This sounds like a pretty bad idea to me. I mean, its a decent novelty to have celebrity likenesses translated to sea creatures. But, that cant hold a film. Or can it?

The preview looked terrible. It's gonna suck. The Incredibles is gonna woop it's ass.

K-Dog

quote:

---

Originally posted by K-Dog:
The preview looked terrible. It's gonna suck. The Incredibles is gonna woop it's ass.

_K-Dog_

---

I really want "Sharktale" to be a winner and not another "Spirit". Because, Dreamworks is the company that takes chances---which can go both ways. I, also, am secretly hoping that "The Incredibles" sucks, becuase I am sick of hearing about the almighty Pixar. Pixar, in my eyes, killed traditional animation which is a really really really bad thing to do.

Maybe I should stay outta this because I enjoyed "Spirit Stallion of the Cimarron", but hell, I really enjoyed "Brother Bear" when I finally saw it, even though I was sure it was going to suck.

quote:

---

written by Eccentro
I really want "Sharktale" to be a winner and not another "Spirit". Because, Dreamworks is the company that takes chances---which can go both ways. I, also, am secretly hoping that "The Incredibles" sucks, becuase I am sick of hearing about the almighty Pixar. Pixar, in my eyes, killed traditional animation which is a really really really bad thing to do.

---

Pixar didn't "kill" traditional animation; it's simply the next step in the evolution of animation in general. It's brought it to another level. Just like how the Matrix had suddenly caused action movies to start using crazy computer generated special efects in their fight scenes. Do you hate The Wackowski brothers for introducing this next level or entertainment? And also, if not Pixar, then it would have just been someone else (maybe even Dreamworks). We're progressing. Old things will have to change; it's inevitable.

K-Dog

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Metacritic Games Editor,

quote:

---

Originally posted by K-Dog:

quote:

---

written by Eccentro
I really want "Sharktale" to be a winner and not another "Spirit". Because, Dreamworks is the company that takes chances---which can go both ways. I, also, am secretly hoping that "The Incredibles" sucks, becuase I am sick of hearing about the almighty Pixar. Pixar, in my eyes, killed traditional animation which is a really really really bad thing to do.

---

Pixar didn't "kill" traditional animation; it's simply the next step in the evolution of animation in general. It's brought it to another level. Just like how the Matrix had suddenly caused action movies to start using crazy computer generated special efects in their fight scenes. Do you hate The Wackowski brothers for introducing this next level or entertainment? And also, if not Pixar, then it would have just been someone else (maybe even Dreamworks). We're progressing. Old things will have to change; it's inevitable.

_K-Dog_

---

Recently, Disney made a statement that they were no longer producing traditionally animated feature films---that "Home on the Range" would be their last. Why? Because, 3D animation is making all the money. "Nemo" was the top-grossing film of last year. Yet, "Lilo and Stitch", a film just as good as "Nemo", wasnt nearly as successful. Why? Because audiences sadly flock to what is being called "the next big thing". There is no argument that 3D animation is the next big thing. Since Disney sees where the money is, they put all their imagination/effort/budget in a Pixar film. This is dissapointing, because there really isnt a big 2D animation company, besides Disney, and if Disney isnt making 2D films, the public's apetite for traditional animation will have to remain unfulfilled.

quote:

---

Written by Eccentro
Recently, Disney made a statement that they were no longer producing traditionally animated feature films---that "Home on the Range" would be their last. Why? Because, 3D animation is making all the money. "Nemo" was the top-grossing film of last year. Yet, "Lilo and Stitch", a film just as good as "Nemo", wasnt nearly as successful. Why? Because audiences sadly flock to what is being called "the next big thing". There is no argument that 3D animation is the next big thing. Since Disney sees where the money is, they put all their imagination/effort/budget in a Pixar film. This is dissapointing, because there really isnt a big 2D animation company, besides Disney, and if Disney isnt making 2D films, the public's apetite for traditional animation will have to remain unfulfilled.

---

Yes, people these days flock to Pixar-esque animation rather than traditional. Why? Because we no longer have an appetite for traditional. There is no appetite for traditional animation to fulfill. We now have a new appetite: Pixar.

To get my point across a little more clearly, let's use black & white movies as an example. There are hardly anymore new black and white films being made these days. Why? Because we simply prefer color. Is there an appetite for black and white? No. If there was, then we'd flock to black and white films. So as you can see, your point about fulfilling our appetites really doesn't make any sense. You kind of prove yourself wrong in your own statement.

K-Dog

quote:

---

Yes, people these days flock to Pixar-esque animation rather than traditional. Why? Because we no longer have an appetite for traditional. There is no appetite for traditional animation to fulfill. We now have a new appetite: Pixar.

To get my point across a little more clearly, let's use black & white movies as an example. There are hardly anymore new black and white films being made these days. Why? Because we simply prefer color. Is there an appetite for black and white? No. If there was, then we'd flock to black and white films. So as you can see, your point about fulfilling our appetites really doesn't make any sense. You kind of prove yourself wrong in your own statement.

_K-Dog_

---

I can only base this on my own personal decisions. No one goes to (or at least I dont) traditional films because they dont seem to be any good anymore. The last good 2D flicks that I can remember seeing are Lilo and Stitch (which did well financially but was milked to death), Spirited Away, and Waking Life. Everything sonce then has been pretty mediocre---all of which have been unseen by me. So it might be my fault that animations dying---after all Im not buying tickets to see the movies.
This is because all these flicks are getting criticized for being too childish. I, personally, dont like my films to be geared towards children. None of the three dimensional mvies are "childish"---they all have in jokes or humor aimed at adults. Why cant the 2D films be adult-oriented???

I think Disney is confused as to why the public flocks to see Shrek and Nemo---its not because its 3D, its cuz theyre good! Lilo opened like gangbusters which is enough proof that the public does not think traditional animation is obselete, theyre just waiting for a good movie to come by.


Oh, and by the way, I love black and white moreso than color!

i hope sharktale sinks and flops like the titanic (the ship not the movie). i think it's a sorry excuse to try to reel in finding nemo fans. here's one fan that's boycotting this lame movie.

first of all, 2d animation should not be compared to black and white films. It is an entirely different artform than 3d animation.

That being said, I really do not like 3d animation. I recommend turning to Japan for classic animation. I hope one day a revival is made in 2d though.

No one's comparing anything to anything. I was using black and white as an analogy.

"[2d] is an entirely different art form than 3d animation."

Yeah we know that.

I'm not saying one is better than the other. My point is that there is no "appetite" for traditional. As a matter of fact, now that I think about it, I don't think there's an "appetite" for any specific type of animation. We're just hungry for good movies. If an animated movie is good, no matter what kind of animation, people will flock to see it.

K-Dog