Wait... Capcom!?

Post by **G.Silver** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 11:15 pm

G.Silver's post is overrated.

What do you mean? No one likes my posts >:(

Cuckooguy · Post by **Cuckooguy** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 4:59 am

Huh, it's been a while since I've watched Treasure Planet, but I remember not liking it. Maybe if I watched it again then I can tell you precisely, but I remember not being able to feel for any character, and a couple of weird events that happened when they reached and explored Treasure Planet. (Yeah, that's a pretty big spoiler, huh). The characterization of John Silver was a very well-intentioned idea, but, like I said, I just couldn't feel anything for any of the characters. If I said anymore, I'd just be talking out of my ass, because I can't accurately remember how the plot went and the players in the movie.

I just did a search on Treasure Planet to try and jog my memory, but I can't remember for the life of me what that pink globby thing flying around is at all. Not that that statement alone is supposed to reflect my whole feelings on TP, but still.

It's very impressive visually, I'll give it that.

Since we're on the topic of Disney, last month, I had an urge to watch Cinderella or Fantasia, but I couldn't find either, so I watched Hercules instead to remember if it was any good. I think Treasure Planet is about a little less entertaining than Hercules.

I do remember enjoying Atlantis, sans the overtly ruthless nature of the villain that bloomed later in the film; it just seemed really force, like the producers went "Hey, let's make this guy as evil as we can!"

Baba O'Reily · Post by **Baba O'Reily** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 5:06 am

Poison Eggroll wrote:
I just did a search on Treasure Planet to try and jog my memory, but I can't remember for the life of me what that pink globby thing flying around is at all. Not that that statement alone is supposed to reflect my whole feelings on TP, but still.

Assuming it was based on Treasure Island, I'd say that blob thing would probably be a parrot.

Dash · Post by **Dash** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 6:41 am

Poison Eggroll wrote:Huh, it's been a while since I've watched Treasure Planet, but I remember not liking it. Maybe if I watched it again then I can tell you precisely, but I remember not being able to feel for any character, and a couple of weird events that happened when they reached and explored Treasure Planet. (Yeah, that's a pretty big spoiler, huh). The characterization of John Silver was a very well-intentioned idea, but, like I said, I just couldn't feel anything for any of the characters. If I said anymore, I'd just be talking out of my ass, because I can't accurately remember how the plot went and the players in the movie.

Fair enough. Now see, I thought the complete opposite of it(As did the audience that was with me. To my surprise, they gave it a standing ovation. You know, a good one; not a half assed 2 second thing.), but that's appropriate considering Treasure Planet (as I've seen round the net) seems to be a "love it or hate it" deal.

It is nice to see a proper explination instead of another "OMG TR4YSuR3 PLn4t=SHITZOR!!111" though. ^_^

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 11:31 am

I just did a search on Treasure Planet to try and jog my memory, but I can't remember for the life of me what that pink globby thing flying around is at all.

Crappy attempt at making a cute and marketable character?

Dash · Post by **Dash** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 1:13 pm

I actually thought it was a clever idea. Morph copycats like a parrot would but it's far more entertaining to watch because he changes shape when doing so. Must have been a lot of fun for the animators.

Seymour · Post by **Seymour** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 3:58 pm

Speaking about the current state of Disney did any of you happen to hear about this?

Carl with a K · Post by **Carl with a K** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 5:15 pm

Does he die?

Double-S- · Post by **Double-S-** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:15 pm

OH FREAKING A' I WAS HOPING THEY WOULDN'T BUT OF COURSE THEY HAVE TO GAY APART MY FAVORITE DISNEY MOVIE.

Post by **Segaholic2** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:17 pm

Wow. Disney is truly dead to me now.

Post by **Delphine** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:29 pm

Heard about it already. Really wasn't surprised.

Cuckooguy · Post by **Cuckooguy** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 10:17 pm

Dash wrote:It is nice to see a proper explination instead of another "OMG TR4YSuR3 PLn4t=SHITZOR!!111" though. ^_^

I'm pretty sure that if I talked like that, I'd be douched or banned by now.

Not that not talking like that is preventing the moderators from doing such things to me.

Speaking of Disney sequels, I hear Dumbo 2 got shelved, because the creators couldn't figure out what to do with it. I believe their most honest attempt at making a competent Disney sequel (sans Rescuers Down Under) was the Lion King 2 (which was still bad). The other sequels I've watched were the Aladdin sequels, The Little Mermaid 2, The Hunchback of Notre Dame 2 (the worst of the crop), Lion King 1.5, and Pocahontas 2, and it took me that long to never touch a sequel again. But now I can honestly say they suck, instead of claiming they suck on the grounds of being sequels and never watching them.

Post by **Green Gibbon!** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 10:45 pm

Pocahontas and Hunchback sucked even before there were sequels.

Cuckooguy · Post by **Cuckooguy** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 10:51 pm

Green Gibbon! wrote:Pocahontas and Hunchback sucked even before there were sequels.

They'd look like gold to you if you watched the sequels.

Which you shouldn't.

I should probably watch both Pocahontas and Hunchback again. The only things I remember not liking from Hunchback were Phoebus and when the Gargoyles sing a song about love while the whole fuckin' city is burning. But even if it wasn't burning, I probably wouldn't like that song. It's been about a decade (when I was about 10) since I've seen either movie.

Wow, I feel old.

Post by **Green Gibbon!** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 11:40 pm

Take my word for it that Pocahontas is not worth watching again, and if it hadn't already been too late, I'd recommend you not waste an hour and a half of your life watching it even once.

Hunchback at least had a couple of things going for it, but it couldn't decide what it wanted to be. Of course the original Hunchback novel is very dark, not exactly Disney material, but they tried to squeeze it into the Disney mold anyway and they just kind of broke both...

Omni Hunter · Post by **Omni Hunter** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:20 am

I hate the way Disney takes all the good bits out. And when the animation went to a lower level than Johnny Bravo (Pocahontas among others) I just left it. I hear Disney is leaving 2d feature films for the more modern 3d market.

Post by **Segaholic2** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 11:19 am

Yeah, they already dissolved their entire 2D animation department in favor of nothing but computer-generated animation. Idiots.

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 2:01 pm

I wonder what Disney is going to do when 3-D animation doesn't equal millions of dollars in profit and a sharp increase in quality as they expected?

Fire the CGI animators and make movies out of cheese, hoping that the success of a movie depends entirely upon trendy technology and not silly things like good writing or originality?

Locit · Post by **Locit** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 2:39 pm

Segaholic2 wrote:Yeah, they already dissolved their entire 2D animation department in favor of nothing but computer-generated animation. Idiots.

Are you serious?
....Is he serious?

Post by **Esrever** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 2:45 pm

He is. The Florida 2D features studio, who made Mulan and Lilo and Stitch, was completely disolved, while the entire California studio has been revamped into producing 3D animation exclusively.

But Disney still has one large 2D animation studio. However, it's the studio that produces all those bullshit TV shows and direct to video projects. Interestingly, a lot of the former features animators who did not want to be retrained in 3D are now working there... which might explain why the animation quality of recent direct-to-video projects like Lion King 1 1/2 has improved so much.

Post by **Segaholic2** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 3:42 pm

Too bad the movies still suck.

Cuckooguy · Post by **Cuckooguy** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 10:15 pm

Omni Hunter wrote:And when the animation went to a lower level than Johnny Bravo (Pocahontas among others) I just left it.

Now now, I'm not sure if that's a very fair assessment towards Disney (even if they do suck). Did Pocahontas really have that kind of bad quality in animation? Because I believe The Little Mermaid is the guiltiest of having the worst animation of all post 80's theatrical movies that Disney's released. And I liked The Little Mermaid.

It does seem that, recently, Disney has upped the budget on their 2D animated stuff.

Zeta wrote:I wonder what Disney is going to do when 3-D animation doesn't equal millions of dollars in profit and a sharp increase in quality as they expected?

I'm a bit distressed that if Chicken Little does actually turn out to be good and it does equal millions of dollars in profit for them, they'll pinpoint it's success towards it being a 3-D Animation feature instead of having a good story.

Post by **Esrever** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:43 am

Chicken Little probably WILL make more money than their recent 2D films, because they're actually going to spend some money marketing it.

Omni Hunter · Post by **Omni Hunter** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 10:52 am

I think even Valiant will shit all over Chicken little, but it's only a hope.
The only 3d film to ever impress me is Monsters Inc. I reckon Disney should employ Aardman Studios with their claymation skills.

IrkenSnax · Post by **IrkenSnax** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:06 pm

Speaking of bad sequels, who here hated Fantasia 2000?