Once again that's assuming they don't toss out the entire EU though...According to everything written about post-original trilogy, Luke is busy gathering Force Sensitives to rebuild the order. So he's probably going to be the new Yoda.
Once again that's assuming they don't toss out the entire EU though...According to everything written about post-original trilogy, Luke is busy gathering Force Sensitives to rebuild the order. So he's probably going to be the new Yoda.
EVERYTHING that has been released up to this point has taken it into account. Every book. Every game. I seriously doubt they'd just toss it out, when it's the most obvious move after beating the Empire. It's not like Luke is some great general they need to coordinate troops and they have tons of great pilots.Once again that's assuming they don't toss out the entire EU though...
Well, we don't actually know if they were planning on that being 2D animation or computer animation. Though, 2D animation would be a better approach when using characters like Mickey Mouse or Roger Rabbit.So are they cancelling that new Mickey Mouse movie they were working on now that they've canned all 2d animation? Because I really don't give two shits about Mickey if he doesn't look like him.
So do I, and the new Winnie the Pooh film was also pretty good.I like Princess & the Frog.
Planes is coming out to theaters in North America and Europe August 2013. Looks pretty good from what I've seen so far, there is a new trailer on the Wreck-It Ralph dvd.Its bad enough Cars is getting a direct to DVD series about frickin' PLANES, who knows what crap they'll shill out?
Oh okay then, so there is an actual chance of this being good. I heard straight to DVD, and (Straight to DVD) + (Spin-off/sequel) = usually terrible.Planes is coming out to theaters in North America and Europe August 2013. Looks pretty good from what I've seen so far, there is a new trailer on the Wreck-It Ralph dvd.
Dude, you're like a brother, but I will not "probe" you. EVER.Edit: Feel free to probe me wrong in terms of theatrical 2D animated features, I would really like that.
Not even after a couple of drinks?Dude, you're like a brother, but I will not "probe" you. EVER.
Here's hoping. In the meantime, I hope the tech they worked out for Paperman can be applied successfully to a feature-length animated film.I'm hoping that at some point computer assisted 2D animation reaches the point where it looks indistinguishable from fully hand drawn animation, but the labor cost is reduced enough to make it economical.
It's really not. 2d and 3d animation is pretty comparable budget wise. In fact Toy Story had a crazy high budget compared to the 2d Disney Movie that year. You're right about 3d advantages though, although they're really more labor saving than anything related to telling a story, free inbetweens, simulation of elements for animation (hair, balloons, fabric, etc.) and asset reuse.I thought they had animator a drawing the key frames, but sent all the tweeting overseas for the last decade or so?
Still time consuming, but honestly I'm not sure that its any more expensive than computer animation.CGI has some other significant benefits though, one of them being native 3D.
Mustn't ... hit ... disagree ... grak ...Eh, I don't think its that big of a deal. If the movie is good, its good. Regardless of hand drawn or computer generated.
Are you watching different Dreamworks movies than I am? They've been pretty consistently good, with a few exceptions.Oh man I completely forgot about that new Pooh film. I feel guilty now.
Seriously though, with them cancelling 2D films we all know what is going to happen: a surplus of crappy 3D films. Its bad enough Cars is getting a direct to DVD series about frickin' PLANES, who knows what crap they'll shill out? And then Dreamworks will compete with more schlock and Disney will do the same, and next thing you know we'll be in another animation dark age!
No you're right, I thought those Open Season and Happily Ever After movies were Dreamworks. Man I mix up Sony pictures and Dreamworks a lot.Are you watching different Dreamworks movies than I am? They've been pretty consistently good, with a few exceptions.
Yeah, the only live-action Beauty and the Beast film I'm excited about is the one Guillermo del Toro is making for Warner Bros. (which is having Emma Watson as Belle).No you're right, I thought those Open Season and Happily Ever After movies were Dreamworks. Man I mix up Sony pictures and Dreamworks a lot.
Seriously though, a live action Beauty and the Beast movie...called "The Beast"? Am I to assume that since there is no beauty in said title, that it is a prequel? If so- UGH! Now, I can get behind an "Oz the great and powerful" film, thats a back-story worth checking out. But the Beast? The Beast's back-story is covered in the freaking film! He was a dick to a witch, the witch cursed him(and for some reason his entire wait-staff) and then he became a furry. There is seriously no more to add. Unless they pull out all the stops with musical numbers I ain't botherin' with it.
No, it most certainly would not be a prequel. It would be a retelling, but with more of a focus on how dangerous The Beast is, but how much Belle believes she can change him with the power of her love.No you're right, I thought those Open Season and Happily Ever After movies were Dreamworks. Man I mix up Sony pictures and Dreamworks a lot.
Seriously though, a live action Beauty and the Beast movie...called "The Beast"? Am I to assume that since there is no beauty in said title, that it is a prequel? If so- UGH! Now, I can get behind an "Oz the great and powerful" film, thats a back-story worth checking out. But the Beast? The Beast's back-story is covered in the freaking film! He was a dick to a witch, the witch cursed him(and for some reason his entire wait-staff) and then he became a furry. There is seriously no more to add. Unless they pull out all the stops with musical numbers I ain't botherin' with it.
Ooh boy, one of the good faires going to sing a song about being popular isn't she?Yeah, the only live-action Beauty and the Beast film I'm excited about is the one Guillermo del Toro is making for Warner Bros. (which is having Emma Watson as Belle).
In terms of Disney mining their vault for live-action material, here is what they have at various levels of development right now:
- Cinderella
- Maleficent (basically a Sleeping Beauty prequel exploring the story of Maleficent and how she became so evil)
- Mr. Toad's Wild Ride (based on The Wind in the Willows, barely anything happening developmentwise with it)
- The Beast (which I've already mentioned)
Honestly, the thing that most interests me of the batch is Cinderella (although I wouldn't mind a full-length Disney film of Wind in the Willows rather than just the earlier short, but I feel that might work better animated rather than live-action). If I were to do some mining in there for live-action stuff, I'd say to revive the Order of the Seven project and maybe make a feature based on Casey at the Bat.
Well, the plot of the film will be about Maleficent (who is a fairy) being in pursuit of acceptance then having a fall into darkness, so...Ooh boy, one of the good faires going to sing a song about being popular isn't she?
I have NEVER seen a bad live action adaption of the Wind in the Willows. Here's a clip of the 1996 Terry Jones one, though I prefer the one with Bob Hoskins.- Mr. Toad's Wild Ride (based on The Wind in the Willows, barely anything happening developmentwise with it)
Honestly, the thing that most interests me of the batch is Cinderella (although I wouldn't mind a full-length Disney film of Wind in the Willows rather than just the earlier short, but I feel that might work better animated rather than live-action). If I were to do some mining in there for live-action stuff, I'd say to revive the Order of the Seven project and maybe make a feature based on Casey at the Bat .
Nothing else is really happening with that Gargoyles movie. I'll have to keep an eye out for the one with Bob Hoskins. The Terry Jones one was enjoyable, I just wouldn't mind a full-length animated adaptation of the story from Disney.Does anyone know if they are still doing that Gargoyles movie? You know, the one that ISN'T about the cult favorite franchise they already own for some reason?
I have NEVER seen a bad live action adaption of the Wind in the Willows. Here's a clip of the 1996 Terry Jones one, though I prefer the one with Bob Hoskins.
If you live in the US and have Starz/Encore, I know they show the Bob Hoskins one all the time. This is the one I'm talking about.Nothing else is really happening with that Gargoyles movie. I'll have to keep an eye out for the one with Bob Hoskins. The Terry Jones one was enjoyable, I just wouldn't mind a full-length animated adaptation of the story from Disney.
There are things called gargoyles besides the characters in the Disney cartoon....wait Disney is making a movie about Gargoyles and it has nothing to do with the show? What next, a movie called Kim Possible thats about a pharmacologist who sees ghosts? Because that would be weird.
That's not the point. The point is that Disney hasn't done shit with Gargoyles as a franchise, aside from nightly airings of the series on Disney XD (which they might not be doing anymore) and a short lived comic (ended because Disney wanted a ridiculous licensing fee from Weisman). You can't even get all the series on DVD because Disney won't release it. This is despite it being one of the most critically acclaimed series they've ever had.There are things called gargoyles besides the characters in the Disney cartoon.
Even as a kid, I could tell that Gargoyles was rife with sexual tension. Even little kid poe thought that Goliath and Elisa should just fuck and get it over with.That's not the point. The point is that Disney hasn't done shit with Gargoyles as a franchise, aside from nightly airings of the series on Disney XD (which they might not be doing anymore) and a short lived comic (ended because Disney wanted a ridiculous licensing fee from Weisman). You can't even get all the series on DVD because Disney won't release it. This is despite it being one of the most critically acclaimed series they've ever had.
So why would they just get rid of all that instead of rebooting the series for a new audience?