well scott that is all I wanted to know from you but don bluth is not nearly as perverted as Ralph Bakshi and Seth Macfarlane those guys are a total disgrace to animation cartoons are suppose to be for all ages not just adults besides if I learned anything about adult humor is that it is dirty and disturbing and vulgar not wacky and crazy and kooky and zany

do not worry pal I want to be a cartoon maker but I have a way better creative style that is actually comical in a retro kind of way besides I do not want to bring back hand drawn I just want to put tex avery/bob clampett style humor into computer animation and put sultry and seductive voluptuous dames who are pretty enough to make your and my eyes pop out besides what do you think would be the best name for a cartoon studio with a theme park called wacky world and that specializes in making wacky and crazy and kooky and zany and funny retro cartoon characters and film adaptations

If by “upsetting” you mean “incomprehensible,” “childish,” “offensive,” and often “perverted,” yes–he’s an idiot. And a dreadful children’s cartoon maker.

Well, if you read the main Kickstarter page, you do read, right? Good. It says

“a small team of A-list script writers and artists, under Don & Gary’s supervision”

So quit rustling your jimmies and do a little research first.

well scott don bluth is more upsetting and disturbing than juvenile and childish but does this mean that you think he is an idiot or not

Is that a sentence?

Don can’t tell a story. Everyone knows that. And his films are beyond childish and juvenile. None of his characters are ever defined by choices they make. It’s as if they’re all afraid of confronting themselves. Like Don. Besides, shouldn’t he be more interested in paying all the artists he owes money to than raising money to inflict more of his lack of taste on the general public?

We’ll have to agree to disagree on the whole ‘movies that make me cry’ thing. In my mind, if a movie makes me cry, that’s a sure sign that I was emotionally involved in the story. That’s a big deal in my book. In my opinion, a movie that’s emotionally involving is a great one, whether it makes me laugh, cry, or whatever.

well if they can manage to pull off collecting more than half a million bucks within 1 month I just hope that Don Bluth will help MGM reopen its animation division or I just that the dragon’s lair movie will be made period

WDAS can try new ideas, as they have to take *some* risks, but in order to do that they have to limit their risk wherever possible in other areas, such as the specific animation medium. They have a fair degree of artistic freedom, but they still have to operate within the framework of a big business, which is what high-quality animated features inherently are. It has been this way since Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, which was one of the first, if not the first, true worldwide mega-blockbusters (among all movies, including live action), but it was also probably the most expensive movie ever made up to that point. The subsequent animated features of Disney’s Golden Age were artistic triumphs, but lost money and nearly drove Disney out of business entirely.

As for Frozen, whether one likes its plot or not, its story makes complete sense–it just doesn’t directly spell everything out for the audience, and I like that. Is there anything specific I could explain? As for whether Walt would have made a better movie involving some kind of “snow queen,” I don’t know, but I think he would have been very impressed with Frozen, which tonally and in some other ways is reminiscent of his best movies–the ones of the Golden Age–as opposed to the tamer ones WDAS made later when Walt was far less involved (by then he was focused on Disneyland, television, and finally Walt Disney World).