AV's Best Of The Year Review

Updates, Announcements and Your Feedback
User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 17840
Joined: October 22nd, 2004, 1:27 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby Ben » December 20th, 2010, 11:34 pm

Here we go again, with this year's countdown! We couldn't have had it any closer than this, but it's been a strong end of year for reviews and big titles and we've kind of been a little busy!

But...here's the list - did your favorites make our cut?

http://animatedviews.com/2010/the-best-of-2010-the-year-3d-made-contact/

Let us know your thoughts: what did we miss out? What did we put in that shouldn't be there - and why not submit your own top ten of the year!?

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 419
Joined: December 21st, 2007, 12:22 pm

Re: Animated Views' Best of the Decade Film List

Postby Dusterian » December 21st, 2010, 10:08 pm

I think the list seems pretty good. I think I agree with a lot. It had me want to check out a lot of movies, and ask for a lot for Christmas!

The description for the Princess and the Frog is the most obvious thing I have a problem with. I didn't think it measured up because it didn't have enough Disney magic, while the description said it had too much. I think Tangled had more magic than that film, though still not enough.

When an animation fan site says a Disney film wasn't good enough because it had "too much" Disney magic, I don't know how I can even understand or believe that.

The description of Toy Story 3 reminded me that, well, I'm not sure "facing death with dignity" is really a topic for movies that very little kids will be watching, and the whole intensity and length of that rather scary scene is not good for them, but, it's Pixar who doesn't give a flying you know, and they did have a different director this time who took a very different, more horror-like tone. Not good.

The description of How to Train your Dragon really had me thinking I really have to see that movie now!

I think I caught at least one typo, in this sentence:

How To Train Your Dragon really didn’t need it as DreamWorks’ unexpectedly marvellous second release of the year proved to feature unique visuals that transcended the usual approach from the Studio and went on to kick Kung Fu Panda into touch!


Hm?
Last edited by Dusterian on December 22nd, 2010, 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 4856
Joined: October 22nd, 2004, 11:21 pm
Location: SaskaTOON, Canada

Re: Animated Views' Best of the Decade Film List

Postby Randall » December 21st, 2010, 10:25 pm

Dusterian wrote:The description of Toy Story 3 reminded me that, well, I'm not sure "facing death with dignity" is really a topic for movies that very little kids will be watching, and the whole intensity and length of that rather scary scene is not good for them...


My 3 year old and 9 year old had no issues. They loved the movie, and have seen it a couple of times (once in 3-D at the theatre, once at home on Blu-ray). Some kids may be more sensitive, but mine were fine with the scene.

Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 6303
Joined: October 16th, 2004, 7:51 pm
Contact:

Postby James » December 21st, 2010, 11:53 pm

He didn't say it had too much Disney magic. He said it was too derivative of the classics from the early 1990's rather than going its own late 2000's way.

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 17840
Joined: October 22nd, 2004, 1:27 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby Ben » December 22nd, 2010, 11:25 am

Dusterian wrote:I didn't think it measured up because it didn't have enough Disney magic, while the description said it had too much. When an animation fan site says a Disney film wasn't good enough because it had "too much" Disney magic, I don't know how I can even understand or believe that.

You'll need to point that out to me. As James said, we never say that in the article. :?


Dusterian wrote:I think I caught at least one typo, in this sentence:
How To Train Your Dragon went on to kick Kung Fu Panda into touch!

Hm?

Um...no. To kick something into touch is an old saying, meaning to to blow it out of the water/sweep it out of the way, blah, blah, blah... Do a Google search.

Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 4856
Joined: October 22nd, 2004, 11:21 pm
Location: SaskaTOON, Canada

Postby Randall » December 22nd, 2010, 12:17 pm

I hadn't heard that saying before either, but I'll take your word for it! :)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 419
Joined: December 21st, 2007, 12:22 pm

Postby Dusterian » December 22nd, 2010, 3:14 pm

Your kids may indeed be fine, I can believe that, but just so you know:

A lot of times kids do either not realize damage being done to them, or don't let their parents know. When I watched certain movies with scary bad things happening, I had nightmares or feared very bad things would happen, but I did not always tell my parents. And there's the subconscious damage, too, which means of course they are not conscious of it.

Oh, the touch saying is a reference to rugby.

Here's the sentence I couldn't believe:

John Musker and Ron Clements, who infused perhaps a little too much of that brand of Disney fairy dust into the mix, unlike the current Tangled which offers a new spin on the classic musical fairytale and has resonated with audiences.


Now, I understand why big general audiences might want their Disney movies to be all modern and have a "spin", but if a film had loads of the Disney brand of "fairy dust" so that it was just like an old Disney movie, I would think everyone here at least would love that! So I don't get it. And people still buy the old Disney movies with that "fairy dust", they're always huge sellers, so... ??????
Image

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 17840
Joined: October 22nd, 2004, 1:27 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby Ben » December 22nd, 2010, 3:28 pm

Actually, you should quote the surrounding sentence, unless you want to come off like you're trying to put slants onto things we did not say. If you read the context properly:
...the result being something akin to the later 1990s animated pictures the studio was releasing, not least down to the directing pair of John Musker and Ron Clements, who infused perhaps a little too much of that brand of Disney fairy dust into the mix...

...it is clear we are saying there was too much of the 1990s in the film. It was dated. Which is why it didn't do very well. Unlike Tangled. Which was worked for audiences of 2010. And which is doing very well.

Dusty...really, I wish you'd shut up about this "old Disney magic" stuff. A modern film can have fairy dust and be successful. It's the tone that audiences respond to. Princess/Frog didn't have it. Tangled does. People buy the old Disney movies because they're "classics", but they understand they're of their time. Walt would never have released Snow White in 1950 with the dance band songs it had in it. Cinderella's 1950s ballads wouldn't have worked in any other era either.

But...you know...I just think you're out to wind us up with every comment. And I'm sick and tired of it. You're playing an old record that's by now very beat up and scratched. And if you keep on with this same old, lame arguments, I'm going to stop with the explanations - which ARE NOT GETTING THROUGH TO YOU, OR IF THEY ARE YOU'RE JUST PLAYING DUMB OR SOMETHING - and I'm just going to start deleting posts around here. Because this is the second or third thread you've hijacked to keep going on about this frakken old Disney magic ship. And as well as frustrating the hell out of me because I've tried to explain - I really have - it's just gotten plain annoying now, because you're not reading or understanding what other people have also been trying to explain.

So stop. Or go. But just please, please stop. It's just not funny anymore. :(

Re: AV's Best Of The Year Review

Postby American_dog_2008 » December 22nd, 2010, 4:57 pm

Wow, I want Scooby Doo: Where Are You as a present!

And such a shame for Alpha & Omega.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 419
Joined: December 21st, 2007, 12:22 pm

Postby Dusterian » December 24th, 2010, 11:17 pm

Well this is going to be embarassing but...

Ben...all my life, I have loved that I am unique, but unfortunately it also means that if people don't get me, I don't get them. I don't understand everything the way other people do. I'm just different, and I don't know how to say it without sounding like what you just said, dumb. Yes, I didn't understand what you said until you explained it to me, but I do do understand it now. But just because I don't get common things, it doesn't mean I'm dumb. I'm not. And I know you weren't saying I was, but I just feel kinda bad now.

Look...I like certain things. So I talk about them all the time. It seems most other people love a lot of different things and can't stay focused on the same thing for a long time. But I like certain things and I can talk about them all the time. I always love to talk about them.

When I see problems, I point them out, and yes, I am going to notice problems with things that all very similar, like Disney. I love Disney more than any other animation, there's something about their mixture I love, so I always talk about them and always notice problems with them when they change. I love other animation too, just not as big as Disney, but because I love animation in general and am interested in all of it, I come here.

I see these problems happening with Disney changing, even things like dropping the apostrophe "'s" so that their movies don't even say "Walt Disney's" anymore. I point out the problems but people seem to keep ignoring them. I feel like some of the old Disney ways and what made them great are kind of dying, and I can't let that happen, so I speak up, even though I fear people will be annoyed, because I feel, well, somebody's gotta say something. And then people say, "No, I think you're wrong", so I have to explain why I think I'm right, so they don't think it's right that Disney ignores Walt's dream or something, so it turns into a big argument, which, it seems, will unfortunately annoy people. Of course it annoys people when someone debates with them, even though I'm just responding to what they themselves said, I'm doing what they did, speaking my mind.

I have my opinion, and it's a unique view, but I feel I point out things people wouldn't normally notice. I sometimes even try to figure out how to make things more "Disney" even though it's hard, so it doesn't sound like I'm just complaining. And maybe people also think the things I pick out are too small, but I'm detail oriented, I can't help it, but also, isn't it the details that usually make things nuanced and more perfect, better? I'm sure Disney magic and the heart of many great films lies in the details.

If you tell me to stop posting my opinion, I'm going to feel like I'm a different person just told to shut up, like in some Disney movie, and the princess does shut up, but this time no prince will rescue her because nobody cares.
Image

Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 4856
Joined: October 22nd, 2004, 11:21 pm
Location: SaskaTOON, Canada

Postby Randall » December 25th, 2010, 12:21 am

I think what Ben is trying to say is that the "Disney magic" discussion has run its course, and can be dropped now. It's great to have passion, but at some point you need to realize that it's not necessarily that people don't understand you. They maybe disagree or.... just don't care as much as you do. Either way, it's time to move on.

:)

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 17840
Joined: October 22nd, 2004, 1:27 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby Ben » December 28th, 2010, 3:48 pm

Or they maybe agree, care about things just as much as you do, and with the same passion, but realize that not a lot can basically be done about it unless you're running the company that you have a problem with. And maybe they'd love to stop and focus on one conversation and run with it for hours without losing attention, but perhaps only when that conversation hasn't run its course and is just repeating itself.

As Rand says, either way, it's time to move on from this one. :)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 419
Joined: December 21st, 2007, 12:22 pm

Postby Dusterian » January 1st, 2011, 10:59 pm

Well, since I said all my thoughts, and there's really not much more I can say, and it seems there's nothing anyone else will say, then I do have to leave it at that.

At least it ended on an understanding, somewhat happy note.

If only I could figure out a way to voice all this, banded together with whoever else agrees, to the company. If only we could do things like campaign to keep Disneyesque titles and treatment of their classics and new made films. But if no one has anything to say about that, well, at least there's my thoughts laid out.

And Happy New Year!
Image

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 296
Joined: February 12th, 2005, 7:16 am
Location: England

Re: AV's Best Of The Year Review

Postby Wonderlicious » January 7th, 2011, 12:42 pm

A good read! I would say it's all fairly accurate. I haven't seen/bought/watched all of these, but I'll make some comments on things that I feel I can make a few comments on.

How to Train Your Dragon:
I rented this one on New Year's Eve, but I really wish I'd seen this one on the big screen, whether in 2D or 3D. My problem with Dreamworks is that they seem to sometimes aim for the lowest common denominator no matter what the film, adding lots of pop-culture references and aimless humour, ultimately doing injustice to the finished product. They're by no means bad, but they just feel not as good as they could be; Shrek was good, but it doesn't mean that every single film has to follow that sort of formula. I hardly ever had that problem with How to Train Your Dragon, as it seemed through and through to be a genuine effort that didn't try to follow the mould that Shrek set. It started rather slowly, I'll admit, but once Hiccup came and actually found Toothless, it really starts to get going. The visuals were gorgeous, and the storytelling was daring; the fact that there was no use of contemporary songs, and the fact that there were scenes, seemed more akin to Disney or Pixar. Overall, a great film. :mrgreen:

Toy Story 3:
A great film, though I agree to some extent with Ben's Blu-Ray review. While I'll agree that the first two installments are modern classics, I was a little sceptical about the idea of Toy Story 3 from Day One, feeling that the main reason it was made was for the new management to say "screw you Eisner and Stainton!". It was really only until the publicity started that I really started to get interested in it. I really enjoyed it, but probably a bit less than Toy Story 2, and nowhere near as much as Toy Story. As for the dark moments, it wasn't really the climax that I found the most uncomfortable. I found Lotso to be one of the most intriguing of Pixar's villains as he has so much in common with many nasties people come across with in our daily lives. The doll and (two of Lotso's minions) were also kinda freaky. Needless to say, it was no problem at the end of the day. As Walt Disney said, kids secretly love being scared. :twisted: And though I'll agree he was a bit of a Dreamworks character, I thought Ken was hilarious.

Fantasia/Fantasia 2000:
Fantasia is one of my absolute all-time favourites (and I like Fantasia 2000), so by default it means that I will give into any release of the film, and I will pick up the Blu-Ray before it gets vaulted. Just like you guys, I would obviously feel a bit awkward putting this on the bottom list, but I can understand why it ended up there. I too lament the fact that the standard post-1940/pre-2000 cut (more specifically the 1990 cut that appeared on the original laserdisc and VHS) wasn't included alongside the roadshow cut, simply because it plays better as a film intended for one sitting, whereas the roadshow cut, interesting as it is, seems better suited for a gala theatrical performance (the Region 2 DVD from 2000 strangely has the 1990 cut, so at least I've got in on a disc format). The main problem, though, is the relative lack of bonus materials and the stupid Virtual Vault thing. Granted, I've got the DVD Anthology (albeit the Region 2 version, which misses a few of the features found on the film specific discs :?), but at least half could have fit on each respective disc, what with them being SD, and a new Making-Of for Fantasia would have been welcome as well. I could also moan about how it got demoted from Diamond status, but that would be superficial. I'm glad the review was so negative.

The Princess and the Frog/Tangled:
Well, The Princess and the Frog was basically a 2010 film for me; it opened on my side of the Atlantic then, after all. :P And I've still not seen Tangled for comparable reasons, so that part will be vague. Basically, I liked The Princess and the Frog, but agree that it was the definition of throwback. It was fun, it was whimsical, it had some nice songs, and it looked lovely, but it did admittedly feel like a copy-cat. As a few examples, the "Dig a Little Deeper" number seemed like an "Under the Sea" wannabe, and Dr Facilier seemed a rehash of Jafar (though as a character he was awesome!). The story did have me gripped in the first and final act, but the second act was rather episodic and introduced so many new characters late in the game. Don't get me wrong, I liked it quite a bit, but I can understand why it was only a modest success. Essentially, animation has changed since the early-mid 90s, just as it was different back in the 1940s and 50s. Dreamworks and Pixar have become huge, and themes like friendship and adventure are explored more than romance and high fantasy. The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin etc worked well as they basically reinterpreted an old genre but catered for modern audiences, taking into account what had come and gone since the 50s. The Princess and the Frog, however, did feel in places like it was a film from the 90s that had somehow been kept from release. When all is said and done, it's not a surefire way to get bums on seats, aside from the niche audiences (Disney/animation fans, Disney Princess fans).
Enchanted, as a counter-example, did nod to the past but looked to the present, and I expect the same when I finally see Tangled, based on what people have been saying. I was at first very upset on the name change to Tangled, and deep inside wish they'd kept the Rapunzel title, however, I will take people's word that it is very much a Disney fairy tale, only not a 100% throwback to the old days. Of course, Disney could take back it's acquired "we don't wanna do fairy tales" mantra back and start making highly successful animated films based on fairy tales and classic literature in much the same tone as Tangled, and I'm sure that they could eventually fall out of fashion as an approach to a genre. The current Pixar-Dreamworks norm may even go out of fashion eventually. :p
-Joe

GIRL: Do you know the way to the Magic Kingdom?
PETER PAN: Sure I do...but can you fly?

-Scary Disney World TV ad circa '71

My DVD List

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 17840
Joined: October 22nd, 2004, 1:27 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby Ben » January 7th, 2011, 2:54 pm

Hey, Wonder! Thanks for the comments, all very much appreciated! :)

I'm glad you enjoyed our list and saw where we were coming from in our choices - looks like we share many of the same viewpoints.

Interestingly, not to throw this back open for debate - especially in the wrong thread - but when I saw Tron: Legacy, the Tangled trailer they played clearly called the film Rapunzel. I know that's the name some European countries are receiving the film as, but everything else I've seen in the UK has been calling it Tangled, so talk about just messing with everyone! I fully expect the film to arrive here as Tangled, but it was strange to see the title blaze up like that on the big screen.

I expect that Tangled will make our 2011 list, but there are many other great things to come along as well this year! :)