Were Disney Movies Better In The 1990s? I SAY YES!

I'm sorry, I didn't make it for the last round. I had a funeral to attend out of town. So I'll just continue with this point and hope for the best. lol You stated: "Even if Tangled and Frozen weren't different, why fix what isn't broken? Modern animation looks great, so Disney is going to keep doing something if it looks good." It will get old if Disney continues using the same look over and over again. It looks good, but lacks originality. Which means these movies will get tired years from now for something more "new". I think movies need something more than a great look. Any movie can look good. But very few can look "original". "Animation is getting more and more immersive. With 3D, even if you watch it in 2D, you can feel the world around you. It jumps out of your screen. On a modern flat screen TV, 2D animation gets hidden by the size of the screen. It doesn't make use of the technology we have. 3D animation opens the door to endless possibilities. Intricate actions can be shown in more realistic ways. Characters each have a unique gait because walking can take place in three dimensions. It's an experience. It's still art, and it's still creative. We can create clay models with our hands, too. 3D animation is like bringing models to life. A personal touch can be created in lots of different ways. The music is personal. The acting is personal. The minuscule details allowed by 3D animation are personal. It's easier imagine yourself in a three-dimensional world. I don't understand why 3D would capture imagination any less. Computers are very good. Anything you can dream, you can animate on a computer." While 3D looks cool, again it will get old behind the next big thing (4D, 5D, 6D, etc). The problem is these movies have nothing behind its animation except its realism. 3D makes it look more like our world rather than a world of its own. If I want to see a movie that looks realistic I'd just go see a live action movie. Live action movies have CGI, after all. What I like about animated movies is that they used to give something more than that; they were created to represent a world that we do not exist in. And it was the style of these movies that reflect the feeling of these new original worlds. 3D animation has no style. It only has revisions. This is why so many characters begin to all look alike. 3D animation is honestly limitedin comparison to 2D animation. "2D artists do that too- there's a basic face every animator knows how to draw. Yes, they look similar, but people look similar in real life too. They have enough differences to be distinguishable, and these differences show character. That's the whole function of having different-looking characters in different films. It doesn't lower the quality of either film. It's actually a benefit- it allows people to make realistic fan theories. People like to say that Rapunzel and Anna are sisters, and that's more fun to believe if Rapunzel and Anna look similar." It is way more difficult for 2D animations to have the same face. Most 2D animation is started by drawing the characters by hand first. You can't copy and past hand drawn pictures from another person. Even when we try to imitate someone else's handwriting, it will never be the same as the original. Drawn symbols are hard to make exactly the same even if we do them 100 times. On the computer, anyone can download software and take exact models for characters. With hand drawn characters that is much more difficult to do. Maybe for people who like fanfiction its cool, but for me it feels lazy and it leaves me unimpressed and uninspired. I like to see originality and effort. Fanfiction gets old too. "I dare you to go animate a film. You might be able to make the characters move, but it does take talent to make them move uniquely and realistically. How does your eyelid look when you're sad? How much does your hand shake when you're nervous. Where would you be looking? Would your eyes reflect anything? It's an art form, just like drawing. The only difference is the medium." I actually I am in an animation class for my college course, and we are currently making an animated film called "Raining Fire". My classmates are currently making their's in 3D. I decided to make mine in 2D. What you are stating is not talent, it is skill. Anyone can learn how to make a character look sad with a computer with enough skill. The medium of the computer limits individuality because anyone can do it, even without talent. It was relatively easy for me to learn how to construct a character on the computer. I even have my own software at home from Bender that allows me to animate a character. It doesn't take much to do. All you need is skill, not talent. Talent and skill are too different things. Hand drawn animation is not something a person can "learn" to do. Why? Because no matter what we learn to do, the way we draw will always be based on our own natural abilities. Professional Hand Drawn animation requires talent and can only be enhanced with more skills. But the talent of drawing is something that cannot be taught. Each drawing of a person will always be different from another. If you and I drew a picture of the same person right now, it would not look the same as one another, would it? Whereas I'm pretty sure if you made an animated character, if I use your exact format and software, my character will look exactly like yours. In fact, you could download your character, send me a copy, and I can just upload it as my own with a few revisions. Not hard to do. "Anyway, we're not talking about difficulty. It's better if things are easier, so that they can focus on plot, or making more movies." The animation gives the story a backdrop. It wouldn't be called an animated movie without the animation. The dificulty is not what I'm talking about. Its the individuality that I feel is lacking in 3D movies. "Elsa never disliked Anna. You can see her discomfort at hurting her. You can see decision making throughout. Maybe she didn't want to be found, either. You can analyze her yourself." I never said Elsa disliked Anna. I stated that they had grown distant from one another. The movie did not do a good job of rekindling their relationship. "Your mind is more than able to fill in the things that don't really matter." So we are expected to simply assume what happened in the movie? lol That doesn't give me much to go on. If I watch a movie I want to see what is going on. If I have to give my own spin on the story than I ought to be making the story myself instead of Disney. "Why are we so obsessed with "sister story?" People are calling it that because Elsa and Anna are the first Disney princesses to be sisters. The powers and their relationship are all wrapped up together. They absolutely had a bond together. Elsa's face when Anna is frozen proves that. So does "Do You Want to Build a Snowman?" And the distress Elsa showed when she had to kick Anna out of the ice palace. Heck, Anna is driven to go on the whole journey because she feels close to Elsa. You even say, Her actions only showed that she loved her sister." I never said Anna didn't love her sister, rather the movie did not do a good job of rekindling their relationship after years of being apart. You can love a person deeply, but still struggle to grow close with them. I had hoped that the movie would actually show the two of them rekindling throughout the movie as they adventured together. But instead it was a failed attempt at trying to mix the original Snow Queen story with the story of Wicked. Just because they are sisters doesn't mean it is a sister story. Just because Jasmine and Sultan are daughter and father doesn't mean it is a father and daughter story. Brother Bear is a brother story because it focuses on two people who are like brothers. The entire movie is about them. Any sister plot in Frozen felt like a side dish compared to the main course. This is why the random act of sister love felt random to me. Because the movie hardly focused on the sisterly bond. "Anna is abosolutely capable. She saves Kristoff from wolves. She talks to Elsa, laying the building blocks for her to return. She makes it out to the trading post, which is an accomplishment, considering she's grown up completely indoors." Yet, the reason why Kristoff almost fell is because Anna recklessly decides to drive the wagon. She talks to Elsa, yes, but this isn't something she hasn't tried since the beginning. It is her sister. It doesn't require much. She didn't make it out to the trading post, she got lost and happened to have found the trading post. Most of the time Anna just go lucky. But her reckless behavior would have gotten her killed for the rest of the journey. "And Anna doesn't recognize her feelings for Kristoff at first. That's the whole point of her change. With Hans, the love was visible and instant. With Kristoff, it grows slowly, and you don't notice it until the end. If you watch it again, you can see it buildings." She didn't seem to change her feelings, rather it seems like she was never really into Kristoff to begin with. Her reason for taking it slow with Kristoff seemed to be because Kristoff was not originally someone she was drawn to. But it didn't seem to have anything to do with her changing. And again, this is not a strong evolution for someone who is supposed to be the "main character". From what I see, adults like to attach Frozen to ideologies that fit with their world, but Frozen in itself only subtly gives us something to appeal to adults. The movies in the 90s addressed issues such as church and their corruption, Indigenieous take-over, the brutality of the Hans in China, the viciousness of kingship, and the division of animal and man. These are much deeper themes that adults can relate to. They were not subtle. These themes are not made up ones in our heads. They are blatant yet informative.