Hanna Barbera

[Gordon Bombay]

it seems that the theaters and DVD bins are way too saturated with CGI movies and cartoons.

It's amazing, and sometimes unfortunate, how often the movie industry today relies on CGI. Pixar I think does a good job, it's their own unique style and each movie they create seems to be a big hit with families and kids, but the overuse of CGI is live action films is incredibly annoying. Being a photojournalism major I think its a lot like photoshop. When used subtly, it can make all the difference in a photograph or turn a bad picture into a decent one. But when used to an extreme it becomes very, very obvious and so fake that it can ruin the photograph. This is one of the reasons I disliked the new Transformers movie, the CGI just did not blend well with the live action. Unfortunately, as much as I am looking forward to upcoming Indiana Jones IV film, it's already obvious in the trailer that the CGI does not blend well. The first three installments of that series were fantastic and all done without CGI.

[Scooby_Doo]

Yeah I agree Transformers was a good film but the CGI didnt mash to well with it I also cannot wait for Indy to whip his way into theaters the first three movies are so astonishing and fun I just hope they dont use to much CGI in The DARK KNIGHT.Another Live-action film I'm worried that wont blend to well is the upcoming live-action Jetsons movie( 2009) & Yogi Bear(2010),Hong Kong Phooey(2009)

But to stay on topic I think both HB & Nick should stay at the park have the HB characters(The Flintstone,Jetsons,Yogi Bear) people know and love roam International Street and keep Nick in Nick Universe...I still dont understand why most you on this board think Nick is 1#...Spongebob sure more popular than Hannah Montana! Besides those characters are at the park for families and kids not for us grown-ups who go to the park with our girlfriends and boyfriends...I'll admit I love seeing Scooby-Doo but my 7 year-old nephew enjoys seeing him more than I do.

[Cory Butcher]

The Original Jurassic Park, blended CGI perfectly...Of course now you can tell that it is obviously green/blue screen. But when it came out, the dino's looked so real.

[jzarley]

I really think that the style (CGI or traditional cell) of animation doesn't really matter...it's the story that counts. A good story will be successful (and a bad story will fail) regardless of how it's animated. "Toy Story", "Finding Nemo", etc. would have been just as good if they were traditional animation; and "Lion King" would have been just as good if it had been CGI.

[stitchon]

Well, Nickelodeon is way more relevant to today's kids than Hanna-Barbera. It would be beyond stupid for Cedar Fair not to renew Nickelodeon's Licensing. It would be even worse should they decide not to extend it to other CF parks. Peanuts is ok for the little tykes, but use Nickelodeon for 6-14 year olds. Snoopy is of no interest to them, and will most likely not be until Snoopy gets a movie or TV series again.

[jzarley]

^ And, since Charles Schultz and his family didn't want anyone else beside "Sparky" authoring Peanuts, that's pretty much impossible now.

It's probably just as well...Charles Schultz had such an interesting "voice" (it was really an amazingly intellectual cartoon strip!), I don't see how anyone else could replicate the same result...

[Jasper]

I never noticed that SDATHC was part of International Street. Interesting....

[BavarianBeatle]

I never noticed that SDATHC was part of International Street. Interesting....

It has to be...They cannot include an image that is not owned by Nick within Nick Universe. Thinking about the legalities of that for even a few seconds gives me a headache...

[The Interpreter]

Yep, because Viacom DEMANDS exclusivity...and gets it.

[KIfan73]

Well, between this thread and the Boomerang channel, I didn't realize how big a Hanna-Barbera fan I was. Those were (are) my favorite cartoons/characters. I find it a real shame that the brand was never "carried on" any more than it has been. Sort of in the way Disney has been able to keep the classics around, but also develop into new areas.

[king_cobra_27]

Very well said king_cobra_27 I myself am a HUGE Animation buff (I love Certain HB cartoons,Looney Tunes,Nicktoons,Disney,Certain anime cartoons)as well as a big comic book nerd hey I'll admit it! Congrats!

I never seen Ratatouille I'm not big on Pixar. I like the traditional hand drawn animation more than the CGI stuff but thats just me.

You are not alone in this catagory. I love traditional animation so much more. But the thing is, Disney had reached the pinnacle of 2-D animation. If it would have been taken any farther, it would have ended up 3-D anyways.

But I can say that you will be in for a wonderful surprise a few years down the line. Especially if you are an R and R fan.

What you need to look at is this. TOY STORY . You don't have to sit through it, just look at it for a minute. Then, A BUG'S LIFE . Again, for a minute, MONSTERS INC., FINDING NEMO, THE INCREDIBLES, CARS, all for a minute, and then watch RATATOUILLE. Unlike 2-D animation, this coming of age style is rapidly improving. It took Disney years to make any true visible difference in the pictures quality when regarding traditional animation styles. Pixar is improving the visuals with each and every film. Download a picture of Wal - E if you get the chance. It's so detailed that it's almost scary.

[BavarianBeatle]

But then again, I sometimes watch the Pink Panther cartoons with my kids..... It has very primitive animation and no voices, just music, and we all laugh hysterically..........

[king_cobra_27]

I really think that the style (CGI or traditional cell) of animation doesn't really matter...it's the story that counts. A good story will be successful (and a bad story will fail) regardless of how it's animated. "Toy Story", "Finding Nemo", etc. would have been just as good if they were traditional animation; and "Lion King" would have been just as good if it had been CGI.

I am going to have to say wrong. I don't like doing that, it does not feel right when I say it. Toy Story was successful because it was different. It was it's difference that drove it apart, and made people question and fear, is this the end of tradition?

See heres the thing. One, CGI is cheaper. Try and retry for less. On top of this, each film would never be the same, and could not possibly be directed the same in both styles. Why? The Distance of each shot. With even the best style

( Liquid Animation ) the characters must be placed where they can logically be seen. Backgrounds must be shaded differently in order for the characters to stand out. With CGI the characters can virtually go anywhere. You can rotate the camera to any angle and get any shot that you want. But this comes at a cost as well.

Finding Nemo is the best example. Imagine drawing fish. If you are using a computer, you can get a close up of the fish and add some detail, and make it nice and bright with lots of colors.

Great. But if you perform this traditionally, you can use a lot more imagination. There would probably be an angle that looks up at the fish where you can see the waters surface, and a glimmer of sunlight on that surface to make something else move in the background. Along with this, some seaweed bouncing around, and probably more of a panoramic view. This is what made 2-D animation so rich and powerful. Like The Lion King.

Another pointer is storyline and writing style. The writing style of Tradition is as follows....Good Story....Good Music....Good Voices.....Background is a Character. In The Lion King for example, The african savannah, the wind, the canyon, the sky, the rain, the trees, the waterfall, all of the chosen colors....ALL OF THIS IS ONE CHARACTER. And this character really creates a mood. The background MUST entertain and captivate the audience or a 2-D film will fail.

3-D films on the other hand, have a Good Story...Good Voices...Reality Mirror ( background ) In a way this kind of is a bad thing for 3-D. In other words, it's grandest strength is it's only weakness. But, as Ratatouille clearly shows us, this is becoming much less of a problem. As the years pass, these cartoons will one day be looked upon as classics with mature storylines and as a Golden Age of 3-D animation. In the future, this animation will only continue to keep getting better.

Now, imagine 3-D animation with the storyline much like The Lion King's and this same 3-D film, finally carrying the music of 2-D films along for the ride. This is yet to come. But it will happen. And when it does, chances are that this business will see a new trend for the ages. If it proves to be worth the merit, more will follow, better, and better, until finally you love it so much that one will probably ( at some point ) finally conquer The Lion Kings title as best selling animated feature. ( an example of this is The Little Mermaids success ratio, followed by Beauty and The Beast, Aladdin, and Finally The Lion King. With the building success of Beauty and The Beast, and Aladdin back to back, The Lion King might as well have been the finally of a popular trilogy. )

There is a major difference between the two styles of animation. For now.

[jzarley]

^ First, I have to say that it's interesting that you feel you have the ability to declare someone's opinion on a point as simply "wrong", and that will be the last word. That's kind of cute...and more than a little naive (Especially, since you never seemed to address what I was actually saying...)

Secondly, I have read your post multiple times and have yet to pull out a cohesive thought. What exactly are you saying? Are you saying that story doesn't matter in a film, and it's all about the way a film looks? Or, that all CGI films will be immediately successful because of the way they look in CGI (*cough* "Chicken Little" *cough*)? And that all traditional animation will now be failures because they're not CGI (like the Oscar nominated "Persepolis"?) Again, I'm not really sure of the point you were trying to make. If your point was that there are differences in the two mediums...well, yeah--no one is debating that.

Of course CGI looks different than traditional animation, and yes, CGI costs less to produce. My point was simply that film is a story and character driven medium, and that CGI won't make a bad movie a blockbuster, and traditional animation won't kill a good movie (and vice versa). Otherwise, a film like Juno that was 100% story and character driven wouldn't have made 10x what it cost to make, while a similarly released SFX laden film may fail.

One of the things that really speaks to the strength of the underlying story of Lion King, Beauty and The Beast, and even Nemo is the success they've had in being adapted to the live stage. The stories and characters are strong enough to transcend the medium in which they are presented.

And, finally, I'll add a quote from John Lassiter that really sums up my point...

"From the beginning, I kept saying it's not the technology that's going to entertain audiences, it's the story. When you go and see a really great live-action film, you don't walk out and say 'that new Panavision camera was staggering, it made the film so good'. The computer is a tool, and it's in the service of the story."

[Cory Butcher]

I agree with pretty much everything you said Jzarley. There is simply one film that I do not think would be the same with simple 2-D animation. That film would be Toy Story. I do not know why, I just feel like the story and animation style fit perfectly. Now I am not saying Toy Story would not have been good with out 3-D animation, but I think toys would not look like the physical toys of our youth in 2D, and thus a greater emotional and physical attachment to the film's plot and story line in 3D.

I try not to take an angle that Animation or Story is better, as I think both contribute harmoniously to the ultimate product. But if I was being forced to pick one I would definitely agree with Lassiter, a story is timeless, the way that story is told changes with the times. Something has to be awfully important to evade change.

[The Interpreter]

And I don't think Fantasia would be the same in CGI, for example....

[king_cobra_27]

^ First, I have to say that it's interesting that you feel you have the ability to declare someone's opinion on a point as simply "wrong", and that will be the last word. That's kind of cute...and more than a little naive (Especially, since you never seemed to address what I was actually saying...)

Secondly, I have read your post multiple times and have yet to pull out a cohesive thought. What exactly are you saying? Are you saying that story doesn't matter in a film, and it's all about the way a film looks? Or, that all CGI films will be immediately successful because of the way they look in CGI (*cough* "Chicken Little" *cough*)? And that all traditional animation will now be failures because they're not CGI (like the Oscar nominated "Persepolis"?) Again, I'm not really sure of the point you were trying to make. If your point was that there are differences in the two mediums...well, yeah--no one is debating that.

Of course CGI looks different than traditional animation, and yes, CGI costs less to produce. My point was simply that film is a story and character driven medium, and that CGI won't make a bad movie a blockbuster, and traditional animation won't kill a good movie (and vice versa). Otherwise, a film like Juno that was 100% story and character driven wouldn't have made 10x what it cost to make, while a similarly released SFX laden film may fail.

One of the things that really speaks to the strength of the underlying story of Lion King, Beauty and The Beast, and even Nemo is the success they've had in being adapted to the live stage. The stories and characters are strong enough to transcend the medium in which they are presented.

And, finally, I'll add a quote from John Lassiter that really sums up my point...

"From the beginning, I kept saying it's not the technology that's going to entertain audiences, it's the story. When you go and see a really great live-action film, you don't walk out and say 'that new Panavision camera was staggering, it made the film so good'. The computer is a tool, and it's in the service of the story."

Your right "cough hack"...I have absolutely no idea about what I am talking about. None at all. I am actually laughing right now. You have attacked my pride. But it's ok, I forgive you. I have read your post multiple times as well, and clearly you do have knowledge about the issue. But, and I mean this with respect, you are stating what you believe, and there is nothing wrong with that, but I am referring to the responsibilities of every aspect of the animation process. Animators go through countless ideas, concepts, drafts, designs, themes, and all of this before an idea even becomes anything more than just a possibility of a name. Hundreds of ideas are reviewed, and it is the responsibility of the producers to decide what is worth the merit. And BOTH types of films are made very differently. Each has unique strengths and each has unique weaknesses. This is my point. I fail to see how one could not comprehend the fact that CGI animation is still in it's beginning phases, and years from now there will be such a difference in animation style that in 10-15 years, a new CGI film will look so different from CHICKEN LITTLE as The HunchBack of Notre Dame looks from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. In time, the storylines will catch up with this animation enhancement.

Don't try to insult me by saying that I am not making any sense to you. You are not even capable.

[Cory Butcher]

He is not even capable? Really? No one, no, not one SINGLE person on this board other than you would ever say that Jzarley has ever written a post or stated an opinion that was not coherent, or not capable of debating or understanding the topic at hand. Having a little Ego trip this morning?

You ask him to not insult you, yet you insult him in the same sentence? Tell me where did you learn that what you ask for yourself is better than what another person asks for themselves? He didn't attack your "pride" The fact of the matter is your first post was EXTREMELY hard to understand...well, maybe that is why you are an animator and not a story writer. I know you do not want to realize it but I, like Jzarley have attempted reading your first post, and this last post as well, multiple times, and am still having trouble understanding what you are trying to say.

Don't start mudslinging on here...Don't insult others, and don't start this egomaniac mantra on the forums and clutter up the informed discussion. If you do, I am quite sure the mods will remind you. Please just take more time to proofread your arguments, they are very hard to understand.

[The Interpreter]

Yesterday I went to the eye doctor.

Yes, it's relevant here.

There I saw a poster in a frame. A beautiful piece, actually. It said something I have heard all my life, read and absorbed, yet in a wholly different way.

Do for others what you would have them do for you.

Indeed.

Well said, Cory Butcher.

[Purplehaze]

Sure it wasnt ink blots?...lmaooooooooooooooooo

[jzarley]

Again, I never claimed that the process wasn't different, or that the development varied based on output. I also never made any statement regarding the current development of the evolution of CGI. (In fact, I never even said that I preferred one to the other...because I've loved...and not liked so much.. films of both types.) You're attempting to argue with me by assigning assertions to my statements that I never made. It's like we're discussing two entirely different things at the same time.

I simply said that the quality of the story and characters is the single most important thing to me in whether or not I think a film is good...regardless of how it is animated. You said that opinion was wrong, then responded with seven paragraphs pontificating about the development process. And, ironically enough, I didn't disagree with anything that you said. I just took exception to the fact that I felt like you were arguing against points I had never made to begin with.

I think we're also approaching the subject from two different viewpoints...you from the side of the aspiring animator who is very much fluent in the design and development of the product, and me as a simple end-user who knows what I like, and what I don't. So, I do apologize that my reponse came across as snide and insulting...that's sometimes why it's best not to immediately repsond to a post until you've had a chance to digest its full meaning .

But seriously, I do wish you well on the Pixar internship! That's a great opportunity

[king_cobra_27]

He is not even capable? Really? No one, no, not one SINGLE person on this board other than you would ever say that Jzarley has ever written a post or stated an opinion that was not coherent, or not capable of debating or understanding the topic at hand. Having a little Ego trip this morning?

You ask him to not insult you, yet you insult him in the same sentence? Tell me where did you learn that what you ask for yourself is better than what another person asks for themselves? He didn't attack your "pride" The fact of the matter is your first post was EXTREMELY hard to understand...well, maybe that is why you are an animator and not a story writer. I know you do not want to realize it but I, like Jzarley have attempted reading your first post, and this last post as well, multiple times, and am still having trouble understanding what you are trying to say.

Don't start mudslinging on here...Don't insult others, and don't start this egomaniac mantra on the forums and clutter up the informed discussion. If you do, I am quite sure the mods will remind you. Please just take more time to proofread your arguments, they are very hard to understand.

Maybe I missed something. I said "wrong" referring to the comment that 3-D would be equally good in 2-D. The fact is that they would have to be approached differently so the result would not be the same. On top of this, I said to be patient, because, in time 3-D animation will get better. "That's it." In summary, that's all that I was saying. ( with a little textbook use ) And for this I was insulted. As a result, I chose to act on it. I usually try to show respect. But when someone repeatedly makes statements against another person, it is difficult to hold back one's feelings. Even the most respected of individuals can go astray on occasion. But that does not mean that I do not forgive him. My apologies if what I am saying is long and confusing. I was always taught to write in complete sentences, and as a result of this, what I have to say can tend to run on for a while.

[king_cobra_27]

Again, I never claimed that the process wasn't different, or that the development varied based on output. I also never made any statement regarding the current development of the evolution of CGI. (In fact, I never even said that I preferred one to the other...because I've loved...and not liked so much.. films of both types.) You're attempting to argue with me by assigning assertions to my statements that I never made. It's like we're discussing two entirely different things at the same time.

I simply said that the quality of the story and characters is the single most important thing to me in whether or not I think a film is good...regardless of how it is animated. You said that opinion was wrong, then responded with seven paragraphs pontificating about the development process. And, ironically enough, I didn't disagree with anything that you said. I just took exception to the fact that I felt like you were arguing against points I had never made to begin with.

I think we're also approaching the subject from two different viewpoints...you from the side of the aspiring animator who is very much fluent in the design and development of the product, and me as a simple end-user who knows what I like, and what I don't. So, I do apologize that my reponse came across as snide and insulting...that's sometimes why it's best not to immediately repsond to a post until you've had a chance to digest its full meaning .

But seriously, I do wish you well on the Pixar internship! That's a great opportunity

I must have been typing up my last post at the same time that you made this one. I respect your opinion. I was not trying to argue with you. Instead, I was adding a lot of backup to my point that the animation styles were different. And in summary, not to give up on 3-D animation. The creators of these cartoons know that many people favor tradition to this new style. That is why films that will be coming out in the next few years are being developed in such a way that might change a few minds. This is all that I am trying to say. I just stretched it out for too long.

[stremmefan]

Yeah I agree Transformers was a good film but the CGI didnt mash to well with it I also cannot wait for Indy to whip his way into theaters the first three movies are so astonishing and fun I just hope they dont use to much CGI in The DARK KNIGHT.Another Live-action film I'm worried that wont blend to well is the upcoming live-action Jetsons movie( 2009) & Yogi Bear(2010),Hong Kong Phooey(2009)

But to stay on topic I think both HB & Nick should stay at the park have the HB characters(The Flintstone,Jetsons,Yogi Bear) people know and love roam International Street and keep Nick in Nick Universe...I still dont understand why most you on this board think Nick is 1#...Spongebob sure more popular than Hannah Montana! Besides those characters are at the park for families and kids not for us grown-ups who go to the park with our girlfriends and boyfriends...I'll admit I love seeing Scooby-Doo but my 7 year-old nephew enjoys seeing him more than I do.

Well said. I also pointed out the option to keep Nick in Nick universe, and H-B on international street. I believe KI is for children and adults of ALL ages. Alot of people from all eras love H-B, and the kids of today (especially 2-7) like Nick. I think KI keeping H-B around keeps around alot of KI history. H-B is still very much alive-LOOK movies are coming out. So WHY take them out completely? This would be the time to bring some of them back.

[stremmefan]

I was looking on KI website for info on this year, and they have the Scooby Doo haunted house listed as being in Nick Universe. If you bring up the ride and hit more> thats where it is. Why isn't it listed as International street? At the very bottom for location: Nick Universe

[The Interpreter]

Not in my experience. I just checked yet again. Scooby and the Haunted Castle IS listed under Family Rides, which it is:

http://www.visitkingsisland.com/attraction...ry.cfm?ac_id=19

It is NOT listed in Nickelodeon Universe:

http://www.visitkingsisland.com/attraction...ry.cfm?ac_id=39

And that is the way it MUST be under the license.

Precision is important (not rough rememberies):

If you click 'more' on the ride itself, you get this page:

http://www.visitkingsisland.com/attraction...l.cfm?ai_id=144

And what are the first four words in the description on that page?

Located NEAR Nickelodeon Universe,...

Emphasis supplied

Not AT or IN, but NEAR...which means not in but close to....

So, no, they do NOT have it listed as being in Nickelodeon Universe...near is not in or at...it's close to, a whole different concept.

[stremmefan]

Not in my experience. I just checked yet again. Scooby and the Haunted Castle IS listed under Family Rides, which it is:

http://www.visitkingsisland.com/attraction...ry.cfm?ac_id=19

It is NOT listed in Nickelodeon Universe:

http://www.visitkingsisland.com/attraction...ry.cfm?ac_id=39

And that is the way it MUST be under the license.

Precision is important (not rough rememberies):

If you click 'more' on the ride itself, you get this page:

http://www.visitkingsisland.com/attraction...l.cfm?ai_id=144

And what are the first four words in the description on that page?

Located NEAR Nickelodeon Universe,...

Emphasis supplied

Not AT or IN, but NEAR...which means not in but close to....

So, no, they do NOT have it listed as being in Nickelodeon Universe...near is not in or at...it's close to, a whole different concept.

YES, IT DOES! your on the right page just go all the way to the bottom where it says LOCATION: NICK UNIVERSE

[The Interpreter]

Good catch. They need to change that...along with six zillion other problems with their webpages...such as old ride names intermingled with the new ones, etc.

And they aren't supposed to have Scooby in Nick Universe....Viacom would not be pleased.

[Scooby_Doo]

Yeah I agree Transformers was a good film but the CGI didnt mash to well with it I also cannot wait for Indy to whip his way into theaters the first three movies are so astonishing and fun I just hope they dont use to much CGI in The DARK KNIGHT.Another Live-action film I'm worried that wont blend to well is the upcoming live-action Jetsons movie( 2009) & Yogi Bear(2010),Hong Kong Phooey(2009)

But to stay on topic I think both HB & Nick should stay at the park have the HB characters(The Flintstone,Jetsons,Yogi Bear) people know and love roam International Street and keep Nick in Nick Universe...I still dont understand why most you on this board think Nick is 1#...Spongebob sure more popular than Hannah Montana! Besides those characters are at the park for families and kids not for us grown-ups who go to the park with our girlfriends and boyfriends...I'll admit I love seeing Scooby-Doo but my 7 year-old nephew enjoys seeing him more than I do.

Well said. I also pointed out the option to keep Nick in Nick universe, and H-B on international street. I believe KI is for children and adults of ALL ages. Alot of people from all eras love H-B, and the kids of today (especially 2-7) like Nick. I think KI keeping H-B around keeps around alot of KI history. H-B is still very much alive-LOOK movies are coming out. So WHY take them out completely? This would be the time to bring some of them back.

Yeah I agree with you Hanna-Barbera is still alive and kicking with live-action movies coming out(Yogi Bear,Hong Kong Phooey,The Jetsons,Scooby-Doo 3),Tee Shirts,DVDs,Video GamesYogi Bear,Flintstones & Jetsons coming to Xbox 360 & Nintendo DS,Wii but some on this board will disagree with you I dunno why but I know my nephews love the flintstones and I dont watch that with them my sister in law told me that they watch it on boomerang same with the smurfs.I wouldnt mind seeing HB around again as long as that includes Captain Caveman I'm all for it

Ugghh I remember watching Scooby-Doo & Scooby 2 on nick with my nephew not long ago....

[WooferBearATL]

More child-friendly? Oh, please.

Chef, you must not have seen or have forgotten about The Hillbilly Bears...the Paw bear cursed under his voice in very realistic ways, the cultural bias towards Hillbillies was very, very offensive to most, and my parents (who were NOT alone) would not let me watch it due to what they thought were ample references to inappropriate activity among the bears. Needless to say, I did find ways to watch it whenever I could wherever I could! (For many, nothing is as enticing as the forbidden, especially to a curious kid)

There is a reason they are almost NEVER seen in reruns...and then only heavily edited.

http://www.bcdb.com/cartoon_synopsis/9366-...ers_Aweigh.html

http://www.bcdb.com/cartoon_synopsis/9362-Woodpecked.html

Did I Hear Inappropriate Activities Among Bears? <G>

I could not resist.

<G>