Zootopia wins instead.

It's really hard for me to tell which one it could be. Both movies have a sporting chance at winning the Oscar. Moana has an incredible soundtrack, great characters, and is just flat-out beautiful to look at, while Zootopia has the highly applicable and dramatic story and is very emotional at points. It really could go either way depending on what the Academy decides they like best.

As I said before, though, I liked both movies, so I'm not going to be mad either way. (Though I personally would like to see Moana win.) I'd hate to think that both movies would get a Fandom Rivalry because of this, though.

Kubo should win. I'm sure Zootopia will win, though.

You and me both.

I'm rooting for Zootopia. I didn't dislike Moana, but Zootopia felt more ambitious IMO.

I've seen neither but based off what I've heard Zoopia is more likely to win the major award

It's hard to tell. Moana is the more standard Disney princess musical. But Zootopia is more original, risky, and topical.

It will be either Zootopia or Kubo. The movies feel fresher. The fact that Moana is another Disney Princess movie works against it.

I have a feeling Moana will win because, well, the Academy is kind of stodgy like that. Zootopia has a chance to win, but I'm not betting on that horse.

If it does win, however, perhaps this'll mean something new at Disney. (Perhaps a fairy tale that isn't a musical?)

> Perhaps a fairy tale that isn't a musical?

I highly doubt that somehow,seeing as fairy tale musicals are their bread and butter.and have been since they started

Still, wouldn't it be nice to see a fairy tale film that is not a musical? It'd probably be the last barrier broken in animated film. Years ago every animated film had to be a musical, then Pixar came along and showed people that you could make an animated film that wasn't a musical and be successful. Disney's made several successful animated films that aren't musicals; that's how much things have changed.

But there's always the expectations to consider. The last time Disney did a fairy tale that wasn't a musical it was Return To Oz. And you know what one of the things it was criticized for was? That there were no songs in it.

edited 26th Jan '17 3:08:40 PM by Aldo930

I'm sorry to be a debbie downer, but I wouldn't support a Moana win. It really didn't do anything new, and it is probably one of the most typical Disney Princess films. Outside of that, you don't need to subvert anything to be a great film (which this film is). If I were to be honest (which I always am), it is not the Best Animated Film of the year. If it was not for the existence of Zootopia, I am sure this film would be the clear winner. Disney did an outstanding job this year regardless.

Everyone here agress with you, me included. Not that I didnt love Moana.

I liked Moana, but I wouldn't support it winning either. Like Frozen, it was a very safe movie disguised as something different, and it had some of the same problems. Granted, it's better than Frozen, but I'd still pick Zootopia over it.

I really need to watch Two Strings one of these days.

I bet on Zootopia as well but I would be happy if Moana won.

I'll go for Kubo because stop motion is a dying breed and it needs all the help it can get.

Stop motion is the oldest form of Animation around and it doesn't seem to go anywhere, unless they reach a point at which all their stop motion is basically CGI.

One of the first things I thought about the visual style of The Incredibles is that it looked like really good stop-motion. A lot of early CGI films had the look of stop-motion animation, for obvious reasons.

I like stop motion and I respect stop-motion animators, but given how extremely labor and time intensive the process is, I can easily see why they might opt to go the CGI route instead.

Same goes for 2D animation and look where we are now.

It may be labor intensive, but when it's good, the results can be truly wonderful indeed.

Look at - for some examples germane to this thread - Will Vinton's realization of the Nome King in Return To Oz; Bill Justice's stop-motion work for stuff like the credits to The Parent Trap and A Symposium on Popular Songs; or, to give the obvious example, The Nightmare Before Christmas.

> Stop motion is the oldest form of Animation around and it doesn't seem to go anywhere, unless they reach a point at which all their stop motion is basically CGI.

People say the same thing about hand drawn animation all the time,the fact is,fashions in animation change all the time,Sometimes older methods of animation can become superseded by more conventional tools

There are still traditionally animated movies made, and it is still the to-go style for TV shows. And yes, I miss Disney or even Dream Works trying their hand in traditional animation, too, but it is still around, it is not dead. Just like Stopmotion was never totally gone.

My point is, though. can one achieve the same effects through CGI? I'm in particular remembering Aardman's Flushed Away which most people thought was Aardman's usual stop-motion until Aardman told them otherwise. If you can make a film with CGI that is visually indistinguishable from stop-motion animation, is there any reason to put in the time and labor of doing stop-motion animation? I'm not arguing for CGI over stop motion, I'm genuinely asking the question. Is there a discernible difference?

I recall reading that the style of Paperman came about because it's director John Kahrs was trying to see if he could get CGI to emulate 2D animation (did you know the two leads from Paperman were named George and Meg? I didn't). They've come a long way with CGI insofar as being able to inbue it with the kind of warmth and organic shapes more common to 2D animation. For my part, I love animation of virtually every type, but I must say that I do miss quality 2D animation (that isn't anime).

edited 28th Jan '17 2:28:42 PM by Robbery

Stop-motion has a certain - for lack of a better word - stiffness to it. Flushed Away was more smooth compared to Chicken Run or Curse of the Were-Rabbit, for example.

Would you call that a good thing, a bad thing, or just a characteristic?

I'd call that a characteristic - or just part of the charm, like you find in a Rankin Bass special or any of the Wallace and Gromit films.

Here's what I mean by stiffness. This is a scene from Return To Oz. Notice the much smoother human movement compared to Will Vinton's claymation:

edited 28th Jan '17 2:36:37 PM by Aldo930