Talk:Walt Disney Animation Studios

I can think of only ONE Disney movie where the villain "falls", and that is Beauty and the Beast. The notion that it is commonplace is completely bogus.

Snow White, Cinderella (the cat), Sleeping Beauty (the witch/dragon after being stabbed), The Rescuers Down Under, Beauty and the Beast, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and Tarzan (a hanging) are all films in which the villian falls to their death. --FuriousFreddy 06:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

How typical of Disney

Some of you have probably heard about the revolutionary digital ink-and-paint system invented by Disney called CAPS (Computer Animation Production System):

"CAPS was capable of an image quality that has never been duplicated since. The final frames were of a higher resolution than HDTV, and the artwork was never scanned at less than 100% resolution, no matter how complex the shot.

In 2004, Disney Feature Animation management decided that audiences wanted only 3D computer animated features and closed down their traditional 2D animation department. CAPS was dismantled and the custom designed equipment was scrapped. As of 2005, only one desk system remains, in order to read the data for the films that were made with this ground breaking system."

Because Disney invented it, Disney owns it and won't let anybody else use it. And now there are no longer any traditional animation in their main studio. So instead of selling the whole thing which would result that other animation studies (still doing traditional animation) could make even more impressive movies, they just let it slowly fade away into eternity, and the rest of the world will never find anything like it again. I can't believe they are just allowing it to happen.

Erm... why would Disney want other animation studios to capitalise on its innovations? Come on, Disney is a business. Think before you type. --Speedway 20:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend you to do the same, as well as showing some manners. Who are talking about giving it away for free? I'm talking about selling it to others that would be interested. Disney stopped using because they didn't believe people would be interested in traditional animation any longer. If that is correct, what do they have to fear? If others are using it to make traditional animation, they wan't be able to compete with them anyway. And I actually doubt it would have made a big difference economically to speak of (when it comes to gross) with a movie like Spirited Away if it was made using CAPS and Deep Canvas instead of not using it. People would pay to see it anyway. But the visual impact would have been much more impressive. If everyone had been thinking and doing like Disney here, our civilization would still be in the middel ages. Of course I understand why they are doing it (even before you tried to teach me), but I still feel it is a wrong thing to do. Walt Disney himself was an idealist who was more interested in giving the world amazing high-quality movies than making money. The money earned on successful features was invested into the production of new movies to make them even better. If his main goal was profit, we would never seen Pinocchio, Fantasia or Sleeping Beauty. Money making can't be ignored if you wish to survive in the business, but movies should never being made for this reason alone. And if the industry can sell what they no longer need instead of hiding it away, nothing would be better.

Disney Pixar merger

The deal has been agreed and announced, but it hasn't closed (which might take several months). Until then, Pixar will continue to be a separate company, and the corresponding wikipedia disney-pixar article merger should be held off. Bwithh 21:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. And even when it goes through I don't think it should be merged here as Disney-Pixar Animation Studios will still be a nominially seperate entity under the current Pixar managment.Gateman1997 22:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think Pixar should be merged. The merger does not change the fact that Pixar did exist and was a groundbreaking company in it's own right with work products labelled solely with that name. The existing Pixar article should remain as documentation of what Pixar (RIP) did while it was independent, and the post-merger accomplishments of the new entity should remain separate.   RandallJones 23:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• There should be no merging of Wikipedia articles period. A seperate article on WDFA to cover historical content, a seperate one on Pixar to cover historical content, and a new one on Disney-Pixar Studios will keep each article within a readable scope. --FuriousFreddy 02:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with FuriousFreddy. --Renesis13 03:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with FuriousFreddy. --Padrhig 25 January 2006
• Agree with FuriousFreddy. LordBleen 04:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the merge tags. There is currently a merge-triangle between three articles (Pixar, Disney-Pixar Studios and Walt Disney Feature Animation) all wanting to merge into each other. Not only does this not make sense (they can't all merge into each other unless all three become one article) but there does not seem to be any support for merging. It appears as if though this was added with malicious or vandalistic intent. If anyone still feels like the merge tags are warranted, please add merge tags at more specific locations (let us know which sections should be merged and to/from where). Zukeeper 09:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, it has been stated that WDFA and Pixar will not be merged, but will remain seperate entities under a feature animation umbrella [1]. Therefore, there should be no "Disney-Pixar Studios" article period. --FuriousFreddy 01:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Inanimate objects

Now when Disney have decided to make all their future features as CGI, what will their animate objects behave like? I remember in cartoons made in the golden age of animation, where Mickey, Donald and Goofy (and other kinds or cartoons, both Disney and non-Disney) that the machines, cars and boats and so on often almost seemed like real characters. They were flexible and still complex, and looked as they were alive. When xerography and computer animation was introduced, I think the feeling of life in inanimate objects was gone. Pixar's Cars will maybe be closer, but still not as seen in the old cartoons. Flexible in CGI often used to mean flexible in the way we see if we are drawing on rubber and then stretches the rubber in different ways. But now when Disney claims they can do as good as everything with CGI; "Goldberg concludes, “’Chicken Little’ has laid a foundation for making CG features that all future Disney films will benefit from. We have the ability to create anything the story guys can come up with. We can create it and art direct it in a way that I don’t think any other studio can realize. The Studio brings over 80 years of animation experience to the medium, and our goal is to carry that wonderful legacy forward in the new digital frontier. We are not driven by technology, but control the technology to make it do what we want it to do.”" http://195.102.4.175/ffpressoffice/content/chickenlittle/prod_notes.html

Will we now maybe see a return of the life we remember from the old classic cartoons, both in characters and inanimate objects? (And if they really are able to do everything the golden age animators were able to do, it would be interesting to see if they could create a new short cartoon in a retro style from the 30's or 40's or something, only in 3D CGI. Like the one with Donald Duck from 1937 called Modern Inventions.)