Visual differences between the old classics and the newer fe

[milojthatch]

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.

I'm aware of that, which is why I said my own personal taste I feel "Sleeping Beauty" was the height of Walt's animated films, and that there are a number in the animation community that feel that way. That said, I'd take the art of "Pinocchio" over just about any animated anything today. It really laid the foundation for a lot of what we take for granted in animation today.

[Elladorine]

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.

I wasn't taking it as an actual suggestion that the studio totally remake the old films. I'm not sure how to put it really, nor did I mean to target anything you've said in a negative light (I hope I haven't done that). Something I recall from what Disney animators were saying in the 70's and 80's was that there was frustration over looking to the past too much. Part of that was the whole infamous "what would Walt have done" shpiel, but I'm speaking more of artists looking back at what previous artists did for guidance for their particular scene types instead of coming up with their own ideas. I'm not sure whether or not that lead to what we call recycled animation, which we see a lot of in films like Robin Hood (which was most likely a simple cost-effective measure), but for a time many agreed that character animation had become stagnate because nothing new was being attempted.

I love animation tests and understand the need for them. I saw the Where the Wild Things Are test back when I was a kid in the mid-80's and my jaw dropped, but even then I wondered why they hadn't made it into a cartoon that could be released instead of remaining a relatively obscure snippet. In other words, I'd prefer to see the tests incorporated into new, releasable shorts. Shorts were more than fun little subjects back in the day, as we know a lot of experimentation done within certain ones that were either stepping stones or were applied to features. And these tests you bring up were to try something new, not to replicate something that has already been figured out and accomplished.

Oh, and I also recall the rumors about wanting to remake the old classics as CG a few years back . . . scary thought!

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).

"You can't top pigs with pigs!" ~Walt Disney

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.

To be fair, I've only seen Return to Neverland once, and that was when it was new to DVD. I liked a lot of aspects of it, but felt the animation was lacking and the visual feel of the characters was poor when compared to the original; in general the poses and acting were weak (when I refer to acting, I mean through the drawings, not voice work). That has little to do with staying on-model with the original designs.

Oh, even if I downplayed the whole colors thing the extra brightness and over-saturated palette of the sequel probably didn't help either.

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.

Which is why I like to say that scanning and digitally coloring is the best of both worlds. We can still see the animator's drawings, but they're much more refined and cleaned-up than the early xerox process. I did attempt to point out earlier that each process has its merits and limitations, and that there is a definite artistry to hand-inked work.

This is absolutely nothing against the fine artists whole did all the meticulous inking by hand, but it's interesting to note that both inking and painting were jobs relegated to women only, and that women artists were rarely even considered to hold any other positions in animation outside of that (obvious exceptions include Mary Blair and Retta Scott). Working with cels was considered the bottom of the totem pole of any animation studio.

Technically speaking, it think the xerography process was a case of moving forward. We like to think of animation as art, but for companies like Disney it also has to be a business. Yes, it's been noted by many that Walt didn't care for the look of the xerography (including myself in one of my previous posts) but in a sense, it was a technology that he did indeed embrace (and one I wouldn't be surprised if Roy helped push him into), and also one he softened up with over time. Dalmatians most likely would not have been possible without the xerography process, and the process needed something like Dalmatians to get off the ground and became just a small yet very important part in the history of animation.

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?

Once again, I'm afraid I really don't see the point in looking back like that to replicate, and at least on a technical level I feel they're more than capable of it (emotionally/artistically may be a different story altogether and is certainly a subjective issue). Where did those original artists draw their inspiration from? They couldn't look back to previous artists' work, they were the inventors, the pioneers! They learned their craft by studying real life subjects and incorporating their own styles and personalities into their work. Return to Neverland is a product of trying to look back and replicate what made Peter Pan successful, but without the understanding of what made it work beneath the surface.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Disney Duster:
Yeah, the characters in Roger Rabbit and Aladdin were probably adapted a bit to fit the movies they appeared in.


enigmawing:
Reitherman didn't reuse old footage to save money, it was just the kind of guy he was. After One Hundred and One Dalmatians, Disney considered to close the studio, now when he had TV, live action and Disneyland and other kinds of income. But he finally decided to keep it alive, even if the movies' bugets were very low compared to the old days. It was more about keeping the studio alive than evolve it, and thos who were running it were not exactly in their teens, so very little progress was done in those years. It was not about hanging on to the past, but doing the stuff theny already knew how to do. The "what would Walt do" mantra was most likely about how the movies should be like, not the animation itself.

It was no need for animation tests that recreated things from the old days because those who had done them already knew theur skills. If the art looks more simple in the years to come, it was partially because of the budget, and partially because of the technology. With the black xerox lines of the 60s and later, the characters had to be stylized. The round and soft style from earlier times were not possible then.
Today, there are new artists, and larger budgets and new technology. I have heard that the Disney animators often watch the old classics before each new movie, as well as a lot of live action and other inspiration sources. Which is a good thing. You should learn to see in all directions, not just looking forward or backward.
The intention about this thread was not that Disney should copy fragments of the classics, but to identity the elements of their qualities. When they are identified, the next question would be if they can be recreated, no matter how. Recreating some frames from an old feauture was just a suggestion on how to find the weak spots. There could probably be other ways of doing this as well, since exactly how it is done is not the main subject. I'm just trying to imagine what I would have done if I was an animator and wanted to learn and evolve, and if I could pick the challenges myself. Had Disney made another Peter Pan movie right after then first one, instead of Lady and the Tramp, it would most likely have looked like the first one, or maybe even better. The one made in 2002 did not look better, despite all the new technology. It could be the crew, the budget, the production time, the technology or other factors, or a combination of everything. You can still learn from reasons even if you can't do anything about it right there and then.

Accepting a technology for ability to save money, is not the same a accepting it for artistically reasons. You can get used to everything, so Walt would probably have less against Xerox as time passed, but I have never heard that he put it higher than hand inking.

The reason why most of the animators were males, and the inkers were females, had of course something to do with the times they were living in. But I also read somewhere once that Walt only trusted the women to be able to transfer the drawings to the cels. He meant if was a kind of delicate quality to the inking done by women, that only they knew how to create. And just like the animators the main inkers had a lot of experience. I havn't heard anything about the painters' status, or if it was only women there as well.

[Disney Duster]

Right, I was also thinking that Walt wanted, nay, needed the most delicate hands to ink the cels. But, that would mean he was also sexist against men if he thought men couldn't do it! I thought I read there was like one male in there, but he might of only overlooked the inking, not done it. Does anyone know, did any guys do the cel inking?

Also, I have a feeling not many women tried to be animators or other things in the studio, and by that I mean I wonder if many girls went to any animation studios back then...is it possible to even know?

Also, I think if you did want to move up from inking, you had to pass all these tests and only a few women made it or something...

[DisneyAnimation88]

The animators were all men, the reason Walt referred to them as his "boys". Due to his traditional beliefs about marriage and the relationship between men and women, the ink and paint department were female to keep the different genders separated. Walt didn't want to put any temptation in the way of the married animators while he felt relationships between colleagues made work difficult and that work and pleasure should always be kept seperate.

I think it's interesting that there's still not many famous female animators at the studio, at least that I know of. Everyone knows Keane, Deja, Goldberg, etc, but I don't know of any woman in a similar standing to those individuals.

[Elladorine]

I still get the impression that recycled animation was a budgetary concern (time is money), especially when other budgetary concerns are acknowledged like the xerography and overall financial limitations not had by the older features. It's also been made clear that Walt was losing interest in animation in his later years, but it's been said that he felt he owed his artists and wanted to keep the studio alive because of it.

Something Ward Kimball told an aspiring artist wanting to work for Disney was, "Learn from others, BUT DON'T COPY THEM! Try to retain your individualism while learning the basic rules." [His caps, not mine.] So yes, I think it's expected to look to past features for inspiration, as well as live-action and real life and anime and maquettes and else whatever else might be helpful. And I can definitely see how observing the old films could give inexperienced artists and even seasoned pros inspiration for new work.

I'm sure most of you are already familiar with this letter. I am in no way accusing Disney to be sexist (although I've been accused in the past for attempting to discuss this same letter) as I do realize those times were different, and certain traditions and beliefs were upheld. It's interesting that there still aren't many women in animation, something I've discussed with a few of my friends that are in the industry; one in particular told me we need more female artists, in his opinion they have a unique and delicate touch when it comes to bringing artwork to life. Perhaps that's not much different than if Walt had the opinion that only females were capable of the delicate job inking and painting. And as for modern female animators, the only one I can think of off the top of my head is Kathy Zielinski.

[Disney Duster]

The animators were all men

Um, no, there was Retta Scott and other female animators at the studio in Walt's time. Do some research. I don't mean that in a mean way, I just won't take a false saying.

Also, a while back I read an article on the female inkers and painters and Walt actually encouraged them to date the men at the studio, but I'm guessing that meant the unmarried men.

[Elladorine]

Also, a while back I read an article on the female inkers and painters and Walt actually encouraged them to date the men at the studio, but I'm guessing that meant the unmarried men.

That would make sense, as Lillian Bounds was one of the ink and paint ladies.

[DisneyAnimation88]

Retta Scott was hired by the story department and contributed animation to three films, she wasn't one of the elite animators at the studio, like the Nine Old Men or Art Babbitt or Norm Ferguson. I'm not at all disparaging her achievements but I don't recall many other famous female animators at the studio. Maybe I'm not the only one who needs to do some research?

[quote]Also, a while back I read an article on the female inkers and painters and Walt actually encouraged them to date the men at the studio, but I'm guessing that meant the unmarried men[/quote]

I'm guessing your right I doubt "Uncle Walt" would be encouraging his married animators to have affairs with the women in the ink & paint department.

[Disney Duster]

You know, Walt didn't necessarily know about that letter.

Anyway, here's a bit on female animators at Disney in Walt's day:

http://www.mouseplanet.com/8166/The_Mys ... y_Animator

[DisneyAnimation88]

If that letter was sent in 1938, I'm sure Walt Disney knew it's content as it was probably sent to hundreds of women applying to be animators.. It's not really an issue of sexism, it's an issue of the era, much like the links to communism and other taboo subjects in Disney's history.

That's an interesting article but it sort of proves a point that women had little chance of progression to prominent positions at Disney unless Walt took a personal interest in their talents as shown in the cases of Mary Blair and Retta Scott.

In terms of recycled animation, I'm not sure if it's a case of Woolie Reitherman essentially being "cheap" for lack of a better word but more of a case of his desire to see animation continue at Disney. By the time of Walt's death, animation was so expensive that Card Walker and Ron Miller probably would have been happy to shut it down to focus on live-action but by using older animation in the films of the 1970's, I though Reitherman was showing that animation could be produced on less expensive budgets and so was worth continuing.

[Goliath]

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.

Going by J. Michael Barrier's book Hollywood Cartoons: American Cartoons in its Golden Age and Thomas and Johnston's Disney Animation: The Illusion of Life, the 'Golden Age' of American animation is located somewhere between the 1920's and late 1940's. I believe the period between Cinderella and The Jungle Book is called the 'Silver Age'. The period from 1989-1995 is usually considered the 'Second Golden Age'.

But sadly, as is common knowledge, [Sleeping Beauty] flopped at the box office and Disney films after for a while went to the cheaper Xerox method.

Yes, but they immediately took advantage of the new Xerox method to create a very distinctive, beautiful artful, unique style for One Hundred and One Dalmatians, which looks spectacular. In the featurs following it, animation would look a lot more generic.

I'm sure most of you are already familiar with this letter. I am in no way accusing Disney to be sexist (although I've been accused in the past for attempting to discuss this same letter) as I do realize those times were different, and certain traditions and beliefs were upheld.

So what if you were accusing Walt Disney of being sexist? He probably was, from what I've read about the guy. He was a staunch conservative, so it fits his profile. Even though those times were different, that doesn't make it any less sexist to open up a particular job only to men. So, nothing wrong with bringing this up.

The animators were all men

Um, no, there was Retta Scott and other female animators at the studio in Walt's time.

Aaaah yes, the token woman... He did also have one black man working in story department, one Asian in lay-out and one or two jews, so he couldn't be racist, right?!

(I'm not saying he was; just pointing out your reasoning doesn't ring true.)

If that letter was sent in 1938, I'm sure Walt Disney knew it's content as it was probably sent to hundreds of women applying to be animators.. It's not really an issue of sexism, it's an issue of the era, much like the links to communism and other taboo subjects in Disney's history.

That's right, in 1938 Walt Disney still had very tight control about everything that went on in the studio and he had a hand in everything. Like I said to enigmawing: just because it took place in that era, doesn't make it any less sexist. It really was an issue of sexism. Remember that, in that time, sexism was institutionalized in society in general (much the same as racism).

[DisneyAnimation88]

I agree with you Goliath, I didn't make my point clear enough that those attitudes were accepted and not challenged as they are today. The letter is proof enough that the company and it's founder believed that men and women should be separated in the work place. While there are examples of women working in animation at the studio, I am still surprised that aren't more in prominent positions today.

I think the issue of whether Walt was racist or sexist is an impossible one to debate as there are those who believe wholeheartedly in the "Uncle Walt" persona and that he was a perfect man with no faults, while there are those who will argue he was a prejudiced and ruthless operator with no regard for employees, or even his brother. I personally have a more favourable opinion of him, but I by no means believe he was faultless, his testimony to congress on communism, a case in point.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Floyd Norman made a comment about the Reitherman's reuse of old animation some time back: "Reuse was just Woolie's thing. He never did it to save money. I really don't think the "Old Guard" ever had any interest in saving money. I was never a big fan of reuse, but it wasn't my place to tell these old guys what to do."

And about working on Robin Hood: "Actually, it would have been easier to animate from scratch instead of reworking the older material. Like I said, it was Woolie's thing."

Link: http://mayersononanimation.blogspot.com ... eruns.html

Most people will probably agree that artists should do their best to find their own style and keep improving it, and watching others' work for inspiration. But sometimes copying others or doing something else that is not them for a short period of time, could be a part of the learning process too and add something new to their personal expression once they are back in the old saddle again. With not copying others, I guess that Kimball meant that you shouldn't adopt the style that belonged to others. Which makes sense.

Female artists and animators at Disney:

http://jimhillmedia.com/Columnists/b/fl ... lture.aspx

[Disney Duster]

Walt did not know every single thing going on at the studio. That might include something as insignifigant as a letter given to all the people who applied at Disney, of which there must have been too many.

Um, no, there was Retta Scott and other female animators at the studio in Walt's time.

Aaaah yes, the token woman... He did also have one black man working in story department, one Asian in lay-out and one or two jews, so he couldn't be racist, right?!

(I'm not saying he was; just pointing out your reasoning doesn't ring true.)

Reasoning? The guy said only men were animators, and I proved that wasn't true. By the way, there was more than one woman animator. Who were they? Go look it up.

[DisneyAnimation88]

I must admit that that article about Floyd Norman has disproved my thoughts on why Disney reused older animation in the 1970's. I assumed Woolie Reitherman was perhaps doing it to show animation could be completed on a smaller budget, but obviously it was simply his "style" as Norman put it.

Disney Duster, I don't really think you have proved me wrong. My point was there were no female animators involved in feature animation from the start, working from "Snow White" up until the 1970's on every film that was released, who were put in charge of assignments like character animation. In short, they simply were not valued as highly as men when it came to animation. Retta Scott worked in animation on three films, one of which was a package feature, left the studio in 1942 and then returned to the story department. If you were to list the twenty greatest animators in the history of Disney, how many would be female? Like I said, I'm not trying to disparage any of the women who worked in animation at Disney but it is undeniable that the most well known of all of the animators to have ever worked at Disney are male.

I don't know if it's your intention but you do put your points across in a way that suggests you are the definitive font of knowledge of all things Disney and that the rest of us are wrong. Perhaps I should have worded myself better than I did in my previous post that you quoted but maybe you should stop telling people to "do their research" or "go look it up" as if we are all fundamentally wrong and you are always right.

[Goliath]

Walt did not know every single thing going on at the studio. That might include something as insignifigant as a letter given to all the people who applied at Disney, of which there must have been too many.

Back in 1938, Walt Disney knew almost everything going on in the studio. The studi hadn't exploded yet and he had his touch on every single issue. Surely he knew what his own studio's hiring policy was. To say he didn't, is bullshit. Pure and simple.

Reasoning? The guy said only men were animators, and I proved that wasn't true. By the way, there was more than one woman animator. Who were they? Go look it up.

There were a few token women. Your reasoning is that Walt Disney *could* not be sexist, because he had these few token women working there in the middle of all these men. That's faulty reasoning. Give it up, Duster. The man has been dead for over 40 years. He won't hear it when you say something unkind of him. Unless you're afraid he will come haunt you...

I must admit that that article about Floyd Norman has disproved my thoughts on why Disney reused older animation in the 1970's. I assumed Woolie Reitherman was perhaps doing it to show animation could be completed on a smaller budget, but obviously it was simply his "style" as Norman put it.

Who says that disproves it? How do you know Norman wasn't telling that's not true? Maybe he wasn't remembering well --memory can be faulty a lot of times. Maybe he was deliberately making the past look better than it was? To protect the image of a long-time colleague? I'm not saying this is the case, but people on UD shouldn't be so gullible (no offense to you personally) as to immediately believe the 'official story'.

I don't know if it's your intention but you do put your points across in a way that suggests you are the definitive font of knowledge of all things Disney and that the rest of us are wrong.

If you intend on staying on this forum much longer (and I hope so), you better get used to it.

[Disney Duster]

Disney Animation, I state things matter of factly until I know otherwise.

Goliath, um, no, you still haven't proved he knew everything at his studio. And you still haven't proved he was sexist. I never said I proved anything except that there were more than one female animators there.

[DisneyAnimation88]

No, you state things like they are undeniable, concrete facts, when in reality, it is your interpretation or opinion. The majority of people would probably agree that women are, and always have been, a minority amongst high-profile animators, would you agree? By listing one female animator, you have not yet completely disproved my own opinion that men have always outnumbered women in the ranks of animators at Disney.

Back to the matter in hand, having looked into Floyd Norman's comments I found this webpage and video.

http://mayersononanimation.blogspot.com ... eruns.html

I was surprised to see animation from "Beauty and the Beast" that seems to have reused from "Sleeping Beauty", something I hadn't noticed before. That being said, I do believe Reitherman played an important part in ensuring animation continued in the wake of Walt's death and, while the films of that era might not have been at the quality of those of Walt's time, they are still entertaining.

[Disney Duster]

Yes I agree women were a minority in animation, yet for some reason they still are today, so are we still sexist and "of the times"? No.

And I said there was more than one female animator. Yes, Retta Scott is the only one's name I remember, but I know there are more and gave you a link that listed them, all you have to do is look, if you want to deny it is your ignoring.

The re-used Sleeping Beauty dance was for time. They would have made their own animation but that film really was rushed as far as animation went. However, they still managed to create beautiful animation and some of the best.

So maybe Woolie Reitherman was trying to keep Walt's spirit and essence alive in the film's through the animation. Little did he realize copying was not the answer.