best animated movie?

[pap64]

Off-topic, but thank you for posting that John K blog, enigmawing! It's a fascinating read for character design junkies like me, even though the "THINGS WERE BETTER BACK THEN!!" can get annoying at times.

[SWillie!]

Nice post, Goliath. I'll have to watch Princess and the Frog again. I haven't seen it since the two times I did in theaters, and I didn't really notice the stiffness too much. Not to make excuses or anything, but one reason that some of the animation is spectacular in PatF and some is really not so great might be the fact that Disney is in the middle of it's next transition period of generations. We had the nine old men handing things over to the CalArts crew in the 70's, and now we have those guys (Glen Keane, Eric Goldberg, John Musker, Ron Clements, Mark Henn, etc) mentoring a lot of new kids that have just started there since the 2D department opened back up.

So we have amazing animation on characters like Facilier by Bruce Smith and Louis by Eric Goldberg... and then we have some iffy animation done by apprentices animators on background characters and such. (Here's hoping that in about 2-3 years or so I'm one of those apprentices making the horrible animation that you will all be complaining about here )

And I have to agree with you about Snow White. Although it's not "technically" the best animation they've done, the simple fact that it can still be released today and sell thousands and thousands of copies has to count for something.

Divinity! Nobody's fighting with you!!! By simply saying "Are you kidding me?" Goliath was not trying to challenge you to some epic debate! Stop being so quick to argue!

[Disney's Divinity]

I’m not being quick to argue. It’s not my fault this forum has devolved to insults and antagonism at the drop of a dime. It seems I can’t post anything anywhere without getting at least one reply that says “I don’t know how you can possibly think that,” or “you’re wrong and I’m right,” or some other obnoxious, snobby comment by someone who wants to mock or humiliate, and then drag out an argument for 5 pages or so. There is no “I disagree with you, and this is why” and then we both go our own way. No, we must fight to the death for 5 pages until one gets the upper hand or the other gives up and they get the last word.

I am not trying to argue. But the mood on this forum has gotten hopelessly hostile, and that’s not something I deal with very well and it’s definitely not something I “enjoy.” I could list 10 to 20 threads from the past year where I post something which I don't think is particularly critical--and even if it is, it's just an opinion--and I basically get attacked with such vitriole that there's no sensical way of responding.

Also, btw, you are just a case in point. You don’t know anything about me and yet the only way you can respond is with !!!!!!!!.

Can't wait to hear Goliath sum this up as "whiny" or "stupid" or some other 'nice' adjective. Fun times.

[SWillie!]

Also, btw, you are just a case in point. You don’t know anything about me and yet the only way you can respond is with !!!!!!!!.

I've not once claimed to "know" anything about you. Just so you know, the !!!!!! wasn't in like yelling terms. It was more like "Jeez!" kinda terms... kind of joking around. Nevertheless, my response was completely logical, based on your post in response to Goliath.

Goliath simply said, "Are you kidding me?" which is a simple and commonly used phrase, that he (most likely, I suppose I should say) did not mean in any directly argumentative or hostile way towards you. That's simply how he is; I haven't been here nearly as long as you have and even I know that quite well about him.

And so, when you reply with, "Do I have to fight over everything? This is a discussion forum, not a debate one, isn't it?" when no one was "fighting" over anything... I take that as "quick to argue." Thus my response about being quick to argue.

I've told you twice now... I appreciate how when you disagree with something, you take the "I disagree, this is why..." route. However, when someone responds with their own opinion in disagreement with yours, you automatically think they're out to get you or something and that they have to "get the upper hand," when that is not the case. They're simply arguing in defense of their opinion, just as you are. But you keep taking it negatively for some reason.

Like, for instance, when someone is debating a certain issue which shall remain nameless in this thread for the sake of all our sanity, claiming that "This is right. Period." you take it negatively as if they're trying to put you down for being wrong. When that is simply not the case. They're actually trying to show and explain to you why it is that they are right. You can't blame someone for getting impatient when, after all their efforts to try and explain something to you, your only response is "I disagree, and it doesn't matter what you think," without any explanation or further discussion.

Nobody is out to be directly hostile and argue with you at every chance. Like you said, this is a discussion board, and so, being the crazed fans that most here are, we are going to discuss things to the last and most ridiculous detail. You can't expect everything to remain all rainbows and butterflies all the time. When someone isn't being the nicest they could possibly be, don't take it personally - either continue the discussion, or ignore it.

[Lazario]

Without studying stills or screencaps in particular I can say that I admire the animation in Bambi which has beautiful dreamy forest scenes. The animal characters are neatly balances between being 'realistic' and 'cute'.

Were the rabbits supposed to look like baby kids too? I remember on the Bambi DVD they mentioned that Bambi's head was partly designed to look like a human baby.

I also adore the animation in the "Night on bald mountain' sequence in Fantasia. By contrast, the style of "Pastoral symphony" I find overly cute. But maybe that's just a question of taste.

I personally think the fault rests on the idea for the scene / sequence (which is made up of a few smaller pieces). The fact that a whole half or more of it is about matchmaking means of course they're going to use those ugly cherub cupids and that's the kind of cute I can do without.

[Goliath]

Yes. I’m kidding you.

*sigh*

My, aren't we testy lately!

The animals don't, in any way, move like animals--not like in Dalmatians, Lady and the Tramp, or Lion King. There's absolutely no weight or reality to them (and, yes, most of the characters are caricatures--but that doesn't mean I enjoy looking at it).

I don't get this criticism. Can you give any specific examples to illustrate your point? How does a dog like, say, Rita move, according to you and why is the way Rita moves in the film wrong? And is it terribly wrong for them to move like cartoon animals instead of 'realistic' animals? I mean, you seem to like The Princess and the Frog a lot, but have you ever seen an alligator move the way Louis does? I would pay good money to see something like that!

There are plenty of moments where it's as if the bodies stop moving and only the heads do anything.

Do you mind sharing any of those moments with me?

Do I have to fight over everything? This is a discussion forum, not a debate one, isn't it?

Then why are you fighting?

Can't wait to hear Goliath sum this up as "whiny" or "stupid" or some other 'nice' adjective. Fun times.

Aww, now you have taken all the fun out of it.

Seriously, I think you're still upset that you couldn't see the difference between a 2D image and a 3D image and 20 people showed it to you and you wouldn't admit it. Don't take it out on me, will you?

Goliath simply said, "Are you kidding me?" which is a simple and commonly used phrase, that he (most likely, I suppose I should say) did not mean in any directly argumentative or hostile way towards you. That's simply how he is; I haven't been here nearly as long as you have and even I know that quite well about him.

You're completely right. Sometimes people take things I say the wrong way, because I'm quite outspoken, but Disney's Divinity has been around long enough to know me by now. I love discussing Disney movies and it's inevitable that I'm going to disagree with other people. But discussing our differences is what makes the board fun, because it allows us to take a better look at the movies we love (or dislike) and think about why that is, and therefore appreciate them even more (or less, depending on the outcome).

I had a similar argument with Margos once about Home on the Range, a film she really loves, but I completely trashed it. I burned it to the ground. She thought I was being personal about it and that I was directing the negativism to her. I send her a PM to let her know I never mean it personal. I just like to use a lot of hyperbolic language when making a point. We're okay since.

Everybody has a different style of posting. I know I have to take a post by Super Aurora different than a post by, say, you. And I also know which persons to avoid because their posts rub me the wrong way. Live and let live, I say.

And now back to our regular programming.

[Disney's Divinity]

Nevertheless, my response was completely logical, based on your post in response to Goliath.

Of course it is.

However, when someone responds with their own opinion in disagreement with yours, you automatically think they're out to get you or something and that they have to "get the upper hand," when that is not the case.

You apparently stepped out the past 3 weeks.

Like, for instance, when someone is debating a certain issue which shall remain nameless in this thread for the sake of all our sanity, claiming that "This is right. Period." you take it negatively as if they're trying to put you down for being wrong. When that is simply not the case.

Really. I'm sure something like that would sound just as insulting aloud as it does on the page.

They're actually trying to show and explain to you why it is that they are right. You can't blame someone for getting impatient when, after all their efforts to try and explain something to you, your only response is "I disagree, and it doesn't matter what you think," without any explanation or further discussion.

And you can't blame me for being impatient and moving on, after I've already explained myself and I haven't changed my mind.

When someone isn't being the nicest they could possibly be, don't take it personally - either continue the discussion, or ignore it.

Or, rather, ignore them. Which is hard to do when they keep responding to you.

Then why are you fighting?

Because you are.

Seriously, I think you're still upset that you couldn't see the difference between a 2D image and a 3D image and 20 people showed it to you and you wouldn't admit it. Don't take it out on me, will you?

You're right. That's the only reason I could think the worst of you.

but Disney's Divinity has been around long enough to know me by now

I do. Hence, this.

And, now, to avoid this happening again, I'll take the advice I should've kept to the 2nd time I 'discussed' with you and completely ignore you (and everyone else like this). Some people just can't be helped. I considered leaving, but, well, I've been here before you, and hopefully I'll still be here when you're gone. There's always a silver lining.

[Goliath]

Then why are you fighting?

Because you are.

Believe me, if I were really fighting, you would've noticed.

You're right. That's the only reason I could think the worst of you.

I'm glad we cleared that up.

And, now, to avoid this happening again, I'll take the advice I should've kept to the 2nd time I 'discussed' with you and completely ignore you (and everyone else like this). Some people just can't be helped.

Ouch. How will I manage without reading your snappy comebacks at my posts? That's it; this board's useless from now on!

I considered leaving, but, well, I've been here before you, and hopefully I'll still be here when you're gone. There's always a silver lining.

I wouldn't count on that if I were you.

[Disney's Divinity]

Look, just wanted to apologize. I’ve actually had a sucky life the past few months and that’s been filtering onto this forum. Not that there aren’t reasons for me to dislike replying to Goliath (he and Lazario have been driving me insane lately), I think this is more one of those cases of my personal life affecting my forum posts. I know this bit is unnecessary, but I don’t want to keep this bad trend of being a sporadic, frenetic drama queen. This is not who I am, and I do hope people don’t think the worst of me.

I don't get this criticism. Can you give any specific examples to illustrate your point? How does a dog like, say, Rita move, according to you and why is the way Rita moves in the film wrong? And is it terribly wrong for them to move like cartoon animals instead of 'realistic' animals? I mean, you seem to like The Princess and the Frog a lot, but have you ever seen an alligator move the way Louis does? I would pay good money to see something like that!

To be honest—I don’t know much about animation beyond what I see with my eyes. I'm not an animator, I'm not going into animation, and I haven't had any college-leveled art classes (though I did have a really great high school teacher that I had 6 classes with! ) That’s why I try to stay in the “that looks on-model, that looks off-model” range of opinions. All I can really refer to is what I see and what I don’t like, and Oliver and Company has always given me this feeling of “cheapness” to it. And I don’t think I would be completely wrong to say that—Don Bluth himself left the studio not long before it because of Disney’s quick-fix ways of cutting costs. I also don't think this is just a case of "bad design" (which is different from the actual animation), because the designs aren't really that bad...the animation of them just never worked that well to me.

And, yes, the fab four are not perfect. I would never say that. (And it is annoying that people have used this as a crutch the past couple of years here--"Oh God, look how horrible these 4 great, popular, "fabulous" movies look!" It just reeks of cult mentality, and I'm not specifically targeting you for that, but I just don't think the animation is that bad in those films. It seems like people are using this more because they don't like the films and can't combat people's opinions on what a good movie is, so they target the only that noone can deny--the animation) But I don’t see anything on the same level with “Part of That World,” the Beast’s transformation, or the "Circle of Life" happening in this movie. It does have its moments (thinks of the part with Tito dancing to the radio, and biting the shredded wallet or Jenny at the piano with Oliver), yes, but if I were forced to rank the films by animation, it would still go below those films for me.

Also, yes, I do like Louis. But...how do I say this...the whole movie isn't just about him (and Naveen and Tiana we see first as humans, and they are supposed to be anthropomorphic representations of their human selves while as frogs). So if he comes off a little not-an-animal, it doesn't bother me. More importantly--he's a sidekick and not someone we're ever meant to take seriously. Whereas something like Oliver and Company--the whole movie revolves around animals, and the cast isn't just a bunch of sidekicks. And when they come across as running around like something on a television show, instead of with a reality to them, with a sensibility that these are animals, just with personality, (thinks of scenes of Lady and the way she walks when she tells Tramp off near the end; or of Pongo looking so like a real animal when he attacks Jasper and Horace, or when he's along the snowy river with Perdita that it's actually quite amazing), it just...hurts to watch. Why didn't they just give us a Cheech Marin look-a-like instead of having the pretence that they're "animals" at all?

As for “the body stops doing anything, and the head does all the work” thing—I haven’t seen the movie in forever, so this is just a vague impression I have from last seeing it. I’ll try to go back and watch the movie in a couple of days and come back to this.

[Super Aurora]

Everybody has a different style of posting. I know I have to take a post by Super Aurora different than a post by, say, you.

[Disneykid]

Wow, this is the best thread I've seen on these forums for a while. For once, there's substantial discussion going on about Disney (well, okay, disregarding the last page or so before this). Reminds me of the good old days of the board.

Anywho, it seems the thread is split between two different definitions of good animation: accuracy and acting. For the former, I'd say Sleeping Beauty and Pocahontas are most striking in terms of line artwork and consistency (figures considering how angular and precise they are). There's a gorgeous symmetry and balance to everything. Nothing seems incongruous or off-model (and I mean off-model in terms of the REAL definition: characters not looking like themselves, not the warped definition used by the Jetsons and Simpsons creators where you can't deviate from the model sheet. Speaking of which, thanks for sharing that, enigmawing. It was absolutely fascinating to read).

In terms of acting, though, my personal favorites are Cinderella and Alice in Wonderland (of course). I've heard people accuse the character animation for Cinderella and Lady Tremaine as stiff, but I disagree. Both possess a remarkable amount of subtlety. A lot of animators like to exaggerate their character's physical acting, and in all honesty, some exaggeration IS needed to avoid being as stiff as, say, anything from Ralph Bakshi or occasionally Don Bluth. Even with that in mind, I find Cinderella and Tremaine's movements very fluid, and both exhibit small mannerisms that you don't even think twice about in live-action. I'm talking details like when Cinderella leans back as Tremaine says, "...and I never go back on my word..." Cindy's mouth opens just slightly, revealing her front teeth. It's the tiny aspects like that that make these characters convincing.

The same goes with Alice herself. The way she cocks her head when hearing the Caterpillar sing "AEIOU," or how her eyes narrow when she lures the flamingo towards her. She's fully convincing as a human being. Going back to the idea of acting, Alice in Wonderland's got some of the most memorable acting I've ever seen in any animated film. While Alice is restrained, the Wonderland residents fall into the exaggerated category I mentioned earllier, but here it's appropriate and memorable. Their facial expressions and poses are always interesting to watch.

When doing my review of the Un-Anniversary Edition for this site, I was struck by how easy it was for me to screencap. It wasn't just because I have the whole film ingrained in my skull; it was because every single shot is cappable. The Cheshire Cat doesn't just sit on his tree stoically like in Tenniel's illustration. He's constantly acting out his dialogue. Pointing. Leaning. Swaying. The Mad Hatter, on the other hand, is always acting APART from his dialogue. He can't just sit and talk without doing something interesting with his hands. He'll dunk plates into cups of tea, twiddle his fingers, pour tea through his coat. It should be a major distraction from the dialogue, yet somehow it's not. The animators don't overdo it to the point where it's sensory overload, yet you can mute the film and just take in the animation on its own.

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.

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.!

I always found the random gray portions of the Queen's hedges and the dark background of the Mad Tea Party fascinating (the latter of which I'm going to admit lost a little something with the brightened restoration now that we can see the sky and hedge around the table clearly). It's not only dreamlike, it's stage-like. How many productions out there use only the most simplistic of backgrounds to convey a location? Heck, sometimes there ARE no backgrounds. Sometimes it's the actors acting in front of a black void with just spotlights on them.

In terms of Wonderland logistics, I'm not sure it being underground has anything to do with it, but it's interesting how much of nothing the sky is. By that I mean it often doesn't look like a real sky, but instead the IDEA of a sky, a very abstract one containing spots and streaks that give the impression of clouds and stars. It's also almost always gray. When something is far off in the distance, it's buried so deeply in Alice's mind that she hasn't fully rendered them, an idea that's also used in both the book and film versions of Coraline. The one scene in Alice that breaks the gray sky rule is the mother bird scene. There, the sky's a vibrant blue. Why? Because Alice is now an active part of the sky, her head towering above the trees. Therefore, her imagination has come up with a complete sky now that this area has taken center stage (again, going back to the theatrical motif). This is also why the hedge maze is always green when Alice is directly in it, but the further off it goes, the grayer and vaguer it gets.

[Polizzi]

I vote for Disney's, "The Lion King." When I was a little kid, I could not stop myself from singing all those songs from Disney's, "The Lion King." I could not even stop myself from singing in the bus, and amazingly, the bus driver loves my singing. I even love the animation in the scene where the Hyenas march in front of Scar to show their allegiance to rule Pride Rock, similar to the Nazi march to show their allegiance to Adolf Hitler. I even like Timon and Pumbaa who helps Simba find a better place to live without worries, until not only Rafiki, but his father, Mufasa, changed his life to return to Pride Rock as the new king. Also, Disney's, "The Lion King," is based on William Shakespeare's plays: "Hamlet," and, "Macbeth." You'll probably wonder why Disney's, "The Lion King," is similar to William Shakespeare's, "Macbeth," it is quite obvious, except some characters are excluded. Scar represents Macbeth, Mufasa represents Duncan, Simba represents Macduff, and three Hyenas, Shenzi, Banzai and Ed, represents the three witches who shows Macbeth the prophecy, only different in Disney's, "The Lion King."

[Lazario]

And, now, to avoid this happening again, I'll take the advice I should've kept to the 2nd time I 'discussed' with you and completely ignore you (and everyone else like this). Some people just can't be helped. I considered leaving, but, well, I've been here before you, and hopefully I'll still be here when you're gone. There's always a silver lining.

You know what? I'm over the arguing too. But, I can't help noticing that you played the victim here. There's no other excuse for saying something like "the board is too hostile now." If that's the way you want to see it, fine. But don't blame other people for it.

If things around here are really that bad, just walk out of a discussion you don't like by saying you don't care anymore. I think that'll get you exactly the response you're looking for. If you do it right.

[Goliath]

Look, just wanted to apologize.

Apologies accepted.

I’ve actually had a sucky life the past few months and that’s been filtering onto this forum. Not that there aren’t reasons for me to dislike replying to Goliath (he and Lazario have been driving me insane lately), I think this is more one of those cases of my personal life affecting my forum posts. I know this bit is unnecessary, but I don’t want to keep this bad trend of being a sporadic, frenetic drama queen. This is not who I am, and I do hope people don’t think the worst of me.

Of course I don't think the worst of you. I don't even think badly about you. I just never understood why you disliked me. But if you don't like responding to me, you shouldn't. You're not going to hurt my feelings. There are some people on UD I don't respond to, even if they replied to one of my posts. That may seem rude, but I really don't owe them anything. I can relate to what you wrote. Years ago, I used to take my personal problems out on innocent forum members (an other forum). I've learned not to do that anymore.

To be honest—I don’t know much about animation beyond what I see with my eyes. I'm not an animator [...] That’s why I try to stay in the “that looks on-model, that looks off-model” range of opinions.

Well, I'm not an animator either. But one doesn't have to be an animator to see the difference between the deer in Snow White (sacks of flour) or the deer in Bambi (natural). The animals in the latter film move like real animals. The ones in the former film move like cartoon animals. You made a similar distinction between the dogs in Lady and the Tramp, 101 Dalmatians and Oliver & Company. So naturally, since I didn't see the difference myself, I was curious to learn which differences you see.

All I can really refer to is what I see and what I don’t like, and Oliver and Company has always given me this feeling of “cheapness” to it. And I don’t think I would be completely wrong to say that [...]

Everybody has other tastes. I'm not saying it has the best animation in Disney history. Far from that! But it's a *lot* better than what they had in Robin Hood and The Rescuers (and, as you probably know, that's one of my favorite Disney-films).

—Don Bluth himself left the studio not long before it because of Disney’s quick-fix ways of cutting costs.

Interesting. I never knew that. That's kinda strange, when you think of the huge improvements in animation The Little Mermaid had.

And, yes, the fab four are not perfect. I would never say that. (And it is annoying that people have used this as a crutch the past couple of years here--"Oh God, look how horrible these 4 great, popular, "fabulous" movies look!" It just reeks of cult mentality,[...]

I know what you mean. Sometimes people like to distinguish themselves by trashing widely popular movies and instead embrace more obscure, less popular movies instead. I must say at times I have troubles not to fall into that trap, because all the fawning over the "Fab Four" can become annoying after a while; and the fact that Disney keeps re-issuing them in Super-duper Magical All-New Extended Platinum Diamond Editions, while they neglect 'hidden gems' (like The Rescuers) doesn't help either.

But they *are* great films. The Little Mermaid and Aladdin are even in my top 10 of Disney films. I recently watched Beauty and the Beast for the first time in many years and was disappointed by it. I still think The Lion King is way overrated and I like the films following it much more.

[...] but I just don't think the animation is that bad in those films. It seems like people are using this more because they don't like the films and can't combat people's opinions on what a good movie is, so they target the only that noone can deny--the animation) But I don’t see anything on the same level with “Part of That World,” the Beast’s transformation, or the "Circle of Life" happening in this movie.

You're right, of course, but Oliver & Company never tries to be a great, epic film, like the 'Fab Four'. Not all films can be alike. This film is just a fun, little film. The kind of animation like you mention wouldn't be fitting for it. Just like how Dumbo didn't have the same effects as its predecessors (sp?). While its animation is great, it's definitly much more low-key.

Also, yes, I do like Louis. But...how do I say this...the whole movie isn't just about him (and Naveen and Tiana we see first as humans, and they are supposed to be anthropomorphic representations of their human selves while as frogs). So if he comes off a little not-an-animal, it doesn't bother me. More importantly--he's a sidekick and not someone we're ever meant to take seriously. Whereas something like Oliver and Company--the whole movie revolves around animals, and the cast isn't just a bunch of sidekicks. [...]

Now you're introducing an extra argument. Now you make a distinction between main characters and sidekicks. You didn't before. I thought your main point of criticism with Oliver & Company was, that the animals don't move realistically. Well, neither does Louis. I don't say that's a bad thing, but it is a fact. I don't see why being a sidekick would make it less important. Either you value realistic movements, or you don't. I still don't see how the animals in Oliver move drastically different from those in Lady and the Tramp or 101 Dalmatians.

As for “the body stops doing anything, and the head does all the work” thing—I haven’t seen the movie in forever, so this is just a vague impression I have from last seeing it. I’ll try to go back and watch the movie in a couple of days and come back to this.

You don't have to if you don't want to. Like I said, we don't have to drag this out for page after page. I just like discussing our favorite films. I'm not trying to 'convince' you or to get you to agree with me.

[Disney's Divinity]

I can relate to what you wrote. Years ago, I used to take my personal problems out on innocent forum members (an other forum). I've learned not to do that anymore.

I've had the same experience. A couple forums in my past I got into a bad trend of being snarky and rogueish. Most of those happened while I was in middle school/a freshman in high school. So, yes, worst time of my life. But I intentionally tried to avoid that when I came here a few years ago, and I think this has been my favorite forum experience so far. That's why I had to apologize, because bad trends can turn into bad habits, and I don't want to ruin my time on this forum. Besides, it's unhealthy.

Now on to the actual on-topic stuff. I watched the movie this morning, not just to be overcritical and analytical, only because I hate talking about something I'm only relying on memory for. Because sometimes my memory has proven to be faulty over the years. Besides, I haven't watched it in a while and didn't mind seeing it again.

The ones in the former film move like cartoon animals. You made a similar distinction between the dogs in Lady and the Tramp, 101 Dalmatians and Oliver & Company. So naturally, since I didn't see the difference myself, I was curious to learn which differences you see.

The only way I can describe it is...well...it's as if the animals kind of plop their feet back and forth without really moving any of their legs the way a dog would. I mean--don't get wrong--they look enough like animals that it doesn't ruin the movie, but it's as if there is no muscle or structure to their legs (particularly their hind ones). I think the best way to see this is by comparing the Pongo look-a-like/cameo in "Why Should I Worry?" to the actual Pongo. Kind of horrible. Of course, this isn't completely across the board. DeSoto and Roscoe, in particular, are beautifully animated, and I think it's partly the fact that they are animated more realistically that makes them so ferocious, because they are at odds with what we see of Dodger, Rita, etc.

Also, just as a side comment, I realized the humans are very well done in this movie (Winston, Sykes, and Fagin) even if their designs can be a bit off-putting. I think my only criticism would be Jenny. For the most part, she does what she's supposed to do (be cute and sympathetic), but her eyes seem to be a mixed bag. I don't know if she just isn't designed to have complete eyes (there seems to be no pupils, only irises) or if she just lacks it in several scenes. In most of her earlier moments in the film, she seems to have pupils, or maybe the darkness of the blue gives the illusion that she does (so I'm not sure), but other scenes (such as when she's at the fountain during her song about Oliver, or when she's at the dock with Fagin right before the climax) have a big blob of blue without any defintion. Which was kind of creepy. Either way, that is definitely a quick fix way of cutting costs, I would guess. Just not sure if it's related to the animation exactly. Maybe I've just got the evocation that the movie is "cheap-looking," even though the animation works fine for the most part, because of certain of these types of things.

That's kinda strange, when you think of the huge improvements in animation The Little Mermaid had.

Yeah, I always thought the fact that they had such a huge amount of effects for Mermaid was rather strange. I mean, didn't they lose a lot doing that with The Black Cauldron? And, from documentaries, the company never expected that much out of Mermaid (it was a "girl's movie"; and they don't sell as well), and it seemed as if the animation department was getting the short end of the stick being relegated to lots, trailers and all that. Maybe it was just in response to seeing Bluth be successful at doing that with Secret of Nimh, etc. at the time. It's all very strange.

(Incidentally, there is a similar strangeness with Treasure Planet; if you--or anyone else--ever have the time I strongly recommend this review: http://antagonie.blogspot.com/2009/12/d ... ngs-i.html; this guy is a very in-depth and rational reviewer of animated films and their background, production, context, etc., especially where Disney's concerned. His other reviews are excellent, too).

But they *are* great films. The Little Mermaid and Aladdin are even in my top 10 of Disney films. I recently watched Beauty and the Beast for the first time in many years and was disappointed by it. I still think The Lion King is way overrated and I like the films following it much more.

True. I don't mind when people dislike the films because of actual reasons instead of what seems like a bias or a grudge. I've had my own set of those that I've tried to overcome over the years, and I've actually come to recognize some good in nearly all their films, even the ones I still don't really like (Peter Pan, HOTR, and Brother Bear, I'm looking at you). Also, sometimes I focus on the flaws so much that people think I hate a movie when I don't. For example, I actually do like Pocahontas, though I think somewhere out there BelleGirl thinks I despise it. And Hunchback has a lot of flaws that keep me from adoring it, but I don't hate that movie either. I love nearly everything Disney's done in some way or another.

You're right, of course, but Oliver & Company never tries to be a great, epic film, like the 'Fab Four'. Not all films can be alike. This film is just a fun, little film. The kind of animation like you mention wouldn't be fitting for it. Just like how Dumbo didn't have the same effects as its predecessors (sp?). While its animation is great, it's definitly much more low-key.

That's right. The main impression I got from re-watching the movie is that the animation seems to do what it needs to do, without ever exceeding that. And, while that doesn't make it a bad film (animation-wise), it doesn't make it a great one either. It kind of sits in the middle. But sometimes being in the middle can be a bad thing--you just kind of forget about it.

Now you're introducing an extra argument. Now you make a distinction between main characters and sidekicks. You didn't before. I thought your main point of criticism with Oliver & Company was, that the animals don't move realistically. Well, neither does Louis. I don't say that's a bad thing, but it is a fact. I don't see why being a sidekick would make it less important. Either you value realistic movements, or you don't. I still don't see how the animals in Oliver move drastically different from those in Lady and the Tramp or 101 Dalmatians.

I didn't mean to sound like I'm just making things up--I know that comes across as if I'm consciously being inconsistent (part of the reason I'm a terrible debater; the emotional thing is another factor; ), but I just have some things in my head that come secondary to other things, and I have to introduce new things to help explain what I meant before. I know I've read something by you (or maybe it was someone else) that you don't understand this modern trend of identifying characters as "sidekicks" when they add to the story themselves (Dwarves, Genie, imo Sebastian). And I do agree with that completely. I just think some characters, especially these days where companies has gotten themselves hooked on a formulaic assumption of what is an animated film, some characters are relegated to comedic relief with nothing else to do. Not that that's a bad purpose for a character, but it kind of draws the eye away from them. So when I think of those types, I almost don't even consider their animation because the film doesn't seem to take them seriously, so I (wrongly or rightly) assume I shouldn't either. But you're right that Louis doesn't move anymore like a real animal than dodger, Rita, etc., it just doesn't hurt the film as much in my eyes as in Oliver and Company because Louis is given the backseat to the characters we pay attention to. Ray, on the other hand (who is thankfully given a role more akin to the above characters--a rare thing to see now, sadly), is animated very well and, though there is a "funniness" to him, he's more than that. A very nice surprise.

Overall, I don't think Oliver and Company is a bad film (I would feel that way regardless of the animation; I hope you weren't targeting me for being one of those people who are brainwashed by the Disney company into think everything from the 60s to late 80s--or even the late 90s--is crap). It has its flaws, such as characters jumping around and seeming to "float" in slow motion (I don't know if this is an example of what Disney Duster means when he says "low frame rate") and some characters are noticeably bad when some quality is lost in side scenes, namely Georgette. Perhaps because we first meet her in "Perfect Is Me" where she's richly animated, that the times where she is drawn with an extra lack of detail (looking like Missi Pyle) that it's more jarring. Oliver and Dodger's first meeting is also off a bit because the mouths only vaguely connect with the voice work (and this happens occasionally throughout the movie--more noticeable when compared to times when every word is clearly pronounced, such as when Francis is mimicking the actor on TV--and he isn't even the one speaking there! ). But, like you said, it is more of a fun film, and "epic" animation would be out of place in it. Again, there are moments of great character animation here, but I think this film does represent a bit of a substandard in quality. The 'small scope' of the story contributes to some of that, but I'm thinking they picked a film like this (or one like The Great Mouse Detective) because they knew it wouldn't require that much hard work, and used them as ways to make as much bang for your buck without having to do as much. So I think there is a reason why it doesn't stand out as very great next to other masterpieces Disney's had.

Wow, this turned off more ramble-some than I meant it to.

And I did realize that there wasn't that much of the "moving head, static body" flaw I thought there was. That's why I didn't mention it here.

Also, I wish someone would explain more clearly what they mean about The Princess and the Frog, and, to Disney Duster, the low frame rate thing. Because I thought the movie was beautiful and fluid, and the character animation was exquisite (I would rewind and watch most every scene with Charlotte and Naveen--as human or frog--in them). The movie does have a grounded stiffness to it at times (especially with some of the side characters, like Tiana's mother), but I loved the movie. Not just thematically, but its animation as well. I think the only thing that bothered me is the growing use of 3D techniques to side-step traditionally painted backgrounds. Overall, it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb, and, yes, that's a bit of a different topic, but it's the only thing I can think of as being bothersome in the film. I don't know what I'm missing here.

Oh, and Disneykid, I loved reading what you said about Alice in Wonderland's backgrounds (of the sky and other things), and how they reinforce the subjectivity of Wonderland and how it's defined by Alice when she's a part of it. I have to admit I haven't watched that film very much, but it's small things like that--which I don't always keep in mind when watching some of their films--that adds so much to the atmosphere and story direction without people like me even realizing it.

Also, I agree on both counts about your accuracy v. acting bit. Cinderella has always been amazing to me in the way that it does capture those small (human) details. Any scene with Tremaine is absolutely amazing to me. The "if" scene is a particularly brilliant example. The way she 'giggles' and cocks her head as she lets her daughters in on her intentions is beautiful in its 'complex' simplicity.

I also had Pocahontas in my first post on the same terms as Hercules as being one of my favorite 'stylized' modern films, but I had seen people complaining about the noses and deleted it for sake of not arguing. But I always liked the design for that movie. Yes, I'm a little bit edgy towards any of the films that have a jagged, sharp edge (that look just never connects well to me), but I think the design works very well in Pocahontas and the accuracy is a large part of its success. There is some stiffness that results from the design, but nothing deal-breaking. It also contributes to the feeling of Native American culture, influence, ideas, etc. throughout the movie. Hunchback also is supposed to be influenced by the jagged architecture of Notre Dame, but I just never thought it worked as well as in Pocahontas. Not because it's bad, but it seemed like Esmeralda, Clopin, Phoebus, and even Frollo come from a different, more "real," rounded film that Quasimodo or most of the peasants.

Oh, and Lilo & Stitch definitely has a nice, round style to it that I like. (I recently saw this film a few weeks ago when it aired on the Disney XD channel) I think my only complaint is that the style goes a little far with Lilo. She almost looks like a muppet in a lot of her scenes.

[rodis]

I hope that's the place to ask this question so I'll go ahead and ask....

I know BATB was painted using CAPS. Now, the film DOES have those spotty marks of a painter's brush here and there (which I love). I know TLM has those but that is reasonable.

Can it be that BATB was not painted entirely by CAPS? (scenes that look "hand-painted") are when Gaston is outside Belle's house when he wants to propose; the forest; the background behind Belle in "Something There"; many times the clouds look a bit grainy, etc...

Can anyone explain ?

[Flanger-Hanger]

Well the backgrounds are hand painted so if they look "grainy" it could be the paper's texture you're seeing. CAPS was mainly used to "ink/paint" character and effects animation I think.

[rodis]

Well the backgrounds are hand painted so if they look "grainy" it could be the paper's texture you're seeing. CAPS was mainly used to "ink/paint" character and effects animation I think.

That makes sense. But what about all the films post-Aladdin? They have smooth backgrounds and there's no trace of paint brush. Maybe CAPS was later used to paint backgrounds as well?

[BelleGirl]

True. I don't mind when people dislike the films because of actual reasons instead of what seems like a bias or a grudge. I've had my own set of those that I've tried to overcome over the years, and I've actually come to recognize some good in nearly all their films, even the ones I still don't really like (Peter Pan, HOTR, and Brother Bear, I'm looking at you). Also, sometimes I focus on the flaws so much that people think I hate a movie when I don't. For example, I actually do like Pocahontas, though I think somewhere out there BelleGirl thinks I despise it. And Hunchback has a lot of flaws that keep me from adoring it, but I don't hate that movie either. I love nearly everything Disney's done in some way or another.

No, I don't think you despise Pocahontas. All the more because you've confirmed several times that you DO like it. Just becaue we had some argument about it long ago that went a bit over the top you got that impression.

What I don't get is how people keep complaining about the 'disappearing' noses in Pocahontas. First of all, It doesn't bother me in the least (while others don't seen to have problems with eyes like saucers (Tangled), or square fingertops (Atlantis) that do bother me) as I don't really see them dissapear, secondly I assume that the animators strove for realism (thoug idealises in this case)and knew what they were doing, and that it is an 'American Indian' thing that noses seem to fade 'en face'.

Anyway here's a picture of Pocahontas with ''dissapearing nose'. I think it's beautiful to look at!



About HoND: yes it's true, Disney's Divinity that Quasimodo doesn't really look as realistic as Esmeralda or Phoebus. But maybe the animator had a dilemma: Quasimode has to look deformed and ugly, but he should not be frightening to look at. So they made him kind of 'ET-like' ugly: ugly and 'cute'at the same time.

[Goliath]

@ Disney's Divinity:

I have been thinking about Oliver & Company since I replied to your posts, and I suddenly realized that I was... gasp!... completely *wrong* when I said the animals in the film move as realistic as the animals in other Disney films. Yes, I was wrong; it shocked me too!

Because I had to think about the scene where Tito uses a fork and knife to 'threaten' Oliver the first time he meets him; or the one where Tito has a cigar in his pawn; or the one where Francis has to act he was hit by the car; or the one where Georgette is changing clothes (with the birds fawning over her); or Tito at the wheel of Fagin's cart; or... Well, the examples are plenty. You were right, they *are* "cartoon animals". The characters in Walt's "dog movies" behaved a lot more realistic, I'll have to give you that. Although I don't think real dogs would eat spaghetti the way Lady and the Tramp do.

Not all Disney movies have to be realistic. Look at Aladdin: that's one long cartoon. The hands of the merchant are as big as Aladdin's whole chest! But that's okay because it's meant as a cartoon.

If you're a Disney fan (or animation fan in general), you must've heard of Michael Barrier, the animation historian. (He pops up in the making-of for Pinocchio.) In his book Hollywood Cartoons he basically criticizes all Disney films from Cinderella on for being *too* realistic. He feels that, by following the live-action reference material that closely, Disney had stopped using the medium of animation for what its purpose was: to show things that couldn't be done any other way. Cinderella, he said, when you don't think of the mice and the cat, is in essence a live-action film. There's nothing original in Cinderella and Lady Tremaine, just a rigid imitation of the actors who did the reference material. The same goes for characters like Wendy, John, their mother, and Tigerlily in Peter Pan, Alice in her film, and Aurora, Prince Philip, Malificent, King Stefan and his wife in Sleeping Beauty. I'm not saying I agree with him in disqualifying the films (although he didn't use that word), but I certainly think he has a point when he says that we're often looking at an 'animated live-action film' (my words) where a lot of the fantasy of the earlier films has disappeared in favor of more 'realism'.

I never noticed the thing you wrote about Jenny's eyes. I don't always pay attention to those 'little' things. By no means is Oliver one of Disney's best movies, when it comes to animation. But, like you said, it does what it has to do. Animation of the level of Aladdin or The Lion King would have really been very out of place.

The only film where the animation bothers me to such a degree that I'm pulled 'out' of the film, is Robin Hood. And that's even a favorite of mine since childhood! But the amount of recycled animation is ridiculous! I can't see the whole "Phony king of England" sequence without at the same time seeing The Aristocats, The Jungle Book and even Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs! You may have seen this one before:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/s0gqi ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/s0gqi ... nl_NL&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

A film with very low-key, minimal animation (even a 'shoddy' look) can turn out fantastic, and a film with very lush, detailed, rich animation can turn out horrible. It's the way the animation is *used* that counts. Case in point is The Rescuers and its sequel Down Under. The latter obviously has animation that's ten times better than the original, but that doesn't make it a better movie, because Disney was so busy packing the thing with eye-candy that they forgot to add appealing characters, a fitting villain, a good story or, basically, a reason why you should even care how the film develops. The original film had minimal animation but it *used* that as a means to concentrate on story and characters, and that's what makes it so good.

Disney has a tendency to go overboard with the CGI-effects. You mention some examples in The Princess and the Frog, but that was the one film where I didn't have problems with it. But what about Treasure Planet? Am I watching an animated movie or am I watching a video game? The traditionally animated parts and the CGI-animated parts don't collide. They remain seperate entities; that's why it doesn't work. Tarzan had similar problems, although they are more easy to overcome. The way Tarzan moves through the trees could have only been done by the deep canvas-proces and they did that extremely well. There are also many examples where the computer generated lightening effects that are beautiful and couldn't have been animated in the traditional way. I just don't think they should have animated *everything else* with the computer. Things like the water, the boats, etc. would have been more convincing in 2D. Imagine Ariel swimming around in Tarzan's waters! The jungle at times looked too much like a plastic background as well, thanks to the CGI, but overall, I can live with it.

I can't rewatch The Princess and the Frog over and over again, like you, since the dvd hasn't come out here yet, so I'm doing this mainly from memory and a bit from the song "Almost there" which is on YouTube. If you watch the end of that song (when the highly stylized part has ended) you'll see some examples of what I mean when I say the characters move way too stiff. The way Tiana and her mom are sweeping; I have never seen anybody do it like that. Most minor characters in the film (especially the first half) move like that, including Tiana's dad, Charlotte and Big Daddy. It just doesn't flow enough. The animals are way better done, and Dr. Facilier is done best of all.

If you made it all the way to the end of this post: I thank you. I'd be happy to read your thoughts on some of the points I made --if you want to. No pressure.