Search form

Dream On, Silly Dreamer

2 posts / 0 new
Last post
Dream On, Silly Dreamer

Came across a review of Dream On, Silly Dreamer that says it all:

You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't agree with that review. I personally feel that I, not a Disney stockholder, was the target audience. I am a young animator who relates in many ways to the animators who made the film. I knew when I was young that I wanted to be an animator, dreamed about it, and have been working hard to achieve that dream.

I feel the film was very powerful in conveying the emotion those animators felt: as kids in love with animation, as workers ecstatic in their dream job, and as people feeling their dreams crumbling underneath them.

Yes others have lost their jobs, other corporations have acted only in the interest of their own pocket books. The point is that this is Disney. The day they closed the 2D dept. I had that song from Cinderella in my head all day "if you keep on believing the dream that you wish will come true." This is the company that told us when we were two years old that we could make all our dreams happen. I can't now. Because my dream was to be 2D animator at Disney. Yes, I am determined to make the best out of it. I will become the best 2D animator I can, and go into business for myself if I have to. But that's not the point. The point of this film is to mourn a dream.

Also, because this is Disney, we should notice that the point of the company was to support animation. Walt Disney didn't start his company so they could make The Pacifier. "It all started with a mouse" remember. That company should be focused on keeping their 2D animation alive. So they made a few not-so-good animated films.... how many bad live action films have they made? I can understand wanting to get in on the 3D action. But why not keep a 2D and a 3D studio? Instead of putting out a new film each year, have both studios put out a film every 2 or 4 years. They won't be spending much more money, and the products will be better because they will get the time they deserve. Besides, the way I look at it, the whole company (films, amusement parks, toys) exists to support the animation- the original product. Or at least it should.

Also, most people are agreed the downfall is partially because of a lack of audience's faith in Disney animation following the so-called "cheapquels". If that's the case, why punish the feature animators? Either give the tv animation better funding for their direct-to-video sequels, or can them all together. Also, why not have the tv animators release dtv movies that aren't related to the feature animations? Have them invent their own characters and worlds. Keep the money from the dtv coming in without affecting the public's perception of the feature animation department.

Also, in defense of Dream on Silly Dreamer- the reviewer said "They behave like they're the only ones who've ever lost their jobs or suffered from corporate excess." This is a documentary-- An exploration of one event and the emotions and people involved. 'Bowling for Colombine" wasn't saying "no one's kids have ever died before ours" it was just examing how this town dealt with it. Same situation here.

He also said "There's a great untapped potential and it only needs to be exploited. Where's the American answer to Porco Rosso, Omohide Poro Poro and Whisper of the Heart?" I'll agree with him there... but I think it will be a lot harder for these great animators to make big changes to the U.S. animation industry without the support of a big studio to fund and back them up. I personally think the Disney animators were on the verge of a change. They wefe starting to focus their films on more adult audiences, but the audiences hadn't adjusted yet, the b.o. intake went down, and bye bye 2D animation department. Look at Don Bluth... another animator with the potential to make the best 2D animated films this country has ever put out.... but unable to do so because no company is willing to fund him.

That's just my two (or more like thirty-five) cents.