The newest ad for Little Mermaid looks it would be not half bad if the talking animals didn't look completely like something from FNAF. Seriously they kinda scare the shit out of me.
Plus I feel it would add to the fantastical nature of the movies. Maybe even give it that old school feel like in Mary Poppins and shows like that. There is so much magic they could create with such a choice.
I really feel they missed the boat with how they went. .
Edit: damn there are some bitter folks here.
By - MegaMarioSonic
Then they couldn't market them as live-action remakes.
LION KING WAS MARKETED AS ONE I STIL DON'T GET THAT YES IM ANGRY THATS WHY IM SHOUTING
If you call it animated, then it was the highest grossing animated film of all time!
They did Chip n Dale like that
I wished they had done traditional 2D animation for Chip and the other Rescue Rangers. The 2.5D look was awful imo.
Sort of a spiritual successor.
Live action is to sell the theme park experience. Take the kids in cosplay to Disneyland rides.
[удалено]
CGI is definitely not cheaper or quicker than 2D animation, but it's **perceived** to be more theatrical while 2D animation is perceived to be more appropriate to television, specifically because CGI looks more expensive while 2D animation looks less expensive.
>because CGI looks more expensive while 2D animation looks less expensive. Does it though? I'm serious here, most modern 3D animation looks like ass.
>Does it though? I'm serious here, most modern 3D animation looks like ass. That only helps the perception that 3D is expensive: because it's hard to do really well. And when it IS done well, it's usually because the good animation is paired with a good animated movie. It's all about perception.
MJ in person > MJ cartoon version = $$$
They used to things like this. The Incredible Mr. Limpet was one such example. I liked it.
That is like asking why cars don't use skateboard wheels... because that would be stupid and pointless. The characters in Roger rabbit and the live action loony toons films etc are literally meant to be cartoons that exist as cartoons in the physical world. The talking animal characters in the live action Disney movies are meant to be literal animals that just happen to be able to talk to eachother. It's not even remotely comparable.
Don't understand the downvotes, this is absolutely true.
Same. Apparrently, the unreasonable don't like listening to reason. 🤷
Because it's not cheap and efficient.
Because if Disney pioneered technique that would allow live-action characters to physically interact with cartoons in way that felt natural and believable on screen, just think how it would reshape the future for rule34 fanmade videos.
[удалено]
That's a fine rant but this has nothing to do with patents. (It has everything to do with copyright.)
Cause they majorly lack originality these days
I would be more inclined to watch them if they were. I enjoy 2d, theres something appealing about it that CG doesnt do for me quite as much.
I don’t know that those two examples really ignited the movie industry towards billion-dollar-plus success like they’re looking for.
Marry Poppins