The last one they did was princess and the frog, even before then was a huge gap
Don't get me wrong, I do like the cgi movies disney and pixar brings out, but I do kind of miss seeing the traditional animation.
I guess it's because they wanted to market towards a wider range of audience.
I don't really care either way but Frozen could have been the movie to revive it for Disney. The Snow Queen project was always a 2D one until Tangled became the big hit that it did. This caused the project to be delayed and made as a CG film instead. Frozen was a great film and I don't think anything would have been lost had it been done traditionally.
"If life is getting you down and needs uplifting, then please come dance with me!"
I wish they'd bring back traditional animation too.
RIP
Dimebag Darrell
1966-2004
Winnie the Pooh was the last "hand drawn" animation in 2011, I believe. It looks absolutely beautiful but Winnie the Pooh has a tradition to follow.
I don't have a problem with CGI. Disney has made great films with Wreck it Ralph and Frozen.....traditional hand drawn animation has obviously died out, like stop-motion or something, but occasionally you'll get a movie where it makes sense to utilize those art forms and it makes it really special. Part if the reason why I love films like Winnie the Pooh (2011) and Frankenweenie. But if we keep getting a bunch of hand drawn animated films or something, it might not be as special, unique and nostalgic.
I do think CGI is the better, more modern art form but hopefully we can still see traditional-animation at least occasionally when it makes sense.
It does not make money for them anymore
Lion King was the last "traditional"(it had computer imaging and coloring) animated film that made a sizable profit then the films just did not make money
One rule of many in show biz is you gotta make money CGI films by Pixar then Shrek made the cash
And that's my two cents
That's a serious underestimate of Disney's box office performances. Sure, they didn't make "Lion King" money, but the rest of the Renaissance films were still highly profitable. Lilo and Stitch in 2002 did reasonably well and even Princess and the Frog did well, though not up to expectations. It's not like every 2D Disney film after TLK bombed.
"If life is getting you down and needs uplifting, then please come dance with me!"
Sure, they didn't make "Lion King" money, but the rest of the Renaissance films were still highly profitable. Lilo and Stitch in 2002 did reasonably well and even Princess and the Frog did well, though not up to expectations.
I was gonna say the same thing. They never LOST money during the Renaissance, geez! Every film made a profit overall through "Tarzan". And yes, "Lilo and Stitch" was a success. I think "Brother Bear" did well too. And yes, "Princess and the Frog" totally earned its budget back and more.
YES BUT Lion King Made three Hundred Million in less then three months its budget was under 100 million
Pocahantas had done that there would be a theme park in VA Right now
And that was before Mel Gibson ruined himself
And in 1996 with the aquistion of ABC Disney made more money through the radio stations that came with that hence the music industry
Ten years from now what will they do?
Remember Happy meal Toys? They do not do that anymore because they do not want the characters to be associated with food lacking nutrition due to current execs course they still make chocolate
Subway you get bags
So if by chance a traditional drawn film makes ALOT of money fast
they will have to retrain hand inking at the studios
And that's my two cents
YES BUT Lion King Made three Hundred Million in less then three months its budget was under 100 million
Pocahantas had done that there would be a theme park in VA Right now
And that was before Mel Gibson ruined himself
And in 1996 with the aquistion of ABC Disney made more money through the radio stations that came with that hence the music industry
Ten years from now what will they do?
Remember Happy meal Toys? They do not do that anymore because they do not want the characters to be associated with food lacking nutrition due to current execs course they still make chocolate
Subway you get bags
So if by chance a traditional drawn film makes ALOT of money fast
they will have to retrain hand inking at the studios
Phantom menace made MORE money then most people realize
And the failure of Tianna was due to some "genius" at the studio releasing in the middle of December
Now heres a quote for you
"Utimately it is the audience who decides or success or failure. They have the final say"
This was a quote to the sucess of Spongebob Square Pants by
Jeffery Katzenburg
who for some reason does NOT like the Little Mermaid
for that staement APTLY applies to The Little Mermaids success
And not to turn this into a bad chat room but simply this
The ego controls the industry as well as money
Unlike myself you sound alot younger and you just may have a chance to get into the entertainment business
ME Sure as hell TRIED and now I spend my time putting worthless opinions on things online
And when you become a CEO oh what you could do
That depends, are you older than 24? Because that's how old I am. And I'm not sure I can get into Disney now and make any changes. Heck, thanks to Diane Miller's death, I don't think I can even stand a chance in reversing the damages Katzenberg, Eisner, and Iger have done and are doing to the company, since her death means the last of the Disney line is extinguished.
shareYou forgot Roy and as to my age not 50 yet
Chris Saunders in the late eighties was under 30
Other Disney Films that came out Nov Thanksgiving did well Little Mermaid included
The Princess and Frog was December BIG MISTAKE on Disney's part
Yeah, Roy too. Unfortunately, Diane Miller died in the middle of my penultimate semester at College. I needed to be trained by one of the original Disneys, she was the last of the line to directly interact from the master himself, and now she's dead. Roy was pretty much dead while I was in high school, there was little I could do by that point regarding him.
And as far as your other points, I heard Avatar's release also played a huge role in how PATF did subpar in the Box Office. And as far as Katzenberg, I can only speculate as to why he might hate The Little Mermaid right now, and it's most likely because it was the only film besides Lion King he had little influence over. He got rid of Silence is Golden, a solo by Eric, and changed the ending to be more like Die Hard, but that's it. He did attempt to get rid of Part of Your World for extremely petty reasons, but fortunately saner heads prevailed. Beauty and the Beast, he basically rewrote from scratch with the excuse of the original screenplay being "too dark and too dramatic" (Ironic, considering what he later nearly did to Toy Story) to effectively be feminist propaganda with very little in common with the actual fairy tale it was based on, and as a result Belle came across as a huge jerk in the film (which also calls into question why the beauty of the tale doesn't even match internal beauty and ironically, the triplets, the girls who are the closest standins to Belle's wicked sisters in the original tale actually came far closer to internal beauty from their actions with purity of heart), basically. It might have gotten good raving reviews at the time and won an oscar, but right now, people are actually noticing the flaws in the film right now. I'm not sure how Aladdin is doing, but I do know the only other smash hit besides The Little Mermaid, Lion King, was made without Katzenberg's involvement (he in fact focused on Pocahontas, and while I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to say it bombed, it definitely wasn't close to being a smash hit either, being moderately successful at best). Oh, and Katzenberg nearly ruined Toy Story with his Black Friday idea. Not to mention, The Little Mermaid seems more likely to stand the test of time, even having a convention dedicated to Ariel and the franchise called ArielCon not to mention. What has Belle or even Jasmine got in comparison?
And as far as your other points, I heard Avatar's release also played a huge role in how PATF did subpar in the Box Office.AVATAR had nothing to do with PATF's boxoffice. AVATAR is a action adventure scifi film. The people that watch Disney Princess films wouldn't be caught dead watching a film like AVATAR and vice versa. AVATAR is for a male audience while PATF was for women, families, and little children. The real film that hurt PATF was Alvin and the Chipmunks the squeakquel. The film came out the same week as AVATAR and still made over $400 million at the boxoffice. And of course the audience for it is exactly the same as PATF "Women, families, and little children".
I beg to differ. I know a few people that like Avatar (both James Cameron's and The Last Airbender) and Disney Princess films. It doesn't matter what age group the movie is aimed at, it's the story that they like.
shareI know a few people that like Avatar (both James Cameron's and The Last Airbender) and Disney Princess films.You said some key words there "a few people". I wasn't talking about a few people I'm talking about the Majority of people. And its a fact that the Majority of the people that watched Avatar is not going to watch a Disney Princess Film. Hence why AVATAR had nothing to do with Princess and the Frog not doing well. Going back to my original point.
It doesn't matter what age group the movie is aimed at, it's the story that they like.I 100% disagree. Of course the age group matters and the type of people who watch it matters. If its always about the story. Then tell me why films like "A Wolf of Wolf Street","Boyhood","Birdman"etc don't make the same type of money at the boxoffice as the Marvel films, The DC films, The Pixar Films, The Disney Animated films, Scifi films, etc?
Hey, I'm just stating what I had heard, and it was on one of Disney Wiki's forum posts. I'll try to hunt it down if you wish.
Here's the post in question:
http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:286772#51
Yea that's one of the reasons Tangled did better next to Avatar coming as the same week as Princess and The Frog. There are people who now have predujice against handdrawn animation. If it's CGI they will think it's for them to. It's really one of those stupid little annoyences next to someone calling you an idiot for liking something that they don'tshare
YES BUT Lion King Made three Hundred Million in less then three months its budget was under 100 million
Pocahantas had done that there would be a theme park in VA Right now
And that was before Mel Gibson ruined himself
Pocahontas
Domestic: $141.6 million
Foreign: $204.5 million
Total: $346.1 million
Toy Story
Domestic: $191.7 million
Foreign: $170.1 million
Total: $361.8 million
1989: The Little Mermaid = $84.3 million domestically; $184.1 million worldwide
1991: Beauty and the Beast = $145.8 million domestically; $351.8 million worldwide
1992: Aladdin = $217 million domestically; $504 million worldwide
1994: The Lion King = $312.8 million domestically; $768.6 million worldwide
As a huge fan of Pocahontas (it's actually my favorite Disney animated flick), I actually beg to differ with you, regarding its legacy:
It simply doesn't hold up well, with fans. In spite of its substantial box office revenue upon its release, most moviegoers have completely forgotten it. And no—I don't think it's cuz of the historical inaccuracies. There are many films that are historically inaccurate, but well-received anyway (Fox's Anastasia comes to mind, even though I hated it. No one talks about the historical inaccuracy of that film, cuz they just liked it. Mel Gibson's Braveheart, which was also released the same year as Pocahontas, went on to win Best Picture in spite of its looming inaccuracies).
Pocahontas was simply a weaker film, story-wise, and subsequently has not remained in the public conscious since.
Yeah, and I heard that a large part of the reason why Princess and the Frog didn't reach expectations was because they had the rotten luck of releasing it a week before James Cameron's Avatar. For the record, Winnie the Pooh's low box office numbers was only because Disney made the stupid decision to release it on the same day as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2. I mean, releasing PATF around the time of Avatar is one thing, as the film, while heavily marketed, was not guaranteed to be a box office success. But releasing Winnie the Pooh on the same day of not only a Harry Potter film, but the anticipated conclusion of the film series, AND the second part of said adaptation of the final book?! That's box office suicide, even with the PG-13 rating (which BTW, I remember seeing lots of people at The Dark Knight who were much younger than 13).
share[deleted]
Until the advent of Television many different people saw animated films
For those who REALLY no their films My mother as a girl saw Fantasia w Batan
Hell Saw Yellow Submarine w 2001
Do you not count Frozen because of it being in 3D or did you not see the movie either way for the most part I would say is that Disney even through you will never know what Disney will do in the future, I say they are done doing hand drawn 2D animated movies. And I bet it will be 3D computer animated movies, and I bet saves a lot of paper doing it on computers rather then drawing them by hand. You can still enjoy the traditional animated movies like this one, but for now I can say for the foreseeable future is that Disney is done doing hand drawn 2D animated movies.
shareYou know what else would save paper? Replanting trees once you cut some down.
And we've already got plenty of movies whose usage of CGI were contributors in their becoming critical and possibly financial bombs, like the Prequel Trilogy of Star Wars, the Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions, Avatar (it made a lot of dough when it was first made, but it fell into obscurity quickly, so it's by definition a failure), and most DreamWorks films, we really don't need another Disney film that utilized 3D CGI that comes across as gimmicky as a result.