Visual differences between the old classics and the newer fe

[DisneyAnimation88]

Criticise him if you want, I'm sure if he were alive he would be disappointed that he's let you down. As I've said before, he was an important part of the history of the company and, in the years following Walt's death, was the leader animation needed. Whether you think he was a good one or not is irrelevent, animation could well have been finished at the studio without Walt but Woolie Reitherman, along with several others, helped train a new generation of animators who have played an important role in the recent history of the company. Then again, you've also said on other boards that you think Ron Clements and John Musker are only concerned about their own interests rather than those of the company so is there anyone at Disney, past or present, you do like?

Like I've said, Walt Disney might never have read that letter, but how could someone at Disney send out a letter with content like that, if Walt had not known or approved of it?

[rodis]

There is a certain look in all of the old Disney clasics that really attracts me. A fluidity, an organic look, a real-ness. That look is just not there anymore.

Agreed. I like TPATF but I can't help but think how it would have looked as an early 90's film. It looks a bit garish and artificial at times. I can't pinpoint exactly why. Hmmm.

[Disney Duster]

DisneyAnimation88, I wish you would not assume I don't like all the things I make criticism of. I point out faults in even things I like a lot. I agree Woolie was good, I just said, that one thing he did, the direct copying of animation, was not good. It should have been merely referenced, not copied that much.

[DisneyAnimation88]

[quote]We still don't know for sure if Walt knew about the letter. Prove that he did if you want to talk about it more[/quote]

Prove he didn't know about the letter.

[quote]I just said, that one thing he did, the direct copying of animation, was not good. It should have been merely referenced, not copied that much.[/quote]

Maybe the circumstances meant he had no choice. Floyd Norman can say Woolie Reitherman was "cheap" but perhaps Woolie had no choice but to find a way to produce animation more cheaply than Disney had before. I personally don't regard it as that much of an issue, I've always enjoyed the films in question so I've never had any problem with it.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

I forgot about that one, but indeed you can clearly see that it's all been done by computers. As well when they all look up when Hercules hits the wall and all the rocks fall down....
I think it would impossible to draw that by hand

It represents a different kind of computer animation. These days, computer animation is supposed to be as complex and detailed as possible, where an animal's fur is supposed to have just as many individual hairs as a real animal, where the skind has pores and the clothes fibres and reptiles have thousands of scales.
In Hercules, and in the Roger Rabbit 2 test, a lot of the elements from handdrawn animation were still present. For instance, Roger Rabbit does not have a realisitc fur, it's just white areas with light and shadow. The same goes for his pants. It was the fluid animation that counted, not the characters' texture. Others did the opposite; they made very detailed characters with a very stiff and rigid animation.

Now with all the experience and technology, you can have both. But you should be careful about giving old characters this treatment. If not, the result could end up looking a bit creepy, like Yogi Bear. In his newest feautre, it looks like he has a photorealistic fur while his original design is still intact. I'm not sure if that's a good idea. Imagine Donald Duck as a person in the real world. Covered with photorealistic and individual white feathers, a real sailor shirt and cap, and wbbed feet with scales. Or Goofy for that matter. Some visual styles are better suited for the more traditional type of animation.

[Goliath]

Woolie Reitherman completely copied old animation. How can we not criticize that?

It was already done when Walt Disney was still alive. E.g. animation in The Jungle Book was recycled from 101 Dalmatians, The Sword in the Stone and Ichabod and Mr. Toad.

Oh, and Duster, the question "how can we not criticize that?" comes up every time the rest of the forum is discussing Walt with you.

We still don't know for sure if Walt knew about the letter. Prove that he did if you want to talk about it more.

Oh Good Lord! I give up! Your devotion to the myth of an over 40 year dead man is incredible. I can't reason with you!

[Walt Disney] obviously had faults, but the truth about him has been stretched and distorted by all of the biographies and myths written about his life.

That's certainly true, but let's not forget a large part of that is due to Disney himself/the Disney Company itself. They deliberately created a mythical 'Uncle Walt' imagine. We tend to forget that when we discuss the man and his deeds, and that's why critical observations about him often rub the fans the wrong way --because they have started to believe in the myth.

But alas, this all is hugely off-topic.

[Escapay]

Woolie Reitherman completely copied old animation. How can we not criticize that?

It was already done when Walt Disney was still alive. E.g. animation in The Jungle Book was recycled from 101 Dalmatians, The Sword in the Stone and Ichabod and Mr. Toad.

Ames posted this in the "Disney Oddities" thread, but it may have been overlooked...

A side-by-side comparison of Disney’s “Orphan’s Benefit”
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/orpha ... rison.html

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OeHWLmdl0FA?fs ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OeHWLmdl0FA?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

In addition, some of their cartoons were re-edited and re-animated in the early 40s to become propoganda cartoons for Canada. "The Three Little Pigs" turns the Big Bad Wolf into a Nazi and bricks into war bonds, while "Donald's Decision" combines "Donald's Better Self" and "Self Control" into another "buy war bonds!" piece. "Seven Wise Dwarfs" includes original animation from the film and new animation. Another great example is "All Together" which re-animates various bits of animation from a variety of cartoons to become a parade. All four also end with animated propoganda often set to the same music and featuring the "Five for Four" marketing campaign.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1Kg3DVApYEs?fs ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1Kg3DVApYEs?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LIxWB_R7Ucc?fs ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LIxWB_R7Ucc?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

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

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KiRfFGIBb9c?fs ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KiRfFGIBb9c?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

albert

[Rudy Matt]

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.

And yet the movie ends with Tinker Bell.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit was set in 1946, so it only makes sense that the majority of the characters were from the 30's and 40's. What I love about WFRR is that the characters - for the most part - are drawn using their character models from 1946. Bugs is drawn as he was in 1946, Tweety, etc.

[Wonderlicious]

And yet the movie ends with Tinker Bell.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit was set in 1946, so it only makes sense that the majority of the characters were from the 30's and 40's. What I love about WFRR is that the characters - for the most part - are drawn using their character models from 1946. Bugs is drawn as he was in 1946, Tweety, etc.

The film's mythology overall is that all toons are sort of actors who fall in and out the limelight just as much as any other public figure could. The penguin waiters, for example, wouldn't appear on screen before 1964, and are simply working at the Ink and Paint Club for the interim, just as Maleficent's goons and Bill the Lizard are working at Maroon Studios. Likewise, Betty Boop, who had sunk out of the limelight by the 40s, is resorting to working as a cigar seller at the Ink and Paint. I think that they simply decided to use Tinker Bell as she became the standard character to close Disney stuff, just as Porky Pig was the standard character to end WB cartoons.

P.S. The film is set in 1947.

[Disney Duster]

Woolie Reitherman completely copied old animation. How can we not criticize that?

It was already done when Walt Disney was still alive. E.g. animation in The Jungle Book was recycled from 101 Dalmatians, The Sword in the Stone and Ichabod and Mr. Toad.

Ames posted this in the "Disney Oddities" thread, but it may have been overlooked...

In addition, some of their cartoons were re-edited and re-animated in the early 40s...

So? Okay, so Walt let it go. Because Woolie wanted to do it. Are we forgetting Walt's health was still failing at this time? As for the re-doing the animation for updated shorts and shorts for other countries...again, so? That was re-animating for...different versions of the same thing. I was talking about using old animation for completely new characters and films.

The re-used animation for shorts and small projects is once again also different from using old animation for animated features, which would actually not be near as bad as the main point I was talking about, again, old animation of old characters used for completely new characters. New characters in new worlds in new movies with new stories.

And I saw Ames' post before. Read about it and the whole short-updates for the Disney characters all watching them in a theater thing.

[Escapay]

It was already done when Walt Disney was still alive. E.g. animation in The Jungle Book was recycled from 101 Dalmatians, The Sword in the Stone and Ichabod and Mr. Toad.

Ames posted this in the "Disney Oddities" thread, but it may have been overlooked...

In addition, some of their cartoons were re-edited and re-animated in the early 40s...

So? Okay, so Walt let it go. Because Woolie wanted to do it. Are we forgetting Walt's health was still failing at this time? As for the re-doing the animation for updated shorts and shorts for other countries...again, so? That was re-animating for...different versions of the same thing. I was talking about using old animation for completely new characters and films.

You're acting as if it were a federal crime that Woolie Reitherman re-used animation in a movie, when Walt Disney did the same thing in shorts. Regardless of its purpose ("different versions of the same thing" or "old animation for completely new characters"). Re-used animation is still re-used animation. You can't say "Well, it's okay if Walt allowed it" but then go around and say "Woolie Reitherman shouldn't have done it!" You're making a double standard in Walt's favor. Which doesn't surprise me.

And I saw Ames' post before. Read about it and the whole short-updates for the Disney characters all watching them in a theater thing.

I read about it too, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it. It's an example of re-used animation, which, by golly, is what you're talking about.

albert

[Goliath]

Give it up, Escapay. In Duster's eyes, Wolfgang Reitherman was an evil man who made Walt Disney make cartoons with recycled animation --even though Walt was the boss of the studio. In Duster's eyes, Reitherman must have blackmailed Walt into using recycled animation, or Reitherman had poor Walt tortured, or he threatened Disney's kids --all to the end of forcing him to re-use animation. And when Walt had passed away (he got a heart attack from Reitherman's constant pressure), Wolfgang finally could fulfill his evil wishes without anyone standing in his way.

So far Disney history according to Duster. Now quit this bickering and start your daily prayer for Saint Walt, the holy protector of animators everywhere.

[DisneyAnimation88]

Amen to that. What's the point of arguing with Disney Duster any longer when they obviously know an alternative history of Disney to the rest of us?

However, I do have to ask what exactly Walt's failing health had to do with the issue of recycled animation?

[Escapay]

Now quit this bickering and start your daily prayer for Saint Walt, the holy protector of animators everywhere.

Our Walt, Who art in heaven,
Hallowed be Thy Name.
Magic Kingdom come.
Magic will be done, on screen as it is in Disney.
Give us this cartoon our daily bread.
And forgive us our cynic-ness,
as we forgive those who cynic against us.
And lead us not into DreamWorks-ation,
but deliver us from evil.



albert

[Scarred4life]

Our Walt, Who art in heaven,
Hallowed be Thy Name.
Magic Kingdom come.
Magic will be done, on screen as it is in Disney.
Give us this cartoon our daily bread.
And forgive us our cynic-ness,
as we forgive those who cynic against us.
And lead us not into DreamWorks-ation,
but deliver us from evil.

at that part especially.

[UmbrellaFish]

Now quit this bickering and start your daily prayer for Saint Walt, the holy protector of animators everywhere.

Our Walt, Who art in heaven,
Hallowed be Thy Name.
Magic Kingdom come.
Magic will be done, on screen as it is in Disney.
Give us this cartoon our daily bread.
And forgive us our cynic-ness,
as we forgive those who cynic against us.
And lead us not into DreamWorks-ation,
but deliver us from evil.



albert

That has to be one of the funniest things I've ever seen on this board!

[Escapay]

And also one of the most blasphemous! I sure hope Black pearl and waltmad aren't here tonight.

albert
who coincidentally, is a practicing Roman Catholic and should know better than to take the Lord's Prayer and rewrite it as Walt-worshiping satire

[Disney Duster]

Yea that was blasphemous please don't do that.

Anyway, I don't know how you don't see the difference between using old animation of some characters for completely new characters that have completely new personalities and everything.

Now, if you don't believe that each new person in the world acts differently from other people and if you don't believe that people do not act exactly the same as each other, then...I just don't get you.

[DisneyAnimation88]

You can't really compare real-life to the similarities between Baloo and Little John. They were not completely new characters with completely new personalities, they were even voiced by the same person. Out of forty-nine films, how many have used recycled animation? It's really not that big of an issue, surely, they are cartoon characters not human beings.

[Disney Duster]

I try to think that at Disney, and actually everywhere, but especially Disney, they try to think of original characters that all act uniquely, perhaps similar to each other in some ways, but still different. Even voice actors change their voices and how they do the character when they do different characters.

I acm't believe you are defending something bad, and Disney didn't think of them as just cartoon characters, he wanted them to be "as real as flesh and blood" as he said. In personality, in emotion, in soul.

Look, I see you love these films and that is why you are defending this animation. I will believe, when I watch these films, that the characters' movements are new and all their own. In fact, they probably changed at least a little bit of the animation to make it new and a little different as they copied it, but, it's still a practice that should not have been done. Woolie should have just looked that past animation for inspiration and example, not copy it that much.