@@Dora-xi5ob Eh, I don't agree with the take that Encanto has a good story. Great animation though. IMO the last good story to come out of Disney animation was Coco
Yeah but they've reached a point where the tech has become more important to them than the quality of the story. The tech has been more than good enough for nearly a decade.@@crestofhonor2349
Is amazing how saying "it was originally going to be hand drawn" Is equivalent for the people selling the movie to saying that the movie has a real link to that in the final product...and people are going to buy it as the same thing. Wish doesn't look remotely similar to the raccoon short, is like they took a gram of salt from a gourmet dish, placed it in a boiled egg and they said it was the same thing, the raccoon short looks fantastic, but also stop copying classic animation as if it were something impossible to do, and pretending mimicking it was a valiant effort, just make classic animation again Disney, the studio has the money.
If it doesn't matter then what matters? You're gonna say a good story. But, to make a good story, you need to tell the story in a appealing way for audience to dive in. The style of animation is just as important as the story. Dat's when tech comes into play.
I just watched Tangled yesterday, and I agree with you on pretty much everything except the nature. Because I remember the grass in Tangled, especially when Rapunzel touched grass for the first time, was uncomfortably neon-green, whereas in Wish, the outdoor scenery was more naturally well-colored. On all other fronts, hard agree! The lighting is vastly superior in Tangled (that lantern scene, anyone?!), there's decent shading, and it actually looks like a movie and not a forty-five minute thing that would have aired on Disney Junior several years ago.
@@Tail_sez it’s funny you mention the Disney Junior comparison cause I told my friend that the characters looked straight out of Sofia the First during the scene of Asha’s friends in the kitchen room. The flat and unshaded background objects and characters with plasticlike, untextured faces, it was of the quality on Sofia (yet Sofia is at least a show it typically charming characters unlike Wish). The sad part is how Asha’s hair always moves like an unbroken blanket rather than like actual locks do on women whose hair is styled that way since that kind of hairstyle doesn’t just drape like a tarp the braids overlap and layer in different ways rather than just staying in perfect formation (Brave, Tangled, and Moana had amazing hair detail and yet Asha’s hair gets no attention to it in the animation) and her Doc friend had a completely unmoving bob helmet haircut … every character’s hair just is stiff and static in the movie.
This movie cost as much as Coco to make and it had less than half the development cycle. Do you think it looks better than Coco? I don’t even think it looks better than Paperman. They’re flat out lying 🤥
It's not the most complex. The cell shaded look is okay and perfectly fine for a movie, nothing amazing, nothing horrible either just okay. What bothers me is how much they hype up this movies visuals as if they created the most amazing thing when it's just average. The backgrounds have more of a painted texture while the living characters are slightly cell shaded but nothing we hadn't already seen, I'd actually argue the shorts like paper man look more visually impressive.
The movie looks like a 3-D film with a filter over it. Which, yes, is basically what some of those short films were, but it's more obvious in Wish, I guess.
They should've kept it in pure, paper 2D. They say it's the most complex but the show looks like they used the same technology as Sofia the First. Disney is known for 2D animation and if they really want to celebrate that legacy, why not make everything 2D? :/
The fact they could not mustard the money, time and teams, to work on their century anniversary movie , is very concerning, no matter the reason behind.
I found so many leaks of the original ideas of Wish and was wondering why they threw away all of the good ideas and just went with the easiest and most stare route
After seeing the movie, I realize that Jennifer Lee was writer AND executive producer on this, AND she's running the studio. She ain't Spielberg, though. Also... they thought STAR, a literal cartoon character who's just about a few circles, is difficult to animate? Did they get on Eric Goldberg's bad side or something?
I don't think it's the most technically complex disney movie. There are others I could name like the original Fantasia and Sleeping Beauty as being extremely experimental and complex to make, particularly when it comes to background work
man power, and funds? Two of the things they own the most (all studios acquired by them). "Difficult to find 2d artists"? but they forget 1 (minimal entry animator salary) is almost 2x pro JP2d animator's salary. I mean... They pull cords for other less-demanding films... how could they now make it up for the 100th one?
@@crestofhonor2349 true, and dont know much about the innerworkings of the animation industry, but couldn't they hire more, i feel like a lot of people would be over the roof to work at disney let alone a project of this amount of importance
Disney didn't havw enough money to make 2D animation! Oh, please. They just did not want to risk to lose money from something experimental, that, no one knows, how profitable would be, how viewers would react to in the era of CGI
I know it's a PIXAR - and therefore a Disney 😉 - But I think the fluid dynamics - the way the managed to simulate how the volumes of fire and water form natural shapes - is astonishing in Elemental! It was developed in Part by the ETH in Zürich, if I recall correctly.
Winnie the Pooh is public domain and yet, Disney is not making what is clearly public domain. They can make 2D Winnie the Pooh with the public with Steamboat Willie. That can literally be the best thing Disney could’ve ever done and still can be the best thing, and yet Disney is not jumping on the public domain bandwagon.
It didn't Look like it is :( It's sad* that even if there was a lot behind the technology, the result didn't look appealing; though, there are some good points like the basic designs and colors
Maybe it is complex, but it doesn't look like it is.
Faxx
They need to focus more on story and less on tech
They Can do both. Encanto is a great example
@@Dora-xi5ob Eh, I don't agree with the take that Encanto has a good story. Great animation though. IMO the last good story to come out of Disney animation was Coco
Every single CG movie has been about Disney experimenting with some new tech
Yeah but they've reached a point where the tech has become more important to them than the quality of the story. The tech has been more than good enough for nearly a decade.@@crestofhonor2349
That’s a big slap on the face of AVATAR 2 and spider-verse to say the tech used in this is the most “advanced”
This movie is their “shoulda woulda coulda”
Is amazing how saying "it was originally going to be hand drawn" Is equivalent for the people selling the movie to saying that the movie has a real link to that in the final product...and people are going to buy it as the same thing. Wish doesn't look remotely similar to the raccoon short, is like they took a gram of salt from a gourmet dish, placed it in a boiled egg and they said it was the same thing, the raccoon short looks fantastic, but also stop copying classic animation as if it were something impossible to do, and pretending mimicking it was a valiant effort, just make classic animation again Disney, the studio has the money.
Proof tech doesn't matter when making a good movie then
If it doesn't matter then what matters? You're gonna say a good story. But, to make a good story, you need to tell the story in a appealing way for audience to dive in. The style of animation is just as important as the story. Dat's when tech comes into play.
@@Sherif-the-Watcher What matters is making a movie for the love of making a movie. You know, actually caring about it being good.
I think they tried to make it look good but it doesn't turn out that great, but if they make a great story the art style could've been easily excepted
It looks less advanced than Tangled from more than 10 years before Wish was made. I don't know how they can be fooling themselves that it's advanced.
I just watched Tangled yesterday, and I agree with you on pretty much everything except the nature. Because I remember the grass in Tangled, especially when Rapunzel touched grass for the first time, was uncomfortably neon-green, whereas in Wish, the outdoor scenery was more naturally well-colored. On all other fronts, hard agree! The lighting is vastly superior in Tangled (that lantern scene, anyone?!), there's decent shading, and it actually looks like a movie and not a forty-five minute thing that would have aired on Disney Junior several years ago.
@@Tail_sez it’s funny you mention the Disney Junior comparison cause I told my friend that the characters looked straight out of Sofia the First during the scene of Asha’s friends in the kitchen room. The flat and unshaded background objects and characters with plasticlike, untextured faces, it was of the quality on Sofia (yet Sofia is at least a show it typically charming characters unlike Wish). The sad part is how Asha’s hair always moves like an unbroken blanket rather than like actual locks do on women whose hair is styled that way since that kind of hairstyle doesn’t just drape like a tarp the braids overlap and layer in different ways rather than just staying in perfect formation (Brave, Tangled, and Moana had amazing hair detail and yet Asha’s hair gets no attention to it in the animation) and her Doc friend had a completely unmoving bob helmet haircut … every character’s hair just is stiff and static in the movie.
I could've sworn star was 2d animated but they couldn't even hand draw a floating ball
I really love seeing other animators interviews
This movie cost as much as Coco to make and it had less than half the development cycle. Do you think it looks better than Coco? I don’t even think it looks better than Paperman. They’re flat out lying 🤥
It's not the most complex. The cell shaded look is okay and perfectly fine for a movie, nothing amazing, nothing horrible either just okay. What bothers me is how much they hype up this movies visuals as if they created the most amazing thing when it's just average. The backgrounds have more of a painted texture while the living characters are slightly cell shaded but nothing we hadn't already seen, I'd actually argue the shorts like paper man look more visually impressive.
The movie looks like a 3-D film with a filter over it.
Which, yes, is basically what some of those short films were, but it's more obvious in Wish, I guess.
They should've kept it in pure, paper 2D. They say it's the most complex but the show looks like they used the same technology as Sofia the First. Disney is known for 2D animation and if they really want to celebrate that legacy, why not make everything 2D? :/
Seems not to me. I think Puss in the boots 3 art style is far more complex than this.
Puss in Boots 2 you mean. There is no third movie
The fact they could not mustard the money, time and teams, to work on their century anniversary movie , is very concerning, no matter the reason behind.
I found so many leaks of the original ideas of Wish and was wondering why they threw away all of the good ideas and just went with the easiest and most stare route
I didn't think the movie was as awful as people said. However, it looks cheap. The racoon short looked way better
Me too
It looks fine
After seeing the movie, I realize that Jennifer Lee was writer AND executive producer on this, AND she's running the studio. She ain't Spielberg, though.
Also... they thought STAR, a literal cartoon character who's just about a few circles, is difficult to animate? Did they get on Eric Goldberg's bad side or something?
Wasn't Sleeping beauty done in Gouache? As soon as she said watercolor I was like "wut?"
I don't think it's the most technically complex disney movie. There are others I could name like the original Fantasia and Sleeping Beauty as being extremely experimental and complex to make, particularly when it comes to background work
All the Easter eggs from the past Disney movies were also included.
And Bambi little John and Peter pan were guest staring in the movie
I'll be honest when you pause it, it kinda looks tv animation 😂
man power, and funds? Two of the things they own the most (all studios acquired by them).
"Difficult to find 2d artists"? but they forget 1 (minimal entry animator salary) is almost 2x pro JP2d animator's salary.
I mean...
They pull cords for other less-demanding films... how could they now make it up for the 100th one?
So Disney of all companies couldn’t cough up enough money for a movie that was meant to celebrate their 100th anniversary
They didn't have enough artists who are able to animate in that traditional style. The Disney style of 2D animation is particularly difficult
@@crestofhonor2349 true, and dont know much about the innerworkings of the animation industry, but couldn't they hire more, i feel like a lot of people would be over the roof to work at disney let alone a project of this amount of importance
Disney didn't havw enough money to make 2D animation! Oh, please. They just did not want to risk to lose money from something experimental, that, no one knows, how profitable would be, how viewers would react to in the era of CGI
I can't see an actual example of complexity to be honest. Like, in Moana, it was obvious: hair and water. But here? What so complex there is?
I know it's a PIXAR - and therefore a Disney 😉 - But I think the fluid dynamics - the way the managed to simulate how the volumes of fire and water form natural shapes - is astonishing in Elemental! It was developed in Part by the ETH in Zürich, if I recall correctly.
Press X for doubt.
Love Your video.👍👍
Far From the Tree was SO GOOD! Why didn’t they do Wish with the same animation?
The Princess and the frog was the last one actually.
it doesn't look 2D, it just looks flat
The biggest problem with the movie isn’t the artstyle but, that the idea has been done before.
Idc if its complex, if its horrible it wasn't worth it
Paperman from 10 years ago is for sure better than this.
Paperman was also a short film, so much less time than a feature length film
Wish was really good but I find this hard to believe. It looks like Sofia the First.
The movie was actually pretty good...some parts were clearly filler minuites, but overall really good. Loved the music and the goat.
So this movie as basically made with the GearHead mentality.
If complex means making it look like unfinished garbage it shouldn't have been put out in the first place.
Well I WISH the whole movie was better
Winnie the Pooh is public domain and yet, Disney is not making what is clearly public domain. They can make 2D Winnie the Pooh with the public with Steamboat Willie. That can literally be the best thing Disney could’ve ever done and still can be the best thing, and yet Disney is not jumping on the public domain bandwagon.
What is the comic book style short at 2:18?
I found it - it's called "Just a Thought", from disney's short circuit experimental films
Looks like their cheapest.
I feel this is a blant lie.
Sure pal whatever they say
It didn't Look like it is :( It's sad* that even if there was a lot behind the technology, the result didn't look appealing; though, there are some good points like the basic designs and colors
Spider verse & the blue eyed samurai done it 10× better
I don’t really believe that
All these efforts to replicate a technique that they mastered over time, just because producers doesn't believe in 2D anymore, what a shame...
Wish looks better 2d
Nope. Roger Rabbit is the most technically complex Disney movie.
no
complex 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
“They didn’t have the manpower, time, or budget”
What you mean to say is Disney didn’t give them the manpower, time, or budget.
I guess it makes sense. Afterall, one does not simply make something that horrible without hard work or precise directing toward it.
look, genial ideia, why not make it fucking 2d?
Technically complex? No. More like technically bad
The animation looks cheap as hell! Wish Disney will return to 2D Hand Drawn Animation
FIRST!
Too bad the movie stinks because it looks very nice
So its a lazy movie....
it's still shit.