best animated movie?

[polish_princess]

In your opinion, which Disney movie has the best animation?
While looking at screencaps at Magical Screencaps (dot com) I've found some inconsistent art in The Little Mermaid, Cinderella and others.
Are any of the animated movies almost flawless?

[Scarred4life]

I don't think that any movie can be [almost] flawless, there are always going to be minor errors, at the very least. And as to the 'best' animation, to me that is purely a personal opinion. As to my opinion, I think there are alot of greatly animated films. A favourite would have to be Hunchback of Notre Dame, I love the style and colors! Although, I hate how the crowds are CGI.

[Disney Duster]

In your opinion, which Disney movie has the best animation?
While looking at screencaps at Magical Screencaps (dot com) I've found some inconsistent art in The Little Mermaid, Cinderella and others.

Can I know what specific examples you mean for both of these films you mention?

And as he said, there are going to be flaws in any animated film but you know what...Sleeping Beauty may be flawless because they took so damn long and were so paying attention and meticulous. Though I think there are errors in background continuity and perhaps other continuity that's not exactly animation flaws.

There may be another film just as, or more perfect.

And what you call flaws in the animation may not even be animation flaws. We'll find out when you reply back.

[polish_princess]

oooh that will take me a bit to go through the galleries again! But here is one example:
http://magicalscreencaps.com/images/cin ... lla038.jpg
Cinderella's eyes are a bit off in this one.

[DARTH KNITE]

Definitely second that Hunchback has the best. Although Pocahontas is also stunning. Just about everything before Hercules was amazing.

[SWillie!]

Like someone said, it's never going to be actually flawless. In the words of Ollie Johnston... "It ain't easy." This animation stuff is hard. Harder than most people realize.

I think technicality-wise, Jungle Book has some of the best animation. Frank and Ollie animated like 90% of that movie or something like that completely by themselves. By that time in their careers it's safe to say they knew what they were doing.

On a more opinion-based level, I think Lilo & Stitch has some really nice animation. It's very loose and emotional. And the timing on a lot of the stuff is really nice, too.

If I were to pick one "best animated" sequence in a movie though, Glen Keane's Transformation of the Beast EASILY gets my vote. That will go down as a classic work of art, in my book. Simply amazing. And even better in the rough pencil test version.

[Marce82]

Uh, this is a tough one. As many have said before, there is no flawless movie, but i think some come closer than others. As I understand it, we are talking about the craft of animation, not character design, art direction, or story.

Someone here mentioned Jungle Book, and I must say, that film's animation is pretty damn good, but at times inconsistent. I distinctly recall that the entire scene with the vultures and the fight had pretty poor animation (on Mowgli, compared to the rest of the film). Also, it's pretty noticeable when they "closely" used reference material as opposed to more "pure" animation.

I suppose my top picks would be:

101 Dalmatians: since there was no ink-and-paint, the film retains a much stronger line than most. The art direction remains consistent, and the animation is pretty amazing, even if there is some recycling. Since the human characters were almost completely done by their suprvising animators, they remain on model 95% of the time (a couple of Cruella moments were a tad off...if someone is interested, I don't mind pointing them out).

Aladdin: VERY solid animation, very solid art direction. I can't even recall characters going off model (maybe Aladdin's hair changes a bit sometimes)...the only issue would be that the genie is a little too line-based and not as bound my the rules of volume. But then again...he is magical!

Lion King: Again...very solid art direction and animation. I can't recall any scenes were characters were off model. Thoughts anyone?

As for the earlier films..since they were inked by hand, I believe a lot of consistency was lost in that step. THese are still amazingly crafted films, but not necessarily with the top animation. Also, those artist were at the top of their game in the late 50's and early 60's...

As for some of the other picks on this discussion:

- Sleeping Beauty. Truly amazing animation, but characters don't always remain on model. Briar Rose singing "I wonder" is not really the same one who sings "Once upon a dream". Look closely!

- Pocahontas. Are you kidding me?? The animation is pretty darn stiff! I can point out a million examples. THeir attempt of uber-realism definitely backfired. Oh...and on this film they started to not draw the nose's septum, making the faces look VERY flat.

- Hunchback. Very good film, but I have issues with the visuals. THe anmation is good, but the characters are too tonal. If one looks at Aladdin or Lion King, characters only have shadows (on them, not projected) when they are close up, so they dont look too flat. In Hunchback, they have shadows in every shot, and this drowns out the line work. In this film, specially on Esmeralda, they also didnt draw her septum, and to make her even LESS defined, they didn;t close off the line that separates the neck from the head! (they tried doing it with shadows...didnt work in my opinion). Also, with this whole tonal thing....look at Esmeralda's dress when she dances in the festival of Fools...a million shadows and highlights that don't even make sense...a lof of blotches of color there...too much... Not saying its a bad film, but I wouldnt consider it very strong in the animation department.

As usual, my two cents.

[Marce82]

Oh, one more thing.

SWillie!, you are totally right, and I forgot to add this to my list. "Lilo and Stitch" is def near the top when it comes to animation. Great, fluid, emotional performances, nobody EVER goes off model, and the art direction is ALWAYS consistent!

[Wonderlicious]

I'm actually going to discuss some films in which the general look, not necessarily animation itself, shines.

The first films that spring to mind are the films that Mary Blair did preliminary artwork for. Many of these films not only have a whimsical feel to them, but in terms of creating their worlds have unique approaches worthy of mention. Cinderella, for example, has settings that really captures the feel of a romantic fairytale ballet, and almost has a theatrical quality to it. Alice in Wonderland is another good example, as it creates a real sense of a dream. Wonderland feels vast yet claustrophobic, and the characters and their key props/settings seem to pop out against hazy, often dark, backgrounds, just like figures in a dream. In a lot of ways, Disney surpasses Tenniel's original drawings, as Wonderland seems more of a place than just a setting for a bunch of props like his original drawings suggest. The Three Caballeros also works well, as it seems to all happen on just a plain background, yet is a perfect example of the plausible impossible.

I used to not warm to the Xerox look of the films from the 60s, mainly as I used to find the sketchiness of the animation too distracting, but I have come to appreciate them more recently. In particular, 101 Dalmatians works really well in creating a stylised yet seemingly consistent world, in which realistic figures such as Anita and the dalmatians can exist alongside heavy caricatures such as Cruella De Vil (now THAT is good animation).

[Lazario]

I'm also a big fan of Mary Blair's artwork. Which is one of the reasons I feel the package films are so underrated. I'm sure people would love her animation for Johnny Appleseed when/if they('d) watch it again. Because it's absolutely breath-taking. Way before I knew of her, I was in love with what she did for The Three Caballeros. Especially the train sequence. And Ichabod riding home in The Adventures of Ichabod & Mr. Toad / The Legend of Sleepy Hollow. It's amazing how many scenes that I remember being stunned by were named off in succession by that Mary Blair featurette on the Cinderella bonus disc. But all of them were spectacular. Though I tried to watch that "Little House" cartoon on YouTube and it was underwhelming- probably because of YouTube.

Then, there's Sleeping Beauty. That's in a whole other category by itself. I'd have to give the award (if we're givin' 'em out) to that film having the best animation. Although- Aladdin, and especially Pocahontas and The Lion King are beyond stunning in their own way, I still think Sleeping Beauty got the emotions and the power of each scene so inherently. But that's the key to any Disney animated film, isn't it? That the animation makes the story powerful. I also have to add Alice in Wonderland to my list. Because that movie gives me more different feelings at different times than any of the other classic. I still go with Sleeping Beauty as number one. Because for a weaker story, that film's animation goes further than any other to try and make up for it. As well as the music score, singing, etc.

[Disney Duster]

polish, indeed I have also noticed there are many moments when Cinderella's eyes look off. This may be due to following live-action reference too closely, but in real life...people's eyes can go that off, seriously. I wouldn't call that an animation flaw and it probably happens somewhere in every traditional animated movie.

Marce, wow, how can you say the Walt era films were not with the top animation? Look, being on-model, consistency, those things do not good animation make. After all, you can have one well-animated model of a character with another equally well-animated but different model of a character. Walt's animators were tops.

Wondy yay what you said about Cinderella, and I think I agree with everything you said in the whole post. What you said about the hazy dark background being dreamlike was new to me, sounded amazing, and sounded right, but guess another reason why Mary made the backgrounds gray or dark? It's because Wonderland is underground, with little light, etc.!

[SWillie!]

Marce, wow, how can you say the Walt era films were not with the top animation? Look, being on-model, consistency, those things do not good animation make. After all, you can have one well-animated model of a character with another equally well-animated but different model of a character. Walt's animators were tops.

I gotta say this doesn't really make sense. Part of character animation is being able to draw a given character on model. They have a set of model sheets (as I'm sure you know) for each character, and if they draw the character differently in one scene than another... well, that means the "quality" of the animation has gone down, because it starts taking away from the illusion of life at that point. As proof of this, if someone can make a character move incredibly well, and yet can't draw a character on model, they will certainly not be hired as a character animator. Maybe crowd scenes, or something.

This is if we're being overly critical, though. Obviously, no one here is gonna start bashing Fred Moore's dwarfs or Frank and Ollie's Bambis. They're outstanding. It's just that those artists weren't quiiiiiite at the top of their game quite yet.

As for Cinderella's eyes going off... yes, it does happen in almost every hand drawn movie. It's simply just too hard to have that not happen at all, ever. But it does seem as if it happens quite a lot in Cinderella. Belle's eyes actually go way off sometimes, too. Weird.

Marcel: I totally agree about The Lion King. Extremely solid. That's a good word for it. The only thing I can remember without going back and watching it again is that the hyenas might possibly go a little off-model a few times. Not by much though. And Aladdin is pretty much the same way, although maybe not quite as solid. All the close up front shots of Aladdin and Jasmine's faces have always stood out to me.

[Disney's Divinity]

I've heard...someone (seriously, I can't remember his name--maybe it was that Ollie guy?)...say that their best character animation was probably in The Sword in the Stone. I'm not surprised. I don't remember those characters ever going off-model.

I also thought TP&TF's animation was incredible. I don't remember the characters going off-model barely ever. What a return.

As for the old movies, I'm inclined to disagree. I think the animation from the older films is nearly always at the best. And even if the animators weren't at the top of their game yet by the time Bambi came around--they're bottom wasn't nearly as far down as, say, the makers of Oliver and Company or The Black Cauldron (both of which I find somewhat hard to watch at times because they look so shoddy).

And, while B&tB and TLM are far from their greatest, I've never seen the problems with those movies to the extent that some do (thinks of rudymatt...ugh). For the most part, those films are excellent, but there are those ugly shots that creep in every so often. I actually thought more of those were in B&tB though--with Belle. Ariel changes often, too, but she still stays mostly the same. Belle's hair, lips and eyes were all over the place.

As for Aladdin... Anyone who thinks that movie has some of their greatest animation has obviously not watched "Friend Like Me." I honestly forget if I'm watching Aladdin or Mowgli.

Oh, and I personally find Hercules to be my favorite of their modern stylized films (doesn't count Sleeping Beauty which is heads above everything else). I've always thought the animation of the Cyclops was incredible. Hades is also amazing.

Pocahontas. Are you kidding me?? The animation is pretty darn stiff!

That's actually the problem I had with Hunchback. The opening to the movie, in particular, is horrible. When the camera is above the clouds and the orchestra is playing, it's very cinematic and well-done. But as soon as it zooms down into the streets, you have this person throwing water into the street and people walking around, and it just looks very flat and stiff. It completely ruins the mood from the get-go.

[Margos]

I
As for Aladdin... Anyone who thinks that movie has some of their greatest animation has obviously not watched "Friend Like Me." I honestly forget if I'm watching Aladdin or Mowgli.

Didn't they finish animating that scene before the decided to make Aladdin older than he was originally going to be?

[Disney's Divinity]

Didn't they finish animating that scene before the decided to make Aladdin older than he was originally going to be?

Is that an excuse?

[Margos]

Didn't they finish animating that scene before the decided to make Aladdin older than he was originally going to be?

Is that an excuse?

Nope, just wondered. They could have gone back and fixed it, but it certainly would explain things....

[Lazario]

As for Aladdin... Anyone who thinks that movie has some of their greatest animation has obviously not watched "Friend Like Me." I honestly forget if I'm watching Aladdin or Mowgli.

Well, I don't own the DVD. Nor do I even know what off-model means. But that film's use of colors always drove me crazy. When it comes to the technical side of animation, I'm only talking impressions I get. The world of Aladdin is one of Disney's most attractive.

Pocahontas. Are you kidding me?? The animation is pretty darn stiff!

I don't see anyone here complaining about The Lion King, so I assume that means most people here agree it's one of or the single most stunning animated films of that time period. But Pocahontas always reduces me to jaw-dropping and gazing with wide eyes. It's one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen.

[PatrickvD]

In my opinion, Lilo & Stitch and The Princess and the Frog were flawlessly animated. Mulan and Tarzan are damn close to being visually flawless as well in terms of consistency and characters being on model.

Interesting art direction is a different matter altogether.

[Super Aurora]

Nor do I even know what off-model means.

Off-model is when the character at certain point look bit different from usual look of the character. I forgot if you have it or not, but go watch Beauty and the Beast. Belle through out the movie at some point or another look different from previous Belle. I think Escapy said it best, "there's like 6 different Belle(s) int he movie."

[SWillie!]

Nor do I even know what off-model means.

Off-model is when the character at certain point look bit different from usual look of the character. I forgot if you have it or not, but go watch Beauty and the Beast. Belle through out the movie at some point or another look different from previous Belle. I think Escapy said it best, "there's like 6 different Belle(s) int he movie."

To go a little more in-depth and piggyback off of Super Aurora's post, this is how it works:

When the visual development people finalize what a character is going to look like, someone creates a "model sheet" (or multiple different ones), show what that character is "supposed" to look like. It shows a front, side, back turnaround, a facial close up, and all kinds of different poses and facial expressions that character might make. It shows the animator that, for example, Belle's eyes should be at the 1/2 mark on her face and her hair should start at the 3/4 line. When the animator is drawing the character, they're supposed to follow those guidelines as closely as possible. But, through a combination of factors (time constraints, clean up artists not doing their job well, or just a bad drawing by the animator) the animation drawings aren't always spot on with the model sheet.

Thus, we get an "off-model" drawing. It certainly doesn't mean that the animator is not very good, or anything, though, don't take it to mean that. It happens in every animated feature, ever. At least to some extent. This stuff is too hard for it not to happen.

And one last note: in CG animation, there is technically no such thing as "off model", since the characters are just rigs in a computer and there is no drawing involved. So the characters look exactly the same in every single shot, no matter who is animating them. When CG animators refer to "off-model", they usually just mean that a character is doing something that that particular character probably wouldn't do. Like, if Carl from Up went into a Michael Jackson pose, we might say that's off-model.