best animated movie?

[dvdjunkie]

I am totally engrossed in this discussion, and have learned a lot, which is saying a lot for this old man. No one has gotten upset and accused others of being 'nitpickers', and no one has called each other names. I really like a very adult discussion on a subject like this and commend all of you for handling it so well.

I know this is really about Disney animation, but since someone brought up "Fantasia" in its original form, has anyone here seen the 1976 Italian parody of "Fantasia" called Allegro non troppo? The animation is brilliant and the narration is far from boring, and it is a distinct parody of Walt Disney's famed classical music-to-animation "Fantasia".

Just thought I would throw that out in the discussion.

[Flanger-Hanger]

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?

It could be the paper used, the quality of the scanner, the style of painting etc. I'm not too sure. Lilo and Stitch for example definitely looks like a watercolor job on the appropriate paper to me. Treasure Planet's backgrounds were all done on the computer though.

Disneykid may a good point between judging animation on accuracy or acting which I think is a good distinction, but even taking both views into account I'd still say anything from Cinderella to Jungle Book would be the best overall.

Disney Divinity, I don't know if you've ever read about the production details on NIMH, but it's incredible to see what they accomplished with such poor working conditions (long hours, working in garages, no great immediate financial rewards).

As for it influencing Mermaid, it could be that there were general concerns over the realism of the water and that audiences would have noticed if it didn't look right. Or maybe it was Roy pushing for better quality work without ever thinking of Bluth?

The Great Mouse Detective's production only lasted one year so maybe the animators learned to manage their time better (along with more money) for Mermaid? They certainly had time to study the water work on Pinocchio, for example, before production started.

[Elladorine]

I'm glad some of you guys found the link to John K.'s blog and the information about the Filmation model sheets interesting. Just to clarify, I do realize that the whole modern term for "on-model" isn't the same as what I linked to! I just find it interesting that people can't always agree when a character is on-model or not with the modern definition since (at least in my opinion) there is a little bit of a give and take with the flexibility of a character's design. We do always want the characters to look like themselves at the very least.

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?

It could be the paper used, the quality of the scanner, the style of painting etc. I'm not too sure. Lilo and Stitch for example definitely looks like a watercolor job on the appropriate paper to me. Treasure Planet's backgrounds were all done on the computer though.

I believe that's right. I don't think CAPS was ever used to actually create backgrounds since it was created for "inking" and coloring the animation itself in order to replace the cels and cameras. On the same note, some of the CAPS films could involve either traditionally painted (which would have to be scanned in), digitally painted, CG, or a combination of the types of listed backgrounds to composite with the animation, depending on the needs and style of the particular film.

I'm not sure what technology was available in the early 90's when it came to digital painting, but more recently digital works can often be confused for traditional since there are ways to work with textures, brushstrokes, etc.

[Disney's Divinity]

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'.

I agree with you on all this. Firstly, that the noses never bothered me in Pocahontas (in fact, I rather liked the way they took that route with the design). Also, I agree that the square finger look in Atlantis is one of the ugliest things I've seen from Disney (I get that they were going for a "comic book" style, but it didn't work in a lot of places; the only place I think it looked nice was when they finally get to Atlantis--the last 15 minutes or so).

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.

Well, I didn't mean that Quasimodo is ugly or deformed, just that his design has a kind of "edge" to it that goes along with the backgrounds (the jaggedness of the cathedral) that the other characters don't. I might be wrong, but just the ends of his fingers, the fingernails, the way his face is designed. It's just all more jagged than anything with Phoebus or Esmeralda.

(And it's true that this difference, if it's there and I'm not imagining things, very well could be intentional--Quasimodo is an 'outsider,' 'deformed,' a part of the cathedral.)

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but he just doesn't seem the same as the other characters in his design (and not just because he's a deformed character). Something about his ears, the lump over his eye, and the nose seem to have more of a distinct style to it than Phoebus or Esmeralda (though, looking at pictures right now, Frollo has a look to his cheeks and eyebrows that carries a similarity).

In [Michael Barrier's] 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. ... 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'.

Thinking more about it, I definitely do agree with that. I appreciate animation most when it does something that live-action can't. But I'm not sure if I agree that they lost that quality completely in their films. Maybe it mostly just appears in special effects (the magic that's often done in their films--including the craziness of Wonderland), but I think they sometimes did different things, like with Madame Mim (not just that she's a witch, but also that she's an incredibly zany character) or even the Queen of Hearts. And, of course, the anthropomorphized animals (White Rabbit, Rescuers, Robin Hood, etc.) do things a live-action film could never do. Most of these are often able to exaggerate themselves when talking/moving to give more of an 'animated' sensibility to them.

And I wonder how he (Barrier) feels about the modern films. As has become a recurring topic lately, the newer heroines (and some heroes) have larger-than-natural eyes, and in this way they can express more emotion and incur more sympathy. But maybe that's not really what he means exactly.

But I think with a lot of people, there is a kind of amazement at the way reality can be rendered into animation (like with Cinderella). Like, "Wow, I can't believe they made it look so real!" Also, I think most other films found a more balanced way of combining reality with animated freedom than Cinderella. That's really the only one I remember ever having that degree of realism to it. And, still, they managed to do that in a successful way by avoiding the stiffness that direct rotoscoping would create.

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.

I agree. That's why I sometimes find it hard to fault their films, because most of them obviously took different routes with their animation. Although there are cases where the direction is bad (Atlantis).

And, about Robin Hood, I've known about those re-uses of animation for a while. But it never takes me out of the film really. I mean, I'm not a huge fan of that film and I think the fact that I would often rewind past that "Love" scene might be a reason it didn't bother me very much, but I'm too focused on the story/characters to be distracted by animation copy-and-pastes. Although, I'm not sure if that makes the animation of Robin Hood bad, just the work behind it was rather 'lazy' (I only use that word to say that they apparently took shortcuts--not that people didn't do hard work animating it). Not just the scene where old footage is copied, but also certain borrowed designs from The Jungle Book.

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?

I only brought this up because TP&TF was being complained about--and the 3D thing is the only real complaint I had for that movie (when I watched it). But I have the same complaint about other films. I've mentioned my disappointment in Treasure Planet's blending of 3D and 2D before, nearly whenever I'm talking about that movie (though the 2D that's there is excellent). I think it's even more incredibly hilarious that most of that film's budget was focused on integrating the 3D well, and yet that's the most horrible integration I've seen from a Disney film thus far.

And, yeah, Tarzan also uses a lot of deep canvas (they made a big deal out of that when it was being release; I remember it from those DisneySurfer commercials on the Disney channel--back when I used to watch it), and that 3D/2D mix does bring me out of the movie at spots, too. Which is a shame, because the 2D animation is also excellent there.

So, yeah, TP&TF has been one of the best integrations of 3D/2D they've had. I just feel a sadness at seeing them depart so far from the way things were traditionally made. And maybe, wrongly, a part of me assumes they use 3D because it's cheaper and easier than 2D--and, again, that assumption could be wrong. I don't know, they just don't feel like "traditionally animated" films when the characters are becoming the only things that are "traditionally animated" with backgrounds and objects that are clearly not.

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.

I actually know what you mean (that's the main scene I had in mind when I mentioned Tiana's mom earlier). I just never felt that it was that much of a deal-breaker, and the animation is gorgeous besides. They may move a bit too 'real,' but they still move really well to me. Also, I'm not sure if I agree that Charlotte moves like that. She seemed to be the most exaggerated, unbound character in the film.

As for it influencing Mermaid, it could be that there were general concerns over the realism of the water and that audiences would have noticed if it didn't look right. Or maybe it was Roy pushing for better quality work without ever thinking of Bluth?

I think you could be right about Roy Disney being a more likely influence. I just wonder if where Bluth's films (which turned out better, quality-wise at any rate) might have made them think the only way they could compete was to do the same.

My 'surprise' is more by the fact that the animation studio seemed to be "on the brink," mostly after the huge failure of TBC (that was a special-effects heavy film, wasn't it?), and yet they went ahead and again did aother film that likely took a lot of costly special effects (I'm guessing, at least, considering they've said that TLM had the most special effects since Fantasia, which I can believe with all the reflections, lighting, and the final battle). And you're right that they could definitely have worried about the setting, too. I remember reading somewhere that (I can't remember exactly) animated films have to feign believeability moreso than usual when doing underwater shots, because, unlike the upper world, the water itself is always moving, and the light, scenery and sea-life along with it. And as a result it would be hard to keep the audience believing that the scene is really underwater without difficulty. Either way, I'm glad they went to such a depth that they did, especially where the bubbles are concerned.

The Great Mouse Detective's production only lasted one year so maybe the animators learned to manage their time better (along with more money) for Mermaid? They certainly had time to study the water work on Pinocchio, for example, before production started.

Did they study Pinocchio? I'm not surprised, but I had never heard that (or maybe I forgot it). Whenever I watch Pinocchio, I wonder the same thing I recently did when seeing Studio Ghibli's Ponyo: what would Walt's The Little Mermaid have looked like in comparison? The ocean scene in Pinocchio is the only glimpse we really have into what could've been of that.

[Disney Duster]

I am quite shocked at what Michael Barrier said. I remember him sounding very favorable towards Cinderella when he mentioned it on Sleeping Beauty's making-of.

Saying what he said, especially that there's "nothing original" in those characters, is really insulting.

And it's also kind of impossible. When you animate something, if you are creative or artistic at all, you cannot help but put your own self into it, your imagination, your ideas, you just can't help but change what you're drawing, even in the tiniest way.

Also, the Disney animators, especially the top ones who animated those important characters, would never let their animation not be animation, they would never allow for just a drawn, exaggerated copy of the live-action.

PrincePhillipFan gave me animation books where one animator described the life and joy given to Aurora that was clearly not the same in the live-action reference.

And pap mentioned how something like Cinderella and the Prince's dance is much more transformed by animation than the things Don Bluth has done, mentioning how Cinderella and the Prince look like they're floating. I have no doubt when looking at a scene like that and many other scenes that certain things the Disney characters do, the way the move, could either not exist in live-action, could not be planned out in real life to be so perfect, or could not have been the very same as the way the live actors did it.

[pap64]

And pap mentioned how something like Cinderella and the Prince's dance is much more transformed by animation than the things Don Bluth has done, mentioning how Cinderella and the Prince look like they're floating. I have no doubt when looking at a scene like that and many other scenes that certain things the Disney characters do, the way the move, could either not exist in live-action, could not be planned out in real life to be so perfect, or could have been the very same as the way the live actors did it.

Yes, on another thread I made a comparison between Don Bluth's rotoscoped dance in "Anastasia" and the dance in Cinderella, saying how the Disney animation was more fluid, making it more natural than most of Bluth's rotoscoped work. I said how there was a beauty in natural animation that couldn't be replicated when using rotoscoping.

And yes, the comments about Cinderella are surprising. It might not be as revolutionary as Snow White or as stylistic as Sleeping Beauty, but its very soft, colorful and warm, which fits Cinderella's romantic period very well.

But I wouldn't put so much thought it into. Art is a very subjective thing, and what may be a beautiful thing to me may be common or awful to someone else.

[Goliath]

I am quite shocked at what Michael Barrier said. I remember him sounding very favorable towards Cinderella when he mentioned it on Sleeping Beauty's making-of.

Saying what he said, especially that there's "nothing original" in those characters, is really insulting.

It's important to remember that I wasn't directly quoting Barrier, but instead I was summarizing his thoughts in my own words. I don't recall Barrier using the exact words "nothing original". Unfortunately, I can't quote directly from the book, since I don't have it at home anymore. You should try to buy it or otherwise look for it in a library, if you're really interested in (Disney) animation. It's important for me to stress I wasn't quoting Barrier; I'm always big on getting other people's words right. But the thought behind it remains: Barrier thought the combination of the hyper-realism of Cinderella and Tremaine and the comedic exaggeration of the mice, the cat and the sisters made for an uneasy and unsatisfactory result.

I get what he's saying. Disney films of the 1950's and 60s seem to be more bound to realism. Yes, of course there's the animals and the sometimes exaggerated villains, but in a lot of characters there is a kind of hyper-realism that's restrictive. I find it hard to explain it in detail. But all in all, Barrier is tough on any Disney film that's not Snow White and I found he could nit-pick a lot --which should be a recommendation to the members of UD.

[Disney Duster]

That made me feel better, thank you.

However, this is the perfect time for me to say I feel Cinderella has amazing animation in the fact I (and so many others, namely Walt himself) feel the film pulled off some magic: the realistic and cartoony work together. Someone who was even harsh on the film noted how Lucifer still moves and feels like a cat even after his extremely exaggerated movements only possible in animation. The stepsisters also kind of need to be cartoony, so no real girl could look like them, while Cinderella is better in a way because she is more real.

Aaaand the fact that he seems to only think Walt's first film is so perfect doesn't surprise me, and makes me feel better about his nit-picking of the other films. But it's rather strange, almost all the human characters in Snow White were so dependent on rotoscoping. But perhaps they still did more free-hand and more cartoony design. I have a problem with Snow White's too cartoony Betty Boop eyes at times, though...

In general I also think that the animated films should look realistic so that people don't dismiss them as just cartoons...

[Goliath]

That made me feel better, thank you.

But even if Barrier had used those words, it wouldn't be "insulting", like you said. It's simply another man's opinion. You can agree or disagree, but there's nothing inherently wrong in trashing Cinderella. I'm sorry, but although I like the film, I'm not going to heap praise upon it, just because "Walt thought this-and-that".

Aaaand the fact that he seems to only think Walt's first film is so perfect doesn't surprise me, and makes me feel better about his nit-picking of the other films. But it's rather strange, almost all the human characters in Snow White were so dependent on rotoscoping. But perhaps they still did more free-hand and more cartoony design.

If I remember correctly, he praised because the animators, for the first time, had succeeded to animate a believable human leading character. They really made great progress since 'The Godess of Spring'. Barrier praises later films for animating human characters without being dependent on rotoscope. It's one thing to use it in your first ever film, but you have to progress. However, he felt that after the 1940's films, in which the humans are arguable much more lively and move more fluidly, Cinderella was too restrained. But the most of his praise for Snow White comes from the effects and, most of all, the animation of the Dwarves.

[Lazario]

In general I also think that the animated films should look realistic so that people don't dismiss them as just cartoons...

All of them?

[Disney Duster]

Well, Goliath, one person's opinion can still be insulting.

You can say something is ugly, and that may be your opinion, but it is also insulting.

But it's even more insulting when the animators purposely tried to put as much originality as they could into their animation even if they did rely on rotoscope or live-action reference.

Most people say Cinderella moves much better than Snow White, so what he says is still very shocking and I don't know how seriously it can be taken.

Lazario, for the films that should look realistic, probably all the ones that are to be taken as classical, serious human drama. Disney mostly adapts classic works of literature (this includes fairy tales).

[Goliath]

Well, Goliath, one person's opinion can still be insulting.

Yes, it can. But not in this instance.

You can say something is ugly, and that may be your opinion, but it is also insulting.

How?

But it's even more insulting when the animators purposely tried to put as much originality as they could into their animation even if they did rely on rotoscope or live-action reference.

Why is it insulting? It's an opinion, based on knowledge of animation and personal taste.

[Disney Duster]

It can't be opinion when the animators did put something original in them. Yes, he was still insulting.

[Goliath]

It can't be opinion when the animators did put something original in them. Yes, he was still insulting.

Obviously Barrier didn't agree with you, and his opinion is a sgood as yours. So no, it's not insulting. But I get the feeling from you, that anything anybody says that could be taken as even remotely critical of Cinderella would be insulting to you. It's called: being obsessive.

[Disney Duster]

On the contrary, as you can see I defended all animators of any Disney film. None of them would ever just trace any live-action into the final animation, at least none of the top ones, who animated the principal characters, such as the ones Barrier was talking about. None of those animators would allow their characters to be unoriginal.

Simply, what you said about it being opinion or uninsulting was not true.

[Super Aurora]

It can't be opinion when the animators did put something original in them. Yes, he was still insulting.

Obviously Barrier didn't agree with you, and his opinion is a sgood as yours. So no, it's not insulting. But I get the feeling from you, that anything anybody says that could be taken as even remotely critical of Cinderella would be insulting to you. It's called: being obsessive.

or it can be called fan-wanking.

[Lazario]

Soon that will be able to be applied to the mob-for-Princess and the Frog.