OK. Show of hands. How many of you rushed into the theaters to see Finding Nemo because of the animation techniques? I mean, did you actually sit down and choose between Nemo and Rugrats Go Wild! on the fact that one was 3-D and the other 2-D? Or because you heard that one was hilarious and the other one sucked?
And just how were you able to resist the lure of those unique character voices in Sinbad? I mean, come on people! They spent big money to get Brad Pitt, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michelle Pfeiffer for those parts. What do you mean you'd rather have Phil Harris, Sterling Holloway and Pat Carroll? Who the hell is Mary Kay Bergman?
It couldn't be that after the first few Pixar presentations, you stopped going "Wow! That's looks cool" and started watching them because they were good stories? Puh-leeze. Trust us. The only reason you went to see Ice Age was because it was 3-D. And that's why Disney is laying off its traditional animators.
I can't fathom the stupidity of corporate management sometimes.
For an even better take on the subject, go read Todd's guest entry at Ain't Too Proud to Blog.
Article comments
1 - John Campea
Good post. There are a couple of things to consider. First of all, Pixar has consistantly put out wonderful stories. Toy Stoy, Bug's life, Monster's Inc (which I still think is better than Skrek), and now Nemo. With that reputation for excellence, regarless if it's 3D or not, people will go check it out.
As far as Ice Age goes, you have to remember that it had one of the best trailers in recent film history. I think that more than anything else was responsible for it's opening weekend success. And yes, there probably was some "association" with Pixar due to the fact that it was 3D.
2 - Eric Olsen
"Ice Age" is a great story, very touching, dramatic, funny, clever. Pixar is great, but there is plenty of room for traditional animation. Though 3-D is cool and you can feel the depth, it's just another gimmick, another phase. If "real" is what you're going for, why animate at all?