Visual differences between the old classics and the newer fe

[Rumpelstiltskin]

I saw Return to Neverland when it was shown at the theatres. Back then, I knew nothing about the evolution of animation. For instance, I didn't know that when Disney's original Peter Pan movie was made with real cels and hand inking, and that hand inking later was replaced by the xerox process, and that cels in the end went away and coloring was done digitally.

So, when I sat down, I was completely convinced that the movie would be exactly like the first one who was made decades before. The story would be different, but the animation, design and characters would be the same.

But it didn't take me long to see that the two movies were different. In some ways, I felt that Return to Neverland was kind of cheap, or had less visual quality. It's hard to give a definition on exactly what it was. Was it really worse, or was it just different? I don't know. I havn't seen it since, so it is hard to tell. Maybe it was the colors, or maybe it was that it felt very flat compared to the first movie, who had more depth even if it was a 2D movie.

This was the first animated Disney sequel I saw (I know it was done by Disney's Toon Studio, and is not really a part of the canon). When I saw others, like The Rescuers Down Unders, I had already learned about cels, Xerox and so on, and what the difference between them was. Because of this knowledge, it is impossible to compare the sequels to the originals through the same eyes as when I knew nothing.
I didn't know, but I could see it. And now, because I know, it is actually more difficult to see since I already know what to look for, instead of letting the movie speak for itself.
(Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and so on, were all original movies, so there was nothing to compare them with.)

What would be interesting to know is if the animation department at Disney got all the modern tools and all the required budget available, and was told to remake for instance Pinocchio, Bambi or Lady and the Tramp as close to the originals as possible, what would the final result look like? Would the new versions be good enough to fool someone, if they were told that Disney in the old days actually made two versions of the same movie? Or would they say; "you don't fool me, I can clearly see this one is a modern version"?

If so, what exactly is the main difference between the old ones and the modern ones? And I'm not talking about the production process, but the total visual impressions. If they could be identified, could the also be copied? If they couldn't, why not?

[Heil Donald Duck]

There is a reason why 1928-1959 is called the golden age of American Animation.

[Super Aurora]

There is a reason why 1928-1959 is called the golden age of American Animation.

no. The Golden Age of American Animation was from 1920's to 1940's.

[Heil Donald Duck]

There is a reason why 1928-1959 is called the golden age of American Animation.

no. The Golden Age of American Animation was from 1920's to 1940's.

The 1900's 1910's and 1920's (exluding 1928 and 1929) are generally considered the silent period and no way golden,

[Marce82]

Interesting topic. I often think of it myself. I think someone the problems with Return to Neverland is that the animation is not NEARLY as graceful as the one in the original...and the performances are far more cartoony. That actually does make a difference in the visual quality. I also don't recall if the lines in that film were colored after they scanned them, or of they left them black and colored the inside of the characters. This also makes a huge difference.
I haven't seen the film in a while, but I wonder if the backgrounds were as good as well.

Here is my SUGGESTION:

If you want to see what a classic character looks like going through the modern animation pipeline...watch Aladdin, when the genie and Aladdin are at the oasis, the genie turns into Pinocchio for a moment. You judge if it looks as good.

Also, though made with cels, Roger Rabbit has cameos of a lot of very early disney characters. Again...you be the judge

[Disney Duster]

I have always known 1939 to 1950 to be the golden age of Disney animation.

But recently I heard someone say that the Disney Renaissance, the Fab 4 from 1989 to...whenever The Lion King came out, was the golden age. Were they just stupid? What's the proper terminology? Is there a silver age? What would the 1950 to 1959 or whenever Jungle Book was periods be called?

Rumpelstiltskin, that is pretty much an impossible question. There is no doubt that it would be impossible to completely replicate anything that is man-made (and wouldn't also like to believe they never could recreate what was so amazingly made back then, too?).

For them to pull it off would be nothing short of a miracle, or magic. Disney magic. But I heard they Snow White's cottage, the whole watercolor background, in 3D CGI, so maybe it's possible, though I haven't seen it. They also created some CGI that looked just like a painting. You know, for Rapunzel? The second image with Rapunzel was made in pure CGI:



However, though they still probably couldn't pull it off to look exactly the same, they could probably get so close, that young people (and the common public) might not be able to tell the difference.

Marce82's suggestions were good, but Rumpestiltskin, I don't know how you feel about the sequels, but with Cinderella III, that was going to be their last film and they wanted it to be their best, so they worked very hard and they re-created some scenes from the original (when Cinderella falls in love with the Prince), so you may also want to take a look at that. Many animators and critics noted they were coming very close to feature animation quality.

[Super Aurora]

no. The Golden Age of American Animation was from 1920's to 1940's.

The 1900's 1910's and 1920's (exluding 1928 and 1929) are generally considered the silent period and no way golden,

maybe I should of worded it better but What i'm saying was the golden age started in late 20's and lasted to end of 40's. The 50's was not part of it.

When people made Who Frame Roger Rabbit, their intention was put in as many characters from golden age era of animation. This is why Disney characters like Snow White and Dumbo were in the movie but not Cinderella or Peter Pan.

[Elladorine]

A lot of it has to do with the talent and quality of the artists working on the films, which is more crucial to the look and feel of them than just colors, textures, and grain IMO. The poses, the forms, the line quality, the actions; each artist has their own individual feel and style when it comes to animating. And most of those that worked on the old films have simply passed on, leaving the studio in the hands of new artists with their own unique styles and visions.

Asking if Disney can replicate the style and look of its past? That's like asking Tom Hanks if he can pull the exact same performance as Jimmy Stewart in an alternate but similar situation as one of his old films. Which leaves me asking, why would anyone want that? Walt Disney himself said, "keep moving forward." Personally, I don't see a need to replicate something in the past other than to make a passing nod as a tribute (and is one of many reasons I feel that most sequels are unnecessary). Compare screencaps of the character Tinker Bell from both Peter Pan and Return to Neverland for example. Look beyond the colors and what some people call The "Saturday morning" feel and look at the poses themselves. It's something I haven't done for a few years myself, but I recall a lot of the production frames from Peter Pan were very appealing and even "postcard-worthy" on their own, and the ones from Return to Neverland simply weren't when based on the poses alone.

But if we want to get technical, of course the old-school films were inked by hand on animation cels, which have a beautiful quality to them in and of themselves, but many artists (including the animators who worked on the films) agreed that the art would lose some vitality from essentially being traced. That's why many embraced the xerox process that was tested on Goliath II and was used from 101 Dalmatians on up until the CAPS era; although the early attempts had a rougher quality due to the limitations of the xerography that Walt reportedly disliked, the cost-effectiveness made up for it. The harsh black copied lines were eventually softened by using grey toner, and some areas were still hand-inked.

CAPS (and later ToonBoom) seems to capture the best of both worlds (no Miley Cyrus references, please ) in that it directly copies the artists' energetic art through scanning without losing anything through tracing. Plus there's the added benefit of being able to "ink" the pencil lines by digitally coloring them, and adding gradients that were expensive and technically/artistically difficult (if not impossible) to produce with any amount of consistency on cels. And these days artwork can even be drawn directly into the computer programs without the need of paper and scanning!

I do believe that film makers could reproduce the old-school look of cels with ToonBoom if they really wanted (perhaps the closest we got was the Bambi sequel), or if they wanted the added expense they could have it hand-inked and painted on cels (but that is admittedly a dying art these days). But due to the advances that have been made in the past few decades it may feel extremely limiting from a technological and even an artistic standpoint for those creatively involved.

[Disney Duster]

Well enigmawing, Walt did also kind of do a lot of the same thing over again...I think we should have one foot in the future and one foot in the past in every movie...

Anyway, I'm surprised you think the computer trumps the old cel animation. I always thought the cel animation was considered the most artistic. I mean, then you are actually painting the characters. And the only reason we don't do it is because of money, ease, and that whole "newer is better" mentality. I completely disagree with you. I think the beauty of the painted cels is superior artistically.

[Elladorine]

Anyway, I'm surprised you think the computer trumps the old cel animation. I always thought the cel animation was considered the most artistic. I mean, then you are actually painting the characters. And the only reason we don't do it is because of money, ease, and that whole "newer is better" mentality. I completely disagree with you. I think the beauty of the painted cels is superior artistically.

Keep in mind I was not claiming one technique was more artistic than another; that was not a point I was attempting to make at all, just that things have advanced and times have changed. Even Walt jumped on advances with technology within his own time (as I stated in the examples about xerography), and many artists were frustrated with the limitations cels gave for the final art that would be captured on camera.

Also keep in mind I already made it a point to say that the hand-painted cels have a beautiful quality in and of themselves, but now that it's been brought up I'd say both the cels and the digitally-colored art each have their own artistic merits, and both still work with art that has been hand-drawn.

How the production stills are produced is not the showcase of animation, it's the characters, stories, and emotions evoked when viewing the film as a whole. Why not use the most effective tools currently available for that?

[ajmrowland]

Disney Duster, once again, you have taken an unbiased statement and attempted to make it something biased.

[DisneyAnimation88]

I think the main difference between the visual styles is that in the early days of feature animation production, more time was given to make a film. "Snow White" was in production from 1933 to 1937 and the animators were allowed to devote all of their time and care to it. Today, animators have perhaps 2 years to animate their section of a film and while that may seem enough time, the best animators at the studio are often working on several projects at one time. That's my opinion anyway.

As for the "Golden Age", I think the company defines it as the films produced during Walt's lifetime. I could be wrong as I've heard it described as the films released in the time between "Cinderella" and "The Jungle Book". I think the reason for that is films like "Pinocchio", "Bambi" and "Fantasia", while they are classics, didn't earn the studio much money due to the war. Overall, it's probably a matter of opinion of what you personally feel is Disney's "Golden Age" of animation.

[Goliath]

When people made Who Frame Roger Rabbit, their intention was put in as many characters from golden age era of animation. This is why Disney characters like Snow White and Dumbo were in the movie but not Cinderella or Peter Pan.

But Malificent's minions and the penguins from Mary Poppins are there, even though the story takes place in the 1940's.

[Elladorine]

But Malificent's minions and the penguins from Mary Poppins are there, even though the story takes place in the 1940's.

They hadn't gotten their big break yet.

[PatrickvD]

But Malificent's minions and the penguins from Mary Poppins are there, even though the story takes place in the 1940's.

They hadn't gotten their big break yet.

true, why else would the penguins be waiting tables? they were struggling actors.

[ajmrowland]

The minions were there? I knew about the Penguins, but the minions!?

[Elladorine]

The minions were there? I knew about the Penguins, but the minions!?

Yeah, it's just a small cameo. It's a scene toward the end of Valiant walking out of the studio lot (right before the trying to get on the red car, I think) you can see the short little guys surrounding him.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Marce82:
That's probably why animators have been described as actors as well, even if their performances comes out from their hands and ends up on the paper. I don't own either Aladdin or Roger Rabbit on DVD, but I'll keep probably rewatch them again if I know when and where the are shown on TV. It could be a bit difficult to compare Pinoccio, since it is just a glimpse of him where he is out of place. Was there many characters from Disney feature animation in Roger Rabbit? I remember some from the shorts, but can't think of any feature characters made from this time period.



Disney Duster:
I havn't seen any of the Cinderalla sequels yet. As for Tangled/Rapunzel, maybe they will release the early tests as a bonus on the DVD, so that one can compera them with the movie. If they had used all those years it has taken to make the movie on actual production, the results could have been closer to the image.

And the way I see it, there are no answer to the whole Golden Age debate. Some use money as a reference, others popularity, others craftsmanship or budget. You can divide Disney into a all the types of eras you want to.
For instance, the hand inking period can be seen as three eras (the names are just something I picked for the lack of other alternatives):
1937-1942: The Avantgarde Era (Disney did a lot of experimenting and new stuff then)
1942-1949: The Wartime Era (the war did not start in 1942 or end in 1949, but its consequences reached the studio then, and didn't go away before the end of the decade)
1950-1959: The Resurrection Era (when Disney returned to full features again)

The Xerox period:
1960-1979: The Reitherman Era (Reitherman was a director of all the features in these decades. The old guard was still in charge. Xerox was used in all the movies, most of them with black lines. The budgets were relative low, and the plot usually involved comedy.)
1980-1989: The New Blood Era (new forces have taken over the animation department. A lot of experimentation was done back then. The Fox and the Hound was the first movie they did and the last fully analog one. It was also the first were Ron Miller was the boss of the studio. The Black Cauldron introduced full xerox colors, a new sound library, a short return to 70mm, the first CGI in a Disney movie. The Great Mouse detective was the first feature done since Eisner, Wells and Katzenberg took over. Vidoe cameras were introduced in the production process. It was made in a warehouse and other places while a new studio was being built. First CGI bakcgrounds in a Disney movie. Oliver and Company was even more loaded with CGI. A test for the studio to see if they could make a real musical before The Little Mermaid. The last cel movie, the first test of CAPS in a feature, and from what I have heard a lot of old school techniques).

The scan period (where drawings were scanned into a computer):
1990-2004: The CAPS Era (new leaps in CGI was done in practically every new movie. I know Dinosaus has also been involved in the canon, but personally, I don't see it as a "true" animated Disney feautre. It was done by a different kind of studio, where the rendering of the characters were aiming for photorealism, and the backgrounds wer elive action.)
2005-present time: The Modern Era (the original animation studio is closed. The first "real" CGI movie. Eisner leaves. Disney fuse with Pixar. The handdrawing studio re-opens. The use of ToonBoom instead of CAPS. Disney decides to let CGI do what it does best, and let handdrawn animation do what it does best, instead of trying to make it look like CGI. And sooner or later, they will probably release the first handdrawn Disney feature that is done paperless.)



enigmawing:
I don't think you understand. This was not meant as an actual suggestion that the studio should remake the old movies again (even if I have heard rumors that Eisner wanted to do this, but this time in CGI). But I can't see why they couldn't try to recreate 30-60 seconds from the old movies. Lasseter and Kenae made as we know a 30 second test of Where the Wild Things are. And a test was also done for Rapunzel/Tangled. It would have been for the learning process. To see what was possible and what was not, to learn the main differences between now and then, and see what would be useful to introduce in the modern process and how to do it. >to see what has been lost and what has been gained.
Disney may have said "keep moving forward". But I'll bet he meant that even if they kept evolving, it should be based on the foundations of what had already been done. He wanted to do things better and improve the studio. Neither did he wish to repeat himself. While the rest of the world wanted him to make another movie with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, he choosed to do something new all the time (unlike George Lucas. He seems like a nice buy, but he has been stuck with Star Wars for decades).
And I know it also has to do with personal skills and styles. But the design of Peter Pan was already there. Like I said, I couldn't help but feel that it felt a little cheap compared to the original one. It's not a complaint over the animators, this is just how I experienced the movie.

About the Xerox process; people still don't agree if it was a step forward or a step back. Of course the animators loved it, because it was their own drawings they saw on the screen. Walt himself hated it, but was forced to accept it because of the costs of running the studio. Not because he wanted to move forward. The old inking process was an artform itself. The old movies were more like paintings, while the first xerox movies were like drawings, and was much more stilized. They gained something, and they lost something. How much of each, is another discussion.

The modern tools have a lot of advantages. Even Glen Keane says he wants to "explore new directions that hand-drawn animation can be moving in; directions that the computer has now made possible". I don't know exactly what he is referring to. But despite all this, the main question still remains; if there are some elements in the old classics that can not be replicated, shouldn't it be a goal to learn how to do this, unless it requires too much time and money? Like in Bambi when his heard are out looking for food while it is snowing or when the mouse if washing its face, when we see all the stuff in Gepetto's workshop and the panorama view of the village, or The Sorcerer's Apprentice?

[milojthatch]

In my animation history class, we learned that the "Golden Age of Animation" is about the time period between 1928 and 1960. This is not just covering the Walt Disney years mind you, but animation period. In this time period, beside just the Disney cartoons, you have the Looney Tunes, Mr. Magoo, Pop Eye, Woody Woodpecker, Mighty Mouse and Tom and Jerry. The strongest animation has ever been over all was within those decades.

Now, if we are talking just Disney, there would be the first "Golden Age" which if you count the Mickey Mouse shorts cover basically the exact same time mentioned, or if just the features, then about 1937 to 1967, with the second "Golden Age" taking place from about 1989 to 1999, with the heart and soul of that era being 1989 to 1994.

Now as for a difference from hand drawn today as apposed to the old days, of course there is! Just the Disney Studios alone has used many different kinds of animation over the years. I personally think and know there are others who agree, that for just the "Walt Years," the height of animation was "Sleeping Beauty." Even today I still feel personally that it not only holds up the animation of the 90's and forward, but sometimes is better. But sadly, as is common knowledge, it flopped at the box office and Disney films after for a while went to the cheaper Xerox method.

[Disney Duster]

Rumpelstiltskin, actually Aladdin and Roger Rabbit might have gone for a style that fit the films instead of trying to be exactly like the original style those characters were in. In fact, I know for a fact they did give the characters shadows that you would not have seen in their original films, partly because the shadows made them seem like they were in a live-action world.

There are plenty of feature characters though, like Dumbo and Tinker Bell. I think I saw Snow White and Pinocchio at the end with Tinker Bell...

Milojthatch, actually there is a debate as to whteher any film from the 40's is better in terms of art than Sleeping Beauty. Many people find Pinocchio to be the best in animation. Note the shading, shadows, and all kinds of effects present in the characters of those films that can not be found on the characters in Sleeping Beauty.