You know, I have thoughts on this subject, but nowehere near as clearly defined as some other people. If it sometimes looks like I don't know what I'm saying, that will be the reason. *L*<P>Kiva has some really good points, mainly in mentioning Ben Hur and Gone With The Wind. And naturally A good story, good voice-acting and the use of new technology is not mutually exclusive. In fact, as long as we're talking about Disney, I'm only theorizing, So far they seem to manage all three quite well.<P>My concern is about where this could be going. I think that for any animation movie to succeed, it must do well in all three things I've mentioned before: storytelling, voice-acting and animation. I would even be so bold to place them in that direct order of importance, though each are strongly dependant of one another.Terrific voice-acting with a poorly animated character won't do. A wonderfully animated character with a great voice spouting cliches won't do. <P>Now, what I am worried about is one of these fields taking too much precendence over the other. I think that few people go to a Disney movie to see a good story. Doesn't mean they're not <i>getting</i> a good story, but that is most likely not the foremost thought on their minds. When such movies are promoted, we get to see the most impressive scenes, we get to hear the biggest names that voice-acted the characters. Never is it mentioned "it has a good story too".<P>And that's where it <i>could</i> go wrong. It has gone wrong for so many regular movies. Personally, I found Jurassic Parc dull. I couldn't help it. A more clear example would be Last Action Hero. And what I'm afraid of is that that is what animation might become <i>should</i> the latest technology become the norm. I love animation, it can bypass so many of the restrictions working with actors and props can bring. So I'm hoping it won't fall into the same "bigger, better and absolutely no content" trap.<P>Now, this is more an idea than that it has any solid basis in fact, but I think it could be that that is why efforts from other studios often prove unsuccessful. They pour a lot of money in big voices and flashy animation, but lose track of the fact that if you want to reach an adult audience (and often, in such cases, they do), they <i>need</i> a good, solid story. Judging from reviews, that happens very little, and so animation remains something that can look pretty, but in the end, 'is for kids'. Meanwhile the studio notices it has pumped a fortune into animation and decides that obviously the fault lies with the fact that it was animation.<P>The last block of text is mainly bartalk though. ie, no research was done, or knowledge put to use, to come to this 'conclusion'.
<P>It's 1AM, I don't think I made myself quite clear, but hopefully some sense can be picked out of the nonsense.