Which one do you think is better, 3D animation or 2D animation? (Mind you, we're talking about animated films and series, not video games)
I've always perfered 2D animation over CG. Although the only place that I saw CG was put to good use for animation wise is Pixar. CG these days have been a pain in the neck for me(The only thing that is worth looking forward to is The goon. Which I wish I knew its release date).
I just had to ask, is anyone here NOT that excited about Tangled? I feel like the only one, in fact I feel like it's being too overrated before it even comes out, and that will ruin it for me.
Your not the only one Pecan. I'm not interested in seeing it whatsoever. And even though it may be a musical, the marketing on tangled is just pathetic. I've always hated how Disney marketed its animated films, and Disney's marketing is the reason why Princess and the frog didnt do so well because it was up against the Shitfest Avatar. They are marketing this thing like its a Fairy tale parody like the crap that comes out of Dreamwork's animation like Shrek. I bet the people are going to get ripped off when they find out that Tangled is a musical compared to a parody of a fairy tale. But maybe this would be more likable if it was 2D.
I saw this at an animation festival. I cant believe this guy is now working for Pixar(He did a 2D short for Toy Story 3 called Day and Night). Boy's Night out and Day and night had a Tex Avery thing going on in there.
And speaking on terms of the golden age one of my favorites. And a bonus goes that its on the angle on Bob Clampett's cartoons.
I just saw an obscure old Soviet animation that I absolutely loved. It was called Songs of the Years of Fire and it's a collection of Soviet revolutionary songs. It's like a Soviet Fantasia.
Your not the only one Pecan. I'm not interested in seeing it whatsoever. And even though it may be a musical, the marketing on tangled is just pathetic. I've always hated how Disney marketed its animated films, and Disney's marketing is the reason why Princess and the frog didnt do so well because it was up against the Shitfest Avatar. They are marketing this thing like its a Fairy tale parody like the crap that comes out of Dreamwork's animation like Shrek. I bet the people are going to get ripped off when they find out that Tangled is a musical compared to a parody of a fairy tale. But maybe this would be more likable if it was 2D.
Take a look at the japanese trailer for Tangled, and notice how different of an approach they take to make the movie seem appealing, compared to the kiddy, comedy-based ads we get here. (though I'm honestly still not very interested, it still looks generic as hell) I think a lot of advertising, especially for animated movies, tends to be terrible. Dreamworks' ads seem ok, because their movies usually are just like how their ads make them seem. I am excluding Megamind, of course, which had some of the worst advertising ever, (no real in-depth look at the general plot WITHOUT giving important bits away, boring posters of characters just standing there making the dreaded "Dreamworks face," one ad even made it seem like it had fart jokes when it had absolutely none) but it was a genuinely good movie, so that made the advertising especially terrible and misleading.
I think it's because they're trying to get a broader audience, whereas in places like Japan, they don't have the same worries as us because there's a general attitude to animation over there besides being for kids. They even changed the title of the movie itself over here so it would appeal more to boys. (notice how in Japan it's still "Rapunzel") Why they're not confident enough that their movie will sell well to advertise as is is beyond me, but I guess I don't blame them for resorting to ads that they think will draw in more people. After all, Shrek 2 is still the (unfortunately) highest grossing domestic animated film of all time.
Take a look at the japanese trailer for Tangled, and notice how different of an approach they take to make the movie seem appealing, compared to the kiddy, comedy-based ads we get here. (though I'm honestly still not very interested, it still looks generic as hell) I think a lot of advertising, especially for animated movies, tends to be terrible. Dreamworks' ads seem ok, because their movies usually are just like how their ads make them seem. I am excluding Megamind, of course, which had some of the worst advertising ever, (no real in-depth look at the general plot WITHOUT giving important bits away, boring posters of characters just standing there making the dreaded "Dreamworks face," one ad even made it seem like it had fart jokes when it had absolutely none) but it was a genuinely good movie, so that made the advertising especially terrible and misleading.
I think it's because they're trying to get a broader audience, whereas in places like Japan, they don't have the same worries as us because there's a general attitude to animation over there besides being for kids. They even changed the title of the movie itself over here so it would appeal more to boys. (notice how in Japan it's still "Rapunzel") Why they're not confident enough that their movie will sell well to advertise as is is beyond me, but I guess I don't blame them for resorting to ads that they think will draw in more people. After all, Shrek 2 is still the (unfortunately) highest grossing domestic animated film of all time.
It's also because the Japanese don't share the same sense of humor that we have, so Disney can't market their movies the same way. Because the Japanese haven't become as jaded as the American public has about ~*~*the magic of disney*~*~, Disney appeals to their sentimental side in their marketing.
I saw this at an animation festival. I cant believe this guy is now working for Pixar(He did a 2D short for Toy Story 3 called Day and Night). Boy's Night out and Day and night had a Tex Avery thing going on in there.
I really don't see the appeal of Sym Bionic Titan. I gave it the benefit of the doubt when first watching it because everyone seems to like it, but I just found everything to be so stiff and just plain boring to look at. I really don't like the character designs at all. I know what they were trying to go for and I can see it, but it just falls flat on its face. I can't really relate to any of the characters who are just so over the top I just plain don't like them.
It brings the same regurgitated story topics to the table in a groan inducing manner. I dunno. I just really really don't like it.
I feel exactly the same way but with Ben 10. Though I actually liked the design and animation of Sym-bionic Titan, while the writing is okay.
Also, I only prefer 3D more than 2D for big budget features, and that's only a little bit more than 2D. The thing is, if you can't deliver Pixar/Dreamworks quality of 3D, and can only deliver those stiff, ugly, Max Steel 3D, then don't bother.
I've been meaning to watch it, but I recently just got rid of cable, so I don't really watch TV anymore. Maybe I'll catch a stream of it sometime, but it looks like a fun show.
Anyone here bother to watch that cartoon called, 'The Regular Show'?
I've seen the pilot episode way back when. I didn't even realize it got seen through until recently. Which is super trippy because I remember seeing his animation final way back when it first was put on the web.
Well, I also think it's a little overrated but the point of it was to be that over-the-top and nonsensical, to make the fact that the fictional story behind it implies it was submitted seriously to a family channel, so it's kind of like a surrealist animation where we look at the mentality of who is supposedly animating it. Love the animation of the final sequence of course, and Hertzfeldt's other stuff is pretty neat.
Well, I also think it's a little overrated but the point of it was to be that over-the-top and nonsensical, to make the fact that the fictional story behind it implies it was submitted seriously to a family channel, so it's kind of like a surrealist animation where we look at the mentality of who is supposedly animating it. Love the animation of the final sequence of course, and Hertzfeldt's other stuff is pretty neat.
Yeah, I also thought of that, but only after the ending. Before the ending, I thought it was just gonna be a series of random stuff to the very end.
Now, what do you guys think of Mo-Cap?
I always hated Mo-Cap in movies, but I don't mind it in videogames. I don't know why.
Oh geez, you just reminded me of this trailer I saw yesterday, which is HORRENDOUS on all levels, not just animation. Just when I'm over the trauma of Polar Express, lowering my guard thinking CGI animation has finally gotten over the uncanny valley mo-cap, here comes Zemeckis to kick me in the face.
Oh geez, you just reminded me of this trailer I saw yesterday, which is HORRENDOUS on all levels, not just animation. Just when I'm over the trauma of Polar Express, lowering my guard thinking CGI animation has finally gotten over the uncanny valley mo-cap, here comes Zemeckis to kick me in the face.
So yeah, don't like it.
The thing about Robert Zemeckis is that he always make movies with awesome premises (Monster House) and wasted it with Mo-Cap. I'll be watching this on DVD, because though I like the idea, I don't wanna fully support it.
Also, you heard the rumor that they'll be making a Roger Rabbit sequel in, wait for it... MO CAP?
Oh, and the totally confirmed, not-a-rumor fact that they're doing a remake of Yellow Submarine, in MO CAP?!
What's next? Back To The Future Part IV: Mo-Cap Mcfly?!
I actually hope that Telltale's BTTF game is NOT Mo-Cap, except for Doc Brown's hand movements...
...forgiving the idea that Monster House has a "great premise"(really?), can you seriously say that "Mars Needs Moms" has anything approaching a premise that, at the very least, doesn't induce vomiting?
...forgiving the idea that Monster House has a "great premise"(really?), can you seriously say that "Mars Needs Moms" has anything approaching a premise that, at the very least, doesn't induce vomiting?
Nah, but it's interesting, kinda, in a self-aware way. I always liked these sci-fi big budget animated films that don't take themselves too seriously.
Anyway, you don't like Monster House? Why not? Aside from the Mo-cap, I thought it was pretty original for an animated film, and it's really fun.
Zemeckis should just go back to doing live-action films, because motion capture is nothing but crapture. All it ever does is something that IS NOT considered as animation. Besides that it makes matters worst that he's remaking the yellow submarine. And yeah he's using motion capture for that too. :mad: It makes me even more pissed that the bone movie is going to be Motion capture over 2D animation. Way to go Zemeckis and James Cameron. Thanks a whole lot for ruining Bone. We would have gotten the most coolest 2D animated film that would have been based on a graphic novel to make way for more animated films with Fantasy and adventure, BUT NOOO. Your cummy motion crapture success had to make it as a CG motion-CRAPTURE film, over 2D hand-drawn animation. Bone calls for 2D, I dont care if it works for CG.
I actually heard somewhere that Zemeckis is doing the Roger Rabbit sequel as the original film(live-action/2D). But then again, I just dont give a damn about the animation industry anymore because its not worth looking at. Besides anyone seen the trailer For this?. It makes me pissed that Disney's marketing is being screwed up yet again because THIS is going up against the final part of the deathly hallows.
Besides anyone seen the trailer For this?. It makes me pissed that Disney's marketing is being screwed up yet again because THIS is going up against the final part of the deathly hallows.
Wait.
Are you telling me that the vast majority of the audience for a Winnie the Pooh flick directly intersects with the audience for a Harry Potter film, and that them running side-by-side is a detriment to Pooh?
Because while Harry Potter is hardly adult, it's at least soundly in the preteen segment, whereas Pooh is more for parents and those in the under 10 set.
Zemeckis should just go back to doing live-action films, because motion capture is nothing but crapture.
...
Wha-?
Motion capture is just fine for certain applications, so don't take a shit on Mo-cap. It's great for a lot of video games or other applications such as movies like Avatar and LoTR where you have real life actors and need a human-like figure that isn't quite human that still needs to blend into the live action environment. Though many times, the mo-cap needs to be slightly tweaked, but that' doesn't disregard it's useful properties.
The problem is all the improper use of Mo-Cap and the view that it's an easy solution to replace animators.
...Please don't use Avatar as an example of good motion capture, it's really not. I'm a bit dumbfounded that movies getting praised for it's special effects to be honest. Yes, the color pallet is amazing and the creatures are uniquely designed, but the CGI was nowhere near as good as the CGI in Lord of the Rings which managed to achieve a truly visceral quality in it's special effects. The Nav'i to me sat in that weird plasticine uncanny valley the characters in that terribly awful Beowulf movie sat in. Granted that movie made every Anglo-Saxonist froth at the mouth in nerd rage (myself included, even as I was laughing at Agenlina Jolie's Baywatch pontoon lips attempting to be threatening), but that's beside the point.
Yeah, I know. That's what I said. Real shame too, considering that it could have been done the style of that Beatles Rock Band intro, which I thought was cool.
...
Motion capture is just fine for certain applications, so don't take a shit on Mo-cap. It's great for a lot of video games or other applications such as movies like Avatar and LoTR where you have real life actors and need a human-like figure that isn't quite human that still needs to blend into the live action environment.
This I agree. The part about it being good for videogames, I mean. About Lord Of The Rings and Avatar, I'm not sure. Didn't pay attention to the mo-cap quality.
I didn't think Avatar was a bad movie by any means, (though the plot is basically 100% predictable and overused, I mean there's not a single thing that surprised me and/or that I didn't already know would happen) but what I dislike most about its existence is that everyone acts like it's this new cutting-edge thing in special effects and basically cinematography in general, and that James Cameron is a ~*~GENIUS~*~ for making it. Also people act like the designs of the Nav'i are something spectacular and unique when I've seen a lot of better alien/furry thing designs on Deviantart for goodness' sake.
I just don't get it.
Also will go see Tangled in a little bit and will probably review it in the rate movies thread.
Ugh. Who doesn't? They're like furries, but somehow worse.
Outside of yiffing, I don't get the problem with furries. And yiffing isn't even that big of a deal, as there's Rule 34 of EVERYTHING anyway, so I don't see how one is worse than the other. You can choose to tell a story through the eyes of anything you want, as long as it's a good story. I think the only problem with furries is that they're rarely used the right way; as meaningful, relatable characters. The only instances of that I can think of off the top of my head are Fullmetal Alchemist, Thundercats, Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, or Urusei Yatsura (although that's a sitcom). Making them relatable is a great challenge, but shows like FMA and Thundercats have proven it's possible.
Also, according to this board, relatable isn't a word.
...Please don't use Avatar as an example of good motion capture, it's really not. I'm a bit dumbfounded that movies getting praised for it's special effects to be honest. Yes, the color pallet is amazing and the creatures are uniquely designed, but the CGI was nowhere near as good as the CGI in Lord of the Rings which managed to achieve a truly visceral quality in it's special effects. The Nav'i to me sat in that weird plasticine uncanny valley the characters in that terribly awful Beowulf movie sat in.
I didn't think Avatar was groundbreaking, but I thought the effects were as far from uncanny valley as possible. Especially in the eyes, as they didn't seem to have that "dead eyes" effect a lot of 3D and mo-cap tends to have. And that's a big plus for anything using Mo-Cap - and something Beowulf didn't have.
And as PecanBlue pointed out, Avatar's creatures are NOT uniquely designed. They're just a bit new for American cinema, granted...oh wait, Star Wars(remember the Ewoks and that elephant head dude?) and Thundercats did furries first...and the creatures in the original SW trilogy are way more uniquely designed than the ones in Avatar and still look just as real...at least in my perception.
Not all furries agree with the term 'yiff', actually, although this might just be a form of self-justification. And, while I hate the word 'furry' and people who call themselves 'furries', I never knew where the line stands between cartoon characters being 'furries' and 'anthropomorphic animal characters'. Is it based on how much human it is, or whether it's drawn in western style or anime style, or is it based on how sexualized it is? Is Daffy Duck a furry (feathery?)? Is Yogi Bear? Is Sam?
Good Lord man, that Sam and Max and Merrie Melodies business is completely depraved and immoral. I won't expose my children to such disgusting wretched furry filth. Just joking.
Anyhoo, I looked on Urbandictionary for a definition of the word furry, and apparently it refers to the fanbase of anthropomorphic characters or ANY anthropomorphic animal. It refers by name to Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny as examples, so therefore I would conclude by their definitions that any talking animal or animal that walks on two legs would be a furry. So, in other words, there is no damn problem with furries in any shape or form and there never has been and 4chan, the ass-shit pit nitwits of the internet who to my knowledge started the furry term and the furries are evil bullshit, can suck a dick for their asinine stupidity. Anyone who has an inate hatred of a class of fictional creature that Bugs Bunny or The Pink Panther or Snagglepuss would belong to is a bloody fool.
Well, according to Urban Dictionary, there's no definite definition to the word 'furry'. Personally, I don't agree with the definition that everyone who likes Looney Tunes, Merrie Melodies, etc. are furries. I think that 'furries' are people who like them mainly because they're anthropomorphic animals.
Now, furry fetishists are a different story.
Frankly, I just don't like the word itself, and the people who call themselves that, since using that word feels like liking funny animal characters makes you different than everyone else.
Anyway, here's what hardcore Avatar fans are like. I have no problem with people who like Avatar, but I hate those who are obsessed by it. Also, it's really not that original. Yeah, James Cameron wrote it years ago, but after Pocahontas and Atlantis came out, why couldn't he just change the script?
Actually, I agree with you. I don't particularly like the term, and frankly it's an unnecessary term that shouldn't be there but it is there. By it's definition every anthro is a furry, but I hate it because of how derogatory it is. It's slowly turning anthropomorphic characters into some sort of taboo. And frankly, the furry culture isn't helping matters much. I'm not a fan of people who are obsessed with anthro characters. I can definitely see why people dislike that culture. People can like what they want, but becoming obsessed with it to the point of dressing yourself in cat ears, fur, etc. is disturbing and does nothing to aid the image or reputation of anthropomorphic characters themselves.
Comments
Awesome!
Even more awsome!!
New but old: Destino by Salvador Dalí & Walt Disney
Your not the only one Pecan. I'm not interested in seeing it whatsoever. And even though it may be a musical, the marketing on tangled is just pathetic. I've always hated how Disney marketed its animated films, and Disney's marketing is the reason why Princess and the frog didnt do so well because it was up against the Shitfest Avatar. They are marketing this thing like its a Fairy tale parody like the crap that comes out of Dreamwork's animation like Shrek. I bet the people are going to get ripped off when they find out that Tangled is a musical compared to a parody of a fairy tale. But maybe this would be more likable if it was 2D.
I saw this at an animation festival. I cant believe this guy is now working for Pixar(He did a 2D short for Toy Story 3 called Day and Night). Boy's Night out and Day and night had a Tex Avery thing going on in there.
And speaking on terms of the golden age one of my favorites. And a bonus goes that its on the angle on Bob Clampett's cartoons.
Take a look at the japanese trailer for Tangled, and notice how different of an approach they take to make the movie seem appealing, compared to the kiddy, comedy-based ads we get here. (though I'm honestly still not very interested, it still looks generic as hell) I think a lot of advertising, especially for animated movies, tends to be terrible. Dreamworks' ads seem ok, because their movies usually are just like how their ads make them seem. I am excluding Megamind, of course, which had some of the worst advertising ever, (no real in-depth look at the general plot WITHOUT giving important bits away, boring posters of characters just standing there making the dreaded "Dreamworks face," one ad even made it seem like it had fart jokes when it had absolutely none) but it was a genuinely good movie, so that made the advertising especially terrible and misleading.
I think it's because they're trying to get a broader audience, whereas in places like Japan, they don't have the same worries as us because there's a general attitude to animation over there besides being for kids. They even changed the title of the movie itself over here so it would appeal more to boys. (notice how in Japan it's still "Rapunzel") Why they're not confident enough that their movie will sell well to advertise as is is beyond me, but I guess I don't blame them for resorting to ads that they think will draw in more people. After all, Shrek 2 is still the (unfortunately) highest grossing domestic animated film of all time.
It's also because the Japanese don't share the same sense of humor that we have, so Disney can't market their movies the same way. Because the Japanese haven't become as jaded as the American public has about ~*~*the magic of disney*~*~, Disney appeals to their sentimental side in their marketing.
Uhm... How do you see Tex Avery in there?
Uhm... How do you see Bob Clampett in there?
I really don't see the appeal of Sym Bionic Titan. I gave it the benefit of the doubt when first watching it because everyone seems to like it, but I just found everything to be so stiff and just plain boring to look at. I really don't like the character designs at all. I know what they were trying to go for and I can see it, but it just falls flat on its face. I can't really relate to any of the characters who are just so over the top I just plain don't like them.
It brings the same regurgitated story topics to the table in a groan inducing manner. I dunno. I just really really don't like it.
Also, I only prefer 3D more than 2D for big budget features, and that's only a little bit more than 2D. The thing is, if you can't deliver Pixar/Dreamworks quality of 3D, and can only deliver those stiff, ugly, Max Steel 3D, then don't bother.
I've seen the pilot episode way back when. I didn't even realize it got seen through until recently. Which is super trippy because I remember seeing his animation final way back when it first was put on the web.
I thought it was just boring, random nonsense
Yeah, I also thought of that, but only after the ending. Before the ending, I thought it was just gonna be a series of random stuff to the very end.
Now, what do you guys think of Mo-Cap?
I always hated Mo-Cap in movies, but I don't mind it in videogames. I don't know why.
So yeah, don't like it.
The thing about Robert Zemeckis is that he always make movies with awesome premises (Monster House) and wasted it with Mo-Cap. I'll be watching this on DVD, because though I like the idea, I don't wanna fully support it.
Also, you heard the rumor that they'll be making a Roger Rabbit sequel in, wait for it... MO CAP?
Oh, and the totally confirmed, not-a-rumor fact that they're doing a remake of Yellow Submarine, in MO CAP?!
What's next? Back To The Future Part IV: Mo-Cap Mcfly?!
I actually hope that Telltale's BTTF game is NOT Mo-Cap, except for Doc Brown's hand movements...
Nah, but it's interesting, kinda, in a self-aware way. I always liked these sci-fi big budget animated films that don't take themselves too seriously.
Anyway, you don't like Monster House? Why not? Aside from the Mo-cap, I thought it was pretty original for an animated film, and it's really fun.
Trellow, it aint no lie. Yellow Submarine remake is for real too.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/2010/01/12/2010-01-12_beatles_cast_in_.html
I actually heard somewhere that Zemeckis is doing the Roger Rabbit sequel as the original film(live-action/2D). But then again, I just dont give a damn about the animation industry anymore because its not worth looking at. Besides anyone seen the trailer For this?. It makes me pissed that Disney's marketing is being screwed up yet again because THIS is going up against the final part of the deathly hallows.
Are you telling me that the vast majority of the audience for a Winnie the Pooh flick directly intersects with the audience for a Harry Potter film, and that them running side-by-side is a detriment to Pooh?
Because while Harry Potter is hardly adult, it's at least soundly in the preteen segment, whereas Pooh is more for parents and those in the under 10 set.
...
Wha-?
Motion capture is just fine for certain applications, so don't take a shit on Mo-cap. It's great for a lot of video games or other applications such as movies like Avatar and LoTR where you have real life actors and need a human-like figure that isn't quite human that still needs to blend into the live action environment. Though many times, the mo-cap needs to be slightly tweaked, but that' doesn't disregard it's useful properties.
The problem is all the improper use of Mo-Cap and the view that it's an easy solution to replace animators.
Yeah, I know. That's what I said. Real shame too, considering that it could have been done the style of that Beatles Rock Band intro, which I thought was cool.
This I agree. The part about it being good for videogames, I mean. About Lord Of The Rings and Avatar, I'm not sure. Didn't pay attention to the mo-cap quality.
Oh, also; New Mo-cap Tintin movie. Go.
Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as overly aggressive, I just have a lot built up irritation about Avatar...
I thought it was meh. Not bad, not good, just meh.
I hate the fandom, though.
Ugh. Who doesn't? They're like furries, but somehow worse.
I just don't get it.
Also will go see Tangled in a little bit and will probably review it in the rate movies thread.
Outside of yiffing, I don't get the problem with furries. And yiffing isn't even that big of a deal, as there's Rule 34 of EVERYTHING anyway, so I don't see how one is worse than the other. You can choose to tell a story through the eyes of anything you want, as long as it's a good story. I think the only problem with furries is that they're rarely used the right way; as meaningful, relatable characters. The only instances of that I can think of off the top of my head are Fullmetal Alchemist, Thundercats, Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, or Urusei Yatsura (although that's a sitcom). Making them relatable is a great challenge, but shows like FMA and Thundercats have proven it's possible.
Also, according to this board, relatable isn't a word.
I didn't think Avatar was groundbreaking, but I thought the effects were as far from uncanny valley as possible. Especially in the eyes, as they didn't seem to have that "dead eyes" effect a lot of 3D and mo-cap tends to have. And that's a big plus for anything using Mo-Cap - and something Beowulf didn't have.
And as PecanBlue pointed out, Avatar's creatures are NOT uniquely designed. They're just a bit new for American cinema, granted...oh wait, Star Wars(remember the Ewoks and that elephant head dude?) and Thundercats did furries first...and the creatures in the original SW trilogy are way more uniquely designed than the ones in Avatar and still look just as real...at least in my perception.
Anyhoo, I looked on Urbandictionary for a definition of the word furry, and apparently it refers to the fanbase of anthropomorphic characters or ANY anthropomorphic animal. It refers by name to Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny as examples, so therefore I would conclude by their definitions that any talking animal or animal that walks on two legs would be a furry. So, in other words, there is no damn problem with furries in any shape or form and there never has been and 4chan, the ass-shit pit nitwits of the internet who to my knowledge started the furry term and the furries are evil bullshit, can suck a dick for their asinine stupidity. Anyone who has an inate hatred of a class of fictional creature that Bugs Bunny or The Pink Panther or Snagglepuss would belong to is a bloody fool.
Now, furry fetishists are a different story.
Frankly, I just don't like the word itself, and the people who call themselves that, since using that word feels like liking funny animal characters makes you different than everyone else.
Anyway, here's what hardcore Avatar fans are like. I have no problem with people who like Avatar, but I hate those who are obsessed by it. Also, it's really not that original. Yeah, James Cameron wrote it years ago, but after Pocahontas and Atlantis came out, why couldn't he just change the script?