DVDizzy Forum

On the prince note. It could also have been a metaphor for simply a good man. Not exactly meaning prince. Some say they are waiting for their knight in shining armor, but is that what they actually get?

Many girls, past, present, and fiction want a man that his handsome, kind, and can provide for them. A prince can be all this, but so can a common man. I hope I am able to marry a prince one day, but I don't expect Prince William to knock on my door tomorrow. For many of the princesses, especially the ones who start out or are treated like commoners, to have the fantasy of a prince is to keep themselves thinking positive. A prince could not only be the things I listed, but also have the power to save her from her treatment. Part of it could simply be a fantasy of their perfect man.

And how did Aurora know the clothes the animals brought were from a prince? Those were all common clothes. Cape, boots, hat. A lot of men wore those clothes in that day. If the birds carried a crown, okay then.

So, MagicMirror, since Pinocchio, Fantasia, and all the Golden Age (is it called the golden age?) Disney films come first, I guess you just have a 101 Dalmatians preoccupation for now because the Platinum Edition's coming out soon?

Yay for Lady Tremaine love/respect. I admit, it is the ending of Cinderella III that I hate most, and what I would most desire to change. For one thing, when the animators wanted Cinderella to do more, she still stood back as the prince did the actual thwarting of the villain (unlike Cinderella, who actually defeats her the first time!). But the idea of the spell bouncing off a reflective surface and being used on the villain who cast it has been done too many times, and is a really cheap way of defeating the villain. Perhaps the direct-to-video nature caused this, not just because of budget, but because the direct-to-video features are often thought to be aimed more for children, instead of the wider audience of a theatrical release. I dreamed up my own more violent but also more satisfying and climactic endings, which you may find later if I do my huge critique of Cinderella III I've been planning since I watched it. Something that's also insulting is that Lady Tremaine didn't try to do better/eviler things with the wand when she was so crafty with a cane and a key before.

MagicMirror wrote:Again, never thought of that about Cinderella. I knew of the cutting off toes and so forth from the Grimm version, but never quite understood the symbolism of it. The thing about femme fatales needing penises is a little sexist, because the idea of the femme fatale was the product of a male-dominated society fearing the emergence of women, who were believed at the time to be destructive and reckless but also decadent and manipulative (think of all those paintings of characters like Circe, Judith, Morgan Le Fay etc).

Yea, I read that about the symbolism, and also read there was similar symbolism for Red Ridinghood's blood red cape. I unfortunately have never heard of the femme fatales you spoke of (I forgot I read about Circe in the Odyssy), but I Googled them and found Circe with a harp and some lions, Judith with a sword (was that a phallus?) and Morgan with....a lamp? Anyway, it just struck me that Medusa has snakes in her hair. Ha.

I also haven't heard of UPA and when I Googled UPA and "the raven" I don't think any results were what you spoke of. So for Eyvind Earle, do you think it's the actual detail that make the characters unable to move, or the placement/composition? Like there's too many leaves sticking out of a bush that can poke or be in front of Aurora or a tree in Prince Phillip's way? Because I wouldn't see how if Aurora was just in front of a really gritty, shaded wall, how it would prevent her from moving as much as she wanted in front of that wall.

In "The Art of Walt Disney", Cinderella was described as harking back to Snow White in spirit, but with "an added frosting of surface glamour". Then you said Sleeping Beauty has surface glamour, and perhaps I would accept that the fairy tales get more and more about looks as they go but I don't agree since Snow White and Sleeping Beauty arguably had more lavishness in their looks than Cinderella (which should be the opposite to me since the story relies on the heroine getting a makover in appearence), and Cinderella is a more faceted, strong, deep, whatever you want to call it character than Snow White. But if Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty rely more on glamour than other films I perfectly accept that since I realize my love for these two films has very much to do with their visuals. And actually my love for a lot of things relies on their visuals. *shallow* I try not to let this be for people, though!

I say every princess wants true love, but Aurora and Belle put more concentration on it coming to them in the form of a prince, as Aurora dreams of one and dances with a pretend one, and Belle reads about and wants to find one. They show they don't need a prince when Aurora falls in love with man she thinks is just a woodsman and doesn't want to marry a prince she doesn't know, while Belle falls in love with a beast who it's doubtful she knows was once a prince/is a prince.

As for what you and Lazario are discussing, I'll just say it seems Lazario's saying Sleeping Beauty is the scariest film because every frame evokes a scary, suspenseful, or unnerving atmosphere and it has the element of surprise, which the other films don't have, especially Snow White where you see everything that's coming and there is no surprise. Whether the filmakers intended for the film's every scene to look so cold or creepy is irrevelent; it just is, and it's still scary because of it. Personally, I take Aurora's forest which should be happy but feels sad as a great way to make us feel that even though she should be content, something's missing. She looks lonely and lost in the vast and vastly detailed, towering woods, and it serves her situation.

By the way, I think Maleficent's and the Queen's transformations are even in how much we see. Only Maleficent's shadow is seen behind the screen of green smoke, and we only see what form she has taken in full, clear, scary glory when the hazy mirage from the fire settles.

A rather belated post, but it's a fun discussion and worth reviving.

So, MagicMirror, since Pinocchio, Fantasia, and all the Golden Age (is it called the golden age?) Disney films come first, I guess you just have a 101 Dalmatians preoccupation for now because the Platinum Edition's coming out soon?

Not really... it was really just that it's a film I discovered relatively recently. I'd only seen it once or twice before then; as a child I watched a lot of - you guessed it - 'Sleeping Beauty'. I really only discovered 'Dalmatians' when I'd just started at university, and that's when it made an impression of me and the preoccupation started. I do feel it's rather underappreciated by Disney fans, probably because it's not a fantasy story more than anything else.

I also haven't heard of UPA and when I Googled UPA and "the raven" I don't think any results were what you spoke of.

http://www.theanimationblog.com/2007/08 ... ale-heart/

It's the sort of film I think Earle's style would have worked very well in - there's very little animation to interfere with the backgrounds, which really are the star. It also has a wonderful looming darkness about the whole think that IO suspect Lazario is trying to get my dense, unimaginative mind to recognise in 'Sleeping Beauty'.
Actually, I do think Earle did a short about the Nativity which was far more suited to his style, I think. I can't remember where I saw it though. Hopefully it will be on the PE DVD later this year - though it may not even have been by Disney.

So for Eyvind Earle, do you think it's the actual detail that make the characters unable to move, or the placement/composition? Like there's too many leaves sticking out of a bush that can poke or be in front of Aurora or a tree in Prince Phillip's way? Because I wouldn't see how if Aurora was just in front of a really gritty, shaded wall, how it would prevent her from moving as much as she wanted in front of that wall.

I think the details make the characters seem a little out of place in the environment, but, for the interference with the animation I think it's more about planes. I think the strong verticals and horizontals in the backgrounds make it more difficult for there to be a good 'line of action' with a lot of the poses. Possibly a comparison would be trying to draw something naturalistic - all curves and round shapes - on a sheet of graph paper. This is the way I feel Earle affected the film - his backgrounds are beautiful images in their own right but are simply not made to have characters move in front of them. Off the top of my head, an example could be when Stefan yells 'seize that creature!' - when he points, the diagonals and curves seem sort of out of true with the background's strong verticals.

Maleficent works best in this respect, I think because she's a big black shape, and so becomes a sort of void in contrast to, and overpowering, the details. She's also lucky enough to be against simpler backgrounds some of the time, particularly on her tower at the end of the film (with the clouds).

In "The Art of Walt Disney", Cinderella was described as harking back to Snow White in spirit, but with "an added frosting of surface glamour". Then you said Sleeping Beauty has surface glamour, and perhaps I would accept that the fairy tales get more and more about looks as they go but I don't agree since Snow White and Sleeping Beauty arguably had more lavishness in their looks than Cinderella (which should be the opposite to me since the story relies on the heroine getting a makover in appearence), and Cinderella is a more faceted, strong, deep, whatever you want to call it character than Snow White. But if Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty rely more on glamour than other films I perfectly accept that since I realize my love for these two films has very much to do with their visuals. And actually my love for a lot of things relies on their visuals. *shallow* I try not to let this be for people, though!

I think Cinderella is the deepest of the three Walt-era princesses, though all three are beautifully animated. Snow White is a simple archetype of pure goodness - albeit on that works perfectly in the context of that particular film - and Aurora doesn't really have much of a personality at all. The story's fairly simple but that can be said for a lot of good Disney films - Snow White, Dalmatians, Dumbo...

It's also a more successful film design-wise than 'Sleeping Beauty'. I actually think 'Cinderella' is one of the best examples of a scene being composed with both background and character in mind. It's very readable, with all the shapes working well together - concentric shapes, sweeping curves, shadow and light - really beautiful images, and you know exactly where to look even when there's a lot of detail. In Hans Bacher's 'Dream Worlds' book there's a page of some beautiful stills from the film to illustrate this.

I haven't done this myself, but I suspect if you were to take a lot of stills from 'Cinderella', then a lot from 'Sleeping Beauty' you'd notice a big difference, particularly in the scenes set in Stefan's castle.

As for what you and Lazario are discussing, I'll just say it seems Lazario's saying Sleeping Beauty is the scariest film because every frame evokes a scary, suspenseful, or unnerving atmosphere and it has the element of surprise, which the other films don't have, especially Snow White where you see everything that's coming and there is no surprise. Whether the filmakers intended for the film's every scene to look so cold or creepy is irrevelent; it just is, and it's still scary because of it. Personally, I take Aurora's forest which should be happy but feels sad as a great way to make us feel that even though she should be content, something's missing. She looks lonely and lost in the vast and vastly detailed, towering woods, and it serves her situation.

I actually feel that whether it was intended is relevant (though whether or not it was intended, I do agree that the effect on the audience is always interesting!) - and I'm still unable to see it at all. The loneliness in the forest, I definitely can see. But the unnerving creepiness and suspense? Not really. Nor the element of surprise.

By the way, I think Maleficent's and the Queen's transformations are even in how much we see. Only Maleficent's shadow is seen behind the screen of green smoke, and we only see what form she has taken in full, clear, sacry glory when the hazy mirage from the fire settles.

I think you and Lazario are right there.

Which movie do you think has the spookier scenes, Sleeping Beauty or Beauty and the Beast?

I'd say the part where Maleficent hypnotizes Princess Aurora is the creepiest scene from Sleeping Beauty. The beginning of Beauty and the Beast is also a bit creepy, the scenes where Maurice is lost in the forest and when he first meets the Beast. Also, when Belle meets the Beast and when she explores the West Wing of the castle. In both movies, the music really helps create a sense of darkness and fear.

this is only related to sleeping beauty in the art direction sense...a video i made of pocahontas...give ur comments!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJjF45dLaqg

Thanks for writing back eventually, Magic Mirror!

MagicMirror wrote:Not really... it was really just that it's a film I discovered relatively recently. I'd only seen it once or twice before then; as a child I watched a lot of - you guessed it - 'Sleeping Beauty'. I really only discovered 'Dalmatians' when I'd just started at university, and that's when it made an impression of me and the preoccupation started. I do feel it's rather underappreciated by Disney fans, probably because it's not a fantasy story more than anything else.

Oh, so that's why. Well, I'm sorry but I recently saw "101 Dalmatians" at a friends house...and I didn't care for it. I didn't think Cruella was that amazing, maybe she was hyped too much, but she was still the best part and should have been in it more (in an interview with Lisa Davis on here, I think, she said Cruella feels like she's in the film more because she's such a big part of it...but I was suprised at how little she was in it the way I heard about her). I also much prefer the painterly backgrounds of Disney's other films to the movie's sketchy ones. I don't like the style of anything that was Xeroxed. I agree with Lazario, the twilight bark was boring. Now, at the house I was talking while watching and not paying full attention...but obviously that means it still wasn't enough to get my full attention. I'm sorry. I know it has lots of good things, I appreciate what is has, I just, personally, don't like them.

What's strange is, back in Disney's day, wasn't it a critic and audience darling? So I wonder why it's underappreciated now. Are you sure it is? Maybe it really is less recognized because the company has focused more on the fantasy of Disney over time. But I myself am mostly into Disney for it's fantasy and literal magic.

http://www.theanimationblog.com/2007/08 ... ale-heart/

Thank you, that was quite a short! But there was hardly any animation at all, and sometimes the backgrounds were what was animated, so I guess that's why the backgrounds were more important and could stand on their own. I can see how they were Earlesque, but I certainly wouldn't have wanted to watch a whole feature film like that! I'm glad it was just a short. I don't think Eyvind Earle did that Nativity short unless it was "The Small One" about the donkey used to get Mary to the manger for the birth, and I don't think it would be on the DVD.

Thanks for all you said clearing up how you feel about the animation/background meld. I now see what you mean, it may not bother me, but I see what you mean. So now, I want to ask you if you think Eyvind's vertical backgrounds could ever work with animation. Would they need to be softened, rounded, or just less detailed? Because as you know, the Disney artists really tried to make the characters themselves angular to match the backgrounds. Maybe they'd have to move angularly, too? Maybe they'd have to look like moving rectangles (ah!). I must say though, I feel Sleeping Beauty's animation is Disney's best. But that's just how I feel now, and I have a feeling it's because I'm looking more at the designs, the still frames, than the actual movement, which may be terrible (though I doubt it's that bad). But Disney said he wanted every frame to look like a masterpiece, and the straight-lined designs make the animation look tight, I think, and picture perfect.

Thanks also for what you said about my favorite Disney princess. I wonder then, what that surface glamour was, since the book said it was added to Cinderella. You know, Snow White doesn't always seem perfectly benevolent. She wouldn't give the dwarfs supper until they washed, and when she said, "Perhaps you have washed" it sounded sarcastic and...nasty, the way her expression is! There's also this deleted scene extended from when the dwarfs were debating letting her stay, and she gets up and pretends to leave saying "I'll go" rather saucily, but that was not read by the original voice actress, so maybe they didn't intend her to sound like that. But maybe none of these things are really bad if she only let the dwarfs eat with washed hands to keep them from getting sick...?

MagicMirror wrote:In Hans Bacher's 'Dream Worlds' book there's a page of some beautiful stills from the film to illustrate this.

Thank you for telling me about this recognition of the backgrounds of my favorite film! They get little attention and are often called less impressive/beautiful (!) than many other Disney films, especially the two other fairy tales.

MagicMirror wrote:I haven't done this myself, but I suspect if you were to take a lot of stills from 'Cinderella', then a lot from 'Sleeping Beauty' you'd notice a big difference, particularly in the scenes set in Stefan's castle.

Of course they would! Sleeping Beauty was purposely meant to look distinctly different from the past two fairy tales, especially since it was so much like them in story. But you think Sleeping Beauty looks more different from Cinderella than from Snow White? Well, with the story being mostly close to Snow White's, so are the settings. A forest and cottage and dungeon and bedside.

MagicMirror wrote:I actually feel that whether it was intended is relevant (though whether or not it was intended, I do agree that the effect on the audience is always interesting!) - and I'm still unable to see it at all. The loneliness in the forest, I definitely can see. But the unnerving creepiness and suspense? Not really. Nor the element of surprise.

Well, the intent does matter, but when it comes to how scary something is, that's more based on how the audience feels than what happens. Lots of films try to be scary and fail, and lots of films are unintentially scary. Lazario usually cares about filmaker intent, but when it comes to how scary a movie is, perhaps not. Lazario wrote a lot about how he felt no one could ever be in the vast forest or castles alone, it felt like there was something just around every corner. The line "even walls have ears" emboldens this. The background people usually don't have faces, which is definately creepy. When Maleficent's close-up appears in the fog after the vision of Aurora fades away, we didn't expect that, and her yellow eyes raise to maximize the scare.

By the way, remember that slipper/blood/period thing, well it turns out that's from a freudian reading and possibly not the real symbolism, if there was any. I read that the Grimm's inserted the violence on the stepsisters as punishment, because they were Christian and wanted to punish the bad people in the tales. Perrault's less bloody tales came before the Grimm's, I think. Perrault's book was in 1697, the Grimm's were in 1812 - 1815 (they made multiple editions, including adding the stepsister's eyes getting pecked out as more punishment in a second edition). I do wonder if even though the Grimm's came later, they heard a more original version of the story, but who knows.

Here's a link you may like, I've found it all very interesting, but it may change the way you think about Disney's fairy tales: MousePlanet Fairy Tale Course

SleepingBeautyAurora, I, too, feel the creep and ominous mystery in the music opening Beauty and the Beast and later in the West Wing, and I think it's creepy in the West Wing because we know Belle isn't supposed to be there, we don't know where the Beast is when we would think he would be in his own room, and we've only seen the Beast's horror story in glass windows. I'm sorry to do this to Lazario, but I think Beauty and the Beast works it's creep on me more, just from what I can remember now. I think Sleeping Beauty may be scarier if we didn't know Maleficent was having trouble finding Aurora, and if Briar Rose's scenes in the forest had some darker, more shadowed areas with some creepy music where the animals weren't so close to her and interacting with her. Also, maybe if we never saw what was ahead of Aurora as she goes up the stairs, as in we mostly see her back or a close-up of her face and we never see what's behind the glowing ball because it's in shadow, like Maleficent could always be behind the ball. Then, in the room, like Lazario's pan & scan, not see all of the spinning wheel and certainly not all of the room, so we wonder if Maleficent's in the scene and they just aren't showing her.

Akhenaten, unless you actually want to talk about how the art in Pocahontas is like Sleeping Beauty's, please leave your work to your own thread. I did watch it, I instantly recognized the music from my Fantasmic CD, and it was great. Too bad you didn't cut off the msuic the best way, I don't know how you could have done it better, but the "Sleep" that got in their was annoying as heck. But aside from that, it was great. But does not belong in this thread.

Oh, so that's why. Well, I'm sorry but I recently saw "101 Dalmatians" at a friends house...and I didn't care for it. I didn't think Cruella was that amazing, maybe she was hyped too much, but she was still the best part and should have been in it more (in an interview with Lisa Davis on here, I think, she said Cruella feels like she's in the film more because she's such a big part of it...but I was suprised at how little she was in it the way I heard about her). I also much prefer the painterly backgrounds of Disney's other films to the movie's sketchy ones. I don't like the style of anything that was Xeroxed. I agree with Lazario, the twilight bark was boring. Now, at the house I was talking while watching and not paying full attention...but obviously that means it still wasn't enough to get my full attention. I'm sorry. I know it has lots of good things, I appreciate what is has, I just, personally, don't like them.

That's perfectly fine, of course. We can respectfully disagree. I think, when I was younger, I never got around to watching it because of its lack of magic and fantasy - so I'm guilty in that respect too - but I'm sort of glad that it isn't a precious childhood memory, as I can honestly say that I like it for what I consider legitimate reasons, rather than through looking at it through rose-tinted spectacles. I think another thing I like about the film is its relative modesty and unpretentiousness - I'm sure this must have been a breath of fresh air after the bejewelled decadence of 'Sleeping Beauty'.

Mind you, 'Sleeping Beauty' didn't get lots of bad reviews, as far as I know - it just wasn't quite as well-received as 'Dalmatians'. The main complaint was probably that it is a bit of a 'Snow White' clone, and the efforts to make it less like its predecessor story-wise slow the film down. There's also the criticism of bland characters and the lack of continuity some felt between the characters and backgrounds, but this is well known. I'm afraid I don't have any reviews made at the time but my impression is that the film was generally well received and was a bomb because of its cost more than anything else.

What's strange is, back in Disney's day, wasn't it a critic and audience darling? So I wonder why it's underappreciated now. Are you sure it is? Maybe it really is less recognized because the company has focused more on the fantasy of Disney over time. But I myself am mostly into Disney for it's fantasy and literal magic.

I think it's appreciated by the general public, underappreciated by Disney fans in general (who tend to prefer the more fantastical stuff), and underappreciated by nearly everyone as an artistic success. Of course, I'm making a bit of a generalisation in that assessment!

Thank you, that was quite a short! But there was hardly any animation at all, and sometimes the backgrounds were what was animated, so I guess that's why the backgrounds were more important and could stand on their own. I can see how they were Earlesque, but I certainly wouldn't have wanted to watch a whole feature film like that! I'm glad it was just a short. I don't think Eyvind Earle did that Nativity short unless it was "The Small One" about the donkey used to get Mary to the manger for the birth, and I don't think it would be on the DVD.

I don't think the nativity short was 'The Small One' (is that the one about the donkey?) - it was more abstract and I think more visually coherent than Sleeping Beauty. It was similar to 'The Raven' in that it was a lot of static images moving about rather than animation as such, but I think that works better with Earle's style than animation because of the shapes he tended to use. The look was much more like the earlier paintings Earle did for 'Sleeping Beauty' - simple shapes, but very elegant. I think the short may have been on Michael Sporn's blog, but I've done a quick search over there and have been unable to find it.

Thanks for all you said clearing up how you feel about the animation/background meld. I now see what you mean, it may not bother me, but I see what you mean. So now, I want to ask you if you think Eyvind's vertical backgrounds could ever work with animation. Would they need to be softened, rounded, or just less detailed? Because as you know, the Disney artists really tried to make the characters themselves angular to match the backgrounds. Maybe they'd have to move angularly, too? Maybe they'd have to look like moving rectangles (ah!). I must say though, I feel Sleeping Beauty's animation is Disney's best. But that's just how I feel now, and I have a feeling it's because I'm looking more at the designs, the still frames, than the actual movement, which may be terrible (though I doubt it's that bad). But Disney said he wanted every frame to look like a masterpiece, and the straight-lined designs make the animation look tight, I think, and picture perfect.

I'm not sure what Disney film has the best animation. I think it depends what you rank highest in animation - draughtsmanship, character animation, creativity... the list goes on.
Taking draughtsmanship as an example, there's not doubt that every character in 'Sleeping Beauty' is beautifully constructed and skillfully drawn. Marc Davis' animation of Maleficent is powerful and skillful - but compare her to Cruella, who is not only a more difficult character to draw (lots of different, complex shapes of different textures and movement speeds) so exhibits better draughtsmanship; she's also more creatively designed and animated (again, probably as she is not as restricted stylistically as Maleficent) and is probably more interesting as far as actual personality animation is concerned. I think, as many of the characters in 'Sleeping Beauty' are quite bland, it can't lay claim to the best Disney character animation. But there's no doubt that the animation is beautiful.

If I were pressed I'd probably say that 'Fantasia' is the Disney film with the best animation, both in draughtsmanship and in the art of the thing, as well as the best effects animation that's probably been done. But, again, take Tytla's Chernabog. Probably the most powerful animation ever done at the studio. Do we rank Tytla's ability to suggest awesome power in Chernabog above his ability to convey emotion in Dumbo? Both characters are enormously successful but it is comparing an apple to an orange. But I think Tytla was the best animator Disney ever had - whichever film has the best animation needs him in the credits, in my opinion!

Of course they would! Sleeping Beauty was purposely meant to look distinctly different from the past two fairy tales, especially since it was so much like them in story. But you think Sleeping Beauty looks more different from Cinderella than from Snow White? Well, with the story being mostly close to Snow White's, so are the settings. A forest and cottage and dungeon and bedside.

It's good that 'Sleeping Beauty' is different in style. I meant that you'd notice a big difference in how well the scenes are composed - 'Cinderella' has characters and background elements working harmoniously, while I think many scenes in 'Sleeping Beauty' have such busy backgrounds that a character needs only walk along to disrupt it - as though, as I said, the backgrounds were designed to work better without the animation happening in front of them.

Well, the intent does matter, but when it comes to how scary something is, that's more based on how the audience feels than what happens. Lots of films try to be scary and fail, and lots of films are unintentially scary. Lazario usually cares about filmaker intent, but when it comes to how scary a movie is, perhaps not. Lazario wrote a lot about how he felt no one could ever be in the vast forest or castles alone, it felt like there was something just around every corner. The line "even walls have ears" emboldens this. The background people usually don't have faces, which is definately creepy. When Maleficent's close-up appears in the fog after the vision of Aurora fades away, we didn't expect that, and her yellow eyes raise to maximize the scare.

The thing is that I feel that theory contradicts the film's story - Maleficent obviously didn't have any of her minions hiding in the forest or she would have known about Aurora before sending Diablo. The emptiness of the castle didn't really unnerve me either - one thing the backgrounds are successful in doing is suggesting enormous scale, and I felt that the castle was so enormous that there couldn't be people milling around absolutely everywhere - not least in what seem to be the royal family's private rooms. As I'm pretty sure the uneasy feeling is thus unintentional - a side-effect of the style, not a conscious decision - I don't think it's an argument for the film being good. But it's an interesting point and definitely an argument for liking the film or being inspired by it.

Thank you for the link! Very interesting to know how the different versions of the fairy tale affected the Disney telling.

Did anyone noticed that in the merchandise Aurora's dress as brair rose is purple? here,looks what I mean:

And yeah,this clipart was used a lot and more colorful.

Yes, Ariel'sprince, I've noticed they make it purple, and don't like it. Notice her peasant dress is gray in the film, like Cinderella's gray/silver dress. They just don't like gray in marketing!

You know Magic Mirror, if I watch 101 Dalmatians again with attention I'm sure I would like Cruella. Now that I think about it, the hype may have made me harsher on the viewing and I see how Cruella is one of Disney's best.

I think I keep my favorite Disney films favorites partly because I keep my childhood memories of them, but it's just a fact I love their fantasy worlds and special effects and stories. I know they may not be the best films, but they are my favorites.

It's good to know Sleeping Beauty wasn't hated back then, just not thought of as all that good.

MagicMirror wrote:I think it's appreciated by the general public, underappreciated by Disney fans in general (who tend to prefer the more fantastical stuff), and underappreciated by nearly everyone as an artistic success. Of course, I'm making a bit of a generalisation in that assessment!

But you said the artistic people you knew appreciated 101 Dalmatians, which is one of the artier Disney films (well, in terms of innovation and creativeness I guess you meant), along with Alice in Wonderland!

MagicMirror wrote:I don't think the nativity short was 'The Small One' (is that the one about the donkey?)

Yes, that was the one with the donkey, and Disney did that one. That other short Eyvind did sounds neato.

Thanks for everything you said about explaining best animation. I guess Sleeping Beauty just has the most beautiful designs that make any movement look good. And of course most beautiful and best are not the same. I'm sad to hear you think Fantasia's the best effects wise, I love the magical effects in Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty. But I haven't watched Fantasia in a while, and I know Fantasia has far more effects going on, and more ambitious ones. By the way, is design different from draughtsmanship?

Yes, you're right if all that stuff happened Maleficent would have found Aurora by then, I guess it's more about what it feels like could happen than what does for Lazario. Still, the fairies do exhibit fear when we don't see what could happen, from dicussing to hide Aurora, to hiding her, to sealing the cottage, to taking Aurora back, and perhaps when they invade Maleficen'ts domain. As for the castle being so enormous, maybe people can't be everywhere, but people could be anywhere.

I'm glad you liked the link. I feel weird knowing the original intent of the tales, but in every adaptation new filmakers and storytellers give the tales new intents along with the new elements and changes. It's really true, the Walt-era fairy tales are all about a girl losing her nobility and gaining it back via prince, which religiously stands for losing eternal life and gaining it back (The Garden of Eden, then Hell, then Heaven). Or something like that.

SleepingBeautyAurora wrote: I'd say the part where Maleficent hypnotizes Princess Aurora is the creepiest scene from Sleeping Beauty.

That scene is seriously one of the creepiest scenes in disney animation history.

Fidget1234 wrote:That scene is seriously one of the creepiest scenes in disney animation history.

Here is the scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9RRAu2mCoQ

The music definitely helps create an eerie feeling. It's hard to say which is spookier though. (Sleeping Beauty or Beauty and the Beast?) Princess Aurora has no control while hypnotized but Belle and Maurice still have the ability to run or fight.

Disney Duster wrote:Yes, Ariel'sprince, I've noticed they make it purple, and don't like it. Notice her peasant dress is gray in the film, like Cinderella's gray/silver dress. They just don't like gray in marketing!.

Maybe grey isn't good for cliparts? I mean,if they whould make her dress gray it won't be really colorful and purple make it colorful,Can you picture cliparts with a gray dress?.
Also in Cinderella's case-a white dress and orange hair makes look old unlike a blue dress and blonde hair.

But you said the artistic people you knew appreciated 101 Dalmatians, which is one of the artier Disney films (well, in terms of innovation and creativeness I guess you meant), along with Alice in Wonderland!

I don't actually remember saying that, though you may be right in which case I've rather put my foot in it. I do remember saying that the arty people I know appreciate 'Alice in Wonderland' and 'Fantasia' the most. I don't think I could really say the same for 'Dalmatians', which tends to be appreciated more for the story and characters.

Thanks for everything you said about explaining best animation. I guess Sleeping Beauty just has the most beautiful designs that make any movement look good.

Yes, it's difficult to define - very subjective as to which animation is the most beautiful.
How good the character animation is is, to an extent, dependent on the story and what the characters do in it, so perhaps 'Pinocchio', 'Dumbo' and 'Bambi' reign supreme here - the story practically revolves around the change in each film's respective titular character.

I'm sad to hear you think Fantasia's the best effects wise, I love the magical effects in Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty. But I haven't watched Fantasia in a while, and I know Fantasia has far more effects going on, and more ambitious ones.

There is indeed great effects animation in 'Cinderella' and 'Sleeping Beauty' - I particularly love the fairy dust sprinkling from the Three Good Fairies' wands - but again there are similar magic effects in the Nutcracker Suite. Rite of Spring is probably the best to look at for effects - the lava and flames at the beginning - but see also the Sorcerer's Apprentice for the water, and the entire film's use of light and shadow. I suppose, as 'Fantasia' has more opportunities than any other Disney film for the effects animation to take centre stage, it already has the upper hand in the effects department.

A film often overlooked in the magic effects department is 'Pinocchio'. I love the animation of the Blue Fairy's magic. I believe the animator was an abstract filmmaker (Oskar Fischinger?).

By the way, is design different from draughtsmanship?

I think so. I think draughtsmanship is how skilled the artist is at drawing accurately - whatever it is they have to be accurate to - so 'Sleeping Beauty' is virtually faultless there. Design, I think, is more how everything looks rather than accuracy. But I'm generalizing again - in the same way that being on model is not always desirable in some animation, an artist doesn't always have to follow strict rules to be a great draughtsman.

Yes, you're right if all that stuff happened Maleficent would have found Aurora by then, I guess it's more about what it feels like could happen than what does for Lazario. Still, the fairies do exhibit fear when we don't see what could happen, from dicussing to hide Aurora, to hiding her, to sealing the cottage, to taking Aurora back, and perhaps when they invade Maleficen'ts domain. As for the castle being so enormous, maybe people can't be everywhere, but people could be anywhere.

Yes, but... I still don't get that feeling. The feeling I always got from the 'Sleeping Beauty' was one of elegance, beauty - not lurking evil. Even in the scene in which Maleficent lures Aurora to the spinning wheel (though I agree that this is the scariest sequence in the film, and probably its second best sequence), we know where Maleficent is - she's in the form of the willo-the-wisp, which we clearly see on the screen. The only Disney film that I can think of that creates horror and suspense by what we don't see is 'Bambi', though there are a lot of moments in Disney films that hold off a reveal of a character like the Witch or Dragon for dramatic effect.


After another search, the Christmas short is mentioned here:

http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/?p=1207


So it was called 'The Story of Christmas'. I still can't find the video itself, though.[/i][/quote]

Well, I agree with almost everything, all very well said. I'm pretty sure you mentioned 101 Dalmatians as what your arty friends recognized, but I don't want to go searching for it on here, you may just have been thinking of how you yourself realized what an artistic movie it is.

MagicMirror wrote:There is indeed great effects animation in 'Cinderella' and 'Sleeping Beauty' - I particularly love the fairy dust sprinkling from the Three Good Fairies' wands - but again there are similar magic effects in the Nutcracker Suite. Rite of Spring is probably the best to look at for effects - the lava and flames at the beginning - but see also the Sorcerer's Apprentice for the water, and the entire film's use of light and shadow. I suppose, as 'Fantasia' has more opportunities than any other Disney film for the effects animation to take centre stage, it already has the upper hand in the effects department.

A film often overlooked in the magic effects department is 'Pinocchio'. I love the animation of the Blue Fairy's magic. I believe the animator was an abstract filmmaker (Oskar Fischinger?).

First of all, I didn't remember an effect like that in Fantasia except possibly the comets that Scorcerer Mickey controlled. So I watched a little online and I guess the snow flakes and snow look like it. I know the fairy dust effect isn't too different, but innovation is innovation no matter how small, and the sparkling dust effect was first really done in Cinderella. And I don't think there can be a mistake about that when I read this from The Animated Movie Guide:

"The luminous particles that accompany the Fairy Godmother's magic spell so enthralled Walt Disney that he asked his effects animators to put more of it in the scene. The effect was known forever after as "Disney Dust."

Now, the book called the magic spell "Bippity Boppity Boo" when it should be "Bibbidi Bobbidi Boo", but it knew lots of other information, including a section for the world's first animated feature film, The Adventures of Prince Achmed (did you know this, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was not the first!), so I think it's reliable. I certainly hope so!

Also, it is known that Walt Disney's favorite piece of animation was Cinderella's fairy dust-aided transformation (it's my favorite as well), when he was asked about it. He said it as "When Cinderella got her gown", and Marc Davis was very happy because he animated that scene. Now, of course you and Walt's taste differs since, after all, you love the look of 101 Dalmatians, and he didn't, but it sounds like he thought of the dust as a whole new effect, and one he liked very much. Sadly, I recognize that Mickey's comets even melt and drip down at one point much like the sparkling spiral that transformed Cinderella. And yet, I still consider it a whole new effect, and at least an innovation. Innovations are partly how old things are used in new ways, anyway.

But I have something you will like very much. It's another quote from a different book, Disney's Aladdin: The Making of an Animated Film:

"Back in 1939, when Disney was making Pinocchio, Oskar Fischinger, the abstract filmaker from Germany, designed the hilations that come from the Blue Fairy's wand when she gives the gift of life to the little woodenhead. They were composed of an animated pattern of wavy lines in white ink. In later years, magic wands gave forth what has come to be known as Disney dust."

So, do you see how I got my username? I live for these effects and they are a huge reason why the films that feature them are my favorites, and of course my top favorite is the pioneer, Cinderella. I hate it when the Disney company today calls it all pixie dust when Peter Pan came after. Also, I wanted to say that even though the actual effects for the Blue Fairy are cool, the actual animation of what the magic is being used on is...lame. Pinocchio's strings just fade away, and when he becomes a real boy, he likewise just fades from donkey/puppet to human boy. There's no movement, no animation, no growing into the new form. It's just fading. And I don't know why they did this after they obviously could make things morph, as demonstrated when the queen transformed into the witch.

As for the rest of your post, I just agreed to that as well, I thank you for talking about it with me and sharing your information, and I was never personally creeped out by Sleeping Beauty. But remember how you said the diagnals in the film conflicted with the verticals and horizontals? Well, I read on a site that Eyvind Earle did not like the usual Disney softness and roundness and wanted the film to look sharp, while everyone else preferred the old soft Disney look. So I found this:

"So that the film wasn't strictly gothic in appearance, the artists introduced diagonal light sources and shadows to soften the look a bit. This is clearly illustrated in the forest scenes where the sunlight is shown filtering through the trees. This diagonal placement of the beams of light cut through the film's strict horizontal and vertical design and softens the overall composition."

Got that from this really great site about Sleeping Beauty, http://www.medievalcottage.com/sbcomment.html

Why Walt wound up giving Maleficent the bird
http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/ ... -bird.aspx

Yeah...kind of figured that out already, Jim.

There would be a problem with having a speech-giver talking to noone. Although...I don't know, maybe it would work in its way. Thinking of characters like The Horned King, when he's talking in the dark room alone (the first time we meet him, I think) there's a kind of...madness to it. I think it also adds an unintended sadness by showing how detached the character is from society, humanity and (by connection) reality. I think you can also see some of this in Ursula, when she talks to herself (though she does have F&J watching--and they must be able to hear her voice in their heads--she seems more to be talking to herself than to them; it makes her more dramatic, but it does add a tinge of insanity which I think was intentional [the red eyes in Ariel's transformation scene; the mirror image of Vanessa, the Ariel lookalike]). But maybe that's just not where they wanted to take Maleficent.

Although I do wonder if this was intended to be a side of Maleficent's character, by Fauna's words after the cursing scene. I think Fauna's words are supposed to say more about that character's airiness and innocence, how she's not clued in to how demonic Maleficent is and/or she wants to believe that there is good in everyone (that noone would just do bad things). But it could be both, considering I find there to be something depressing and lonely about her dungeon speech.

I think Fauna saying Maleficent doesn't understand love or kindess and is probably not very happy rings a bell here. Sure, she's a creature of evil, but for sixteen years she tried to look for Aurora everywhere and was always frustrated. After she ridicules Phillip, she says she will sleep well after sixteen years. So this must mean that for all that time she was going mad in finding Aurora.

At least we got to see some fantastic images. Maleficent on the stairs, damn scary as hell! Thanks Amy!

Doesn't "You know, sometimes I don't think she's really very happy" touch on her possibly being sad inside.

When I was little and I bought this when it came out on video again for the first time in ages and invited my Aunt who's favorite Disney film it was (and Maleficent's her favorite character!) and who always rented it for me and my cousin came over, with both my cousins...they laughed at that line and I wondered if it was because it was obvious she wasn't really happy or because it was stupid to think she might not be happy. Or that she's not supposed to be happy, she's just evil.

Maleficent is lonely with her goons and has nothing better to do than curse people, and she locks the prince up for some better company as well as some happiness of her own, as well as getting to sleep.

Linda Woolverton better get this!

I always found the line hilarious. Like, of all the things to worry about when it comes to Maleficent, Fauna focuses on her emotional troubles. I mean, never mind the curse or her powers or her being evil...Fauna is just worried that Maleficent may be unhappy being a mistress of all evil.

Though I do agree, there could be something more there. When you've just got a bunch of dumb goons and a squawking raven, it's surely going to be lonely when you have no one to partake in an intelligent conversation once in awhile. She probably kidnapped Phillip so they could have some tea and discuss politics and the weather.



(Photo courtesy of Howard from this thread)

albert

Disney Duster wrote:Doesn't "You know, sometimes I don't think she's really very happy" touch on her possibly being sad inside.

I'm inclined to agree with Alby... the line always cracked me up. For me it was comedy through an understatement, one of my favorite kinds. Basically, the humor for me is that Fauna assumes that a woman who runs around cursing babies might not be a very emotionally fulfilled person. Like to me it's like someone saying "Boy, that Osama bin Laden... sometimes he seems like he's an unhappy guy."