Mickey Mouse (2013)

[TsWade2]

My thoughts on Eau De Minnie

Well, someone in the crew has taken a trip to ToonTown. Also, I just got this joke; when Minnie is trying out one of her outfits, she tries her pink outfit she wears in Mickey Mouse Clubhouse and then she says "Too young." OMG! The best!

I know! That was hilarious. Clubhouse haters unite! Sorry, like I said, it's just hilarious. By the way, here's the short.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_kDKuwTPD8

[Big Disney Fan]

My thoughts on Eau De Minnie

Well, someone in the crew has taken a trip to ToonTown. Also, I just got this joke; when Minnie is trying out one of her outfits, she tries her pink outfit she wears in Mickey Mouse Clubhouse and then she says "Too young." OMG! The best!

I know! That was hilarious. Clubhouse haters unite! Sorry, like I said, it's just hilarious. By the way, here's the short.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_kDKuwTPD8

Well, having just seen the short, whose title card clearly states that it's a Minnie cartoon...


...my initial resistance to the idea of a character that's not Mickey being the main character with their title in the role has been somewhat worn down. I was initially resistant to, say, a Goofy-centric cartoon, but after seeing "Eau de Minnie", I was thinking maybe they could do a how-to cartoon with Goofy. Perhaps to give Mickey the cameo appearance, maybe it would be he who would be revealed as the pompous-sounding narrator, sounding nothing like himself. I mean, it worked for "Yodelberg", right?

In this case, perhaps the cartoon could be based on a never-made short, "How To Train Your Dog", which shows Goofy trying to teach Pluto some new tricks, with unsuccessful results. That would be a good way to fold in Pluto, as I just said.

Anyway, I just thought I would mention that my initial resistance to anything not Mickey has been worn down and I thought of a great way to do more with other characters and fold in Pluto all at the same time.

[disneyphilip]

I personally don't like these shorts because I am not a fan of the Flash style animation that makes up most 2D animation on TV today. The kind of Mickey shorts I want to see are ones in the kind of traditional hand-drawn quality of shorts like The Prince and the Pauper and Runaway Brain. Or maybe if it was like Disney television animation in the 90's, which I think was really good.

Sounds like someone is asking for too much...

Also, you should not hate something just because you don't like the animation style. Just because they use different animation in a production does not automatically make them bad.

Plus, the animation in the Paul Rudish Mickey shorts is even better than some of the 90's/early 2000's TV Animation stuff, particularly in regards to the shows based on the animated features. Plus the fact that TV shows are usually made on smaller budgets compared to theatrical films.

[TsWade2]

I personally don't like these shorts because I am not a fan of the Flash style animation that makes up most 2D animation on TV today. The kind of Mickey shorts I want to see are ones in the kind of traditional hand-drawn quality of shorts like The Prince and the Pauper and Runaway Brain. Or maybe if it was like Disney television animation in the 90's, which I think was really good.

Sounds like someone is asking for too much...

Also, you should not hate something just because you don't like the animation style. Just because they use different animation in a production does not automatically make them bad.

Plus, the animation in the Paul Rudish Mickey shorts is even better than some of the 90's/early 2000's TV Animation stuff, particularly in regards to the shows based on the animated features. Plus the fact that TV shows are usually made on smaller budgets compared to theatrical films.

No. Mickey's Mouse Works, House of Mouse, and Disney Mickey Mouse are better than Mickey Mouse Clubhouse.

[2Disney4Ever]

I personally don't like these shorts because I am not a fan of the Flash style animation that makes up most 2D animation on TV today. The kind of Mickey shorts I want to see are ones in the kind of traditional hand-drawn quality of shorts like The Prince and the Pauper and Runaway Brain. Or maybe if it was like Disney television animation in the 90's, which I think was really good.

Also, you should not hate something just because you don't like the animation style. Just because they use different animation in a production does not automatically make them bad.

Not even if it's preventing us from having more 2D cartoons of the kind of quality you'd find in the 90's (including most of the Disney Afternoon shows for that matter)?

I love 2D animation, but there's one thing to know about me. I'm not someone who can just watch any cartoon on TV anymore just for some mild amusement to pass the time. There are certain artistic qualities that I look for now in 2D animation and expect to get out of anything that I watch. In fact I had been so disappointed in modern day television animation that I gave up my cable so I could just spend my time watching all the older cartoons that meet my expectations. To be fair to Disney though, Phineas & Ferb was one of the few cartoons of today that I really liked.

[Avaitor]

So you can't enjoy good writing in animation, just a specific art design?

[2Disney4Ever]

So you can't enjoy good writing in animation, just a specific art design?

What I'm saying is, I can't enjoy whatever writing is in a cartoon if there isn't good art to go with it. You can't just count on writing all the time to make cartoons good, because then cartoonists would just never put as much effort as they could into making an artistically appealing cartoon.

[TsWade2]

You know what irritates me? A lot of people are comparing the new Mickey Mouse shorts as Ren & Stimpy. Well, IT"S NOT! Those shorts are not meant to be like Ren & Stimpy. Paul Rudish is the one who made those fantastic shorts, not John Kricfalusi the creator Ren & Stimpy. And thank God John didn't bother to ruin Mickey Mouse like he did on Yogi Bear. Poor Yogi! Besides, Ren & Stimpy is an awful and disgusting cartoon. I know those Mickey Mouse shorts have moments of awkwardness and sometimes gross, but they're just trying to be funny. I'm sorry if this is over the top, but I'm sick and tired of people saying it's like Ren & Stimpy, and it's not.

[rs_milo_whatever]

So you can't enjoy good writing in animation, just a specific art design?

What I'm saying is, I can't enjoy whatever writing is in a cartoon if there isn't good art to go with it. You can't just count on writing all the time to make cartoons good, because then cartoonists would just never put as much effort as they could into making an artistically appealing cartoon.

Dude, you just don't like the medium. CGI is art and it's beautiful and it's not any less of an art form than traditional animation. What makes it different? I think that if you try and sit down and tell us why CGI is so awful and 2D the only acceptable way to express a story, you will find that your arguments are entirely subjective. What you just said, you can also say it about live-action. Because not a single 2D cartoonist went and colored some drawings about 12 Years a Slave and Les Miserables and that doesn't stop them from being incredible films. Now, you're allowed to dislike those films but that doesn't mean that they're awful and that there is a conspiracy in the industry that is out to get you and keep you away from what you want to watch.

[2Disney4Ever]

What I'm saying is, I can't enjoy whatever writing is in a cartoon if there isn't good art to go with it. You can't just count on writing all the time to make cartoons good, because then cartoonists would just never put as much effort as they could into making an artistically appealing cartoon.

Dude, you just don't like the medium. CGI is art and it's beautiful and it's not any less of an art form than traditional animation. What makes it different? I think that if you try and sit down and tell us why CGI is so awful and 2D the only acceptable way to express a story, you will find that your arguments are entirely subjective. What you just said, you can also say it about live-action. Because not a single 2D cartoonist went and colored some drawings about 12 Years a Slave and Les Miserables and that doesn't stop them from being incredible films. Now, you're allowed to dislike those films but that doesn't mean that they're awful and that there is a conspiracy in the industry that is out to get you and keep you away from what you want to watch.

I wasn't talking about CGI that time, and the main reason I've been saying that CG movies are bad are for taking away hand-drawn animation. I was talking about 2D cartoons and how a lot of them today have to be done in that unappealing Flash style of animation that the new Mickey shorts seem to have.

[disneyprincess11]

LOL! I loved the gag where Minnie wears the black shirt as a reference to her first look and yes, I loved the attack on Clubhouse too.

Great episode, overall

[Big Disney Fan]

LOL! I loved the gag where Minnie wears the black shirt as a reference to her first look and yes, I loved the attack on Clubhouse too.

Great episode, overall

It also carried over from the previous short, in which before trying to stop the cable car, she rolled up her black arms as though they were sleeves. And they scrunched up, leaving pale skin underneath!

[disneyphilip]

Sounds like someone is asking for too much...

Also, you should not hate something just because you don't like the animation style. Just because they use different animation in a production does not automatically make them bad.

Plus, the animation in the Paul Rudish Mickey shorts is even better than some of the 90's/early 2000's TV Animation stuff, particularly in regards to the shows based on the animated features. Plus the fact that TV shows are usually made on smaller budgets compared to theatrical films.

No. Mickey's Mouse Works, House of Mouse, and Disney Mickey Mouse are better than Mickey Mouse Clubhouse.

I know that! I was never ever referring to Clubhouse, so please do not put words into my mouth.

I only said that the 2013 Mickey shorts do a better job with their animation styles than even Mouse Works or House of Mouse.

[disneyphilip]

What I'm saying is, I can't enjoy whatever writing is in a cartoon if there isn't good art to go with it. You can't just count on writing all the time to make cartoons good, because then cartoonists would just never put as much effort as they could into making an artistically appealing cartoon.

Dude, you just don't like the medium. CGI is art and it's beautiful and it's not any less of an art form than traditional animation. What makes it different? I think that if you try and sit down and tell us why CGI is so awful and 2D the only acceptable way to express a story, you will find that your arguments are entirely subjective. What you just said, you can also say it about live-action. Because not a single 2D cartoonist went and colored some drawings about 12 Years a Slave and Les Miserables and that doesn't stop them from being incredible films. Now, you're allowed to dislike those films but that doesn't mean that they're awful and that there is a conspiracy in the industry that is out to get you and keep you away from what you want to watch.

My thoughts exactly! Even if you don't care for a particular art style, you should pay more attention to the stories. It's the stories that truly make or break a film, not the artistic styles, so don't judge them on the style--judge on the style of the script-writing only.

[2Disney4Ever]

I know that! I was never ever referring to Clubhouse, so please do not put words into my mouth.

I only said that the 2013 Mickey shorts do a better job with their animation styles than even Mouse Works or House of Mouse.

Uh, no they don't. You really think that Flash style with the thick-outlined, cardboard cutout characters is better and more appealing than how the characters were traditionally drawn? Despite obviously trying to take after the classic old school designs, it's just another awful way of trying to give these beloved characters a "new look" that isn't anywhere as appealing as how they had been done before (and not even as artistically good as the old school shorts it's trying to emulate). This is also why I didn't like the designs on The Looney Tunes Show when the Looney Tunes were being drawn just fine before.

My thoughts exactly! Even if you don't care for a particular art style, you should pay more attention to the stories. It's the stories that truly make or break a film, not the artistic styles, so don't judge them on the style--judge on the style of the script-writing only.

Stories and script-writing are not the sole things I look for in an visual artistic medium anymore. They're not bad things, but they've also gotten to be an excuse for cartoonists to not even try to be artistically appealing (or to even put any real animation into their characters in some cases). I'm no longer one who's going to want to sit through what I think are crummy looking 2D cartoons just for a story. Why should anyone even have to?

[TsWade2]

Now, let's stop with this silly disagreement and watch the new short called O Futebol Classico with Jose Carioca.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwY2OqEvhS8

[2Disney4Ever]

How is me watching those shorts going to support my disagreement?

[Semaj]

I know that! I was never ever referring to Clubhouse, so please do not put words into my mouth.

I only said that the 2013 Mickey shorts do a better job with their animation styles than even Mouse Works or House of Mouse.

Uh, no they don't. You really think that Flash style with the thick-outlined, cardboard cutout characters is better and more appealing than how the characters were traditionally drawn? Despite obviously trying to take after the classic old school designs, it's just another awful way of trying to give these beloved characters a "new look" that isn't anywhere as appealing as how they had been done before (and not even as artistically good as the old school shorts it's trying to emulate). This is also why I didn't like the designs on The Looney Tunes Show when the Looney Tunes were being drawn just fine before.

My thoughts exactly! Even if you don't care for a particular art style, you should pay more attention to the stories. It's the stories that truly make or break a film, not the artistic styles, so don't judge them on the style--judge on the style of the script-writing only.

Stories and script-writing are not the sole things I look for in an visual artistic medium anymore. They're not bad things, but they've also gotten to be an excuse for cartoonists to not even try to be artistically appealing (or to even put any real animation into their characters in some cases). I'm no longer one who's going to want to sit through what I think are crummy looking 2D cartoons just for a story. Why should anyone even have to?

You do know that the majority of today's cartoons are outsourced, right? To overseas companies where at most, animators are only permitted to use a fraction of their skills for each and every assignment. And typically, for the television medium, that works on smaller budgets and schedules to begin with.

I would rather this not become another "purity" call. I miss theatrical hand-drawn animation as well, but unless it's someone like John Kricfalusi (who has a history of dumping on other peoples' work and cherry-picking cartoon history, all the while failing to deliver on his own end), I am not going to throw the artists themselves under a bus for something they have no control over. To constantly annoy everyone about how everything outside the classic era sucks is a fool's errand, about as bad as any political or religious fanatic in the real world. People do NOT want to be told what cartoons to like, plain and simple.

[2Disney4Ever]

I miss theatrical hand-drawn animation as well, but unless it's someone like John Kricfalusi (who has a history of dumping on other peoples' work and cherry-picking cartoon history, all the while failing to deliver on his own end), I am not going to throw the artists themselves under a bus for something they have no control over.

Well I think cartoonists on various TV shows do have some control over how their product comes out. For example, Butch Hartman doesn't have to draw his characters the way that he does, but that's how he chooses to draw them, and whether or not you want to say it's his style, his shows always leave you with the impression that he could have done a better job of designing his characters in a more appealing way.

For the record, I can guarantee that someone like John Kricfalusi would do a better job on new Mickey shorts than the guy who's actually doing them now, but how he would choose to portray Mickey is a different story.

[TsWade2]

I miss theatrical hand-drawn animation as well, but unless it's someone like John Kricfalusi (who has a history of dumping on other peoples' work and cherry-picking cartoon history, all the while failing to deliver on his own end), I am not going to throw the artists themselves under a bus for something they have no control over.

Well I think cartoonists on various TV shows do have some control over how their product comes out. For example, Butch Hartman doesn't have to draw his characters the way that he does, but that's how he chooses to draw them, and whether or not you want to say it's his style, his shows always leave you with the impression that he could have done a better job of designing his characters in a more appealing way.

For the record, I can guarantee that someone like John Kricfalusi would do a better job on new Mickey shorts than the guy who's actually doing them now, but how he would choose to portray Mickey is a different story.

And ruin Mickey Mouse and turn him into a ren and stimpy version? I don't trust that guy. His cartoons are gross. And I'm still mad at him on what he did to poor Yogi Bear. No disrespect 2Disney4Ever, but I rather let Paul Rudish do the job for new Mickey Mouse shorts.