"It would be interesting to have a citation for the comment that Walt Disney soured on feature animation. Not really something I have ever seen attributed to him before. All he did was retrench, hardly gave up although the pace certainly slowed down. However, the reasons may well have been financial given one film financed the next. If Sleeping Beauty failed then there was less money available for the next one.
"
Mr Toad nice to see another Victoria person here...
I think the general belief that Walt soured on animation after Sleepign Beauty is more or less accurate albeit exagerated--and to be hones the had been losing interest in animation basically from the war on (Partl;y I think due to the failure of some of his "great 5" masterpieces pre war, Fantasia, Bambi and Pinocchi, partly due to his newer interest in live action and partly then due to his interest in Disneyland). He did want Sleeping Beauty to be "the ultimate" which is why he lavished so much money on it, allowed so much time to be devoted, sprang for the stereo, the 70mm etc... But it seems he wasn't really personally involved in the way he had been even with the early 50s movies and especially with the first features and maybe that lack of involvement is why many critics initially found it cold, etc. It's my favorite of the fairy tale films but I do understand why it took so long to be liked critically.
Mirror you have a lot of great thoughts. I do think 101 Dalmatians is right up there with Beauty in terms of really finding a style perfect for the film and one that was a bit different from what people at the time expected from Disney (they didn't really go back to this IMHO until the 90s when certain films, Pocahontas, Hercules, have a really distinct and not necesarily "Disney" look). I love 101 Dalmatians and think it's by far the most successful of Disney's sorta lower key animated features if that makes sense--but the big epic type movies are closer to my heart hwich is why Beauty triumps it for me.
" think by the time they got to 101 Dalmatians they must have learnt how to cope without Walt, because, in my opinion, it's superior to Sleeping Beauty in design, animation, story and characters, and really does hold together better. "
I'd probably agree--it's just too bad that one of the directors of 101 Dalmatians, Reitherman (sp?) went on to basically take control fo the animation department and seemed happy to basically make movies stylistically after 101 Dalmatians even though something like Sword in the Stone probably didn't really fit that style. While I have a soft spot for Sword and Jungle Book--which of course is a favorite among many audiences, and Aristocats is... cute and sweet. Reitherman did seem VERY unambitious and sorta drove the studio, him and the team, into the doldrums of Robin Hood and other fully uninspiring, albeit never incompetent, films
If Beauty was a huge hit I could see Disney getting more and more ambitious with each film--with or without Walt a bit like what happened with Disney with the "animation renaissance" after Mermaid. Maybe dealing with some more serious and heavy subjects, being more lavish with design, etc--not sure how long that coulda lasted but...
E
How many animators got fired after Sleeping Beauty?
-
MagicMirror
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 6:24 pm
- Contact:
I seem to remember a quote from Joe Grant; I can't remember the exact wording, but it was something to the effect of, Walt was interested in conquering mountains. He'd already conquered animation in the 30s and 40s, and wanted new challenges, which is why he went on to theme parks and television.
More importantly, perhaps, Grant also said Walt always seemed to be wanting to do live-action, even when he was doing animation. This is partly why he 'hated lines' (and thus 101 Dalmatians); I think thats where most aimation producers/directors/artists/stylists disagree with Walt Disney on the whole. Al Hirschfeld (later an influence on Aladdin and Fantasia 2000's Rhapsody in Blue segment) criticised Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs for depicting characters too close to real human figures; Hirschfeld felt Disney was too closely following live-action and thus rejecting the qualities that made animation unique, rather than taking advantage of them. A lot of animators and cartoonists agree with this, and it suggests Walt's preference for live-action.
I'll try to get hold of the Joe Grant quote and post it here.
101 Dalmatians was partly influenced by UPA's cartoons, which, rather than try to make you forget that you're looking at drawings, drew attention to their medium - the equivalent of the modernist art movement, I suppose, but in animation. Disney took that influence and combined it with their animators to make a film where the design and animation complement each other. I think my main 'beef' with Sleeping Beauty is that, while in 101 Dalmatians, the design complements and works with the animation, in Sleeping Beauty the design leads and limits the animation; I feel it looks as though all the characters were forced to move like they've sat on a bayonet.
However, I do like the epic style of the thing, partly because I'm a big fan of epic fantasy (The Lord of the Rings is just about my favourite book of all time, and I'm partial to the odd Star Wars film or six now and then). It's no wonder that Sleeping Beauty made its money back from the Sci Fi/Fantasy audience!
Agreed about Woolie Reitherman. I've got a bit of a soft spot for Robin Hood but it, and most of his other films, are extremely unambitious. I preferred him when he was animating monsters! I wonder what Reitherman's films would have been like if Bill Peet had stayed at the studio to write them?
More importantly, perhaps, Grant also said Walt always seemed to be wanting to do live-action, even when he was doing animation. This is partly why he 'hated lines' (and thus 101 Dalmatians); I think thats where most aimation producers/directors/artists/stylists disagree with Walt Disney on the whole. Al Hirschfeld (later an influence on Aladdin and Fantasia 2000's Rhapsody in Blue segment) criticised Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs for depicting characters too close to real human figures; Hirschfeld felt Disney was too closely following live-action and thus rejecting the qualities that made animation unique, rather than taking advantage of them. A lot of animators and cartoonists agree with this, and it suggests Walt's preference for live-action.
I'll try to get hold of the Joe Grant quote and post it here.
101 Dalmatians was partly influenced by UPA's cartoons, which, rather than try to make you forget that you're looking at drawings, drew attention to their medium - the equivalent of the modernist art movement, I suppose, but in animation. Disney took that influence and combined it with their animators to make a film where the design and animation complement each other. I think my main 'beef' with Sleeping Beauty is that, while in 101 Dalmatians, the design complements and works with the animation, in Sleeping Beauty the design leads and limits the animation; I feel it looks as though all the characters were forced to move like they've sat on a bayonet.
However, I do like the epic style of the thing, partly because I'm a big fan of epic fantasy (The Lord of the Rings is just about my favourite book of all time, and I'm partial to the odd Star Wars film or six now and then). It's no wonder that Sleeping Beauty made its money back from the Sci Fi/Fantasy audience!
Agreed about Woolie Reitherman. I've got a bit of a soft spot for Robin Hood but it, and most of his other films, are extremely unambitious. I preferred him when he was animating monsters! I wonder what Reitherman's films would have been like if Bill Peet had stayed at the studio to write them?
-
EricMontreal22
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 6:03 pm
Bill Peet has story credit on Sword in the Stone, right? Was that his last Disney credit? i know he didn't oversee the story the way he did for Dalmatians (which I agree played a huge part in it working so well--)
I think your Grant comment is dead on although I do think that the reaction, cost, etc of films like Fantasia and Bambi did help cause Walt to move on in terms of interest--but that's partly conjecture on my part. It's a complex, and interesting subject--I wish I knew more about the individual directors of the Disney films during his lifetime but I don't (of course for the early films especially, Walt's name was perhaps the most important anyway). My main knowledge of animation directors comes from the Japanese system--Miyazaki, Takahata, Oshii etc etc, and I'm pretty clueless about the much more collaborative function they serve in American features with the Disney style.
The live action criticism for Disney always irked me. I was a weird kid--one thign that attracted me to Disney so much when I was young (talking under 10 or so here) was how "realistic" I found the animation. I never really cared for cartoon slapstick (although as a teen I became very fond of more surreal humour cartoons like Fleischers) and it's complicated--of course I never really thought Bambi, say, looked like "live action"--but I guess I appreciated the more "serious art" look to Disney over the more cartoony look of ohter studios. I *do* get why some faulted Disney for paying so much attention to "realism" but I think taking that element and transposing it to art/drawings does something that makes the experience almost hyper real. (back to anime I'm always defending why an animator like Takahata will make a film like Grave of the Fireflies or Only Yesterday and make it so basically realistic, with an easy to film in live ction story--but I think telling such real stories thru art gives it a very unique and emotional experience).
That said I love the UPA shorts (man they need a DVD release of them all together--at least the brilliant one offs like Unicorn and Heart) so I suppose I have no idea what I mean--but the criticism on Disney being too realistic in terms of movement and look always irked me. However I can't think of too many instances where a very stylized look has worked for a *feature* animated film--the old worry pre Snow White that people couldn't watch an hour long cartoon I think may hold more weight when the visuals become more cartoony... will have to think of this more...
What monsters did Reitherman animate? I think I've seen a photo of him working on... Bambi? but don't remember any specific characters. TO be fair he came at an awkward time for the studio (it always kinda struck me as funny too bad and sorta surprising that Disney wasn't able to take advantage of the grandiose/epic vogue in movies of the late 50s thru to the mid to late 60s--all those widescreen musicals etc--with their animation. I suppose Sleeping Beauty was their attempt--after that, while other studios were pumping out Sounds of Music, animation wise Disney's output was starting to more resemble their modest live action comedies)--first with the failure of Beauty, relatively speaking, and then of course with Walt's death
I think your Grant comment is dead on although I do think that the reaction, cost, etc of films like Fantasia and Bambi did help cause Walt to move on in terms of interest--but that's partly conjecture on my part. It's a complex, and interesting subject--I wish I knew more about the individual directors of the Disney films during his lifetime but I don't (of course for the early films especially, Walt's name was perhaps the most important anyway). My main knowledge of animation directors comes from the Japanese system--Miyazaki, Takahata, Oshii etc etc, and I'm pretty clueless about the much more collaborative function they serve in American features with the Disney style.
The live action criticism for Disney always irked me. I was a weird kid--one thign that attracted me to Disney so much when I was young (talking under 10 or so here) was how "realistic" I found the animation. I never really cared for cartoon slapstick (although as a teen I became very fond of more surreal humour cartoons like Fleischers) and it's complicated--of course I never really thought Bambi, say, looked like "live action"--but I guess I appreciated the more "serious art" look to Disney over the more cartoony look of ohter studios. I *do* get why some faulted Disney for paying so much attention to "realism" but I think taking that element and transposing it to art/drawings does something that makes the experience almost hyper real. (back to anime I'm always defending why an animator like Takahata will make a film like Grave of the Fireflies or Only Yesterday and make it so basically realistic, with an easy to film in live ction story--but I think telling such real stories thru art gives it a very unique and emotional experience).
That said I love the UPA shorts (man they need a DVD release of them all together--at least the brilliant one offs like Unicorn and Heart) so I suppose I have no idea what I mean--but the criticism on Disney being too realistic in terms of movement and look always irked me. However I can't think of too many instances where a very stylized look has worked for a *feature* animated film--the old worry pre Snow White that people couldn't watch an hour long cartoon I think may hold more weight when the visuals become more cartoony... will have to think of this more...
What monsters did Reitherman animate? I think I've seen a photo of him working on... Bambi? but don't remember any specific characters. TO be fair he came at an awkward time for the studio (it always kinda struck me as funny too bad and sorta surprising that Disney wasn't able to take advantage of the grandiose/epic vogue in movies of the late 50s thru to the mid to late 60s--all those widescreen musicals etc--with their animation. I suppose Sleeping Beauty was their attempt--after that, while other studios were pumping out Sounds of Music, animation wise Disney's output was starting to more resemble their modest live action comedies)--first with the failure of Beauty, relatively speaking, and then of course with Walt's death
-
Rumpelstiltskin
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1308
- Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:05 pm
- Gender: Male
My definition of a pefect animated movie would have to be when the animation is so well done that there is nothing that gives it away, nothing that reminds you it is animated except from the animation itself, nothing that makes you think "this could have been done better" or that break the trance, if you know what I mean. Maybe this was Disney's goal as well. Not live action, but more like the animated version of live action, just as a painting reflects its own version of the world in another way than a photographic picture. There should be a link between the animation and the real world, unlike the animation from UPA where the animation followed its own principles.
Of course, there are many different styles to choose from, but now we are talking about the full animation from the early Disney features.
UPA and the modern stylized style they represented in the 50's has been described as what happens in a desert after rain; suddenly the whole desert is full of flowers, but after a while, they starts to disappera just as sudden as they came. And after UPA came the TV cartoons with its limited and mass produced animation.
I just read in an article (I'm afraid I have lost the adress) that rotoscoping was Disney's way of playing it safe. After all, he was making something that had never been seen before, a cartoon in sound and colors with feature length. Because the audience was used to live action characters, Disney introduced the closest thing to live action he could come up with, a rotoscoped character, just so the audience had somethign familiar they could relate to when they were watching the film. Just in case.
And althought Snow White was rotoscoped, it was not "pure" rotoscoping. She was changed during the process, made more cartoon-like (no human looks like Snow White in real life) but still strongly affected by the rotoscoping procedure. And as we know, the reason why the prince was so absent was because this was still a new medium, and the animators were still not experienced enough to make a credible male hero fighting the witch.
Of course, there are many different styles to choose from, but now we are talking about the full animation from the early Disney features.
UPA and the modern stylized style they represented in the 50's has been described as what happens in a desert after rain; suddenly the whole desert is full of flowers, but after a while, they starts to disappera just as sudden as they came. And after UPA came the TV cartoons with its limited and mass produced animation.
I just read in an article (I'm afraid I have lost the adress) that rotoscoping was Disney's way of playing it safe. After all, he was making something that had never been seen before, a cartoon in sound and colors with feature length. Because the audience was used to live action characters, Disney introduced the closest thing to live action he could come up with, a rotoscoped character, just so the audience had somethign familiar they could relate to when they were watching the film. Just in case.
And althought Snow White was rotoscoped, it was not "pure" rotoscoping. She was changed during the process, made more cartoon-like (no human looks like Snow White in real life) but still strongly affected by the rotoscoping procedure. And as we know, the reason why the prince was so absent was because this was still a new medium, and the animators were still not experienced enough to make a credible male hero fighting the witch.
-
MagicMirror
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 6:24 pm
- Contact:
I have to say I'm in between on the live-action/cartoony debate. I've no objection to characters having a human appearance, but I felt that the characters of Snow White and the Prince were rather bland, and not designed to be animated. The Queen, on the other hand, I found to be well designed; she's a caricature of the femme fetale and has a 'hollywood mask' of a face, and her costume, such as the cowl around her face, makes her more suitable for animation, in my opinion. Art Babbit said that, rather than trace over the live-action footage, he 'took a long, hard look at the live-action footage, put it away, then started to draw'. Likewise, the animals of 'Bambi' were redesigned to be more expressive and animatable. But I do sometimes wonder why some people say that a Chuck Jones cartoon doesn't depict humans with realistic human proportions and is therefore inferior - if anything, they are more realistic than the Disney features because they don't use archetypes as much.
My definition of a great animated film is more or less the same as Rumpelstiltskin's, except perhaps the "nothing that reminds you it is animated except from the animation itself" part; in films like 'Belleville Rendezvous' and the unfinished 'The Thief and the Cobbler', there is the suspension of disbelief (which allows you to accept a different world with its own rules and reality), but the fact that the films are animated is never really forgotten. In other words, the style can be appreciated, but no sympathy is lost for the characters - true for most Disney films, I think. Less so for Sleeping Beauty, though, where there is an appealing style but not an awful lot of empathy with the characters.
Limited animation has good sides and bad sides - good, in the case of Chuck Jones and shorts like 'The Telltale Heart'; bad, for a lot of the Hannah Barbara cartoons and a lot of television animation today. While limited animation was an artistic tool in the case of Chuck Jones, later on it was used by television studios as a cost-cutting measure.
Woolie Reitherman's monsters include (but are not limited to): Monstro, the dinosaur fight in 'Fantasia''s Rite of Spring, some of the Headless Horseman, Tic Toc the Crocodile, and Maleficent in her Dragon form. In 101 Dalmatians, he directed the car chase at the end. He did a few less monstrous characters, including the Magic Mirror and some of Hook and Goofy.
My definition of a great animated film is more or less the same as Rumpelstiltskin's, except perhaps the "nothing that reminds you it is animated except from the animation itself" part; in films like 'Belleville Rendezvous' and the unfinished 'The Thief and the Cobbler', there is the suspension of disbelief (which allows you to accept a different world with its own rules and reality), but the fact that the films are animated is never really forgotten. In other words, the style can be appreciated, but no sympathy is lost for the characters - true for most Disney films, I think. Less so for Sleeping Beauty, though, where there is an appealing style but not an awful lot of empathy with the characters.
Limited animation has good sides and bad sides - good, in the case of Chuck Jones and shorts like 'The Telltale Heart'; bad, for a lot of the Hannah Barbara cartoons and a lot of television animation today. While limited animation was an artistic tool in the case of Chuck Jones, later on it was used by television studios as a cost-cutting measure.
Woolie Reitherman's monsters include (but are not limited to): Monstro, the dinosaur fight in 'Fantasia''s Rite of Spring, some of the Headless Horseman, Tic Toc the Crocodile, and Maleficent in her Dragon form. In 101 Dalmatians, he directed the car chase at the end. He did a few less monstrous characters, including the Magic Mirror and some of Hook and Goofy.
-
EricMontreal22
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 6:03 pm
Wow he did many of my favorite creations (I always credited some of that--liek Monstro to the sublime Bill Tytla but of course I think he actually did Stromboli) - it's interesting that he did such dynamic and memorable characters when his movies sorta, for lack of a better word, felt flat and safe.
I'm firmly with you on the merits of stylization and more "realistic" animation although I thinkw e disagree on Beauty's characters...
I'm firmly with you on the merits of stylization and more "realistic" animation although I thinkw e disagree on Beauty's characters...
-
Rumpelstiltskin
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1308
- Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:05 pm
- Gender: Male
I must admit that the queen looks a bit better than Snow White and the prince, but as this was still in the early days of animation, experience and knowledge was gained for each new movie. Since thise was Disney's first feature, I can as mentioned understand the use of rotoscoping, althought it is a little harder to understand in Pinocchio when used on the blue fairy.
What I was referring to when I said nothing should remind you it was animated except the animation itself, was that you would accept it in such a way you wouldn't question the movie's own form of reality more than if it was live action. One of the major things that separates animation and live action is the movements, which is why we notice rotoscoping so well. But when the characters moves like animated characters are supposed to move, it is only the animation itself that reminds you it is animated since animated films has their own sense of reality. Of course there are other things as well, this was used one of the most familiar examples.
About limited animation and the way it was originally intended to be used, it had an interesting but rather short golden age in the 50's, from what I have heard. But at least it had its influence.
Each animation style has its own limitations and possibilities, and attempts to cross the lines between them will probably not give a good result because of the contrasts and for other reasons. For instance, in the rubber hose style you should NOT try to make realistic looking characters. But if you within the frames of the chosen style can make the best out the potentials that it offers, and remember the old saying "if you can't fight them, join them" (which as mentioned was done in 101 dalmations when they adapted the background to fit the animation and the characters was drawn in a style that worked well with the black lines, instead of attempting to fight against the limitations caused be the xerography) then there is a godd chance you have succeeded in making a great movie. At least in design, if the story and characters are great as well, and the audience like it, then you could have a memorable movie.
I saw Hoppity goes to Town a while back, and instead of trying to make the dog on the pavement realistic, they should have made it more cartoony like the bugs. I you can't master what you are trying to attempt, then stick to what you are able to master until you are ready to move on to a new area. But then again, how can you get any experience or challenge yourself if you don't try anything new now and then? Which of course was one of Walt Disney's intentions with the Silly Symphonies.
Sometimes it is the style itself that is the reason for the limitations, other times the artists themselves, and sometimes the technology (which is the reason why it was puppets and not humans that were the main characters in the first CGI movie Toy Story).
What I was referring to when I said nothing should remind you it was animated except the animation itself, was that you would accept it in such a way you wouldn't question the movie's own form of reality more than if it was live action. One of the major things that separates animation and live action is the movements, which is why we notice rotoscoping so well. But when the characters moves like animated characters are supposed to move, it is only the animation itself that reminds you it is animated since animated films has their own sense of reality. Of course there are other things as well, this was used one of the most familiar examples.
About limited animation and the way it was originally intended to be used, it had an interesting but rather short golden age in the 50's, from what I have heard. But at least it had its influence.
Each animation style has its own limitations and possibilities, and attempts to cross the lines between them will probably not give a good result because of the contrasts and for other reasons. For instance, in the rubber hose style you should NOT try to make realistic looking characters. But if you within the frames of the chosen style can make the best out the potentials that it offers, and remember the old saying "if you can't fight them, join them" (which as mentioned was done in 101 dalmations when they adapted the background to fit the animation and the characters was drawn in a style that worked well with the black lines, instead of attempting to fight against the limitations caused be the xerography) then there is a godd chance you have succeeded in making a great movie. At least in design, if the story and characters are great as well, and the audience like it, then you could have a memorable movie.
I saw Hoppity goes to Town a while back, and instead of trying to make the dog on the pavement realistic, they should have made it more cartoony like the bugs. I you can't master what you are trying to attempt, then stick to what you are able to master until you are ready to move on to a new area. But then again, how can you get any experience or challenge yourself if you don't try anything new now and then? Which of course was one of Walt Disney's intentions with the Silly Symphonies.
Sometimes it is the style itself that is the reason for the limitations, other times the artists themselves, and sometimes the technology (which is the reason why it was puppets and not humans that were the main characters in the first CGI movie Toy Story).
-
EricMontreal22
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 6:03 pm
I agree with a lot of that (although rotoscoping doens't really bug me--even if Don Bluth and Bakshi have shown its limitations lately in mucht he way Fleischer did)
Gotta disagree about Hoppity though. I recently rewatched it (I bought a video of it back when I was 11 and most into Flesicher) and while I didn't liek it as much as I'd remembered, I still think it's much more entertianign than Gulliver's Travels. And I think having the "real world" all be hyper realistic in the Fleischer/Superman style and then the bug life VERY cartoony actually works to show it as a fantasy world existing in our real one
E
Gotta disagree about Hoppity though. I recently rewatched it (I bought a video of it back when I was 11 and most into Flesicher) and while I didn't liek it as much as I'd remembered, I still think it's much more entertianign than Gulliver's Travels. And I think having the "real world" all be hyper realistic in the Fleischer/Superman style and then the bug life VERY cartoony actually works to show it as a fantasy world existing in our real one
E
-
Rumpelstiltskin
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1308
- Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:05 pm
- Gender: Male
It wasn't exactly the real world versus the cartoony bug world I had in mind. I don't mind the old Flesicher rotoscoping we see in Superman, which was supposed to be realistic and which I find nostalgic. But the dog in the movie looked like an attempt of being realistic without really succeeding. In my opinion, it looks like the challenge was a little to big for the animators in the studio back than.
The Flesicher probably had a little better time and a little more experience, which seems to be the reason why Hoppity goes to Town was a little better than Gulliver.
The Flesicher probably had a little better time and a little more experience, which seems to be the reason why Hoppity goes to Town was a little better than Gulliver.
-
EricMontreal22
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 6:03 pm
To be hoenst i don't remember that dog--just the rotoscoped human feet etc.
You're right--they had learned. Plus Hoppity (though the story has flaws for sure) seemed to be closer to their hearts than Gulliver which seemed to be kinda imposed on them. of course Gulliver was a hit (at least it made a profit I think)--Bug/Hoppity didn't (partly for outside reasons but...)
You're right--they had learned. Plus Hoppity (though the story has flaws for sure) seemed to be closer to their hearts than Gulliver which seemed to be kinda imposed on them. of course Gulliver was a hit (at least it made a profit I think)--Bug/Hoppity didn't (partly for outside reasons but...)
-
kurtadisneyite
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 8:14 pm
- Location: los angeles, ca
mary blair could be done today
Rest assured software is here that could easily animate Mary Blair style animation. Disney already has it (TOON BOOM) and other studios and yours truly uses it along with other software. This software also means Disney can do a feature film with a very small crew (I'd be surprised if more than 50 - 60 people were working on FROG PRINCESS).
Of course, it still takes a skilled animator / timer to get the software to properly "act" the character, be it a warped plate of art, or hand-to-vector drawing. But it can and is being done.
Of course, it still takes a skilled animator / timer to get the software to properly "act" the character, be it a warped plate of art, or hand-to-vector drawing. But it can and is being done.
2D isn't Ded yet!
-
Rumpelstiltskin
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1308
- Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:05 pm
- Gender: Male
Re: mary blair could be done today
Yep, too bad it flopped, I would really have liked to see what a third feature from the studio would have looked like. It's sad we will never know (as with many other things).
kurtadisneyite:
That's what have been my opinion all the time. With CGI, it is now possible to create just the kind of backgrounds you want. Just see what style Glen Keane has based Rapunzel on. And even in 2D animation it is possible to make the characters fit more comples backgrounds. If you want them flat or more 3D, it can be done.
Because the process is time consuming, there has to be some compromises in the mass production of drawings. But then we have the old "what if"-scenario; what if the animators and background artists got all the time in the world to make it as detailed as they wished? Today we can to some degree see how it would have looked.
Of course there are other directions than the realistic and complex one, which is why UPA was established. But still, in this specific direction, there is a lot of potential.
Some impressive examples: http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop ... 584&si=123
http://www.medievalcottage.com/sbcomment.html
kurtadisneyite:
That's what have been my opinion all the time. With CGI, it is now possible to create just the kind of backgrounds you want. Just see what style Glen Keane has based Rapunzel on. And even in 2D animation it is possible to make the characters fit more comples backgrounds. If you want them flat or more 3D, it can be done.
Because the process is time consuming, there has to be some compromises in the mass production of drawings. But then we have the old "what if"-scenario; what if the animators and background artists got all the time in the world to make it as detailed as they wished? Today we can to some degree see how it would have looked.
Of course there are other directions than the realistic and complex one, which is why UPA was established. But still, in this specific direction, there is a lot of potential.
Some impressive examples: http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop ... 584&si=123
http://www.medievalcottage.com/sbcomment.html