The Good Dinosaur is a fine coming-of-age quasi-western with absurdly detailed and convincing nature backgrounds. A very simple movie, for good or ill.
Dunno, I think I'd say that finding Dory was ironically pretty forgettable. A solid C tier entry rather than being bad, but felt more like an iteration than a sequel.
Top of the list is solid, I think it'd be hard to argue that any of those shouldn't be top 10. After that I think there's a definite drop off but it's a very fine line between the Bs and Cs for the most part.
By and large good films, but not a lot that I would actively want to see again.
I quite liked the concepts in the book that couldn't have made it to the film, like how all the cartoons spoke in speech bubbles which became a plot point
Has anyone else watched Luca yet? It was hardly the best Pixar movie, but not the worst. Somewhere between Onward and Soul in quality to me.
I think my main issue is that it felt overstuffed and also too flimsy? Like maybe if they took out the main antagonist or at least downplayed him, Ratatouille-style, they could have fleshed out the main protagonists some more.
I wonder if it would help if they went all out as a "coming out" story. Like, in the first act, I was like "...they have to know the context, right," but by the second act, it still sort of works, but less a gay romance and more a possibly unrequited love triangle.
We watched it last night. It was OK. Some really beautiful scenery. I do like the lower stakes story, it feels aimed more at a younger audience. At the same time it felt really weird that it completely glosses over the societal ramifications of what's revealed. Felt like Ratatouille in that respect.
Yeah, this sort of video annoys me. Yes, there will "never be another Who Framed Roger Rabbit" - because the technology and techniques in animation have progressed so much that we don't need to do it that way. The whole reason for the complicated practical effects is because at the time, CG was in its infancy,so you had to do everything by hand if you wanted it to look good - and the Disney animators went above and beyond in that regard (there's a reason "banging the light" was an old school reference to what we would call sakuga today.) But today, skilled CG artists can accomplish what was done cheaper and more effectively, so there's no point to doing it the old way beyond perhaps the feel of that style - and you try telling accounting that you need to double the budget to do the animation.
Yeah, this sort of video annoys me. Yes, there will "never be another Who Framed Roger Rabbit" - because the technology and techniques in animation have progressed so much that we don't need to do it that way. The whole reason for the complicated practical effects is because at the time, CG was in its infancy,so you had to do everything by hand if you wanted it to look good - and the Disney animators went above and beyond in that regard (there's a reason "banging the light" was an old school reference to what we would call sakuga today.) But today, skilled CG artists can accomplish what was done cheaper and more effectively, so there's no point to doing it the old way beyond perhaps the feel of that style - and you try telling accounting that you need to double the budget to do the animation.
It's the "You couldn't make Blazing Saddles today!" Of course you couldn't! The Whitewashed CleanLiving Westerns that Blazing Saddles lampooned and skewered to hell and back (so badly the Western genre itself shifted tack) don't exist anymore to give context and material for mockery.
I quite liked the concepts in the book that couldn't have made it to the film, like how all the cartoons spoke in speech bubbles which became a plot point
Agreed with that, but it had much weaker plot and relied heavily on things that do not fit into the world and made the end feel very unsatifying.
The whole genie thing really was stupid.
The central conceit of the book was that cartoons were alive. Genies felt like a non sequiteur and a deus ex machina.
I'm not saying the book is without merits, but this is one of the rare instances where the movie is better than the book it is based on.
[Expletive deleted] on
Sic transit gloria mundi.
+1
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
edited June 2021
A modern Blazing Saddles would end up hewing much closer to the likes of Django Unchained. Which, now that I think about it, also goes out of its way to lampoon the KKK as the idiots they are.
In fact, I think you could make a solid case that Django Unchained basically is the modern version of Blazing Saddles. It's also a massive critique of whitewashed US history and culture with multiple points of humor, though with karmically far more violent resolutions overall. Though whereas Blazing Saddles is busy packing jokes into every line, Django is content with extended panning shots and scenes of mostly silence/waiting punctuated by tremendous violence.
I think a lot of hay has been made about how Inglorious Bastards and Django Unchained serve as almost companion pieces.
Like Bastards doesn't do anything to rehabilitate Nazis but does out of its way to show that the people helping to carry out Hitler's ambitions had their own motivations and beliefs and weren't some hive mind that was all in on cartoon villainy.
And then Django basically comes along and says "Why aren't we using slave owners as shorthand for evil dickheads we enjoy seeing get shot?"
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Yeah, this sort of video annoys me. Yes, there will "never be another Who Framed Roger Rabbit" - because the technology and techniques in animation have progressed so much that we don't need to do it that way. The whole reason for the complicated practical effects is because at the time, CG was in its infancy,so you had to do everything by hand if you wanted it to look good - and the Disney animators went above and beyond in that regard (there's a reason "banging the light" was an old school reference to what we would call sakuga today.) But today, skilled CG artists can accomplish what was done cheaper and more effectively, so there's no point to doing it the old way beyond perhaps the feel of that style - and you try telling accounting that you need to double the budget to do the animation.
I went in wondering if it was also going to be about the amount of negotiations that had to have been done to get Daffy and Donald in the same movie (which he covers in another video - the agreement was that Daffy and Donald had to have the same amount of lines and screen time as Mickey and Bugs)
I think another reason that we'll never see another Roger Rabbit is that there isn't a strong roster of contemporary animated characters to draw parallels with the old studio model of film making, so it would just be going back to the same well of classic toons - just like Space Jam, Looney Tunes Back in Action, and Space Jam again
Yeah, this sort of video annoys me. Yes, there will "never be another Who Framed Roger Rabbit" - because the technology and techniques in animation have progressed so much that we don't need to do it that way. The whole reason for the complicated practical effects is because at the time, CG was in its infancy,so you had to do everything by hand if you wanted it to look good - and the Disney animators went above and beyond in that regard (there's a reason "banging the light" was an old school reference to what we would call sakuga today.) But today, skilled CG artists can accomplish what was done cheaper and more effectively, so there's no point to doing it the old way beyond perhaps the feel of that style - and you try telling accounting that you need to double the budget to do the animation.
I went in wondering if it was also going to be about the amount of negotiations that had to have been done to get Daffy and Donald in the same movie (which he covers in another video - the agreement was that Daffy and Donald had to have the same amount of lines and screen time as Mickey and Bugs)
I think another reason that we'll never see another Roger Rabbit is that there isn't a strong roster of contemporary animated characters to draw parallels with the old studio model of film making, so it would just be going back to the same well of classic toons - just like Space Jam, Looney Tunes Back in Action, and Space Jam again
It's more that those negotiations could only be done in that time - the movie was done at the start of the Eisner era, right after Disney had just survived a hostile takeover. There is no way that barring any specific situations (i.e. the contractual mess over Spider-Man between Sony and Disney) that you would see a willingness today to do a contract like the one that WB and Disney hammered out.
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
That and some of the techniques they used by necessity would not be used today because of the prevalence of CGI, which hasn't necessarily caught up to the verisimilitude of those techniques.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
That and some of the techniques they used by necessity would not be used today because of the prevalence of CGI, which hasn't necessarily caught up to the verisimilitude of those techniques.
Eh, modern CG has gone far beyond what they needed to do - if you've ever seen pictures of the rig they built for Benny (basically an overgrown go-cart with the driver hunched down in the back so he could be animated over - yeah, Benny had quite a bit of junk in his particular trunk,) it's clear that CG has made that sort of work easier and safer.
That and some of the techniques they used by necessity would not be used today because of the prevalence of CGI, which hasn't necessarily caught up to the verisimilitude of those techniques.
Eh, modern CG has gone far beyond what they needed to do - if you've ever seen pictures of the rig they built for Benny (basically an overgrown go-cart with the driver hunched down in the back so he could be animated over - yeah, Benny had quite a bit of junk in his particular trunk,) it's clear that CG has made that sort of work easier and safer.
A lot of the "The animation/CGI in this older movie is better than today's stuff" usually boils down to better use of practical effects to make the character or creature in question feel like part of the world, which was done to hide how shitty the CGI at the time actually was.
Good example from the video that started this would be the pianos Donald and Daffy play at the club. Nowadays pretty much no one would bother with practical effects for the pianos-they'd be CGI like the ducks, which could risk making the whole thing look more like an empty stage that got filled in with special effects than a physical thing you could believe the live actors in the club could actually touch and interact with.
Dunno, I think I'd say that finding Dory was ironically pretty forgettable. A solid C tier entry rather than being bad, but felt more like an iteration than a sequel.
Top of the list is solid, I think it'd be hard to argue that any of those shouldn't be top 10. After that I think there's a definite drop off but it's a very fine line between the Bs and Cs for the most part.
By and large good films, but not a lot that I would actively want to see again.
My issue with Finding Dory was that the plot coupons were far too convenient. “I went somewhere, now I suddenly remember where to go next.” Lather, rinse, repeat for the length of the film.
That and some of the techniques they used by necessity would not be used today because of the prevalence of CGI, which hasn't necessarily caught up to the verisimilitude of those techniques.
Eh, modern CG has gone far beyond what they needed to do - if you've ever seen pictures of the rig they built for Benny (basically an overgrown go-cart with the driver hunched down in the back so he could be animated over - yeah, Benny had quite a bit of junk in his particular trunk,) it's clear that CG has made that sort of work easier and safer.
A lot of the "The animation/CGI in this older movie is better than today's stuff" usually boils down to better use of practical effects to make the character or creature in question feel like part of the world, which was done to hide how shitty the CGI at the time actually was.
Good example from the video that started this would be the pianos Donald and Daffy play at the club. Nowadays pretty much no one would bother with practical effects for the pianos-they'd be CGI like the ducks, which could risk making the whole thing look more like an empty stage that got filled in with special effects than a physical thing you could believe the live actors in the club could actually touch and interact with.
At the same time, the need for practical effects ultimately constrains the animation - the scripted motion of the pianos constrained what the animators could do in the scene. Going full CG allows for the animator to have greater control. Also, at this point unrealistic items is a sign of poor CG work as well.
My main issue with Monsters University is they spend the movie working towards a goal they will spend Monsters Inc realising isn't good and that undermines how invested you can be in them scaring good.
And to make the premise of that video extra silly, the director of Roger Rabbit (Robert Zemeckis) went on to use cutting-edge techniques to make a series of (horrible-looking) full CG movies. So of course he would have abused CG on Roger Rabbit if it were available.
That and some of the techniques they used by necessity would not be used today because of the prevalence of CGI, which hasn't necessarily caught up to the verisimilitude of those techniques.
Eh, modern CG has gone far beyond what they needed to do - if you've ever seen pictures of the rig they built for Benny (basically an overgrown go-cart with the driver hunched down in the back so he could be animated over - yeah, Benny had quite a bit of junk in his particular trunk,) it's clear that CG has made that sort of work easier and safer.
A lot of the "The animation/CGI in this older movie is better than today's stuff" usually boils down to better use of practical effects to make the character or creature in question feel like part of the world, which was done to hide how shitty the CGI at the time actually was.
Good example from the video that started this would be the pianos Donald and Daffy play at the club. Nowadays pretty much no one would bother with practical effects for the pianos-they'd be CGI like the ducks, which could risk making the whole thing look more like an empty stage that got filled in with special effects than a physical thing you could believe the live actors in the club could actually touch and interact with.
At the same time, the need for practical effects ultimately constrains the animation - the scripted motion of the pianos constrained what the animators could do in the scene. Going full CG allows for the animator to have greater control. Also, at this point unrealistic items is a sign of poor CG work as well.
That's the thing though, there is *always* a constraint whenever you have something CGI that doesn't exist in an entirely CGI scene, even when you don't have actors looking at or interacting with it.
Most "bad CGI" today forgets or ignores that, which results in things that don't feel like they are really there because they don't have a physical presence that interacts with the scenery in the right way.
Compare Predator 2, when the Predator runs across the tops of the cars cloaked how they visibly shake with its steps and leaves (admittedly somewhat unrealistic) dents on the tops of them, vs some scene I once saw in one of the Transformers film where one of the robots leaps onto a cargo container from an angle and the container doesn't get so much as scratched from it, much less bend or move in any way.
Dunno, I think I'd say that finding Dory was ironically pretty forgettable. A solid C tier entry rather than being bad, but felt more like an iteration than a sequel.
Top of the list is solid, I think it'd be hard to argue that any of those shouldn't be top 10. After that I think there's a definite drop off but it's a very fine line between the Bs and Cs for the most part.
By and large good films, but not a lot that I would actively want to see again.
My issue with Finding Dory was that the plot coupons were far too convenient. “I went somewhere, now I suddenly remember where to go next.” Lather, rinse, repeat for the length of the film.
It's not a bad point. I noticed Dory over Nemo when I posted the list and wondered about that myself. I think it was just that I teard up more in Act 3 of Dory than I did for my last viewing of Nemo, and anything that makes me feel The Human Emotions gets points from me.
I'm surprised there weren't more issues with how low I placed the original Toy Story.
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
That and some of the techniques they used by necessity would not be used today because of the prevalence of CGI, which hasn't necessarily caught up to the verisimilitude of those techniques.
Eh, modern CG has gone far beyond what they needed to do - if you've ever seen pictures of the rig they built for Benny (basically an overgrown go-cart with the driver hunched down in the back so he could be animated over - yeah, Benny had quite a bit of junk in his particular trunk,) it's clear that CG has made that sort of work easier and safer.
A lot of the "The animation/CGI in this older movie is better than today's stuff" usually boils down to better use of practical effects to make the character or creature in question feel like part of the world, which was done to hide how shitty the CGI at the time actually was.
Good example from the video that started this would be the pianos Donald and Daffy play at the club. Nowadays pretty much no one would bother with practical effects for the pianos-they'd be CGI like the ducks, which could risk making the whole thing look more like an empty stage that got filled in with special effects than a physical thing you could believe the live actors in the club could actually touch and interact with.
At the same time, the need for practical effects ultimately constrains the animation - the scripted motion of the pianos constrained what the animators could do in the scene. Going full CG allows for the animator to have greater control. Also, at this point unrealistic items is a sign of poor CG work as well.
That's the thing though, there is *always* a constraint whenever you have something CGI that doesn't exist in an entirely CGI scene, even when you don't have actors looking at or interacting with it.
Most "bad CGI" today forgets or ignores that, which results in things that don't feel like they are really there because they don't have a physical presence that interacts with the scenery in the right way.
Compare Predator 2, when the Predator runs across the tops of the cars cloaked how they visibly shake with its steps and leaves (admittedly somewhat unrealistic) dents on the tops of them, vs some scene I once saw in one of the Transformers film where one of the robots leaps onto a cargo container from an angle and the container doesn't get so much as scratched from it, much less bend or move in any way.
That's not "bad CGI", that's bad CGI - that is, the problem there isn't a failing of the technology, but of execution,often times due to laziness. And it's not just restricted to CGI - the reason that Who Framed Roger Rabbit looks so amazing is because the animators put in the work that wasn't done in other hybrid works (again, the "banging the light" scene, with proper lighting applied to the animated characters, shows this off and remains to this day a pinnacle of traditional cel animation.) The reality is that many times you don't notice good CGI because the goal of CGI is often to not be noticible as such, and good CGI today is very good at doing that. We notice bad CGI because of the flaws, not because of the technology.
My main issue with Monsters University is they spend the movie working towards a goal they will spend Monsters Inc realising isn't good and that undermines how invested you can be in them scaring good.
The new series seems to be built on that dichotomy, as it looks to have its protagonist being a freshly graduated scarer...who enters the job market just to find out his job skills just became obsolete.
That and some of the techniques they used by necessity would not be used today because of the prevalence of CGI, which hasn't necessarily caught up to the verisimilitude of those techniques.
Eh, modern CG has gone far beyond what they needed to do - if you've ever seen pictures of the rig they built for Benny (basically an overgrown go-cart with the driver hunched down in the back so he could be animated over - yeah, Benny had quite a bit of junk in his particular trunk,) it's clear that CG has made that sort of work easier and safer.
A lot of the "The animation/CGI in this older movie is better than today's stuff" usually boils down to better use of practical effects to make the character or creature in question feel like part of the world, which was done to hide how shitty the CGI at the time actually was.
Good example from the video that started this would be the pianos Donald and Daffy play at the club. Nowadays pretty much no one would bother with practical effects for the pianos-they'd be CGI like the ducks, which could risk making the whole thing look more like an empty stage that got filled in with special effects than a physical thing you could believe the live actors in the club could actually touch and interact with.
At the same time, the need for practical effects ultimately constrains the animation - the scripted motion of the pianos constrained what the animators could do in the scene. Going full CG allows for the animator to have greater control. Also, at this point unrealistic items is a sign of poor CG work as well.
That's the thing though, there is *always* a constraint whenever you have something CGI that doesn't exist in an entirely CGI scene, even when you don't have actors looking at or interacting with it.
Most "bad CGI" today forgets or ignores that, which results in things that don't feel like they are really there because they don't have a physical presence that interacts with the scenery in the right way.
Compare Predator 2, when the Predator runs across the tops of the cars cloaked how they visibly shake with its steps and leaves (admittedly somewhat unrealistic) dents on the tops of them, vs some scene I once saw in one of the Transformers film where one of the robots leaps onto a cargo container from an angle and the container doesn't get so much as scratched from it, much less bend or move in any way.
That's not "bad CGI", that's bad CGI - that is, the problem there isn't a failing of the technology, but of execution,often times due to laziness. And it's not just restricted to CGI - the reason that Who Framed Roger Rabbit looks so amazing is because the animators put in the work that wasn't done in other hybrid works (again, the "banging the light" scene, with proper lighting applied to the animated characters, shows this off and remains to this day a pinnacle of traditional cel animation.) The reality is that many times you don't notice good CGI because the goal of CGI is often to not be noticible as such, and good CGI today is very good at doing that. We notice bad CGI because of the flaws, not because of the technology.
Also, when you know something is CGI (giant robot, dinosaur, aliens…) you tend to notice all the flaws.
That and some of the techniques they used by necessity would not be used today because of the prevalence of CGI, which hasn't necessarily caught up to the verisimilitude of those techniques.
Eh, modern CG has gone far beyond what they needed to do - if you've ever seen pictures of the rig they built for Benny (basically an overgrown go-cart with the driver hunched down in the back so he could be animated over - yeah, Benny had quite a bit of junk in his particular trunk,) it's clear that CG has made that sort of work easier and safer.
A lot of the "The animation/CGI in this older movie is better than today's stuff" usually boils down to better use of practical effects to make the character or creature in question feel like part of the world, which was done to hide how shitty the CGI at the time actually was.
Good example from the video that started this would be the pianos Donald and Daffy play at the club. Nowadays pretty much no one would bother with practical effects for the pianos-they'd be CGI like the ducks, which could risk making the whole thing look more like an empty stage that got filled in with special effects than a physical thing you could believe the live actors in the club could actually touch and interact with.
At the same time, the need for practical effects ultimately constrains the animation - the scripted motion of the pianos constrained what the animators could do in the scene. Going full CG allows for the animator to have greater control. Also, at this point unrealistic items is a sign of poor CG work as well.
That's the thing though, there is *always* a constraint whenever you have something CGI that doesn't exist in an entirely CGI scene, even when you don't have actors looking at or interacting with it.
Most "bad CGI" today forgets or ignores that, which results in things that don't feel like they are really there because they don't have a physical presence that interacts with the scenery in the right way.
Compare Predator 2, when the Predator runs across the tops of the cars cloaked how they visibly shake with its steps and leaves (admittedly somewhat unrealistic) dents on the tops of them, vs some scene I once saw in one of the Transformers film where one of the robots leaps onto a cargo container from an angle and the container doesn't get so much as scratched from it, much less bend or move in any way.
That's not "bad CGI", that's bad CGI - that is, the problem there isn't a failing of the technology, but of execution,often times due to laziness. And it's not just restricted to CGI - the reason that Who Framed Roger Rabbit looks so amazing is because the animators put in the work that wasn't done in other hybrid works (again, the "banging the light" scene, with proper lighting applied to the animated characters, shows this off and remains to this day a pinnacle of traditional cel animation.) The reality is that many times you don't notice good CGI because the goal of CGI is often to not be noticible as such, and good CGI today is very good at doing that. We notice bad CGI because of the flaws, not because of the technology.
I guess I should mention that I was agreeing with you, and pointing out the pianos as an example of taking the extra effort to make the characters feel like they were part of the world, something most examples of bad CGI fail to do.
The snub about someone today using CGI pianos was about how someone would go "We'll just make the pianos CGI, we can do that now!" Without taking the extra effort to make sure the scene is toons playing real pianos, not toons playing supposed-to-be-real-but-obviously-not pianos because the tech now does 9/10ths of the work for them.
Cars 2's quality is like starting at the top of a mountain and then ending up at the bottom of the ocean. You start with a cool action scene featuring the slaughter of dozens of vehicles and then end with just absolute nonsensical garbage.
Richard Williams is why Roger Rabbit is a masterpiece. The guy is kind of a madman when it comes to animation.
Don't forget Bob Hoskins.
To this day I don't think I have seen an actor work with non-existing partners as well as he has.
I watched the movie again last night with commentary, and everybody was singing Bob's praises as a mime, physical actor and general talent
They also mention that in order to emphasise the toonishness of Jessica Rabbit and make her look less like a rotoscoped actor, they animated her boobs to bounce in the opposite direction that they would on a normal woman
High fidelity Nowhere weirds me out, like everything is somehow on Model but like still wrong
Like there was a roughness to the fabric of everything in courage that is kind of subsumed in the style for the home video Scooby movies.
like I understand why that’s gotta be, because otherwise they’d clash way harder than they do just using the character designs and the dissonance they create, but still it’s weird
Lanz on
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
High fidelity Nowhere weirds me out, like everything is somehow on Model but like still wrong
Like there was a roughness to the fabric of everything in courage that is kind of subsumed in the style for the home video Scooby movies.
like I understand why that’s gotta be, because otherwise they’d clash way harder than they do just using the character designs and the dissonance they create, but still it’s weird
It's because Courage was a deeply unsettling show especially through the eyes of a child. The monsters should look creepy and offputting, otherworldly and disturbing. Something should be wrong about them, but you can't quite place your finger on why it's so unsettling.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
I love how these direct-to-video Scooby Doo movies are becoming increasingly niche nostalgiawank.
First it was crossovers with more popular WB characters like DC superheroes, then exploring obscure parts of the Scooby franchise's own history like 13 Ghosts. Now they're doing a crossover with a show that cancelled 13 years ago.
Why not do a Monsters University sequel where their whole society is going to be destroyed because half of the monsters refuse to stop scaring children because of culture war bullshit despite clean laughter being the cheaper, clean alternative.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
...okay, which one of you got a hold of a genie and wished this into existence?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all up for this, but there's zero logical reason modern execs would think it's a great idea to fund something based on a culty but moderately-watched show that's generally long forgotten.
Posts
Oh yeah TGD is probably top tier for graphics
Top of the list is solid, I think it'd be hard to argue that any of those shouldn't be top 10. After that I think there's a definite drop off but it's a very fine line between the Bs and Cs for the most part.
By and large good films, but not a lot that I would actively want to see again.
We watched it last night. It was OK. Some really beautiful scenery. I do like the lower stakes story, it feels aimed more at a younger audience. At the same time it felt really weird that it completely glosses over the societal ramifications of what's revealed. Felt like Ratatouille in that respect.
Yeah, this sort of video annoys me. Yes, there will "never be another Who Framed Roger Rabbit" - because the technology and techniques in animation have progressed so much that we don't need to do it that way. The whole reason for the complicated practical effects is because at the time, CG was in its infancy,so you had to do everything by hand if you wanted it to look good - and the Disney animators went above and beyond in that regard (there's a reason "banging the light" was an old school reference to what we would call sakuga today.) But today, skilled CG artists can accomplish what was done cheaper and more effectively, so there's no point to doing it the old way beyond perhaps the feel of that style - and you try telling accounting that you need to double the budget to do the animation.
It's the "You couldn't make Blazing Saddles today!" Of course you couldn't! The Whitewashed CleanLiving Westerns that Blazing Saddles lampooned and skewered to hell and back (so badly the Western genre itself shifted tack) don't exist anymore to give context and material for mockery.
Agreed with that, but it had much weaker plot and relied heavily on things that do not fit into the world and made the end feel very unsatifying.
The central conceit of the book was that cartoons were alive. Genies felt like a non sequiteur and a deus ex machina.
I'm not saying the book is without merits, but this is one of the rare instances where the movie is better than the book it is based on.
In fact, I think you could make a solid case that Django Unchained basically is the modern version of Blazing Saddles. It's also a massive critique of whitewashed US history and culture with multiple points of humor, though with karmically far more violent resolutions overall. Though whereas Blazing Saddles is busy packing jokes into every line, Django is content with extended panning shots and scenes of mostly silence/waiting punctuated by tremendous violence.
Like Bastards doesn't do anything to rehabilitate Nazis but does out of its way to show that the people helping to carry out Hitler's ambitions had their own motivations and beliefs and weren't some hive mind that was all in on cartoon villainy.
And then Django basically comes along and says "Why aren't we using slave owners as shorthand for evil dickheads we enjoy seeing get shot?"
Come Overwatch with meeeee
I went in wondering if it was also going to be about the amount of negotiations that had to have been done to get Daffy and Donald in the same movie (which he covers in another video - the agreement was that Daffy and Donald had to have the same amount of lines and screen time as Mickey and Bugs)
I think another reason that we'll never see another Roger Rabbit is that there isn't a strong roster of contemporary animated characters to draw parallels with the old studio model of film making, so it would just be going back to the same well of classic toons - just like Space Jam, Looney Tunes Back in Action, and Space Jam again
It's more that those negotiations could only be done in that time - the movie was done at the start of the Eisner era, right after Disney had just survived a hostile takeover. There is no way that barring any specific situations (i.e. the contractual mess over Spider-Man between Sony and Disney) that you would see a willingness today to do a contract like the one that WB and Disney hammered out.
Eh, modern CG has gone far beyond what they needed to do - if you've ever seen pictures of the rig they built for Benny (basically an overgrown go-cart with the driver hunched down in the back so he could be animated over - yeah, Benny had quite a bit of junk in his particular trunk,) it's clear that CG has made that sort of work easier and safer.
A lot of the "The animation/CGI in this older movie is better than today's stuff" usually boils down to better use of practical effects to make the character or creature in question feel like part of the world, which was done to hide how shitty the CGI at the time actually was.
Good example from the video that started this would be the pianos Donald and Daffy play at the club. Nowadays pretty much no one would bother with practical effects for the pianos-they'd be CGI like the ducks, which could risk making the whole thing look more like an empty stage that got filled in with special effects than a physical thing you could believe the live actors in the club could actually touch and interact with.
My issue with Finding Dory was that the plot coupons were far too convenient. “I went somewhere, now I suddenly remember where to go next.” Lather, rinse, repeat for the length of the film.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
At the same time, the need for practical effects ultimately constrains the animation - the scripted motion of the pianos constrained what the animators could do in the scene. Going full CG allows for the animator to have greater control. Also, at this point unrealistic items is a sign of poor CG work as well.
That's the thing though, there is *always* a constraint whenever you have something CGI that doesn't exist in an entirely CGI scene, even when you don't have actors looking at or interacting with it.
Most "bad CGI" today forgets or ignores that, which results in things that don't feel like they are really there because they don't have a physical presence that interacts with the scenery in the right way.
Compare Predator 2, when the Predator runs across the tops of the cars cloaked how they visibly shake with its steps and leaves (admittedly somewhat unrealistic) dents on the tops of them, vs some scene I once saw in one of the Transformers film where one of the robots leaps onto a cargo container from an angle and the container doesn't get so much as scratched from it, much less bend or move in any way.
It's not a bad point. I noticed Dory over Nemo when I posted the list and wondered about that myself. I think it was just that I teard up more in Act 3 of Dory than I did for my last viewing of Nemo, and anything that makes me feel The Human Emotions gets points from me.
I'm surprised there weren't more issues with how low I placed the original Toy Story.
That's not "bad CGI", that's bad CGI - that is, the problem there isn't a failing of the technology, but of execution,often times due to laziness. And it's not just restricted to CGI - the reason that Who Framed Roger Rabbit looks so amazing is because the animators put in the work that wasn't done in other hybrid works (again, the "banging the light" scene, with proper lighting applied to the animated characters, shows this off and remains to this day a pinnacle of traditional cel animation.) The reality is that many times you don't notice good CGI because the goal of CGI is often to not be noticible as such, and good CGI today is very good at doing that. We notice bad CGI because of the flaws, not because of the technology.
The new series seems to be built on that dichotomy, as it looks to have its protagonist being a freshly graduated scarer...who enters the job market just to find out his job skills just became obsolete.
Also, when you know something is CGI (giant robot, dinosaur, aliens…) you tend to notice all the flaws.
I guess I should mention that I was agreeing with you, and pointing out the pianos as an example of taking the extra effort to make the characters feel like they were part of the world, something most examples of bad CGI fail to do.
The snub about someone today using CGI pianos was about how someone would go "We'll just make the pianos CGI, we can do that now!" Without taking the extra effort to make sure the scene is toons playing real pianos, not toons playing supposed-to-be-real-but-obviously-not pianos because the tech now does 9/10ths of the work for them.
Don't forget Bob Hoskins.
To this day I don't think I have seen an actor work with non-existing partners as well as he has.
Cars 2's quality is like starting at the top of a mountain and then ending up at the bottom of the ocean. You start with a cool action scene featuring the slaughter of dozens of vehicles and then end with just absolute nonsensical garbage.
I watched the movie again last night with commentary, and everybody was singing Bob's praises as a mime, physical actor and general talent
They also mention that in order to emphasise the toonishness of Jessica Rabbit and make her look less like a rotoscoped actor, they animated her boobs to bounce in the opposite direction that they would on a normal woman
Hmm
If this leads to a revival of Courage the Cowardly Dog, I'm all for it.
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
Yeah but John Leguizamo really improved as an actor after that
Missed opportunity not ending the trailer with Eustace going “Stupid dogs!”
Like there was a roughness to the fabric of everything in courage that is kind of subsumed in the style for the home video Scooby movies.
like I understand why that’s gotta be, because otherwise they’d clash way harder than they do just using the character designs and the dissonance they create, but still it’s weird
It's because Courage was a deeply unsettling show especially through the eyes of a child. The monsters should look creepy and offputting, otherworldly and disturbing. Something should be wrong about them, but you can't quite place your finger on why it's so unsettling.
I do wonder who will voice Eustace since the original actor died some years back.
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
First it was crossovers with more popular WB characters like DC superheroes, then exploring obscure parts of the Scooby franchise's own history like 13 Ghosts. Now they're doing a crossover with a show that cancelled 13 years ago.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
...okay, which one of you got a hold of a genie and wished this into existence?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all up for this, but there's zero logical reason modern execs would think it's a great idea to fund something based on a culty but moderately-watched show that's generally long forgotten.