Square Pictures vs. American Animation

[bringsan90]

I don't know about anybody, but Square has a talent in animation.

We need to do a movie or something in their amazing CGI.
Here's an example:
YouTube - Ida Emi - Tsuki no Akari - Final Fantasy IV Ai no Theme-

YouTube - Final Fantasy III DS Opening


YouTube - Final Fantasy X End

They ten times better than crappy Dreamworks animation and "gay" Disney. (started to hate Disney, discussed in nex thread)


Their mature storytelling and music will shaped up animation history if they do a movie, again.

[Kätharina]

Advent Children? :wtf:
oh wait :aldo:..........

And as far as CGI goes, the American market is more associated towards a larger audience, mainly young children who will find more appeal within animated characters rather than everybody as a whole. Of course that doesn't take adults out of the question.

With Square, they've done Advent Children, it was a huge hit in Japan and other countries (possibly?) But i doubt they would even invest within getting into a market which is dominated by other companies, which do a better job, plus they would most likely have to realized we don't necessarily need fucking fully animated people when we have a harem of actors who can do exactly the same + special effects added within.

Their pre-rendered work is good, but they should stick too their crappy game making :wtf:.

[NEALBLEWMEONCE]

I highly disagree with the 'crappy Dreamworks animators and "gay" Disney' line.

You're right, FF games have really set the bar in CGI scenes.

But so have Dreamworks and Pixar!

You may not like their style of animation or the subject matter of their movies, but there is no disputing the fact that those companies have world-class talent.

There is no reason (that I know of) to believe that Pixar is not capable of creating mature (in the style of FF) movies with the same stellar quality as everything else they've done.

I'm not a big fan of Disney's corporate management practices either, but American cinema just wouldn't be the same without them.

[Little Miss Scarlett]

The Spirits Within anyone? They've already done a major CGI film and it was a massive flop, I really doubt they'd want do that again.

[Pain Clone]

kinda biased i think, and any way Pixar and all that make cartoon style movies which arnt meant to replica real life.

[Hynad]

The problem with The Spirit Within is that it's not enough Final Fantasy to begin with.

They (the producers) didn't manage to reflect the magic of the games in to the film.

The technical aspect of it though has yet to be surpassed.

[Final Twilight]

Hmm, I am gonna sound much like the people before me, but I agree with them and you. I really think that SE has EXTREME talent in animation, and pre-rendered material, but so is Pixar and Disney and Dreamworks. I am not a big fan of Dreamworks but I am a fan of Pixar. They make great movies (better then Dreamworks imo).

SE is a worldwide gaming company and it will stay like that. Just the fact that they can make a huge hit like Final Fanatasy VII Advent Children is a huge step but its also more time that they could be spending on other things like the Fabula Nova Crystallis series. Believe me I would love to see them make more movies, but there is no way that will happen soon. At least during the time that Nomura is there.

[BUTTCHEEKIES, OOH]

So I agree with what Cathryn and this guy said. That just about sums up my views.

I highly disagree with the 'crappy Dreamworks animators and "gay" Disney' line.

You're right, FF games have really set the bar in CGI scenes.

But so have Dreamworks and Pixar!

You may not like their style of animation or the subject matter of their movies, but there is no disputing the fact that those companies have world-class talent.

There is no reason (that I know of) to believe that Pixar is not capable of creating mature (in the style of FF) movies with the same stellar quality as everything else they've done.

I'm not a big fan of Disney's corporate management practices either, but American cinema just wouldn't be the same without them.

Also OP, have you seen the Transformers movie? I don't know who were in charge of it, but that movie's CGI shits on any CG animation I've ever seen in terms of technology. Yeah, even on AC.

Square has talent yes, but to make as if the west is lagging behind on both technology and storytelling is proof alone that you should look outside your Final Fantasy box.

[Sanji]

I liked Spirits Within a lot, even though it has nothing to do with Final Fantasy. It's still a good movie, and the graphics are amazing. AC on the other hand was shit.

Even though I whish they would make a movie for the Fabula Nova Crystallis (totally unrelated to games, a stand-alone movie like Spirits Within), I woulnd't want them to focus on movies. Pixar is way better. They better keep on making game.

[bringsan90]

I highly disagree with the 'crappy Dreamworks animators and "gay" Disney' line.

You're right, FF games have really set the bar in CGI scenes.

But so have Dreamworks and Pixar!

You may not like their style of animation or the subject matter of their movies, but there is no disputing the fact that those companies have world-class talent.

There is no reason (that I know of) to believe that Pixar is not capable of creating mature (in the style of FF) movies with the same stellar quality as everything else they've done.

I'm not a big fan of Disney's corporate management practices either, but American cinema just wouldn't be the same without them.


I know they have talent to make a GREAT CGI SCENES, but storytelling I have to disagree.

Pixar is only one is making great pictures and tell a great original story.

I'm sorry but Dreamwork and Disney (after Disney's death in 1966) don't have talent in storytelling.

All of Dreamwork pictures is mediocore, filled with pop culture and bad comedy.

Disney movies aren't original and having the same theme right over agian.

Almost 88% of Disney movies are fairy-tale-musical crap. (Except The "Lion King").

Plus, almost in every american animation have animals and more bad comdey.


I just tired of American American. The Candians, Japaneses, and the Britishs have more talnet in storytelling and unqine animation than the Americans.

[Fenryr]

I liked Spirits Within a lot, even though it has nothing to do with Final Fantasy. It's still a good movie, and the graphics are amazing. AC on the other hand was shit.

Even though I whish they would make a movie for the Fabula Nova Crystallis (totally unrelated to games, a stand-alone movie like Spirits Within), I woulnd't want them to focus on movies. Pixar is way better. They better keep on making game.

I'm sorry, but are you one of those folk who lives in opposite land. PERHAPS I SHOULD TYPE LIKE SO:

!neeb fo reve dlouc nihtiW stiripS naht eivom retteb hcum a saw CA

[bringsan90]

Also OP, have you seen the Transformers movie? I don't know who were in charge of it, but that movie's CGI shits on any CG animation I've ever seen in terms of technology. Yeah, even on AC.

Square has talent yes, but to make as if the west is lagging behind on both technology and storytelling is proof alone that you should look outside your Final Fantasy box.


I have seen Transformers movie. Great CGI and a "smart" storytelling. (give credict to producer Speliberg and director Micheal Bay).


The West can do great CGI, especially in live-action movies. Pixar animation is amazing.

I have to disagree with storytelling. You need to see animation from around the world such as the Brits and their clay animation.

[BUTTCHEEKIES, OOH]

!neeb fo reve dlouc nihtiW stiripS naht eivom retteb hcum a saw CA
You best be trolling mate.

[Thunder]

I'm sorry, but are you one of those folk who lives in opposite land. PERHAPS I SHOULD TYPE LIKE SO:

!neeb fo reve dlouc nihtiW stiripS naht eivom retteb hcum a saw CA
ి_ి .zlp uftS

[Kätharina]

I'm sorry but Dreamwork and Disney (after Disney's death in 1966) don't have talent in storytelling.

All of Dreamwork pictures is mediocore, filled with pop culture and bad comedy.

Disney movies aren't original and having the same theme right over agian.

Almost 88% of Disney movies are fairy-tale-musical crap. (Except The "Lion King").

I think most people are aware of Disney's decline in story quality, the same effect isn't valued and it's relatively mediocre.

But i could easily name ALOT of Disney movies pre 1999 which are actually good in Cartoon animation quality and story wise, and are NOT based off Fairytales. :wtf:

And don't just place the 'Lion King' down as one, thats fucking bullshit.
It won a couple of Oscars because Elton John was being all wank, and Mufasa died. :wtf:

[Fenryr]

You best be trolling mate.

Comparing a movie I found intense with action to a movie I got bored with, within ten minutes is not a hard task. I enjoyed Advent Children much better than Spirits Within, I don't even know what that movie was about. Even if I forced myself to sit through it again I'd still be struck with the intense notion that slitting my throat with the dvd box would be a more enjoyable way to pass the next hour and a half.

Also, Disney cartoon animation was the best shit I'd ever seen. Although Wall-E was still a movie I found sickshitawesome.

[pseudocognition]

*headdesk*

Different markets, different country, different purpose, different genres, different target audience, different... everything.

[bringsan90]

And as far as CGI goes, the American market is more associated towards a larger audience, mainly young children who will find more appeal within animated characters rather than everybody as a whole..

That's one of the problem. American think that animation is for kids, not adults.

Of course that doesn't take adults out of the question.

Yeah, if these adults have children to take them to the movies.


With Square, they've done Advent Children, it was a huge hit in Japan and other countries (possibly?) But i doubt they would even invest within getting into a market which is dominated by other companies, which do a better job,.

Square can signed with Waner Bros. or a major company. They can invest into the market and get a hit movie.




plus they would most likely have to realized we don't necessarily need fucking fully animated people when we have a harem of actors who can do exactly the same + special effects added within.

Their pre-rendered work is good, but they should stick too their crappy game making .


That's the problem. American don't see that animation can do it, too. There's some advantages that live-action can't do but animation can.

[Kätharina]

Yeah, if these adults have children to take them to the movies.




Square can signed with Waner Bros. or a major company. They can invest into the market and get a hit movie.

Yes, but adults can also enjoy these god damn film.
When my parents used too watch Disney Movies with me, they actually did enjoy them, same goes for when i forced my mum too come with me too watch Bolt because i didn't want too look like a pervert lurking in the damn theatre. :cathryn:

And Square has no reason to sign with a company, DIFFERENT AREA IN THE WORLD. Their markets, aims and objectives are different. They don't have the time and money too invest within such a large market which is already filled with high end competitors which can throw their money around more freely.

[Dream Machine]

Enchanted was better than Advent Children.

[bringsan90]

[quote=Cathryn;154399]But i could easily name ALOT of Disney movies pre 1999 which are actually good in Cartoon animation quality and story wise, and are NOT based off Fairytales. [quote]

Yes, still some movies are bunch of remakes from live-action movies. But they are not original ...consider most of them is from fairy tales , classic books, myths, and legends

Beauty and the Beast (fairy tale)
Aladdin (fairy tale)
Hercules (other movies did a movie about it)
The Little Mermaid (fairy tale)
Tarzan ( remake and rip-off from a book)
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (remake)
Pochantas (another tale)
Mulan (original and also from a China tale ..except singing part)
Oliver and Company ( a rip-off from Charles Dickson, Oliver)


[quote=Cathryn;154399]And don't just place the 'Lion King' down as one, thats fucking bullshit.
It won a couple of Oscars because Elton John was being all wank, and Mufasa died. [quote]

I didn't. Did I say "except" Lion King.

Plus, The Lion King have two Oscar nomations (in the Music catergory). Only Beatuy and the Beast have a six nomation, including Best Picture in 1991.

[Fenryr]

How can you not have thought the Lion King was great? Regardless of that fact, so what if a lot of their movies were based on myths or legends. That's the most retarded statement I've seen yet. Some of the best movies have been based off of books, experiences from someone's life, myths or legends.

I'm not going to shit all over it but, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was a movie based off of Hunter S. Thompson's book. And it was so damn good that I still watch it now.

The same counts for disney in my eyes, obviously not all of them, but still. Lion King was so great if it was possible I would of nearly cried. I was a kid at the time, but I feel the point still stands!

I've forgotten my point, nevermind anymore.

[bringsan90]

Well, I don't see you guys see that Disney movies are the best.

I saw other animation movies are ten times better than Disney.

Better than Lion King and Enchanted

[sobchack]

disney is fucking sweet

also little mermaid is a book

[Darkangel-XI]

Disney animation > All

Warner Bros. are a close second

[Whiplash]

Yes, but adults can also enjoy these god damn film.


Exactly. There are, generally speaking, three kinds of film. Children, family and adult. The first and last are fairly self-explanatory but family films are often just lumped together with children's films. A family film is a film that can be enjoyed regardless of age. That appeals to both adults and children, often for different reasons and not just because there are subtle sex jokes that go over a little kid's head but by having an intelligent story and script, that doesn't talk down to its audience. Disney's best films are family films because they combine good story-telling, good acting, good animation and good music. If that's not your cup of tea, fine, but to suggest that they're all, bar The Lion King, terrible because of it is pathetic. I don't like the paintings of Vermeer for example but I can still separate my personal tastes and acknowledge that he was a skilled and talented artist. There are also a lot of films aimed at kids that I don't like, but can still appreciate that they're good children's films, I'm just not in the target market.

So what if they based their films off fairy tales (although you're seriously over generalising there)? They're taking a 5-minute, tops, yarn and crafting an 80-minute picture out of it. That its origin is still identifiable is a credit to them really. Basic plot =/= script. A script is more than story, it is a story communicated entirely through dialogue and non-verbal communication. I don't care how many times you read Grimm's Fairy Tales, it won't gift you a quality script. SE's cinematic efforts have been light on the script front. The Spirit's Within was a fairly generic sci-fi, but was still enjoyable because it was well told. Advent Children was just fan-wank.

And as for animation. First off, did you watch Wall-E? Watching it in Blu-Ray is fantastic, but even in standard definition that is possibly the pinnacle of animation at the moment. It is an absolutely beautiful film. The people were undoubtedly cartoony, but that was a matter of choice not an inability to render them otherwise. Animation is about more than creating realistic models of people. There's texture (SE a bit iffy on this, tending towards things that look plastic), lighting (good at this) and acting (tends towards exaggerated movement, most animated media does, but I can't remember the last time I saw a bit of subtle, non-verbal acting from SE). Realism comes as much from texture, lighting and acting as it does from the models. Don't get me wrong, SE are fantastic at rendering pretty pictures, but so are many Western companies (although the quality varies from company to company and film to film, generally because of budget and target market).

Personally I don't want hyper-realistic humans in my animation. It'd be a novelty, and I'd applaud the skill required to do it, but I wouldn't enjoy it. We already have hyper-realistic humans, they're called actors. Animation is popular and useful because it can bend reality, why limit it so?

Yes Disney and Dreamworks have, and probably will make in the future, crappy films. The Black Cauldron springs to mind quite quickly. Good children's book, crappy family film.

Btw: Lion King = Hamlet in Africa. Sorry to have to be the one to break that to you.


And that's my wall of text. I'll now return to my usual brief replies.

[bringsan90]

Exactly. There are, generally speaking, three kinds of film. Children, family and adult. The first and last are fairly self-explanatory but family films are often just lumped together with children's films. A family film is a film that can be enjoyed regardless of age. That appeals to both adults and children, often for different reasons and not just because there are subtle sex jokes that go over a little kid's head but by having an intelligent story and script, that doesn't talk down to its audience. Disney's best films are family films because they combine good story-telling, good acting, good animation and good music. If that's not your cup of tea, fine, but to suggest that they're all, bar The Lion King, terrible because of it is pathetic. I don't like the paintings of Vermeer for example but I can still separate my personal tastes and acknowledge that he was a skilled and talented artist. There are also a lot of films aimed at kids that I don't like, but can still appreciate that they're good children's films, I'm just not in the target market.

So what if they based their films off fairy tales (although you're seriously over generalising there)? They're taking a 5-minute, tops, yarn and crafting an 80-minute picture out of it. That its origin is still identifiable is a credit to them really. Basic plot =/= script. A script is more than story, it is a story communicated entirely through dialogue and non-verbal communication. I don't care how many times you read Grimm's Fairy Tales, it won't gift you a quality script. SE's cinematic efforts have been light on the script front. The Spirit's Within was a fairly generic sci-fi, but was still enjoyable because it was well told. Advent Children was just fan-wank.

And as for animation. First off, did you watch Wall-E? Watching it in Blu-Ray is fantastic, but even in standard definition that is possibly the pinnacle of animation at the moment. It is an absolutely beautiful film. The people were undoubtedly cartoony, but that was a matter of choice not an inability to render them otherwise. Animation is about more than creating realistic models of people. There's texture (SE a bit iffy on this, tending towards things that look plastic), lighting (good at this) and acting (tends towards exaggerated movement, most animated media does, but I can't remember the last time I saw a bit of subtle, non-verbal acting from SE). Realism comes as much from texture, lighting and acting as it does from the models. Don't get me wrong, SE are fantastic at rendering pretty pictures, but so are many Western companies (although the quality varies from company to company and film to film, generally because of budget and target market).

Personally I don't want hyper-realistic humans in my animation. It'd be a novelty, and I'd applaud the skill required to do it, but I wouldn't enjoy it. We already have hyper-realistic humans, they're called actors. Animation is popular and useful because it can bend reality, why limit it so?

Yes Disney and Dreamworks have, and probably will make in the future, crappy films. The Black Cauldron springs to mind quite quickly. Good children's book, crappy family film.

Btw: Lion King = Hamlet in Africa. Sorry to have to be the one to break that to you.


And that's my wall of text. I'll now return to my usual brief replies.


I haven't watch Wall-E but I will watch it someday. I see your point.
Maybe, I did carry away about the animation part. I know in the US have talented animators. I respect it.

As for the storytelling, in my opinion, it is more than some safe kid movie.
I know animation is suppose to be out of reality but it suppose to be ...."Art".
Art that people can entertain, relate and learn from it.
Magical and from the heart without "happily ever after" setting.
Animation can do many thing out of reality or using their imagation in storytelling but also expressing real life themes and ideas which can be told by live-action movies.

Unfortunatly, I blame Disney who start this "family-safe" animation which other animators in different companies follow it. American animation is limited not by their animation but their storytelling.

I'm tired of "perfect" princesses, finding your true love, and this "dreams come true". I'm tired when people think that Disney is the only animation makes good films. There's more great films who don't follow the same recipe in Disney.

What's wrong with animation put a little reality to it. It's fine to be fantasy and cartoony, but too much might make it immature and runied the movie.
For example: Ku-Panda,Bolt, and all Dreamworks animation movies.

I'm just not into American animation after I have seen other animations such as Spirited Away, beautiful documary classic Walz With Bashir( another animation film was also praised with Wall-E but got snobb in the Oscar catergory (Ku-Panda and some crappy movie got the noms), Coraline, The Polar Express, Corspe Bride, The Iron Giant, and awesome animated short films like MADAME TUTLI-PUTLI.
use google to check out these movies.:)

Also anime and Pixar movie like, my favorite animated film Toy Story) was a big influence of me that animation aren't just for kids, but a movie art.

These moives aren't fairy-tale and not a safe kid movie. They all have beautiful animation and awesome storytelling. They don't consider it as adult or kids animated film, but a great animated film.

I like Disney, but they need a break from "happily ever after" storytelling. Do we really teach our children there's a perfect world out there?

Disney animation > All

Warner Bros. are a close second


Here's a perfect example of why Disney is killing animation.

There's more great film that they underrated and better than Disney.

[Sanji]

1) http://finalfantasy-xiii.net/forums/images/dark_vb_v2/buttons/multiquote_off.gif (http://finalfantasy-xiii.net/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=154467) :cathryn:

2) If I'm not wrond, Bolt and the Polar Express are Disney's, so I don't get why you say that Disney's movies suck and then you say you like some of them.

3) Corpse Bride is different, why did you mention it? Doesn't it use puppets like "The Night Before Christmas"? (I don't know the technical name)

3) I agree with everything Whiplash say :cathryn:

[Whiplash]

Corpse Bride, Nightmare Before Christmas and everything Nick Park has done (bar Flushed Away) were made with stop-motion animation using clay figures. Move the figure, take a frame, the move figure a bit more, take a frame, etc. Early 3D animation ;). Looks good but is extremely difficult and time-consuming.

[Fenryr]

Well leaning back to the cartoon animation (as in the actual drawing). Studio Ghibli do the most amazing cartoon drawings I've ever seen. Spirited Away for example was an incredibly beautiful movie. They take the fairy-tale'esque approach and yet twist it. It's a different approach to disney yet both are enjoyable for their different techniques.

[bringsan90]

1) http://finalfantasy-xiii.net/forums/images/dark_vb_v2/buttons/multiquote_off.gif (http://finalfantasy-xiii.net/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=154467) :cathryn:

2) If I'm not wrond, Bolt and the Polar Express are Disney's, so I don't get why you say that Disney's movies suck and then you say you like some of them.

3) Corpse Bride is different, why did you mention it? Doesn't it use puppets like "The Night Before Christmas"? (I don't know the technical name)

3) I agree with everything Whiplash say :cathryn:

1. Polor Express is from Warner Bros and I hate Bolt. I was using it as for an example that American Animation don't have talent in storytelling.

2. Yes, they stop animation but they ten times better than Disney movies. I use those movies because there's other movies (some are so underrated) better than Disney "happy" movies.

[Sanji]

I thought Polar Express was Disney's, my bad.

Still, I don't get the point in discussin about stop-motion, beacuse it's totally different from what SE is doing.

I didn't like Polar Express and I haven't seen Blot (and I don't even want to see it), but you can just take 2 examples and say American suck at storytelling. Take Wall-E. For the whole movie the 2 protagonists say only 3/4 words, and yet it is one of my favuorite movies and IMHO the best Disney 3d movie :cathryn: I doubt SE could do something even similiar. Telling a story without people talking is really hard, and not everyone can do that.

Spirits Within was en enjoyable movie. It wasn't anything revolutionary or original, but it's a film I'd watch again. So yeah, I'd like to see a movie in the FBN (not like Advent Children and more like Spirits Withins, since AC is just shit), but saying that they are "ten times better than crappy Dreamworks animation and "gay" Disney" is exaggerated :cathryn:

BTW, I don't think SE's storytelling is mature (SW had the most mature plot IMHO) and I don't think the music are beatiful neither :cathryn:

[bringsan90]

I thought Polar Express was Disney's, my bad.

Still, I don't get the point in discussin about stop-motion, beacuse it's totally different from what SE is doing.

I didn't like Polar Express and I haven't seen Blot (and I don't even want to see it), but you can just take 2 examples and say American suck at storytelling. Take Wall-E. For the whole movie the 2 protagonists say only 3/4 words, and yet it is one of my favuorite movies and IMHO the best Disney 3d movie :cathryn: I doubt SE could do something even similiar. Telling a story without people talking is really hard, and not everyone can do that.

Spirits Within was en enjoyable movie. It wasn't anything revolutionary or original, but it's a film I'd watch again. So yeah, I'd like to see a movie in the FBN (not like Advent Children and more like Spirits Withins, since AC is just shit), but saying that they are "ten times better than crappy Dreamworks animation and "gay" Disney" is exaggerated :cathryn:

BTW, I don't think SE's storytelling is mature (SW had the most mature plot IMHO) and I don't think the music are beatiful neither :cathryn:


You have to give credict to Pixar, NOT disney. Only Pixar is only American American is truly the best.

Spirited Within was good but not great. Little confusion but very beautiful. Unfortunatly, the critics and audience have a different view.
Final Fantasy VII:AC don't count. It's a fanmade movie.


If they do a movie like Final Fantasy IV or Final Fantasy VIII, it will be great because it's "Final Fantasy".
You love Final Fantasy, right? Their stories are good and the music is good,too.
They just need a second chance. Their material is different than Disney. Their stories are ORIGINAL!!. They different.

I have some respect of Diseny but they aren't great. I have heard of these movies like Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin without animation.
And even with they twist around a bit with musical and crap, you know the outcome and same gay theme. They all based or from a story that other movies did these movies before. They aren't original.
What if Walt Disney was alive and see these movies? What he's reaction to this?
Disney is famous for it's original storytelling, not re-creating fairy tales.

You need to see other movies besides Disney or Dreamworks. Have you seen Coraline? Awesome moive. Yes, it's based on a book, but it's the characters didn't sing or she have help with some animal. Plus, everbody CAN relate to because it surround a real setting and real themes.
Corspe Bride and The Nightmare before Christmas are another good examples. They are original and different.

[sobchack]

You have to give credict to Pixar, NOT disney. Only Pixar is only American American is truly the best.

Spirited Within was good but not great. Little confusion but very beautiful. Unfortunatly, the critics and audience have a different view.


so basically you liked it and everyone else is wrong? i'm sorry but that movie sucked balls.

also you try to appear elitist and educated, but you do so with very simple and dumb arguments and examples. try again

and of course disney movies seem a little gay at times, but these movies are for children. plus, originality in final fantasy? please. 9/10 times it's save the world from some bad guy. give me a break

[bringsan90]

so basically you liked it and everyone else is wrong? i'm sorry but that movie sucked balls.

also you try to appear elitist and educated, but you do so with very simple and dumb arguments and examples. try again

and of course disney movies seem a little gay at times, but these movies are for children. plus, originality in final fantasy? please. 9/10 times it's save the world from some bad guy. give me a break

First off, I haven't watch the movie and said I love it. It show you didn't read my comments. She was giving credict to Disney. Pixar made this movie. I have seen their work and they great.
Pixar is the only one make great films.

Second off, Spirited Within was a good movie. It was confusing at times but wasn't that bad.

But the point is that Square can make movies based of their stuff. (Final Fantasy)


Third,yes, I'm educated and not tying to elite. I have the right to say my opinion. Educated person watch really good films than watch a girl and her animal friends fight off a villian to get her prince.

Diseny is for kids, not adults. They suck

[Sanji]

I'm a boy BTW :cathryn:

Disney movies are not gay, they're for children. That's why they always live happily ever after.

I like FF, but I don't think they have original stories, and the music are good for a videogame, but there are very few that I'd listen on my Ipod. Plus, I think KH's are better :cathryn:
FFVIII's plot pretty sucked, especially the love part, so no, I wouldn't like a film like FFVIII. I'd like one like SW. You cannot make a movie like a game. One lasts 1.30h, the other more than 40, and you cannot have all the character development that there's in a game in a movie, beacuse it's really difficult if not impossible.

I said Disney referring to Pixar beacuse Pixar is Diseny's, isn't it? If you want to separate them, so be it :cathryn:

[NEALBLEWMEONCE]

I'd like one like SW. You cannot make a movie like a game. One lasts 1.30h, the other more than 40, and you cannot have all the character development that there's in a game in a movie, beacuse it's really difficult if not impossible.

True, but they could make a TV series! :D

[Sanji]

Please, tell me you were joking :wtf:

SE should stick with games. If it wants to make a movie now and then that's ok, we now it can made decent movies (I'm still talking about SW, not AC :cathryn: ), but that's all. Just first finish the FBN then make whatever you want :cathryn:

[Thunder]

Please, tell me you were joking :wtf:

SE should stick with games. If it wants to make a movie now and then that's ok, we now it can made decent movies (I'm still talking about SW, not AC :cathryn: ), but that's all. Just first finish the FBN then make whatever you want :cathryn:
asdfghjk FBN?

[NEALBLEWMEONCE]

I was joking.

It would be funny (and tragic) if tomorrow they announced a new FF TV series.

Complete with TV CGI (think 'veggie tales') and a new plot centering around Vaan/Penelo's sky pirate adventures!

[Fenryr]

First off, I haven't watch the movie and said I love it. It show you didn't read my comments. She was giving credict to Disney. Pixar made this movie. I have seen their work and they great.
Pixar is the only one make great films.

Second off, Spirited Within was a good movie. It was confusing at times but wasn't that bad.

But the point is that Square can make movies based of their stuff. (Final Fantasy)


Third,yes, I'm educated and not tying to elite. I have the right to say my opinion. Educated person watch really good films than watch a girl and her animal friends fight off a villian to get her prince.

Diseny is for kids, not adults. They suck

I PEE'D MYSELF WHEN YOU SAID EDUCATED PEOPE WATCH REALLY GOOD FILMS.

I'm educated, I'm still in the education process. Do I watch the shitty disney movies you describe on occassion? Yes. Do I enjoy them? Yes.

And besides, who the hell do you classify as "educated people". They are educated and thus they must watch what you describe as "good films"? HERE'S ME THINKING IT WAS ALL ABOUT PERSONAL TASTE.

ASDASFG

[Hynad]

An educated person can express himself in a given language with proper verb tenses, syntax and spelling.


Just a thought.


In any case, I think Square Pictures (they don't use that name anymore) fares quite well against the likes of Pixar and Dreamworks when it comes to the technical side of things. Where I think they don't fare as well is when it comes to screenplay and scenario.

But since we haven't got much from them other than The Spirits Within and the fan service that is Advent Children, it's a little hard to do a fair comparison.

[Fenryr]

An educated person can express himself in a given language with proper verb tenses, syntax and spelling.


Just a thought.


In any case, I think Square Pictures (they don't use that name anymore) fares quite well against the likes of Pixar and Dreamworks when it comes to the technical side of things. Where I think they don't fare as well is when it comes to screenplay and scenario.

But since we haven't got much from them other than The Spirits Within and the fan service that is Advent Children, it's a little hard to do a fair comparison.

An educated person may choose to speak however he so wishes, if he deems the situation to be one in which he must place emphasis upon the proper articulation of his words and also one in which he must provide proper punctuation to further emphasize his desired points of interest, then he may consider your outstandingly ridiculous thought.

Or he might decide to talk however he so chooses, BECAUSE IT'S ONLY THE INTRANETS : )))))))))))))).

Just a thought.

[Hynad]

I was referring to bringsan90.

There:

Originally Posted by bringsan90 http://finalfantasy-xiii.net/forums/images/dark_vb_v2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://finalfantasy-xiii.net/forums/showthread.php?p=154552#post154552)
First off, I haven't watch the movie and said I love it. It show you didn't read my comments. She was giving credict to Disney. Pixar made this movie. I have seen their work and they great.
Pixar is the only one make great films.

Second off, Spirited Within was a good movie. It was confusing at times but wasn't that bad.

But the point is that Square can make movies based of their stuff. (Final Fantasy)


Third,yes, I'm educated and not tying to elite. I have the right to say my opinion. Educated person watch really good films than watch a girl and her animal friends fight off a villian to get her prince.

Diseny is for kids, not adults. They suck
So basically I was supporting your argument.

[Little Miss Scarlett]

@Fenrir: True, but if someone wants to be taken seriously they'll use proper grammar. It's not that hard. And I don't think he was referring to you.

Edit: See.

[Fenryr]

I was referring to bringsan90.

There:



So I was basically supporting your argument.

THEN I LOVE YOU LONG TIME <33333 FORGIVE ME : <

Regarding american animation again though, the topic drifted towards Disney yet american animation as previously stated somewhere in this topic also consists of movie's such as Transformers etc.

You can't say that stuff's not amazing, forgetting the fact that Optimus looked like a skinny vegan.

[sobchack]

An educated person may choose to speak however he so wishes, if he deems the situation to be one in which he must place emphasis upon the proper articulation of his words and also one in which he must provide proper punctuation to further emphasize his desired points of interest, then he may consider your outstandingly ridiculous thought.

Or he might decide to talk however he so chooses, BECAUSE IT'S ONLY THE INTRANETS : )))))))))))))).

Just a thought.
yeah up to a certain point. i mean, read her posts

[NEALBLEWMEONCE]

You can't say that stuff's not amazing, forgetting the fact that Optimus looked like a skinny vegan.


http://www.fasthack.com/images/weblog/2007/04/tf-movie-prime.jpg

^ If that's what a skinny vegan looks like, I need to start eating more veggies! :ohmy:

[Purple]

*headdesk*

Different markets, different country, different purpose, different genres, different target audience, different... everything.

This. No point in comparing the two.