Visual differences between the old classics and the newer fe

[DisneyAnimation88]

Don't you see the point I've been trying to make to you now. I, in my humble and apparently inferior opinion, do not think it is bad. You think it's bad therefore it is. Can't you make a point without sounding like your lecturing someone? Who are you to say what Woolie Reitherman, a veteran with decades of experience in animation, should have done? And stop referencing Walt Disney, you never met the man and don't know what he would have thought.

This is a platform for people to express their opinions, but it feels like your trying to educate people when they don't want or need it.

[Disney Duster]

Oh.

I don't think any opinion of yours is inferior.

But, yes, I do believe that it is just plain bad to re-use animation like that. It's like telling people that to steal is wrong. I just see it as a fact it is wrong.

Let me at least ask you this. Maybe you think it's "fine", but did you think the practice was good, as in it was a good decision, it made the films better in some way?

[DisneyAnimation88]

In all honesty, I don't believe they made the films any better but I also don't believe they made the films worse. Robin Hood is by no means a classic or a masterpiece, it's a simple story and film. It's enjoyable but it's not a film that grips my attention everytime I see it. That's why I don't really think it's that big of a deal; it doesn't affect my enjoyment or the qualities the film does have. I like the film and have seen it many times, but I've never really been pre-occupied with the recycled animation, even if it is quite obvious.

[Disney Duster]

Hm...what a great answer.

However, it made me think of the films where the animation came from, and how it served those films well. What the bear does with the chicken was much funnier when Baloo did it in disguise with the villain monkey. Snow White enjoying herself with the dwarfs was about building her relationship with them more than Maid Marian's dancing with peasants was about. So, there that is.

You know, Maid Marian dancing with poor peasants actually would be touching, if maybe the more upped the poor peasantness, but that is not a complaint that's an "I wonder if"...

The other thing is the original animation was timed to different music, so, the beats and rythms don't match up, and sometimes there was even movements to sung-dialogue re-used and that wouldn't match up.

[Goliath]

I know we have mocked Disney Duster quite a bit for his whole 'Reitherman was a bad man for re-using animation because that's not what Walt would have wanted' routine...

...BUT...

I do agree with him on the fact that it makes the characters interchangable and gives them less a personailty of their own, because a character's personality is usually reflected in its animation. To recycle animation thrusts the personality of an old character onto a new character. It's interesting that I just read about this very subject in Frank and Ollie's Disney Animation: The Illusion of Life. When talking about Bill Tytla, they write:

Bill could not stand the ordinary. If you were interested in your work, then you should take the pains to observe and study and make your characters different and unique. No two scenes should ever be alike and no two characters should ever do something the same way. Bill put it this way:

Stock methods of doing things are careless animation; very often, moreover, they are based on no observation at all. Frequently, some animator will animate not something he has observed, but something he has memorized that some other animator has done. In such cases, it is a matter of one animator copying another, memorizing a lot of stock stuff. This is evident in cartoons where all the characters, regardless of personality, walk, run and move the same way. The animator has not given even a thought to the personalities involved, to delineating character and personality through variations in reactions and actions.

Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston, Disney Animation: The Illusion of Life, Disney Editions (1981), New York; pp. 135-136

Tytla made these comments in the 1930's or early 1940's, when he was working at Disney's, and he was commenting on the cartoons of competing studio's, where a lot of cycle animation was used, just like Disney had done in their early Mickey Mouse and Silly Symphony cartoons. But Disney had moved away from everything Tytla was criticizing, to make their cartoons better and more believable.

In a way, the recycling of animation at the Disney Studio, beginning in the 1960's (under supervision of an already disinterested Walt Disney), marked the downfall of Disney animation, as it basically sunk back to techniques they had disavowed as early as the mid-1930's. It was a major throwback. Maybe we should let the 'Silver Age' end with 101 Dalmatians already.

[Elladorine]

Goliath makes some excellent points in his most recent post, which reminded me of how I meant to post the Ward Kimball letter I mentioned much earlier in this thread. [Warning, the letter includes some foul language.]

[DisneyAnimation88]

I would probably also agree with that. Robin Hood has among the weakest characterization of all the Disney films and had the story been a bit stronger, I probably would have noticed it a lot more than I have. I haven't noticed the mistimed animation yet but I'll rewatch the film and look out for it.

It's a shame Bill Tytla didn't have a longer career at Disney. His animation of Chernabog and Dumbo is amazing and it is sad that he spent so much of his later life trying to return to Disney without success.

I will have to read the book. I've collected around fifteen books on Disney animation but I somehow haven't read the Illusion of Life yet.

[Heil Donald Duck]

[quote="DisneyAnimation88"]I would probably also agree with that. Robin Hood has among the weakest characterization of all the Disney films and had the story been a bit stronger, I probably would have noticed it a lot more than I have. I haven't noticed the mistimed animation yet but I'll rewatch the film and look out for it.

It's a shame Bill Tytla didn't have a longer career at Disney. His animation of Chernabog and Dumbo is amazing and it is sad that he spent so much of his later life trying to return to Disney without success.

I will have to read the book. I've collected around fifteen books on Disney animation but I somehow haven't read the Illusion of Life yet.[/quote]

The problem with that film is that it is constance of unknown antros.

[Escapay]

I personally don't mind the recycled animation, simply because it does its job of portraying characters in a way that the director wanted it portrayed. Plus, unlike most UDers, I'm not a big animation aficionado who'll watch a movie one frame at a time and concentrate on every detail in the picture :\ . I like my Disney movies mainly for the story and characters or for the nostalgia. The way it's animated is a mid-level concern for me.

However, I do understand how recycled animation can be seen as an easy way out. Animation is very much like acting, it's a performance, as Ward Kimball's letter more or less illustrates. While some actors make a living doing nothing but aping the performance of another without bringing anything unique to their interpretation, in animation it's not so common. Thus, when it is done, it is noticeable.

That said, I still think it's stupid to go about implying "Woolie Reitherman Using Recycled Animation = Hitler Incarnate" while conceding "Walt Disney Using Recycled Animation = Just Fine Because Walt > Woolie". Recycled animation is recycled animation, regardless of its purpose. Ideally, such a thing wouldn't be a problem because there'd be enough time and money to animate something the way they want it done, without having to re-use something else. But when you consider the economics of the company at the various times that they had to re-use animation (and this extends beyond the 1930s/1940s and the Reitherman films), then it's understandable why they did. Does it make it "right" or "wrong"? That's all a matter of opinion.

albert

[Disney Duster]

DisneyAnimation, when I talked about timed animation, I meant:

The original animation was put to one song.

Putting that same animation to a different song, it's just not going to "match", you know?

And thank you Goliath and Enigmawing!

Escapay, wah, looks like you still didn't get what I was saying. Walt re-used the animation in different ways..? I don't even remember where it was you said he used it. Anyway, the re-using of animation goes on a case by case basis, but, in general, no, it isn't good no matter who does it.

But I was talking about the difference of re-using animation for certain things and re-using animation for old characters on all new characters! That was the difference I was talking about and finally you guys are getting it.

Also, whenever re-using old animation, hopefully the artists change it at least as much as they can to fit the personality and objective of the characters it's being used for.

[Escapay]

Escapay, wah, looks like you still didn't get what I was saying.

No, you still don't get what I'm saying. And wtf is the "wah" for?

You can't have one standard for Walt and one standard for Woolie on the issue of recycled animation. It's not case-by-case. The issue of recycled animation is the same: animation created for one thing, is now being used for another. Regardless who approved it or who did it.

Walt re-used the animation in different ways..? I don't even remember where it was you said he used it.

When I pointed out that Walt re-used animation during the War Years, all you did was go "So?" as if it were okay for him, but not okay for Woolie. Just backtrack one page and you'll see it.

Anyway, the re-using of animation goes on a case by case basis, but, in general, no, it isn't good no matter who does it.

No, it's not case by case. It's still the same issue, no matter what the intent.

This is just like last year when you'd insist that the 1991 version of Beauty and the Beast should be the one released primarily and not any of the recolored versions that the filmmakers wanted, but then you'd go around and reverse that train of thought by saying that the latest-Walt-approved version of Fantasia should be the one that got most priority instead of the 1940 roadshow version. You can't have one standard for one person and another standard for another when it's the same issue at hand.

albert

[merlinjones]

1) The Walt Disney classics find resonance in timeless themes and archetypes, optimistic reassurance, a child's point-of-view and populism.

2) The Walt Disney classics have sophisticated and attractive art direction and design and drawing style.

3) The Walt Disney classics are centered on appealing character and personality development and recognizable acting traits.

4) The Walt Disney classics and based in caricature, the cartoon and stylized modernist reductionism.

5) The Walt Disney classics feature simple melodic and universal musical motifs and broadly symbolic lyrics.

[DisneyAnimation88]

Okay, now I understand what you meant. I can see your point in some ways, though I don't share your problems with recycled animation. I don't think I will ever change my opinion that Woolie Reitherman was wrong for reusing older animation or that the issue is that serious, but I do appreciate the point you want to make.

[Goliath]

Goliath makes some excellent points in his most recent post, which reminded me of how I meant to post the Ward Kimball letter I mentioned much earlier in this thread. [Warning, the letter includes some foul language.]

Thank you so much for posting! Very interesting read! I know Will Finn did Iago for Aladdin, but I don't know much about him. I think Kimball offers some great advice, but I'm also struck by his criticism of Hannah-Barbera. I sure agree with him, and I still regret the fathers of Tom and Jerry having sold out to cheaply and crudely animated tv series (amongst those one that has forever tainted the intelligent comic strip 'The Smurfs' by Peyo with the image of staurday morning kiddie fair). But it also seems a bit hypocritical when taking into account Kimball, as one of the 'Nine Old Man' was responsible for recycling animation and copying *themselves* for their animated features.

I would probably also agree with that. Robin Hood has among the weakest characterization of all the Disney films and had the story been a bit stronger, I probably would have noticed it a lot more than I have. I haven't noticed the mistimed animation yet but I'll rewatch the film and look out for it.

I think it was in this thread that I have posted a video about 'Disney's templates' in which you can see a lot of recycled animation from not only Robin Hood, but The Jungle Book as well.

It's a shame Bill Tytla didn't have a longer career at Disney. His animation of Chernabog and Dumbo is amazing and it is sad that he spent so much of his later life trying to return to Disney without success.

Because Thomas and Johnston's book was published at Disney Editions, they never mentioned the real reason why Tytla quit at Disney's. The two authors omit a part of the company's history by writing that "no one reason" can be determined as to why Tytla left. But it is well known that he left shortly after his very close friend, and talented animator, Art Babbit, had been fired by Walt Disney and subsequently smeared by Walt all over Hollywood by false accusations of communist sympathies, simply because Babbit was one of the thriving forces behind the strike in 1941. Babbit tried to form a union at the Disney Studio. Tytla supported his friend and participated in the strike. However, Tytla didn't get fired, but didn't feel at home anymore at Disney's after the strike was over. His friend got fired and smeared, and the Studio was supposedly divided in those who participated in the strike and those who broke the picket line.

(I type this from memory, from J. Michael Barrier's Hollywood Cartoons: American Animation in its Golden Age).

I personally don't mind the recycled animation, simply because it does its job of portraying characters in a way that the director wanted it portrayed. Plus, unlike most UDers, I'm not a big animation aficionado who'll watch a movie one frame at a time and concentrate on every detail in the picture :\ . I like my Disney movies mainly for the story and characters or for the nostalgia. The way it's animated is a mid-level concern for me.

That's a strange kind of reasoning for somebody who claims to like animated films. If animation is not a concern to you, then why would you watch animated films at all? Why then not just stick to live-action? Disney's animated features exist only because people *animated* them. It's as simple as that. So to say it doesn't matter how they're animated is like saying about live-action films: "Well, I don't care how it was directed, or acted, or photographed. As long as I see moving images, I'm satisfied".

The point was that you don't *have* to be a "big animation aficionado" to notice the glaringly obvious recycled animation. The point I was making, alongside Disney Duster and Bill Tytla and Ward Kimball, is that copying animation is devaluating the artform. The way a character is animated tells us a lot about his/her personality. By copying an older character's movements for a new character, you rob the new character from an own, unique personality. I'm sure you'll understand this and won't make caricatures ("animation aficiwhatevers") of our arguments anymore.

That said, I still think it's stupid to go about implying "Woolie Reitherman Using Recycled Animation = Hitler Incarnate" while conceding "Walt Disney Using Recycled Animation = Just Fine Because Walt > Woolie".

That's the 'reasoning' done by Disney Duster and I don't agree with that seperation between Wolfgang Reitherman and Walt Disney at all.

[Edited for typo's]

[DisneyAnimation88]

I've heard that about Tytla, that he was more passive about the strike but went on the picket line out of loyalty to Art Babbitt. I thought he had been fired with Babbitt so thanks for pointing out he actually left of his own accord. You have to respect Tytla for backing his friend rather than toeing the company line and it's a shame someone of his talent felt unable to remain at Disney. I'm sure I've read somewhere, possibly in John Canemaker's book on the Nine Old Men, that Woolie Reitherman lobbied for Tytla to be rehired but because of a lack of money it wasn't possible, though I might be wrong. Having seen what Tytla did with a character like Chernabog, it's a shame his time was so brief at Disney.

[Goliath]

I've heard that about Tytla, that he was more passive about the strike but went on the picket line out of loyalty to Art Babbitt.

That's true.

I'm sure I've read somewhere, possibly in John Canemaker's book on the Nine Old Men, that Woolie Reitherman lobbied for Tytla to be rehired but because of a lack of money it wasn't possible, though I might be wrong. Having seen what Tytla did with a character like Chernabog, it's a shame his time was so brief at Disney.

I didn't know Reitherman wanted Tytla to be rehired. Although, when you wrote that, I got a slight feeling I may have read that before, but now I'm not sure I did or am just imagining it. Maybe it was also in Barrier. Anyway, yes, Tytla did great work on Chernabog, but he impressed me more with his work on the Seven Dwarfs, Stromboli and little Dumbo.

[Edit: damn typo's! I should quit the beers when typing.]

[DisneyAnimation88]

According to the book, Reitherman wrote Tytla: "so far we can just barely keep our present crew of animators busy...rest assured you have many friends here at the studio who are pulling for you". So it seems there were several people at Disney trying to get Tytla back but, for whatever reason, it never happened.

I love the work of all the Nine Old Men but it is a shame that some of the other animators in the early days of the studio like Norm Ferguson, Fred Moore, Babbitt and Tytla, are overlooked in many ways. As shown in the characters you mentioned, Tytla was responsible for some of the most iconic moments in Disney animation but, because of loyalty to an old friend, he felt forced to leave.

[Goliath]

I love the work of all the Nine Old Men but it is a shame that some of the other animators in the early days of the studio like Norm Ferguson, Fred Moore, Babbitt and Tytla, are overlooked in many ways. As shown in the characters you mentioned, Tytla was responsible for some of the most iconic moments in Disney animation but, because of loyalty to an old friend, he felt forced to leave.

I love the work of Norm Ferguson, Fred Moore and let's not forget Hamilton Luske, a real talent from whom the Nine Old Men all learned a whole lot. It's been written that those guys simply couldn't keep up with the changes and improvements in animations. They had developed the Disney look and made it believable and more sophisticated, but Walt wanted to have a kind of realism they couldn't deliver. But sometimes, I feel that desire for realism went too far, like in most of the human characters in the films of the 1950's, especially in Cinderella and the stepmother. It's not as spontenous and lively as the animation in the 1930's and 1940's, and far too much like the life-action reference material.

[DisneyAnimation88]

Yes, I'm sure there are more I've forgotten to mention. I know Fred Moore became an alcoholic and I think he was eventually demoted to an in-betweener for Ollie Johnston, who Moore had trained. He died in a car accident in his early 40's I think. I'm not sure what happened to Norm Ferguson, did he also leave Disney or was he let go?

You make a good point about Walt's pursuit of realism and the use of live-action reference models. I've read quite a lot about Milt Kahl, who many people regard as one of the greatest animators in history, and he admitted he hated that he was almost always assigned human characters to animate due to the tedious study of the reference models. I think I've read similar comments from Frank Thomas which goes to show even the best people at Disney struggled with the pressure of producing work that met Walt's standards.

[Super Aurora]

Because Thomas and Johnston's book was published at Disney Editions, they never mentioned the real reason why Tytla quit at Disney's. The two authors omit a part of the company's history by writing that "no one reason" can be determined as to why Tytla left. But it is well known that he left shortly after his very close friend, and talented animator, Art Babbit, had been fired by Walt Disney and subsequently smeared by Walt all over Hollywood by false accusations of communist sympathies, simply because Babbit was one of the thriving forces behind the strike in 1941. Babbit tried to form a union at the Disney Studio. Tytla supported his friend and participated in the strike. However, Tytla didn't get fired, but didn't feel at home anymore at Disney's after the strike was over. His friend got fired and smeared, and the Studio was supposedly divided in those who participated in the strike and those who broke the picket line.i

Interesting.... Cause I thought the red scare and the McCarthyism didn't occur till the 50's. So i'm surprise even before WW2 ended, attack on "communist sympathizers" was still prevalent at the time.