(Insert stupid Blog name here)

What isn't to like about the Lion King? Good story, good old-school animation, some cool effects, and even subliminal messages!

 

And while it may not be as technically advanced as their other works I quite enjoyed A Bug's Life and I'd put it near the top of Pixar's offerings.

 

Incidentally I saw Wall-E recently and as much as I wanted to like it, it fell kinda short for me for a few reasons. The story seemed a little hacked together, it was difficult feeling any kind of empathy for machines, it was difficult seeing humans depicted so accurately, and from a visual standpoint it seemed to lack any signature Pixar look and feel. Each new Pixar film seems to raise the bar in either a stylistic or technological way that somehow seemed absent here. The look of the film was a little typical and cliche I thought. It was good but not new or beyond the capabilities of any off-the-shelf software package or amateur 3D artist. For me I think the biggest stylistic signature the film had was the shiny, metallic, 70's, sci-fi, white plastic of the female robot. A shader they probably stole from the car paint in Cars.

What isn't to like about the Lion King? Good story, good old-school animation, some cool effects, and even subliminal messages!

Well, it's been forever since I've seen Lion King, but the biggest problem I recall was that the main character was just too bland. Voice, personality, dialogue, everything. Bland, boring, dull as dirt. This was the beginning of Disney's "boring lead character" era, where the title character was the least interesting one in the film (actually, this started with Aladdin, but let's face it - the genie was the reason that film existed, not Aladdin).

 

I'm sure I had some other problems with it, too (like the whole clichéd musical thing, which was wearing out its welcome by then), but the main character issue is the one that stands out. At any rate, I remember being really perplexed that such a bad film could make such a ridiculously huge amount of money. My theory was that Disney was riding on pure momentum from Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin (although nobody seems to remember "Rescuers Down Under" being in there), and that any film they put out at that time was bound to be a hit. It took a couple of stinkers before people realized Disney was just badly regurgitating the same tired formula over and over, and finally stopped going to see them.

 

Even Disney had to know the Lion King himself was a lousy character, because for the TV series, they used the two sidekicks instead.

 

And while it may not be as technically advanced as their other works I quite enjoyed A Bug's Life and I'd put it near the top of Pixar's offerings.

I couldn't get past the (again) bland lead character. For that matter, nearly all of the ants were bland. Bland looking, bland acting. (Except Phyllis Diller's character.) Just couldn't care less about what happened to any of them in the film. I'd rather have seen the grasshoppers (who were excellent) win in the end. Or just skip the ants, and have a movie about the circus bugs.

 

Incidentally I saw Wall-E recently and as much as I wanted to like it, it fell kinda short for me for a few reasons. The story seemed a little hacked together, it was difficult feeling any kind of empathy for machines, it was difficult seeing humans depicted so accurately, and from a visual standpoint it seemed to lack any signature Pixar look and feel. Each new Pixar film seems to raise the bar in either a stylistic or technological way that somehow seemed absent here. The look of the film was a little typical and cliche I thought. It was good but not new or beyond the capabilities of any off-the-shelf software package or amateur 3D artist. For me I think the biggest stylistic signature the film had was the shiny, metallic, 70's, sci-fi, white plastic of the female robot. A shader they probably stole from the car paint in Cars.

I thought the acting and animation of the characters was excellent. I really was captivated by it. It seems to be a very divisive film though - people either loved it or hated it. Visually though, I think it's very different from anything Pixar had done. I hope you got to see it in the theater, or on an HDTV in Blu-Ray. It really deserves to be seen with all of the wealth of detail that it has. Plus, I really liked the whole satirical jab at Wal-Mart/McDonald's/StarBucks-type corporations. I hate Wal-Mart even more than The Lion King.

I thought the acting and animation of the characters was excellent. I really was captivated by it. It seems to be a very divisive film though - people either loved it or hated it. Visually though, I think it's very different from anything Pixar had done. I hope you got to see it in the theater, or on an HDTV in Blu-Ray. It really deserves to be seen with all of the wealth of detail that it has. Plus, I really liked the whole satirical jab at Wal-Mart/McDonald's/StarBucks-type corporations. I hate Wal-Mart even more than The Lion King.

 

 

I certainly didn't hate it. The animation was done really well as usual and it did look great. And I appreciate the story was more significant than just kid fluff. It's kind of hard to pinpoint exactly what I didn't like about it other than as you say, the main character was a little difficult to get behind. And no, I didn't see it in the theater. I kind of liked the Burn-E short that came with the DVD though. It still takes place in the Wall-E world but has more fun with it. The other short that comes with the DVD is brilliant though. It's straight outta Looney Tunes kind of animation. I think it was called Presto or something like that. Well worth seeing if you get a chance.

Well, hate is a poor choice of words. Perhaps polarize is better. At least in the animation community, there were very few people who weren't at one extreme or another about how they felt on the film.

 

Presto on the other hand has been pretty-much universally applauded. It's great to see them really stepping out and doing fun animation just for the sake of it being fun.

It's nice to know I'm not unique that don't like Lion King.

The last Dysney movie that really impressed me was Beauty and the beast.

 

And I'm sad to see that 2D animations is out of fashion.

 

Actually, 3D animation is faster and way easy to do compared to 2D and not need a true artist to give life for the characters.

That's why I hate 3D animations.

 

Nathan, did you hear about Destino?

It's a short animation drawed by Salvador Dali, THAT is a animation, too bad he quit the drawings of this movie, so there are only few minutes of animation, but is the most beautifull animation I ever seen. I hope they release it for DVD.

 

destino trailer

I'd heard of Destino, but hadn't seen footage until now - thanks! Amazing stuff.

 

As for 2D - it's not dead yet. Disney's The Princess and the Frog is 2D. Admittedly, it's yet-another-Disney-Princess film, but it's a start. They have to fix the animation machine first, before they can start taking risks again. (Some would argue 2D is a risk, but Disney DVD sales say otherwise.)

Hadn't heard of Destino, looks pretty good. Made me think of Æon Flux.

I'm big fan of Æon Flux also

Dali began the works of this movie in 1946, less than 10 years after Dysney Snow White... If I'm not wrong.

Ok they use computer to finish it, anyway there is a huge talent on this short movie.

As for 2D - it's not dead yet. Disney's The Princess and the Frog is 2D. Admittedly, it's yet-another-Disney-Princess film, but it's a start. They have to fix the animation machine first, before they can start taking risks again.

At least they have an 2d project, it's good to know