Cool News
A Look At Disney's TARZAN
Folks... I'm seeing this film again... months after I originally saw it out in LA, and ya know. I can't wait. Sure I dislike Rosie's character and Tantor. Sure the old man goof is... well a pain and an insult. And ya know... Sure the villian is underdeveloped and never truly has a 'cool' scene, but ya know. My pure love of animation itself. The work of Glen Keane is so powerful, and so dynamic... and the artistry of the background people and their fantastic use of MAYA to wrap paintings around 3-D objects for a more involving and deeper canvas are more than enough to get me excited to see it big again. And knowing their work on FANTASIA 2000... which we'll all see whilst our computers cease to work, is a masterful film. The new sequences are not catering to the lowest common denominator. And tonight... (Tuesday) in Los Angeles on the Disney lot they tested DINOSAUR... Their epic $200 million Photorealistic Dinosaur epic that was begun... an eon ago in concept by Phil Tippet and Paul Verhoeven. The film that screened tonight is an eon apart from that original concept, but from the work I've seen... it's still... majestic, daring and the biggest animated risk a studio has done in quite some time. However, the work Warners is doing (THE IRON GIANT and OSMOSIS JONES), ILM is doing (FRANKENSTEIN), Dreamworks is doing (CHICKEN RUN, SPIRIT) and PIXAR (TOY STORY II and MONSTERS INC)... as well as FOX's latest TITAN AE... well... There are quite a few fish in the sea... and I can't wait to see the size of some of these babies. Here's Denny on TARZAN...
Last month, I attended a press screening of "Disney's Tarzan", it was
completely animated, inked and painted, and fully rendered(except for the
opening and closing credits). First, I should say that I'm a big animation
fanatic, and I've always respected Disney for the work they put behind
their animated features, and tried to turn other cheek in reference to
their marketing formula. But, now I find it impossible to ignore, and now I
can no longer look forward to a Disney animated feature, because I feel
that the marketing formula is crippling their films.
With Mulan I was happy to see that Disney claimed they had an "integrity
issue", they spend so much time launching their film's as events, when
they're just movies. Tarzan is no different. First, Disney whisks you off
to Africa in the 1800s, where Africans don't exist; you can build a
fully-furnished, split level tree house(complete with balcony and rope
bridge)with nothing but your two hands; and the only thing you have to w
orry about is the local leopard, Sabor, who's always on the prowl. Set it
to a Phil Collins musical number and kill a baby gorilla, and you can wrap
up your first sequence.
Tarzan is visually beautiful, and as usual the animation on our main
characters(such as Tarzan, Jane, her father, the villian, the apes) is
top-notch, but all the other human extras look like they just stepped off
the 'Swan Princess' set. Its lack of character songs is refreshing, with
the exception of "Trashing the Camp', where Rosie leads the monkey squad in
a tedious musical number without any real words. This film is really the
showpiece for their brilliant background work, that 'deep canvas' stuff is
amazing. Its too bad they can make all these artistic and technical
breakthroughs, but they can't make breakthroughs in their stories.
The one thing I loved about Tarzan is its action scenes, if Disney just
did an animated movie that was 70 minutes of continuous kick-ass fight
scenes, I'd probably enjoy it. Tarzan surfs through the trees at incredible
speeds, with even more incredible arrogance(yet he still has that innocent
modesty that Pocahontas had), but after all that travelling around the
jungle, how come he never happens upon his parents jungle mansion, sitting
out in the open, in that nearby tree?
His best buddy, Terk, over voiced by a Brooklyn accented-Rosie O'Donnell,
is not only the eternal tomboy ape, but is quite superfluous. She pops in
for a joke, and pops out, so she doesn't disrupt the movie's real story. At
least the other sidekicks had a bigger reason to be there besides, upping
the film's marketing value, and making the kiddies laugh.
All in all, the film doesn't do much, it doesn't raise any bars, hell--you
don't even remember the villian's name. I just wish once I can watch a
Disney animated film made after 1990, that doesn't feature, a hero that
doesn't belong, a love story, a wisecracking sidekick with a big celebrity
voice, absent minded little fathers, and a villain that dies by falling.
But, I'm sure Tarzan doesn't mind, he gets to kick some ass, learn enough
about civilization without actually having to go there, becomes king of the
apes, and gets Jane to wear this little two piece number while she plays
aero-ballerina to his Jungle God.
I hear that Disney is down 41 percent in sales this year, and now that it
has some competition, its animated films aren't sure fire hits anymore.
Well, this one sure ain't; I'm sure it'll pull in big crowds, and sell a
lot of toys, but it has too many elements that just remind you 'this is a
Disney cartoon, if we get too innovative, and original, we won't be able to
make a cool 'Animal Kingdom' ride.'--Denny
-
+ Expand All
-
Ha HA!!
-
I am looking forward to Fantasia 2000. I can appreciate the first however I can never manage to stay awake watching it. Wonder if Sorceror Mickey will be back?
-
You said, "a hero that doesn't belong, a love story, a wisecracking sidekick with a big celebrity voice, absent minded little fathers, and a villain that dies by falling."
Last time I looked, Mulan had a father that was anything but absent minded and little, there is no love story of any extensive sort, and Shan Yu gets blown up rather than falling. As for the hero not belonging, Mulan did belong to her land, she just had to fit in her own way. Yes, it does have the sidekick, but that's just one of the flaws you listed.
-
thats it, I can't remain silent anymore. Disney's animation is BRILLIANT, we all agree on that. Tarzan could have been such a fantastic movie.
I WILL go see it. but.. but.. ever since "The Hunchabck of Notre Dame" and then through "Mulan" these great character designs and stupendously cool backdrops have been smeared with pointless (story-wise) cutesy stuff and senseless dance numbers.
Is there any hope? these stories have their place, but can we look forward to a full-length feature film from Disney that is what all us silent-majority fans want? ie: The kick-ass Tarzan we all saw in the trailer and sat up in the theatre going.. "WOW".... Harry? -
it included "the main villain who dies by falling." That seems to be the only way Disney villains can get killed off without the hero actually doing it. That would just be wrong!
-
I like villains falling, but I'm more interested in seeing some female villains again. And this guy is right that the stories have completely buckled to the bean-counters' demands. But why is everyone using this derogatory moniker, "kiddies?" Disney was theirs first, you know. And it's not the kids' fault Disney's decided they're dumber than logs. Harry, you(or one of your reviewer pals) cried "hate him, squish him" against that cricket in "Mulan." But the cricket didn't take away from the film, and he was cute yes, but he was minor and even memorable. Just because he also satisfied commercial requirements, that makes him evil? Now I take exception to superfluous crap. The Gargoyles in Hunchback=crap. All the creatures in Hercules=crap. I haven't seen what Rosie's ape is like yet, but she sounds disappointing. The problem is that Disney won't work on its stories. They insist on making fluff that will be approved by other idiots who think kids are entertained by empty shite. Animation shouldn't be just for kids, that's obvious, but the failure of Disney(and others) to realize that is no reason to turn "kiddies" into a four letter word.
-
At Iron Giant's webpage, it shows that the movie is rated PG. Now, Disney's artist like to draw nudity and boners into their animated movies in so-called "sub-limenal scenes"(The Little Mermaid was not sublimenal in the wedding scene) but when it comes to maturity or originality, they shy away. They said a popular PG animated movie couldn't be done. Eisner wouldn't allow Mulan to get the PG, because he doesn't think a Disney animated movie should ever get that rating though Disney put out Color of Night and Shakespeare In Love.
Dreamworks has proved them wrong---twice.
Disney's Tarzan is only slightly saved by Phil Collins who is very talented.
Their live-action division(in other words, remake and sequel department) is what really needs renovation IMO with awful films like Inspector Gadget and George of The Jungle, where they couldn't even get laughs out of scenes with John Cleese. -
I feel so refreshed sometimes after reading the editorials and talkbacks in AICN. Drath, your post was excellent, and a point I had not considered before in my personal flame-outs about the state of Disney animation. I would submit that perhaps we have reason for joy. With so many other studios entering into serious animation, and many of those making films specifically AGAINST the Disney formula, the state of animated films is sure to change for the better. No serious talent coming out of art school today is going to look twice at Disney. Everything creative and exciting will be happening in the upstart studios. Much like Marvel and DC are now the "backup" choices for talented comic creators behind jobs at Dark Horse, Image and others, Disney will soon find itself in the unfortunate position of "backup" status for talented animators. With any luck (and a few more flops) Disney will have to agree to give up on "the formula" and allow it's creative people to produce a unique vision every now and again. I know, you guys knew all of this already, but it still feels great to write it.
-
not as in Will Eisners'?
-
The word "animation" means "give life". The art of animation is not solely about pretty pictures or "cool" graphic styles - that is actually a very small - albeit important - part. Animation as an art exists only in the talent of the animator in "giving life" to his subject, whether its the tremendous and ground-breaking work done by Walt Disney in bringing plausability to the medium, or the deconstructioninst exaggeration in Tex Avery's work, or the stop-motion figures in Harryhausen's and Burton's films, or the wire-frame CGI creatures in Toy Story and The Phantom Menace. Its not about making something MOVE, its about making something LIVE. On that basis, you would have to be a drooling gibbering fool - or a teenager still hung up on trying to get laid - to say that complementing Disney animation is an insult to those who watch animation. I guess there is a huge difference between watching something and (gasp) thinking about it.
-
The only scene I could think of off the top of my head where the good guy has the villain's life in his hands, and lets him die occurs in the James Bond film THE SPY WHO LOVED ME. Bond and a bad guy are on a rooftop. After a fight, the bad guy ends up on the edge, with Bond holding the baddie's tie. The bad guy pleads for his life, and tells Bond what he wants to know. Bond calmly lets go of the tie, and the villain falls to his death.
-
Can everyone please stop trying to measure every new disney animated feature by what we think "cool" animation would be? Disney films exist to be ENTERTAINING, not groundbreaking in terms of "coolness".... it's indeed a fact that they HAVE in the past accomplished both these goals, but to fault them for not pushing the envelope misses the point about why they are in business-- do you really think the success or failure of Tarzan will rest on its style, or how "pure" they are in terms of resisting characters/merchandising opportunities? Come on-- the cricket in Mulan was fine, whatever the motivation for his existence. Tarzan will succeed or fail based on how it entertains, period... so criticize entertainment value, storyline, or characterizations, but live in the real world and leave debates about corporate motivations and animation comparisons to the out of touch elitists who all too often populate these forums...
-
...I once spent a very long plane ride with one of the former heads of Disney Recruitment. I think we annoyed the hell out of everyone around us talking about cartoons for time for four hours...anyway, his opinion is very similar to yours. Basically, Disney just tries to entertain people, and that's their only real mandate. They have a legacy of being the standard bearer in animation, which motivates them to maintain a certain level of quality, and their R&D programs and their recruitment programs are second to none, but basically, at the end of the day, its really all about making an entertaining film. Lately, there have been a slew of miscalculations as to what constitutes "entertainment", such as the Gargoyles in The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and the inclusion of the comic sidekicks in Mulan. To me, these characters interfere with the enjoyment of the film, not enhancement. Unfortunately, disney tests their films for all markets, and too often their films get altered due to the "squirm factor" of 8 year olds. I think I join everyone here in saying screw the eight year olds. Walt Disney never pandered to an age group with his animated movies, and he never repeated himself. All of the new films seem cut from the same cloth. Who could possibly compare Pinocchio to Cinderella? Or Fantasia to Lady and the Tramp? Or Bambi to 101 Dalmatians? His films are originals, the new films bear an unhealthy genericism, relying on distinctive art direction to obscure the formula at work. I share many of the same gripes as most of you do, but I try to see the forest for the trees, and while I share your disappointment at the corporate cowardice on display in the compromising of the recent Disney films, I still get goose-bumps watching James Baxter's work in Hunchback, or Glen Keane's work in The Rescuers Down Under. I disagree with all of you that the boom in feature animation will cause Disney to grow up - if anything, the marketplace confusion will cause them to consolidate into the strength of their brand name identity, and you can look forward to many more Rosie O'Donnell apes and 13th Century Hun warlords being blown up by large cartoon rockets. Fantasia 2000 is a special case, and a unique borderline almsot non-profit move on corporate Disney's part to celebrate their medium. While you guys go nuts about iron Giant and Titan AD and Toy Story 2, I'll be waiting for Princess Mononke and F2k, and the next steps in a great art. -- JBG
-
...I once spent a very long plane ride with one of the former heads of Disney Recruitment. I think we annoyed the hell out of everyone around us talking about cartoons for four hours...anyway, his opinion is very similar to a previous scribbler above me. Basically, Disney just tries to entertain people, and that's their only real mandate. They have a legacy of being the standard bearer in animation, which motivates them to maintain a certain level of quality, and their R&D programs and their recruitment programs are second to none, but basically, at the end of the day, its really all about making an entertaining film. Lately, there have been a slew of miscalculations as to what constitutes "entertainment", such as the Gargoyles in The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and the inclusion of the comic sidekicks in Mulan. To me, these characters interfere with the enjoyment of the film, not enhancement. Unfortunately, disney tests their films for all markets, and too often their films get altered due to the "squirm factor" of 8 year olds. I think I join everyone here in saying screw the eight year olds. Walt Disney never pandered to an age group with his animated movies, and he never repeated himself. All of the new films seem cut from the same cloth. Who could possibly compare Pinocchio to Cinderella? Or Fantasia to Lady and the Tramp? Or Bambi to 101 Dalmatians? His films are originals, the new films bear an unhealthy genericism, relying on distinctive art direction to obscure the formula at work. I share many of the same gripes as most of you do, but I try to see the forest for the trees, and while I share your disappointment at the corporate cowardice on display in the compromising of the recent Disney films, I still get goose-bumps watching James Baxter's work in Hunchback, or Glen Keane's work in The Rescuers Down Under. I disagree with all of you that the boom in feature animation will cause Disney to grow up - if anything, the marketplace confusion will cause them to consolidate into the strength of their brand name identity, and you can look forward to many more Rosie O'Donnell apes and 13th Century Hun warlords being blown up by large cartoon rockets. Fantasia 2000 is a special case, and a unique borderline almsot non-profit move on corporate Disney's part to celebrate their medium. While you guys go nuts about iron Giant and Titan AD and Toy Story 2, I'll be waiting for Princess Mononke and F2k, and the next steps in a great art. -- JBG
-
You're forgetting the most memorable fall of themn all. Schwartzenegger's "Commando." He has the little weenie badguy in one hand, hanging over a cliff. He ask the littleguy "Do you remember when I told you I would keel you last?" The little guy says "yeah!" and Ah-nult says "I lied" and drops the mook. It was probably the only good part of that whole movie! :)
Robb -
As frustrated as I have been by Disney's more recent animated features as they come thisclose to greatness only to be undone by concerns for the fidgeting kids in the audience...I think they do deserve a little slack. Lately, the company has come under some heavy fire from overreacting moral watchdog groups - i.e. the abortive boycott by the Southern Baptists in 1997. If they started doing more mature animated features they could be attacked for things that wouldn't bother anyone if another studio had made the film, especially in the increased scrutiny of entertainment that followed Littleton (unfairly). Actually, I don't think there are any outright stinkers among the lineup for the next few years except "Kingdom of the Sun", and "Atlantis" seems like a dream project. What Disney has to do is start challenging little kids. There's an inherent expectation for their films to be okay for them, and they can't help that as they slowly become the only animation house that *wants* to do G-rated stuff, but surely they could do it without silly sidekicks.
And yes, Disney's live-action unit is in miserable shape. -
Everytime I see that last shot of Tarzan on the trailer... the one where he's hunkered down and looking directly into the camera, in that fierce gaze, I want to bust out. Is that *supposed* to be funny? I think it's unintentional. Disney sucks.
-
One more thing... how many times can Harry say "ya know" and separate loose thoughts with ...'s? How fuck|ing annoying
-
I don't know why you people keep complaining about Tarzan for! The Phantom Menace really didn't interest me that much. I feel asleep in the movie because it was so crappy! I was awakened by people cheering. Of course there has been a lot of hype about some crappy movie that people get off work, spend weeks at a time in Los Angles waiting for tickets to a movie that all it wants to do is make money. Of course MAYBE SW1 is better than TARZAN but how do WE know this? Yet, the master of the force is going head to head with the master of animation...DISNEY!! Yet there maybe 2000 damn special effects in SW1 but there could be something in TARZAN that's not in SW1. First of all, TARZAN could be nominated for the Phil Collins song, "You'll Be In My Heart" what song will SW1 be nominated for? Absolutly jack shit!!!! Tarzan could be nominated for best comedy or musical score but SW1 can't be nominated because they're using the same damn music that they used in all the others. SW could've been nominated when it opened. But they made three other movies since then with the same music!! So, in other words we can't really judge which movie will be the best this summer. It's a buggy bug world out there and some movie could get HURT!! You guys have a nice summer. Let's ride!
-
Mulan, with Hercules and Pocahontas, makes Disney
-
A few comments on your article you wrote about Disney's Tarzan. First of all, I just want to say that I completley disagree with what was written. Disney's job is to please the children before the adults, and in order to make a child oriented movine, they have a duty to make it clean and innocent. You stated that if there were a 70 minute animated movie with just fighting then it would be great. You can get a 120 minute movie with just fighting any time at all with all of the other live action garbage that is being made. Disney is something different that incorporates action and sensitivty in one film that children could really enjoy and learn from. What are children going to learn from a cartoon with only violence? They would learn that violence is cool and great. That's the opposite message that we want our children to learn. I'm sorry that you didn't like the movie, but if you look at the statistics of people who disliked the movie with people who liked the movie, you would find yourself at the bottom of the barrel. I'm not trying to tell you that you should like the movie, but I'm trying to make you see the stupidity that was written in the article that was posted and what was written in it. You're making it sound as if Disney has an obligation to make an adult oriented film. Think about how many films there are that come out every week geared towards adults. Now think about the films that come out geared towards children. Children don't get that many movies at all. Try to watch the movie throug the eyes of a child and leave any adult education behind. We should be happy that children love these cartoons and they're learning a posative message from it instead of criticizing it's "clean" content. Anyway, I just wanted to say that and put my two cents in. Thankyou very much.
FROM: Sergio
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Baz's THE GREAT GATSBY explodes with one helluva dazzling trailer! -- 171 total posts 154 posts
- G.I. JOE: RETALIATION Delayed Nine Months...Thanks To A Force More Sinister Than Cobra!! -- 141 total posts 141 posts
- UPDATED!!! A Six-Pack Of New Character Posters For THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Forecast A Lot Of Gotham Rain And Snow!! -- 265 total posts 129 posts
- Who Is The Voice Of Batman In WB's Animated Two Part THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS? -- 129 total posts 129 posts
- Cats Beware!! An ALF Movie May Soon Come Our Way... -- 126 total posts 126 posts
- Zach Galifianakis Is Ignatius J. Reilly? -- 81 total posts 81 posts
- AICN COMICS REVIEWS: INCREDIBLE HULK! DANGER CLUB! CLiNT 2.1! JAMES BOND! BATMAN INC.! AND MORE!!! -- 62 total posts 62 posts
- The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day… the horror… the horror… -- 45 total posts 45 posts
- Quint has seen Andrew Dominik's crime thriller KILLING THEM SOFTLY starring Brad Pitt! Cannes 2012! -- 41 total posts 41 posts
- The Next Season Of DOCTOR WHO Was Delayed To Fall Just To Build Anticipation?? -- 68 total posts 38 posts