DVDizzy Forum

I think TGMD is worth a watch. It's not a film I watched much as a kid but a few years back I saw it on Netflix and I fell in love with it.

Is it true that Jenny was originally supposed to be Penny from "The Rescuers?"

^ That is true.

Oliver & Company (1988)

Early in the film's development it was decided that it would be a sequel to The Rescuers (1977). The producers then decided that the story wasn't convincing and started from scratch. The only things left are the New York setting and a few similarities between Jenny and Penny.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095776/tr ... =tr0764912

Originally, OLIVER & COMPANY was intended to be a sequel to THE RESCUERS, and would focus on young Penny’s life with her new adoptive parents, but that idea eventually fell through, and the film took on its own story.

http://www.thehollywoodnews.com/2013/07 ... r-company/

It's so funny that Cruella was meant to be in The Rescuers and Penny in Oliver and Company. Disney almost had an animated cinematic universe with at least four films.

^It would have been super awesome to have had a Disney animated film universe series that covered the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's(if you count Rescuers Down Under too.)

Oliver and Company is my fave DAC for sentimental and nostalgic reasons, its the first Disney animated film that made me a Disney animation fan. I disagree that it has bad animation, Ive always thought it had some wonderfully raw and expressive character animation.. Rewatch the hot dog steal scene, the scene were Fagin first confronts Sykes, the scene were Fagin and the dogs are getting ready for bed and he reads them a bedtime story, the scene when Dodger is attacked by Sykes dogs, the finale subway escape and all the five musical numbers as well as the WSIW reprise...great stuff! I agree that the aesthetic is kinda rough looking but I dont think it looks all that different from the other films of the "Xerox" era like SITS, Aristocats, Robin Hood, TGMD... Actually I think Black Cauldron is way uglier, whole movie looks like it was colored with mud. *





* No Im not knocking Black Cauldron, its just a joke...Ive only seen it once shortly after it was finally release to dvd and I didn't care much for it, but I really should see it again since its been so long and Ive since developed a bigger appreciation for 80's era animated films and its rougher aesthetic(as well as films with high fantasy themes, thank you LOTR). Has it finally been released on Blu-ray? I cant remember now.

^ Nope, no Blu for TBC. I think your comparison of O&Co to the Xerox productions is pretty spot on. I like that O&Co has a unique look.

farerb wrote:It's so funny that Cruella was meant to be in The Rescuers and Penny in Oliver and Company. Disney almost had an animated cinematic universe with at least four films.

unprincess wrote:^It would have been super awesome to have had a Disney animated film universe series that covered the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's(if you count Rescuers Down Under too.)

What's interesting is how each of those films is defined by their era moreso than other Disney films. 101 Dalmatians is very late 50s/60s in the sense that it was the first sort of contemporary Disney film (not including Dumbo) and really felt modern compared to Sleeping Beauty, Alice in Wonderland, Lady and the Tramp, Pinocchio, etc. The Rescuers gets accused of feeling very bleak and like a 70s film often especially with the music (which I'm a huge fan of). Oliver & Company is blatantly 80s. The Rescuers Down Under is a little bit after its time though because it was definitely trying to follow in the footsteps of films like Crocodile Dundee from the 80s and the American interest in Australia had faded away by then.

unprincess wrote: Oliver and Company is my fave DAC for sentimental and nostalgic reasons, its the first Disney animated film that made me a Disney animation fan. I disagree that it has bad animation, Ive always thought it had some wonderfully raw and expressive character animation.. Rewatch the hot dog steal scene, the scene were Fagin first confronts Sykes, the scene were Fagin and the dogs are getting ready for bed and he reads them a bedtime story, the scene when Dodger is attacked by Sykes dogs, the finale subway escape and all the five musical numbers as well as the WSIW reprise...great stuff! I agree that the aesthetic is kinda rough looking but I dont think it looks all that different from the other films of the "Xerox" era like SITS, Aristocats, Robin Hood, TGMD... Actually I think Black Cauldron is way uglier, whole movie looks like it was colored with mud. *





* No Im not knocking Black Cauldron, its just a joke...Ive only seen it once shortly after it was finally release to dvd and I didn't care much for it, but I really should see it again since its been so long and Ive since developed a bigger appreciation for 80's era animated films and its rougher aesthetic(as well as films with high fantasy themes, thank you LOTR). Has it finally been released on Blu-ray? I cant remember now.

TBC gets accused of being ugly and badly animated a lot as well although I always liked the aesthetics myself. You can find it on Disney+ in 4K. I still need to rewatch it on there.

I'm sorry, I don't feel like spending money to watch Oliver & Co. again just for the animation, but I can believe it has excellent character expressions and movement.

I think The Black Cauldron's grimy and gritty animation totally fits the story.

JeanGreyForever wrote:

farerb wrote:It's so funny that Cruella was meant to be in The Rescuers and Penny in Oliver and Company. Disney almost had an animated cinematic universe with at least four films.

unprincess wrote:^It would have been super awesome to have had a Disney animated film universe series that covered the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's(if you count Rescuers Down Under too.)

What's interesting is how each of those films is defined by their era moreso than other Disney films. 101 Dalmatians is very late 50s/60s in the sense that it was the first sort of contemporary Disney film (not including Dumbo) and really felt modern compared to Sleeping Beauty, Alice in Wonderland, Lady and the Tramp, Pinocchio, etc. The Rescuers gets accused of feeling very bleak and like a 70s film often especially with the music (which I'm a huge fan of). Oliver & Company is blatantly 80s. The Rescuers Down Under is a little bit after its time though because it was definitely trying to follow in the footsteps of films like Crocodile Dundee from the 80s and the American interest in Australia had faded away by then.

unprincess wrote: Oliver and Company is my fave DAC for sentimental and nostalgic reasons, its the first Disney animated film that made me a Disney animation fan. I disagree that it has bad animation, Ive always thought it had some wonderfully raw and expressive character animation.. Rewatch the hot dog steal scene, the scene were Fagin first confronts Sykes, the scene were Fagin and the dogs are getting ready for bed and he reads them a bedtime story, the scene when Dodger is attacked by Sykes dogs, the finale subway escape and all the five musical numbers as well as the WSIW reprise...great stuff! I agree that the aesthetic is kinda rough looking but I dont think it looks all that different from the other films of the "Xerox" era like SITS, Aristocats, Robin Hood, TGMD... Actually I think Black Cauldron is way uglier, whole movie looks like it was colored with mud. *





* No Im not knocking Black Cauldron, its just a joke...Ive only seen it once shortly after it was finally release to dvd and I didn't care much for it, but I really should see it again since its been so long and Ive since developed a bigger appreciation for 80's era animated films and its rougher aesthetic(as well as films with high fantasy themes, thank you LOTR). Has it finally been released on Blu-ray? I cant remember now.

TBC gets accused of being ugly and badly animated a lot as well although I always liked the aesthetics myself. You can find it on Disney+ in 4K. I still need to rewatch it on there.

Apologies for the the large quote but I’m typing on an old and slow iPad and editing takes hellishly long and I’m short on time.

To clarify, I believe the criticisms levelled at Black Cauldron’s animation are not aimed so much at the quality of the drawings and backgrounds. In my opinion these are drop-dead gorgeous and we all know that the artists and animators were doing their darned best to make the film look as lavish and as beautiful as possible. This was the first WDAS film in a long time to amp up the budget in order to achieve more complex character animation, numerous multiplane shots, extensive (and pretty!) effects animation and all sorts of visual trickery that had been missing from Disney animation since the staff downscaling of 1959 (following SP’s failure). Of course, this is also why they went with the 70mm film format! The Black Cauldron is a looker, no doubt about it.

The character animation is criticised not for being sloppy or badly drawn, but for the character acting, and there is a very good reason for this. Keep in mind The Black Cauldron was made by a relatively young and inexperienced crew. The animators were still learning and had not yet reached the character animation standard of the old Disney masters. Animation is not just about moving your character around. You must also make them act.

For this reason, when analysing the quality of a movie’s animation, I feel the animation must be reviewed from two perspectives:

1. Animation Articulation

This includes everything from the quality of the drawings, on model characters, use of squash and stretch, follow-through as well all the other technical animation principles. You get the idea.

2. Animation Acting

This is the performance of the animated character as conveyed in drawings (or stop-motion puppets, or computer graphics.) It is primarily expressed through the character’s facial expressions and body language.

It is possible to have one without the other.

You can have animators who excel at drawing and animating complex sequences with plenty of action and dynamic moving cameras necessitating one to animate characters with shifting perspective carrying out complex and difficult to draw actions. (e.g. The hoverboard sequences in Treasure Planet, most of the action scenes in DreamWorks’ Sinbad, the Monstro sequence in Pinocchio, pretty much all of The Thief and the Cobbler.)

You can also have animators who excel in making the characters emote, and these animators may not necessarily be the best draftsmen. They will shine in intimate character moments that will require great drawing but not necessitating the most technically difficult stuff.

Then you will have animators that are equally good in both areas.

This is why you can have movies that are beautifully drawn and designed and gorgeously animated but that fall short on the animation performance, for which they then lose points for general animation quality, and then others which are made on a strict budget and having visible flaws in the visuals (e.g. inconsistent quality of the linework, an infrequent error, lesser quality background animation) that are still excellently animated because what they lack in the production values and refinement (e.g. the clean-up drawings) they make up for with masterful animation acting as part of the character animation (think Bill Tytla’s work in Dumbo).

Phew! Been wanting to talk about this for a long time! Hope my thoughts came through clearly as I wrote that in a rush and am pretty sure it can be worded and explained far better.

Please let me know your thoughts.

^ Do you think that people complain more about character design vs. being off-model vs. the articulation or acting that you mention, in TBC & O&Co?

yep, its the character acting that I love bout Oliver and Co. I think alot of the earlier xerox films had great character acting/animation as well...I think people criticize these films b/c they lack the storybook like prettiness of the Walt era films and the high tech detailed look of the Caps era films.

Thank you for that wonderful, thoughtful, extensive post, Julian! Now I know a lot more about animation!

It's just...I thought the drawings in Oliver & Co....weren't great...

I take it back. The drawings in Oliver & Company are as good as the ones in most Disney films.

Thank for bumping this Duster! I never saw the questions following my last post! (I seem to have a habit of posting and then disappearing and missing responses.)

Ames wrote:Do you think that people complain more about character design vs. being off-model vs. the articulation or acting that you mention, in TBC & O&Co?

For all the criticism directed Cauldron's animation, I personally consider it to be an opulent film. It is clear that effort was made to make it look as good as possible, and I think it shows in the finished product.

The character designs in Cauldron are very, very safe. They are fine quality, but do not really attempt anything that hadn't been done before. Apparently Milt Kahl contributed designs in the early '80s and certainly the finished characters bear quite a resemblance to his work, which leads me to conclude that with some exceptions, Kahl's contributions served as the blueprint for the film's characters. According to Andreas Deja, Tim Burton had come up with some wonderfully subversive designs for Cauldron, but the studio wasn't enthusiastic for them. Unless I am mistaken, the final designs were in the hands of Deja though I think he would have liked to integrate some of Burton's whimsy into them. I guess I'd have to ask him to know for sure.

Deja has also written that the final designs required a mastery of hand-drawn animation that the young crew at WDFA hadn't yet attained at that point. And yes, it is said the animation acting in Cauldron suffers quite a bit. It has been a long time since I last viewed the movie. I do recall enjoying the animation, even if it seemed like it could be more sharply timed, though that could just be faulty memory.

Oliver & Company is a different case. I haven't seen this one in years either, but I recall the movie having very strong, "sculptured" drawing. I am in total agreement with unprincess that it has some "wonderfully raw and expressive character animation."

I think many fans find Oliver inferior-looking because they are using the wrong yardstick. It is a contemporary film set in '80s New York. I am certain that what many find 'ugly' about it is in fact there by design. The film is gritty, including both backgrounds and character animation. The colour scheme can appear garish at times, and the ink and paint is bold. I recall that for this film they went to the completely black Xerox lines even though coloured toner had been introduced in The Rescuers back in '77. Again, this must have been a creative decision and not due to budget cuts, as it makes sense for the movie and its aesthetic.

Now, Oliver does have some shortcomings though. Whereas Cauldron was expensive and great care was taken to ensure that every frame looked good, Oliver is inconsistent. There are many wonderfully animated scenes, but as many are aware - some of the background animation is controversial to say the least. Corners were cut.

I think one of the most notorious scenes is at the beginning of the film, just before we see Oliver and the other kittens in the cardboard box. There's a bit of animation of New Yorkers going about their daily lives and in a particular shot you see this woman walking towards the camera. It is a cycle, but the woman doesn't get larger as the camera pans by. Moreover, I believe the drawing looks unfinished and like it was done in great haste.

I think that, objectively, this animation is poor. And by that I do not mean it is poor by design, but just poor. I can only imagine that perhaps there was a bit of a time crunch and some shortcuts had to be taken. Or perhaps this particular scene was entrusted to a trainee or a lesser animator ... I guess we'll never know.

Now - and this is where I may raise eyebrows - within the context of the scene, I like this piece of animation! The fact that it appears rough and unfinished, and even moves jerkily, gives it an unpolished but kind of raw and I daresay pleasing quality. I am reminded I am looking at drawings and paintings - and yes, I know that that is the last thing animators want - but it doesn't personally bother me at all. These humans are indeed background characters, and the "poor drawing" feels like an abstraction of reality. Just like if you were walking in one of these streets wrapped up in your thoughts. You know there are people around you, but they feel vague and distant and you feel detached. In your mind your surroundings take on an impressionistic veneer, even if it is at odds with reality.

unprincess wrote:I think alot of the earlier xerox films had great character acting/animation as well...I think people criticize these films b/c they lack the storybook like prettiness of the Walt era films and the high tech detailed look of the Caps era films.

Basically, all the Xerox films from 101 Dalmatians till The Rescuers have some of the best animation in the entire Disney canon. What they are sorely missing is production values. I think the movie in which this is felt the most is The Rescuers, which includes and does in fact need to have action scenes. Unfortunately such scenes completely expose the animation's limitations: limited effects animation, almost inexistent multi-plane shots, effects shots kept to a minimum, etc. If The Rescuers had been made in 1940 instead of Pinocchio, you can bet there'd have been the funds to make the albatross flight sequence look amazing. They would likely have created animated backgrounds using difficult, technical animation to render the city moving in 3D as the Bernard and Bianca fly through. (This is something you saw in Silly Symphonies like Three Orphan Kittens, and also something Richard Williams took to unimaginable heights.)

That would never happen in 1977!

Jules wrote:I think one of the most notorious scenes is at the beginning of the film, just before we see Oliver and the other kittens in the cardboard box. There's a bit of animation of New Yorkers going about their daily lives and in a particular shot you see this woman walking towards the camera. It is a cycle, but the woman doesn't get larger as the camera pans by. Moreover, I believe the drawing looks unfinished and like it was done in great haste.

I need to rewatch the opening again, I don't remember which woman you're talking about exactly. I do know that yeah there's a lot of spots where the animation is wonky. The worse for me is during the final motorbike chase when Tito is taunting Sykes dogs who are running after them and you see them disappear on the horizon they turn into abstract blobs! I get they were going for the illusion of distance but they really effed it up there.

its funny that I love Oliver's bold color pallet, lots of primary and secondary colors, like during the WSIW and SOG musical numbers, but its not sickeningly bright like I find a lot of the 90s era dtv sequels. I think its b/c in Oliver they weren't scared to mix the bolder colors with more neutral colors(black greys and white) unlike the sequels which just wanted to make everything look like an over saturated rainbow.

unprincess wrote:I need to rewatch the opening again, I don't remember which woman you're talking about exactly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6YTXjOwSL8

Start at 0:51

It's not as rough as I remember, and there are more people with glued-to-the-pavement syndrome!

dontcha call me a princess, 'kay? wrote:The worse for me is during the final motorbike chase when Tito is taunting Sykes dogs who are running after them and you see them disappear on the horizon they turn into abstract blobs!

Ah yes! I noticed that immediately on my first viewing of the film! (Rental VHS, c. 2000) Though, as I recall it's not that the dogs turn to blobs at the end, but that they disappear prematurely, and it looks like their animation is not properly registered over that of the moving road. I think this was a case not of bad animation, but clearly an error. Whether the error was made at the animation stage or if it is a flub introduced during photography I do not know.

i'm not a quincess either, DOC! wrote:its funny that I love Oliver's bold color pallet, lots of primary and secondary colors, like during the WSIW and SOG musical numbers, but its not sickeningly bright like I find a lot of the 90s era dtv sequels. I think its b/c in Oliver they weren't scared to mix the bolder colors with more neutral colors(black greys and white) unlike the sequels which just wanted to make everything look like an over saturated rainbow.

Agreed. Oliver's palette may be bold, but that doesn't mean it feels an obligation to destroy your retina with a vulgar concoction of every colour in the visible spectrum.

Jules wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6YTXjOwSL8

Start at 0:51

It's not as rough as I remember, and there are more people with glued-to-the-pavement syndrome!

yeesh how did I not ever notice this!? I guess cuz the camera is panning away to the other side during the scene...of course now Ill always notice it, lol! Now that I'm watching it on a laptop screen, pretty much all of the humans are really badly animated during that whole number. I mean I always knew they were but I guess on my laptop its even more glaring now.

Jules wrote:Ah yes! I noticed that immediately on my first viewing of the film! (Rental VHS, c. 2000) Though, as I recall it's not that the dogs turn to blobs at the end, but that they disappear prematurely, and it looks like their animation is not properly registered over that of the moving road. I think this was a case not of bad animation, but clearly an error. Whether the error was made at the animation stage or if it is a flub introduced during photography I do not know.

oh you're right I guess that's a better description of it. Always looks so awful, I wish Disney would go back and fix that instead of other pointless fixes like the crocs in Lion King.

those usernames

unprincess wrote:those usernames

I believe it was Escapay - a couple of millenia ago - who would habitually 'customise' people's usernames when quoting, and I guess I always liked the idea so I adopted it early on.

The reason my username today is Jules is because he'd call me by that name. I think my first 7 years on this site I posted as Julian Carter instead.

So I became Jules, blackcauldron85 was Ames, SpringHeelJack was brenders, Arielsprince became Sprince, CJ was rechristened Ceej, xxphlinkxx was Plinky, and those are just the ones I'm rattling off as I remember them. There were quite a few more. Still, I guess I was the only to make my name change official, lol.

I could swear Campbellzsoup had a nickname too but I can't recall what it was!

^ Was he Soupy? I may have just made that up. "Ames" lives on with my coworkers.
I am not noticing anything weird in the 0:51-0:53 section of "Once Upon a Time in NYC"-- I've seen it too many times for anything to look weird.

^on the left of the screen there people in the crowd walking without moving forward, its hilarious. Its the 80's, maybe they're break-dancing(doing the "robot"?)

Jules, I dont recognize any of those usernames(except blackcauldron85)...must have been before I joined.

I do wish this forum would get more members, but everyone just wants to be on Twitter now.