Well, you probably know that Disney's first Dark Age started in the 70s with "The Aristocats" and continued till "Oliver and Company". Disney later proved itself #1 with the release of "The Little Mermaid" and continued like that until The Hunchback of Notre Dame.
Then came Hercules, and there's where the Dark Age seemed to come. The animation was terrible. Compare Aladdin's body with Hercules', Aladdin has human shape and a decent face. Hercules is terribly drawn. What's the deal with all those spirals at the elbows and chins?
Even the females on this movie are not as beautiful as the previous: Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora, Ariel...
Mulan was a good movie and a good story but the animation was bad. Humans can be done much better. Tarzan was Ok. Fantasia 2000, boriiiiing! The emperor's new groove, What the heck is this??? Oh! Disney how could you have gone so low. Do the original tale, The Emperor's New Clothes, not this...
Well, my point is that Disney should take a break until I finish writing "The Clear Fountain" (The Fairy Tale I'm working on) This could be a success if they would do it as they used to do.
Definetly the worst Dark Age Disney has had.
Are we living on Disney's second Dark Age?
Dark Ages... I don't think so...
I don't agree
For many different Disney groups "The Golden Ages" are:
1. from Snow White (1937) to Bambi (1942)
2. from Cinderella (1950) to The Jungle Book (1967)
3. from The Little Mermaid (1989) to Tarzan (1999)
To name the rest of the classics a part of "Dark Ages" seems to reduce its artistic value.
Hercules, Mulan and Tarzan shouldn't be compared by the "animation level" of those movies, Those features have got a different desing that responds to the kind of concept art they were trying to achieve.
Hercules' desing is based on the ancient Greek desing preserved on historic pieces of pottery, paintings and sculptures.
Mulan's graphic desing is based on the ancient China art.
When you compare the movie with that kind of art you can see that it responds in a more artistic way that if they duplicated the kind of animation and desing used on B&B or Aladdin.
The same thing happend with Sleeping Beauty back in 1959, its desing was so different and innovative that now everyone loved it at first. But Disney desingners that worked on Sleeping Beauty say that they chosse to use Ervind Earle desing for the movie because they didn't wanted to duplicate Snow White or Cinderella.
I agree that since Fantasia 2000 the "dark age" seems to exist, even those are great movies, but not even Lilo and Stitch made me feel the magic that Ariel had over 14 years ago...
For many different Disney groups "The Golden Ages" are:
1. from Snow White (1937) to Bambi (1942)
2. from Cinderella (1950) to The Jungle Book (1967)
3. from The Little Mermaid (1989) to Tarzan (1999)
To name the rest of the classics a part of "Dark Ages" seems to reduce its artistic value.
Hercules, Mulan and Tarzan shouldn't be compared by the "animation level" of those movies, Those features have got a different desing that responds to the kind of concept art they were trying to achieve.
Hercules' desing is based on the ancient Greek desing preserved on historic pieces of pottery, paintings and sculptures.
Mulan's graphic desing is based on the ancient China art.
When you compare the movie with that kind of art you can see that it responds in a more artistic way that if they duplicated the kind of animation and desing used on B&B or Aladdin.
The same thing happend with Sleeping Beauty back in 1959, its desing was so different and innovative that now everyone loved it at first. But Disney desingners that worked on Sleeping Beauty say that they chosse to use Ervind Earle desing for the movie because they didn't wanted to duplicate Snow White or Cinderella.
I agree that since Fantasia 2000 the "dark age" seems to exist, even those are great movies, but not even Lilo and Stitch made me feel the magic that Ariel had over 14 years ago...
Last edited by Ric-Mx on Sun Jun 22, 2003 10:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
disneyfella
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1264
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 1:49 pm
- Location: Small-Town America
- Contact:
"dark age" is a misleading term. just because disney's recent films aren't making the kind of money like the cinderella's and little mermaid's doesn't mean there isn't amazing art being produced at disney. look at fantasia: walt's most ambitous animated film and biggest failure. it produced some of the most innovative and fondly remembered animation of the world's history! i think anytime disney tries something dramatic with animation (i.e. hunchback of notre dame) people shy away from it and it goes forgotten in disney history. if all disney animation is supposed to do is animate fairy tales, then yes, we are in a dark age. however i think hercules' stylized work is awesome and contributes to the film as do the designs in mulan and tarzan. walt even said himself, don't draw humans to look like humans; elaborate on them (look at cinderella's stepsisters...they are pretty cartoony; and don't tell me that sleeping beauty looks as human as cinderella or snow white). we are NOT in a dark age, i admit disney may have produced a few misses recently, but there is not one single disney animated film that i do not want to own on a collector's edition dvd. perhaps, it's eisner's tyranical ruling over the walt disney studios that's pointing the company toward a dark age. yeah, he helped us out of the 80s slums, but i think he's served his part and we need fresh blood in the studio. disney lately is focusing on advnacements in animation. walt was focused primarily on story and then used the technology to help the storyline not to make us look at the screen and say "oooo". which is why i feel the lion king and beauty and the beast did so well; the story came first and the technology fueled the animation. if we could get back into that mode then i think this misconception of a dark age could be given up.
by the way, i loved fantasia 2000 and thought it was a way for the animators to experiment since they don't make shorts for theaters anymore. and emperor's new groove happens to be on a lot of people's favorite disney films list (not mine but a lot of my friends').
by the way, i loved fantasia 2000 and thought it was a way for the animators to experiment since they don't make shorts for theaters anymore. and emperor's new groove happens to be on a lot of people's favorite disney films list (not mine but a lot of my friends').
-
JohnDMoore
- Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 12:56 am
- Location: Provo, UT
- Contact:
As far as the animation goes, I love the different styles we get. It could be a lot worse: Think how all of Dreamworks' characters look the exact friggin' same!
Everytime I start saying Disney's gone downhill, I have to admit that there has been some really good stuff lately. "Hercules" is one of my favorites, for its sheer fun factor. I like "Mulan" a good deal and I think "Lilo & Stitch" was brilliant.
However, I'm afraid we're sitting on oversaturation. As someone mentioned in another thread, Disney films are no longer an event. No big summer/holiday movies anymore. Just films thrown in with the rest of the release schedule.
So yeah. There could be a "dark ages" on the horizon but I don't think we're there QUITE yet. (Though that opinion may change when I finally see "Treasure Planet").
...I really like "Oliver & Company," too.
Everytime I start saying Disney's gone downhill, I have to admit that there has been some really good stuff lately. "Hercules" is one of my favorites, for its sheer fun factor. I like "Mulan" a good deal and I think "Lilo & Stitch" was brilliant.
However, I'm afraid we're sitting on oversaturation. As someone mentioned in another thread, Disney films are no longer an event. No big summer/holiday movies anymore. Just films thrown in with the rest of the release schedule.
So yeah. There could be a "dark ages" on the horizon but I don't think we're there QUITE yet. (Though that opinion may change when I finally see "Treasure Planet").
...I really like "Oliver & Company," too.
-John D. Moore
"It's kind of fun to do the impossible." -Walt Disney
All my DVDs
"It's kind of fun to do the impossible." -Walt Disney
All my DVDs
The designs of Hercules and Mulan were intentional and I thought Hercules especially worked incredibly well. When seeing still images, I found it hard to imaging how such designs would animate but Disney pulled the designs and movement off 100%.
While, I suppose like all matters of opinion, the quality of the recent films is open to debate what cannot be denied is that creatively Disney is perhaps stronger than it has been for decades and is experimenting and attempting to push the boundries of what can and cannot be classed as a Disney film. No matter how you feel about the films, I hope you can appriciate this. Tarzan, Atlantis, New Groove or Treasure Planet may not have been to your liking - but they were different from each other, and anything else Disney had done in the past. And I think that's important. (Personally I think Disney's creative low point came in the late 60's/early 70's where Bedknobs and Broomsticks and Robin Hood used the same design for their bear characters as Jungle Book's Baloo). I don't think Disney are creatively going through a "Dark Age".
However, business wise, we are undoubtably in a dark age. Animation staff are being layed off regularly (expect more to go in a couple of months or so once Brother Bear is completed). And while I defend Disney's right to create their animated sequels, only a fool would say that they're not producing too many with mixed results. I don't think the DTV sequels ruin Disney's reputaion in the eyes of the general public, but I do think they ruin Disney's repuation in the eyes of the fans (as many posts on this board - and other Disney/animation boards - show).
The sad thing is, I can't really see what Disney can do realistically. It's OK for us on this board to argue they should spend money on a top-flight animated project rather than the sequels. But at least the sequels bring money into the company when the fact of the matter is hand drawn animation is not popular with Western audiences.
This could be due to Disney's oversaturation, or oversaturation of the art form in general (look at all the television channels - including Disney's - which show nothing but cartoons).
Or perhaps not. I don't think anybody really knows. But I have my own theory which not only explains 2D animations fall, but the rise of 3D animation too.
Over this weekend I've watched all the shorts in the Mickey Mouse In Black and White set in chronological order. Considering the set covers 7 years it's absolutely amazing how much more advanced Mickey's Service Station is to Plane Crazy on all levels: story, animation, design, technique. I can only imagine Mickey Mouse was as popular as he was in the 1930's not only because of his general appeal but also because each subsequent short must have been more impressive and more visually pleasing than the last.
When Disney first started their Animated movies it was the birth of a new artform. Each subsequent movie showed how Disney and his artists had risen in scale. In short it was worth seeing the next film because it would almost certainly be better - with new techinques, new innovations and new styles. I also this that around the time of The Little Mermaid this was also true as each subsequent film utilised new advances in computer technology.
Some people think that 2D animation has reached the limit of it's evolution. See one Disney film this year and nothing much will have changed by next year's film. In some respects there probably right - not that I personally think it should matter.
The same isn't true for CGI - that is today's birthing artform. Each subsequent film shows improvements over the next - compare Toy Story to ToyStory II - it's like compating Snow White to Sleeping Beauty. And should they make a Toy Story III will know it will be a vast technological improvement over Toy Story II.
I think the interest in CGI films will peak in the next 3 years as the technology becomes much more commonplace and "photorealistic". Live action films with their CGI effects will probably push the technology more and more towards realism and once that's achived how can the techique substantially improve? Hopefully then there will be more than enough room for both 2D and 3D animation.
I hope Disney's current "Dark Age" will be nothing more than a 5-10 year blip in the history of the company, rather like some regard Disney's 70's output. And I also hope Disney has the foresight to ensure that they will be ready to capatalise on their next "Golden Age" when it arrives.
I've wrote a little more than I intended - I hope none of it bored you.
While, I suppose like all matters of opinion, the quality of the recent films is open to debate what cannot be denied is that creatively Disney is perhaps stronger than it has been for decades and is experimenting and attempting to push the boundries of what can and cannot be classed as a Disney film. No matter how you feel about the films, I hope you can appriciate this. Tarzan, Atlantis, New Groove or Treasure Planet may not have been to your liking - but they were different from each other, and anything else Disney had done in the past. And I think that's important. (Personally I think Disney's creative low point came in the late 60's/early 70's where Bedknobs and Broomsticks and Robin Hood used the same design for their bear characters as Jungle Book's Baloo). I don't think Disney are creatively going through a "Dark Age".
However, business wise, we are undoubtably in a dark age. Animation staff are being layed off regularly (expect more to go in a couple of months or so once Brother Bear is completed). And while I defend Disney's right to create their animated sequels, only a fool would say that they're not producing too many with mixed results. I don't think the DTV sequels ruin Disney's reputaion in the eyes of the general public, but I do think they ruin Disney's repuation in the eyes of the fans (as many posts on this board - and other Disney/animation boards - show).
The sad thing is, I can't really see what Disney can do realistically. It's OK for us on this board to argue they should spend money on a top-flight animated project rather than the sequels. But at least the sequels bring money into the company when the fact of the matter is hand drawn animation is not popular with Western audiences.
This could be due to Disney's oversaturation, or oversaturation of the art form in general (look at all the television channels - including Disney's - which show nothing but cartoons).
Or perhaps not. I don't think anybody really knows. But I have my own theory which not only explains 2D animations fall, but the rise of 3D animation too.
Over this weekend I've watched all the shorts in the Mickey Mouse In Black and White set in chronological order. Considering the set covers 7 years it's absolutely amazing how much more advanced Mickey's Service Station is to Plane Crazy on all levels: story, animation, design, technique. I can only imagine Mickey Mouse was as popular as he was in the 1930's not only because of his general appeal but also because each subsequent short must have been more impressive and more visually pleasing than the last.
When Disney first started their Animated movies it was the birth of a new artform. Each subsequent movie showed how Disney and his artists had risen in scale. In short it was worth seeing the next film because it would almost certainly be better - with new techinques, new innovations and new styles. I also this that around the time of The Little Mermaid this was also true as each subsequent film utilised new advances in computer technology.
Some people think that 2D animation has reached the limit of it's evolution. See one Disney film this year and nothing much will have changed by next year's film. In some respects there probably right - not that I personally think it should matter.
The same isn't true for CGI - that is today's birthing artform. Each subsequent film shows improvements over the next - compare Toy Story to ToyStory II - it's like compating Snow White to Sleeping Beauty. And should they make a Toy Story III will know it will be a vast technological improvement over Toy Story II.
I think the interest in CGI films will peak in the next 3 years as the technology becomes much more commonplace and "photorealistic". Live action films with their CGI effects will probably push the technology more and more towards realism and once that's achived how can the techique substantially improve? Hopefully then there will be more than enough room for both 2D and 3D animation.
I hope Disney's current "Dark Age" will be nothing more than a 5-10 year blip in the history of the company, rather like some regard Disney's 70's output. And I also hope Disney has the foresight to ensure that they will be ready to capatalise on their next "Golden Age" when it arrives.
I've wrote a little more than I intended - I hope none of it bored you.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
-
indianajdp
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1813
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 7:10 pm
- Location: Central Hoosierland
Re: Dark Ages... I don't think so...
Ric-Mx wrote:I don't agree
For many different Disney groups "The Golden Ages" are:
1. from Snow White (1937) to Bambi (1942)
2. from Cinderella (1950) to The Jungle Book (1967)
3. from The Little Mermaid (1989) to Tarzan (1999)
To name the rest of the classics a part of "Dark Ages" seems to reduce its artistic value.
Hercules, Mulan and Tarzan shouldn't be compared by the "animation level" of those movies has a different desing that responds to the kind of concept art they were trying to achieve.
What he said
IMO, you cannot compare the animation styles of these films because that style was so closely connected with the story itself. None of those three movies would have "worked" using traditional Disney animation.
And personally, I loved Hercules and Tarzan, especially the latter for going back to the days when Music was such an important part of their films. And Fantasia 2000 may not have been as good as the original, but I thought it was a great effort, especially Rhapsody in Blue.
Could we be in the midst of a Dark Ages for Disney...perhaps but I doubt it. If you include Pixar the answer is a resounding "NO!"
-
Loomis
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 6357
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:44 pm
- Location: Sydney, Australia ... where there is no Magic Kingdom :(
- Contact:
I agree with many posts on this board in that to reduce now to a 'Dark Age' is to diminish the outstanding work the animators and artists are doing on these films.
Box office might not be as strong, but the quality is just as good. I too enjoy the diversity - I thought the Emporer's New Groove was a brilliant comedy, Tarzan was a great adventure/action/comedy with amazing animation, and Fantasia 2000 has some sequences on par with the original, but the most important thing was that it was an experiemental film from Disney released to major cinemas.
Lilo and Stitch parted with the formula and won over millions of viewers who thought animation couldn't move them anymore.
Plus, even if box office is slow, the difference we have in this 'dark age' is a number of home media forms - video, DVD, cable etc. Disney sales figues on home releases continue to grow, even on sequels, as people are more willing to shell out for the home release now. So if we are talking in terms of dollars and sense, the 'dark age' is not upon us just yet as money is still being made.
Besides of which, I don't believe in this dark ae of animation crap anyways. The last 'dark age' gave use some great animation in the form of 'The Black Cauldron' and 'Oliver & Company' which were great stories in addition to being great films.
Dark Age? Bah!
Box office might not be as strong, but the quality is just as good. I too enjoy the diversity - I thought the Emporer's New Groove was a brilliant comedy, Tarzan was a great adventure/action/comedy with amazing animation, and Fantasia 2000 has some sequences on par with the original, but the most important thing was that it was an experiemental film from Disney released to major cinemas.
Lilo and Stitch parted with the formula and won over millions of viewers who thought animation couldn't move them anymore.
Plus, even if box office is slow, the difference we have in this 'dark age' is a number of home media forms - video, DVD, cable etc. Disney sales figues on home releases continue to grow, even on sequels, as people are more willing to shell out for the home release now. So if we are talking in terms of dollars and sense, the 'dark age' is not upon us just yet as money is still being made.
Besides of which, I don't believe in this dark ae of animation crap anyways. The last 'dark age' gave use some great animation in the form of 'The Black Cauldron' and 'Oliver & Company' which were great stories in addition to being great films.
Dark Age? Bah!
Behind the Panels - Comic book news, reviews and podcast
The Reel Bits - All things film
Twitter - Follow me on Twitter
The Reel Bits - All things film
Twitter - Follow me on Twitter
-
Choco Bear
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 12:36 pm
Re: Are we living on Disney's second Dark Age?
Tangela wrote:Even the females on this movie are not as beautiful as the previous: Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora, Ariel...
i dont think they have to be pretty to be beautiful, i think they are showing that looks rnt everything, eent though i think the girlsd look fine in the movies and they all dont have to look perfect cuz no one is maybe in those movies and to admit i think they all look a little similar ( i still love those moves tho 
) but the animaters now are trying to depict the characters as individals with real personalatys ,again not that those ones didnt but the girls now a days in disney movies are shown more independant and not a damsel in distress. thats wat i got out of that line u wtrote and if i am mistaken im sorry but o well thats how i feel 
-
MickeyMouseboy
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3470
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:35 pm
- Location: ToonTown
-
Prince Phillip
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1419
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 11:48 am
- Location: Baltimore, MD
I blieve we are. It seems that disney movies stopped being so special, about the time Tarzan came out. Or atleast since the new Millenium started. As has been mentioned before, I remember when each disney movie was an event. Now it just doesn't seem so anymore. Is the public to blame for this, or the runners of the company.
Based on animation, I believe that disney's first Dark Age started in the sixties and ended in the late 80's. I know... I know, this was Disney's "Xerox" Age. Though this time did release some enjoyable films, theree is just a feeling about these that isn't as warm or whatever as the others.
Based on animation, I believe that disney's first Dark Age started in the sixties and ended in the late 80's. I know... I know, this was Disney's "Xerox" Age. Though this time did release some enjoyable films, theree is just a feeling about these that isn't as warm or whatever as the others.
Defy Gravity