Visual differences between the old classics and the newer fe

[Escapay]

If animation is not a concern to you, then why would you watch animated films at all?

I didn't say it wasn't a concern, I said that it was a mid-level concern. When I watch a movie, be it animated or live-action, I pay attention to the story and characters before I pay attention to the performance, be it animated or live-action. Am I drawn into the story, do I find myself believing in these characters? Robin Hood has mediocre animation but I'm still drawn in by the fun laid-back attitude of the story and characters. On the flipside, some sequences in The Lion King are absolutely breathtaking but I generally don't care for the movie at all because the story is an African-inspired retread of Bambi and "Hamlet", but those stock excuses have been overused too many times already. Quite honestly, I hate cocky kid Simba, think Timon & Pumbaa are ultimately unnecessary to the entire story, wish they actually did more with Scar besides make him the brooding younger brother of Mufasa, and Rafiki is just an annoying version of the magical negro).

Why then not just stick to live-action?

I can still like an "animated film" even if I'm not invested in studying the performance. Same thing with live-action. I don't watch A Streetcar Named Desire to study Marlon Brando's method acting, and likewise, I don't watch Aladdin to study how Eric Goldberg animates Genie.

With the recycled animation discussion going on, I'm not saying "I don't care that it was recycled." I said "I don't mind," because for me personally, the recycled animation still did its job and "worked" within the film and within the director's intent. It's still effective *to me* of showing a character doing whatever it is the director wanted them to do. It's believable enough even if I know it came from somewhere else. It may not work for some, which I can see as well.

As much as I love Robin Hood, the entire "Phony King of England" sequence is far too noticeable in recycled animation. But it still does its "job" of showing Robin, Marian, et al having a good time and dancing around in the forest. Could it have been better had they used original animation? Obviously. But because they didn't, I have to judge the scene based on what was done, not what wasn't done. And what was done still works *for me*.

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.

I didn't mean to make any caricatures, I'm sorry if it seemed like I did.

I'm simply not as vested in the art of animation as many other UDers, and so when I presented my opinion, I said I'm not a big animation aficionado in order to provide a sort of "this opinion is informed, but not as informed as someone who is more qualified/researched/devoted in the subject" disclaimer. Essentially a way of saying that I know about animation, but cannot (and hardly ever want to) discuss it at length the way it's done on animation-centric topics here.

It's like how Disney Duster will talk 50 pages about princesses and their inner thoughts and motivations, but will say next to nothing about Walt Disney's forays into television, even when presented with arguments about princesses that use them as a reference.

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.

Neither do I. I was more or less criticizing Dusty's implied double standard regarding Walt vs. Woolie (that it's excusable if Walt did it because he had is reasons, but it was bad bad bad for Woolie to do it).

albert

[Disney Duster]

I will never agree with you that it isn't a case by case basis. I mean, almost everything is a case by case basis anyway.

But at least we agree on one thing. It was wrong to use animation of old characters for new, different, seperate characters with different personalities and selves.

And Escapay, I only have so much time for certain things. I go into the topics that interest me, I talk about what I am interested in. I can like certain things about the company the most, but still talk about the other things, and the company as whole. Especially when most of the things I like are the core of the company, what it is mainly about, as even Roy Disney said. You will never prove this wrong to me or change how I feel on this. You aren't a Walt Disney or animation aficiando, so like Goliath said, than what are you doing talking about them? Because you're interested. I don't have to talk about something just because you think it's important. However I talk to you about things you like in E-mails because your my friend, though luckily, that makes me enjoy talking about it with you.

[Escapay]

You aren't a Walt Disney or animation aficiando

I never said I wasn't a Walt Disney aficionado. I'm interested in a great many things about the man, not just his animated works. Why should Walt Disney + Animation always go hand in hand? I love his live-action features. I enjoy his television work. And I'm a big fan of theme parks. And that's only scratching the surface.

I'm simply not an animation aficionado, in that I do not know as much about the technical aspects, the stuff that people go to CalArts to learn. I can see a clip from Beauty and the Beast and know "Oh, Belle has a different nose and larger eyes than five minutes ago" but I'm not going to dissect the entire scene shot by shot and examine how Mark Henn or James Baxter drew certain curves. I'll leave that to the people who actually know how to do it or have studied it far more extensively than I ever could. (I hope that's not caricaturing, Goliath. But given how important the study of motion is for animation, that was the first example I could think of )

There's a lot more to animated movies (Disney or not) than the animation, and I'm a fan of many of them because of various factors that are not always centered around animation. Same with live-action films. I like a lot of them for more than the fact that they're shot in live-action.

I don't have to talk about something just because you think it's important.

I never said that. You can talk about whatever you want, you don't need me to say whether it's important or not.

I simply used the example of when you'd talk ONLY of one particular subject, even when another subject became NECESSARY to explain an argument you had with someone else. Rather than actually address that subject with even the most fleeting amount of seriousness towards its merit on the argument, you often just ignore it entirely or wave it off with "Well, that's not what I want to talk about." Like that ridiculous "Walt Disney would never make an animated movie about video games or computers" topic. You were so insistent that he'd basically only stick to fairy tales and stories of ye olden days, when there was SO MUCH evidence that he had interests in many other fields. Just because he never made an theatrical animated film about the future or technology IN HIS LIFETIME, doesn't automatically mean he would be totally opposed to the idea.

Unlike you, I've actually considered other points of view and try my best to acknowledge them. I don't wave them off because they don't fit with my view of Disney fandom.

However I talk to you about things you like in E-mails because your my friend, though luckily, that makes me enjoy talking about it with you.

I haven't had an e-mail from you since, I think, March. Either I never got it or it's lost somewhere in my inbox and I'll have to find it.

albert

[pap64]

To add to what Escapay said, Disney was always fascinated by technology. Everything he did was always accompanied by the latest piece of technology. Stuff like the multiplane camera, the fantasound speakers, the Xerox process, audio animatronics and many other things.

Walt was interested in the future. He attended the World's Fair in New York, he did shows about the future in his TV series... HE NAMED ONE OF THE PARKS IN DISNEYLAND TOMORROWLAND

I can't claim to know the man well, but I think he would have made an animated movie about a future society. Let us not forget that while he was alive he did a musical anthology film, a nature film, a tribute to Latin America culture, a whimsical English talking animal story, a horror story, a kidnapped story with dogs and many other genres, not just fairy tales.

If there is one thing I slightly differ from Escapay, though, is the animation. While Walt did care for the story, he also cared about animation. If he didn't, he wouldn't have spent so many years directing and producing experimental shorts, sending his artists to school and using different techniques to produce the effect he wanted.

What it should be said is that Disney cared about THE WHOLE product, not just aspects of it. He worked hard with the story, shopped around for different animation techniques and would do anything to get the desire musical score. He believed that a movie is a complete package, not just one aspect being better than the other (case in point, many of today's films).

Note I am saying this based on the documentaries, articles and Disney legend interviews I have read, so I may be wrong.

[Chernabog_Rocks]

I'm much like 'Scaps when it comes to watching the DAC's. How it's animated isn't the highest priority. Does animation matter? Yes. Crappy animation is crappy, but what's the point of watching a beautifuly animated film if the character and/or story sucks?

When I watch the DAC's I watch it for the entertainment value, because the story or characters are enjoyable to watch. The animation is just the icing on the cake. Though at times, like recycled animation, it's not as good.

I have noticed though that upon watching the new release of Beauty and the Beast I did notice things a bit more than I used to, largely the many faces of Belle. However I was not compelled to dissect the film second by second. If I watch an animated film it's because I enjoy it, not so that I can do a frame by frame analysis.

Also, Duster....Walt reused animation I -believe- from the Skeleton Dance short in the short called The Haunted House (1929). Also what comes to mind if a few bits of reused footage in the various 3 Little Pigs shorts. I'm pretty sure the bits where they dance and sing and dive under the bed was recycled.

[Disney Duster]

...I'm misunderstood, a lot. I don't know if it's because people actually just skim over what I say, or what.

Escapay, first, I E-mailed you very recently.

Second, no, I don't do what you say I am doing. You and others misunderstand me a lot.

To address what's been brought up this time, first, Walt is dead, so using his last approved version of Fantasia is a must. However, allowing the original to be available is also okay.

For Beauty and the Beast, the filmakers are alive, and we can tell them that we want the original film very badly. Their version of the film should be available foremost, but the original must also be available. And that is that.

Finally, I said that Walt would not make films about things that were fake, and had no real life in them.

I don't just wave my hand and dismiss it, I back up what I talk about and provide reasons. You just don't agree.

Pap, what I said above, and what I pointed out back in the original discussion, I pointed out that Walt liked technology, to use to tell the stories in better ways, but he never made an actual animated classic about technology. Walt wouldn't make a film about an animatronic, for instance.

And sure, I guess I don't know as surely as is possible, I'm just saying that the people at Disney can do what I do and look at what Walt did and made, and try to figure it out. Or otherwise they should just do whatever they want and make Disney have very adult, cynical, modern films that completely conflict with Walt's values and ideas represented in his films. Though some of that may already be happening...

Chernabog, yes. Thank you. Thos instances of re-used animation I would think are fine. As long as they aren't old animation used for new characters.

[Goliath]

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.

The fear of the 'godless communists' in the US dates as far back as 1917, the year the communists took over power in Russia. The 'red scare' was very prevalent in the 1920's, when Woodrow Wilson's Attorney General had hundreds of innocent people arrested, just for having (real or imagined) communist sympathies. The violent crackdown of the police on unions and workers' demonstrations or strikes was justified by saying communists were the thriving forces behind them.

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?

Fred Moore died in car accident in November 1952. He was given a Disney Legends Award posthumously in 1995. Norm Ferguson left the Disney Studio in 1953, because of declining health (he had diabetes) and career. He worked briefly and unsuccesfully with Shamus Culhane Productions, before he died in 1957. He, too, received a Disney Legends Award posthumously in 1999, along with Hamilton Luske.

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.

That's why it has been said (amongst other by J. Michael Barrier) that some of the Nine Old Men were a bit jealous of Ward Kimball, who always got to do the caricatured characters, like the mice and cat in Cinderella and the Indians in Peter Pan.

I'm simply not an animation aficionado, in that I do not know as much about the technical aspects, the stuff that people go to CalArts to learn. I can see a clip from Beauty and the Beast and know "Oh, Belle has a different nose and larger eyes than five minutes ago" but I'm not going to dissect the entire scene shot by shot and examine how Mark Henn or James Baxter drew certain curves. I'll leave that to the people who actually know how to do it or have studied it far more extensively than I ever could. (I hope that's not caricaturing, Goliath. But given how important the study of motion is for animation, that was the first example I could think of )

Oh no, that's definitly not a caricature. I can actually relate to a lot of what you're saying. I'm not an 'animation aficionado' either. You will probably have noticed I never talk about things like aspect ratios or pixel quality or colors on UD. The 'technical' aspect doesn't interest me much, though I *do* enjoy reading and learning a lot about animation. That's why Thomas and Johnston's book is such a treat to me. To see all those original sketches and to see how animation works on a certain character frame-by-frame. That way, I can study just how an animator made a certain movement or attitude work. It's simply fascinating to me to unravel how Disney made their movies work. But that's all a mere hobby.

Whenever I'm watching a film, I'll just enjoy it and only really notice differences in the animation when they're glaringly obvious. Sometimes it will pull me out of the film (Robin Hood), but sometimes I'm so drawn into the story and characters that I may hardly notice it or pay no attention to it --like in The Little Mermaid. My enjoyment of a Disney movie *is* enhanced when the animation is better and more beautiful, and I admire it whilst being involved in the story. (I'm multi-tasking. )

I'm much like 'Scaps when it comes to watching the DAC's. How it's animated isn't the highest priority. Does animation matter? Yes. Crappy animation is crappy, but what's the point of watching a beautifuly animated film if the character and/or story sucks?

Well, people still watch Sleeping Beauty, don't they?

...I'm misunderstood, a lot. I don't know if it's because people actually just skim over what I say, or what.

It's not that we misunderstand you. It's just that we point out how less sense you usually make.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/t6H5h ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/t6H5h ... 1&hl=nl_NL" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[Disney Duster]

Well, aspect ratios don't make much sense to you either.

[ajmrowland]

he never made an actual animated classic about technology.

Who has? They're always centered around characters.

[Chernabog_Rocks]

If by people you mean rabid princess fans and/or young girls, then yeah people do still watch Sleeping Beauty


I kid, I kid. But on a more serious note, I would not doubt if that was the case. Or if the people who did watch were the animation aficionado's that Scaps mentioned. Or even people learning animation/art what have you.

[DisneyAnimation88]

[quote="Goliath"]That's why it has been said (amongst other by J. Michael Barrier) that some of the Nine Old Men were a bit jealous of Ward Kimball, who always got to do the caricatured characters, like the mice and cat in [i]Cinderella[/i] and the Indians in [i]Peter Pan[/i].[/quote]

I've read that too. Kimball was unique though, very much an anti-traditionalist. He was one of the few people who got away with openly criticising Walt and not afraid to speak his mind. Considering how successful and brilliant the shorts that he directed were, I wonder what a Ward Kimball feature would have been like.

I never knew that about Norm Ferguson. Like Fred Moore and Mary Blair, it's a shame health issues cut such a brilliant career short.

[quote="Disney Duster"]Finally, I said that Walt would not make films about things that were fake, and had no real life in them.I don't just wave my hand and dismiss it, I back up what I talk about and provide reasons. You just don't agree. [/quote]

Please let's not go down that road again. You have no basis to say Walt Disney would NEVER make a film about technology, that is your opinion, not a fact. I think a lot of people disagree with you about this point, not just Escapay.

[Goliath]

I don't know why, but all your quotes seem to go wrong. It looks to me you did everything right, but still...?

I never knew that about Norm Ferguson. Like Fred Moore and Mary Blair, it's a shame health issues cut such a brilliant career short.

I don't know about Mary Blair, but Ferguson and Moore's careers were not so much cut short by their health (although it did play some role), as by the fact that they couldn't keep up with the developments in Disney animation. They had no formal art training and taught everything themselves. Too much of what Walt wanted, was simply asked too much of these people, and the 'Nine Old Men' came to replace their star status.

And I think Walt Disney *would* make a film about technology, interested as he was in it (Epcot, anyone?). I'm sure that, had he lived, Disney would've been the first company to produce a CGI-animated film, and not Pixar.

[Escapay]

I don't know why, but all your quotes seem to go wrong. It looks to me you did everything right, but still...?

The code is right, but I think the "Disable BBCode in this post" option is accidentally checked instead of unchecked.

DisneyAnimation88, before you hit "Submit" on a post, make sure that "Disable BBCode in this post" is unchecked. Like in the example below:

<center></center>

You can also change this on your profile page (just remember to fill in the password fields too, otherwise the profile won't update!)

And I think Walt Disney *would* make a film about technology, interested as he was in it (Epcot, anyone?).

I absolutely love watching his Epcot promotional film. It's just amazing to see the city he conceived and I always wonder how Disney would have turned out those plans actually went through rather than getting a best-of compilation that is the existing park. And technically, the promotional Epcot film is a film about technology. And it has animated sequences too.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/u9M3pKsrcc8?fs ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/u9M3pKsrcc8?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

albert

[DisneyAnimation88]

Thanks for the advice on quotes. I've tried following the guidelines for it but it never seems to work but I've unchecked the "Disable BBCose" so hopefully it will work in future.

Hmm I see what you mean Goliath having read a bit more about Moore and Ferguson. Does the Illusion of Life give an insight into them like it did with Bill Tytla?

I agree that I think Walt Disney would have made animated films based on technology. Epcot is the more prominent example of his interest in technology but there's also Tomorrowland. Why is it so hard for some people to accept this? Surely a pioneer in film like Walt Disney would have been at the forefront of technological advances.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Maybe some of the earlier animators could not keep up with the younger ones, but they had a very important role in the studio's younger days.

Michael Barrier says:

"Consider the roughly thirteen years between the release of Steamboat Willie in 1928 and the release of Dumbo in 1941—years when almost all the Disney films were dominated not by any of the "nine old men," but by an earlier generation of character animators that included Ham Luske, Norm Ferguson, Fred Moore, Art Babbitt, and Bill Tytla. The advances made in those years are simply astonishing. To watch the Disney shorts of the thirties in roughly chronological order is to see a wonderful medium being born, as the crude, puppet-like characters of the earliest cartoons give way to thinking, feeling creatures of tremendous vitality.

Now consider a slightly overlapping period twice as long, starting in 1940 with Pinocchio—the first feature shaped by major contributions from several of the "old men," including Kahl, Thomas, Johnston, Kimball, and Larson—and ending with the death of Walt Disney in 1966."

And:

"Compared with the trajectory of Disney animation in the thirties, what came later was a steady decline, bottoming out in the dismal features made in the years just after Walt Disney died. If the "nine old men" cannot be blamed for that decline, most of them did little or nothing to arrest it, and Reitherman certainly accelerated it. Many of the nine were gifted animators (Frank Thomas's animation in particular could be marvelously subtle and intelligent), but it was only Ward Kimball, in the forties, whose animation consistently bucked the creeping literalism that ultimately ruined the features."

http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Commentar ... emaker.htm

I'm not sure if I would say that Disney animation was ruined. When I was a kid, I loved the movies from the "degenerated" period just as much as the earlier features. But through the eyes of an adult animation expert, there is probably some declines to notice, and not just because of lower budgets.

In Neal Galber's book, it is also mentioned that even if The Nine Old Men continued at the studio in the 60s, their "club" was dissolved, and a new team with fewer people was made to run the studio. Some of them were from the old one, and some new. I think Ken Anderson was one of them, but I can't say for sure.

Today, watches, clothes and shoes and so on, are usually made with machines. In the old days, it was all handcrafted more or less from scratch. It was the same with animation. Now there are so many tools to help the studios. The movies have become cheaper and faster to make, and they can do things that was hard or impossible to do before. But the spesific handmade touch from the early days is not quit as visible any longer.

Some frames and sketches from the good old movies and cartoons:

http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/sp ... mit=Search

[Goliath]

Hmm I see what you mean Goliath having read a bit more about Moore and Ferguson. Does the Illusion of Life give an insight into them like it did with Bill Tytla?

Yes, 'The Illusion of Life' has one chapter dedicated to Norm Ferguson & Ham Luske, and one about Fred Moore & Bill Tytla.

@ Rumpelstiltskin: I've always thought Barrier was much too hard on the Disney features made since... Cinderella, really. I've read his book and it seems like he dislikes every features made after Bambi (and he had lots of nit-picking to do at even classics like Pinocchio). He came down really hard on Cinderella and even Sleeping Beauty. I don't agree with the idea of a 'steady decline'. I think One Hundred and One Dalmatians was a great new experiment in animation, which differed day and night from the previous picture. The Jungle Book has some of Disney's strongest character animation, particularly in the scenes between Shere Khan and Kaa, and Baloo & Mowgli (e.g. when Baloo tries to tell Mowgli he has to go back to the humans' village).

I can see Barrier's point, though, since the recycled animation started already with The Sword in the Stone and intensified in The Jungle Book.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

I havn't read his book, only the article I'm quoting from (and a couple of others). From what I can see, it is not the animation he is complaining about, he actually say that it is almost too perfect. It has something to do with empty characters and stuff like that.

Like I have already said, I enjoyed these just as much as the others when I saw them at the theatre. When I watch a movie, I'm see it as a whole, not something to dissect and analyze. It's the experience itself and the feelings I'm left with at the end that make me decide if a movie is good or bad or something in between.

The main reason why I quoted him was not because of his opinions about a decline. Since Tytla and Babbitt were mentioned a few posts ago, I thought it could be interesting to add some more info about some of the key people from the oldest generation of Disney artists that were not a member of the nine old men. These did an important job of transforming the medium in the early days. If you are a member of a group with a spesific name, like The Rat Pack or The Nine Old Men, the history will probably give you more attention.

[DisneyAnimation88]

What happened to Art Babbitt after the strike? I know he left the studio but did he ever try to return like Bill Tytla?

For me, one of the more interesting things about the Nine Old Men is that they were not a group like the name would suggest. I think that there were too many competing egos for them to ever work as a group in the long-term. I always thought that might have been a reason people like Ward Kimball and Marc Davis moved away from feature animation, to escape the tension caused by working with someone as volatile as Milt Kahl. Their legacy cannot be disputed but I've always preferred to admire their individual achievements rather than those attributed to them as a group

[Goliath]

What happened to Art Babbitt after the strike? I know he left the studio but did he ever try to return like Bill Tytla?

Art Babbitt was smeared all over Hollywood by Walt Disney, who accused him of having communist sympathies. Wikipedia says:

Despite being one of the highest paid animators at Disney, Babbitt was sympathetic to the cause of lower echelon Disney artists seeking to form a union. For this he earned Walt Disney's everlasting enmity. After leaving the Disney company union and joining the "Screen Cartoonists' Guild Local 852", the regular union representing all of Hollywood animators, Babbitt was fired from Disney in 1941, an event that eventually led to the 1941 Disney animators' strike. Babbitt then served as one of the union leaders and negotiators.

After serving with the Marines in the Pacific in World War II, Babbitt returned to Disney for a time, then went to United Productions of America (UPA) formed by former Disney strikers. He worked on many of their famous award winning shorts, including the lead character Frankie in "Rooty Toot-Toot"(1951). [...]

In 1991 Disney Company chief Roy E. Disney, the nephew of Walt, contacted Art Babbitt and they ended the long feud. Art's former rivals, the pro-Walt animators Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston, gave Art a warm and moving eulogy at his funeral service.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Babbitt

[Disney Duster]

ONCE AGAIN I'm not gotten.

I was saying that Walt Disney would not make a feature film, a story, that's actually about technology, at least for his classics. He may make an educational or promotional film about it.

But he may have used CGI and other technology to help make films.