dc20willsave Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yjcj21Gq4s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Damn that looks great! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFetch Posted January 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 NBC is doing a spinoff of The Office with Dwight. http://www.tvline.co...wilson-spinoff/ They need to just kill The Office. It's not funny anymore, and Dwight is not as good of a character as he once was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koete Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 It really should have ended when Steve Carell left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFetch Posted January 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 I think it should have ended when Pam and Jim got married, because that's what the show was about the first few seasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koete Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 Michael's story was on equal footing with theirs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFetch Posted January 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 What story? He was a bumbling fool with a different story every season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koete Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 How despite his bumbling, he was the glue that held the office together, plus his own love story with Holly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 Eh. Michael I always felt was just sort of an episode-by-episode character. He supplied the plot-of-the-week; his ongoing storylines were never nearly as interesting as Jim and Pam's relationship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc20willsave Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 I doubt that this spin-off will really work. In order for that to happen, you need to make Dwight into a character that can work on his own. As is, he's always needed someone to work off of to keep from being annoying. They'll need to give him a new characterization for this to work in my opinion. Spin-offs really fall into three camps. 1) It centers on a character who already had his own individual plotlines that could run independent of the rest of the cast. They remain the same character and the series is a natural extension of their story (i.e. Angel, Fraiser, Maude). 2) A character who was always a side character is given their own series. They are forced to develop new personaility traits to keep the plot going. Often this also involves smoothing out what made the character popular or flanderizing those traits up to 11. (ie. The Cleveland Show, Joey, Rhoda) 3) A Character shows up for one episode of the originating show. Next to no time is spent with the normal characters of the series and it usually involves one of the main characters saying something like, "I'm sure they'll be okay and have their own story." Also known as the Back-Door Pilot. (Mork and Mindy, NCIS, Masked Rider (US)) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koete Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venneh Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 ...really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koete Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 The description mentions the Super Bowl, so it could be a teaser for a commercial. Then again, it could be a teaser for a movie teaser. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFetch Posted January 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 Some info on Disney's newest movie: An adventure set in space that revolves around a bother and sister. That's about all the information you're getting from this latest news piece out of Variety, with the trade reporting that Walt Disney has picked up a new untitled sci-fi script from writer Max Landis. Max---the son of John Landis---launched his writing career within the "Masters of Horror" series (later called "Fear Itself"). His most recent project includes the upcoming superhero tale Chronicle over at 20th Century Fox. As far this new untitled sci-fi project, the trade is only revealing that the adventure will be set in space and center on a brother and sister dynamic. http://www.mania.com...cle_132057.html I wonder if it's going to be a traditional animated movie? It would be cool, but it doesn't really fit what they do. Treasure Planet was a flop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 After Tangled, I almost don't want to see another 2D animated movie from Disney. Think about how amazing something like The Little Mermaid would have looked if it had been done in that CG style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koete Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 While they're at it, they should get rid of live action actors and replace them with CG ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venneh Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 I think there's merits to both styles. Tangled did show a new, non-Pixar direction for CGI, but at the same time, I'd like to see them focus on traditional 2D here and there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothian Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 After Tangled, I almost don't want to see another 2D animated movie from Disney. Think about how amazing something like The Little Mermaid would have looked if it had been done in that CG style. Tsk, kids today. No appreciation..... Admittedly, a sci-fi film set in space probably doesn't lend itself as well to traditional animation, but relying on CGI and sequels to existing Disney movies is the Michael Eisner way of doing things. And that guy was an idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 Hand drawn animation all the way, for me, man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 Bunraku puppet theater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venneh Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 Snerk. I'm more partial to the 2D, but I do think they've managed to do some pretty damn neat things with CGI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 Tsk, kids today. No appreciation..... Admittedly, a sci-fi film set in space probably doesn't lend itself as well to traditional animation, but relying on CGI and sequels to existing Disney movies is the Michael Eisner way of doing things. And that guy was an idiot. Pre-Tangled, that was pretty much my mantra. I grew up on the 90s 2D animated Disney movies and still think they're the best. But the thing is, those movies were the best because they were the best stories, not just because they had a specific type of animation. But, in terms of animation, there was a certain level of warmth and expressiveness that CG just didn't have at the time. Hell, CG movies didn't exist until 1995 anyway. But with Tangled (and, to a far lesser extent, Bolt), Disney finally was able to put the "heart" of the hand-drawn stuff into CG form by applying the same rules of motion and expression they'd used since the 50s. And with Tangled, that allowed for a whole bunch of new things in animation that 2D literally cannot do. Things like having subdermal refraction (making light pass through human skin realistically) and various algorithms for hair and fabric movement. It sounds very technical and unimportant on surface level, but it's something that you pick up on subconsciously. The people who pioneered Disney's animation going all the way back to its inception had very similar rules for realism; CG just allows for added depth with all of that. I'm not saying that 2D animation is bad or anything. Heck, half of my favorite movies are 2D animated. It might be nice to still get a 2D animated film every now and then. But I do think that in general, the new CG style Disney is using is actually superior. I didn't say anything about sequels. And yes, Eisner was an idiot. But he was an idiot because he focused on making cheap projects that would get a quick buck rather than making high-quality animated stories. 2D or CG, a movie needs to be done right and he wasn't willing to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 The Studio Ghibli films are hand-drawn 2-D (and are Disney-distributed). I wouldn't give up that art form for a second. Don't get me wrong, I liked Tangled a lot, but CGI is for family blockbusters, hand drawn animation is for making something truly artistically great. Pixar have somehow walked the line between those two but beyond their work I don't see anyone really bridging the gap. Dreamworks certainly aren't interested in making anything with artistic integrity and the straight Disney CGI dept hasn't produced anything at that level yet either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 What's "truly artistically great" is somewhat a matter of opinion. Are The Beatles less artistic than Mozart because they use electric guitars and have simplistic lyrics like "I wanna hold your hand"? For something like the Ghibli films, CG wouldn't really work properly. But for the storytelling style Disney uses with their animated films (the ones in the official numbered line), I think their new CG style works better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 I tend to think of it being the difference between a good films and a great one. Dreamworks uses CGI to tell simple maketable stories for cash. Ghibli never seems to do that, it tells challenging stories that require engagement and thought. I would say that they're basically just different tools though, Pixar can use CGI to better effect than most. However that doesn't stop me saying that I think Princess Mononoke is more attractive than say Up, or damn near any other CGI film aside maybe from parts of Wall-E, and even then just the first half.. It's entirely up to Disney which styles they wish to use, but the day that Disney shuts the doors of it's 2D hand-drawn animation department is the day they throw away not just a valuable tool, but an immensely significant part of film history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.