DVDizzy Forum

disneyboy20022 wrote:was there only one short last Friday?

Only one short aired Friday, but the next popped up online already.

Mickey in "Yodelberg" seems a little SpongeBob-ish, possibly on purpose.

It's refreshing that Disney is finally loosening the leash on Mickey.

These are so fun! A refreshing change from the typical goody two shoes Mickey.

I love the animation style as well.

It looks exciting and all, but I'm still wondering if the general public will take to this new style of Mickey as much as we Disney nuts. As I said before, it was for that reason, that they went over bigger with preestablished fans than with the general public, that "Mouse Works" and "House of Mouse" ultimately were canceled while "Mickey Mouse Clubhouse" still goes strong. I like the show (although I had only seen "Croissant de Triomphe" and "No Service", both online), and it's refreshing to see something different in Mickey here, an attempt to recapture his old impish attitude, but I'm more cautious, because it may or may not go over as well with the public.

Oh come on, Big Fan Disney! Don't be a Debbie Downer!

TsWade2 wrote:Oh come on, Big Fan Disney! Don't be a Debbie Downer!

I'm not trying to be pessimistic, I'm just trying to be cautious.

When cartoons like Adventure Time, Regular Show, Phineas and Ferb and Gravity Falls are so popular, there's no way the general public won't like these. It's right in the same vein.

It all depens on your definition of general public. If soccer moms who often use clubhouse as a babysitter are your main concern then yeah, a number of those wont like it as much as. I bet its target demo, kids who watch Disney channel and the young at heart will probably love it.

Well, Mickey Mouse Clubhouse is going downhill anyway. Not saying it'll end soon, but Mickey Mouse is back on Disney Channel, and that's the most important thing.

Some guy complained about the animation being in flash when it could've been done in hand-drawn, but someone says it's because flash "isn't as expensive" as hand-drawn. 'Scuse me? No, it's not. That's a piss-poor excuse if I ever heard one.

Its not a lame excuse, its the truth. Why do you think almost no one does it the old way anymore? Its way more expensive, laborous and time consuming to. And its not flash that they use, its Toon Boom Harmony.

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/game ... 2pbqp.html

Kyle wrote:Its not a lame excuse, its the truth. Why do you think almost no one does it the old way anymore? Its way more expensive, laborous and time consuming to.

Yeah, right! I've seen much more expensive mediums.

Awesome pic, Sotiris!

DisneyJedi wrote:Yeah, right! I've seen much more expensive mediums.

Just because we've all seen more expensive mediums doesn't change the fact that what they're doing here needs to be less expensive than theatrical-quality hand-drawn. This is done on a television budget, do you honestly think they could justify something on the scale of Mickey's Christmas Carol or The Prince and the Pauper? And for what it's worth, I'd much prefer to see the stylized animation they're doing right now than what they did, say, on House of Mouse; while it's more traditional in a sense, it's still very obviously done on a television budget. I'd argue that these new shorts are far more expressive and appealing given their limitations, at least in my personal opinion.

enigmawing wrote:And for what it's worth, I'd much prefer to see the stylized animation they're doing right now than what they did, say, on House of Mouse; while it's more traditional in a sense, it's still very obviously done on a television budget. I'd argue that these new shorts are far more expressive and appealing given their limitations, at least in my personal opinion.

Although I definitely see where you're coming from, I actually prefer the more traditional 'Disney' style of House of Mouse. You can certainly tell it's of cheaper TV quality but I'll take that any day over Flash animation, especially how it's used on TV; highly stylized, flat, stiff, with bold lines, limited animation, lacking in subtlety.

The creators of these new Mickey Mouse shorts were clever enough to come up with a pseudo-retro style that can be appealing and work well in Flash but I think that's a rarity when it comes to contemporary TV shows.

In conclusion, I like the new shorts but I don't love them.

Sotiris wrote:Although I definitely see where you're coming from, I actually prefer the more traditional 'Disney' style of House of Mouse. You can certainly tell it's of cheaper TV quality but I'll take that any day over Flash animation, especially how it's used on TV; highly stylized, flat, stiff, with bold lines, limited animation, lacking in subtlety.

The creators of these new Mickey Mouse shorts were clever enough to come up with a pseudo-retro style that can be appealing and work well in Flash but I think that's a rarity when it comes to contemporary TV shows.

In conclusion, I like the new shorts but I don't love them.

I get where you're coming from too; I typically dislike vector-based flash-style animation myself, as it comes off as either stiff or unnatural to me. But I don't know, there was something severely lacking about House of Mouse's animation that I can't quite put my finger on, which is perhaps unfair of me to state since I can't say the same about something like DuckTales (another traditional-type style on a budget). I miss the overall rounded, solid quality of something like DuckTales when it comes to TV animation, and I guess more often than not, House of Mouse tried too hard to be fluid and cartoony but got sloppy in the process. Just my personal opinion though. Nearly everything these days either looks like Adventure Time, Spongebob, or something super-highly flat and stylized like Danny Phantom.

I think there's a nice balance in these new shorts in keeping them modern, stylized, and appealing, yet not not sloppy or overly stiff with that psuedo-retro look. And as you've pointed out, that's a rarity with contemporary TV shows. I think it's a breath of fresh air to see Mickey and the gang be brought back to modern audiences with a new look, and without resorting to preschoolers only.

Sotiris wrote:

I almost choked on my dinner. Thanks!

DisneyJedi wrote: Yeah, right! I've seen much more expensive mediums.

NO one said anything about other mediums, never said it was THE most expensive medium, but it is more expensive and laborious, I don't know how you can deny that. That is reason enough.

Well, I think it's downright dumb how people say hand-drawn animation is more expensive than another medium like- per say- CGI.

Bull. Crap. There are PLENTY of CG films that are well over +$150 million. Don't ask me how that makes sense.

One of the coolest things about this new series is the talent pool behind it. A lot of them previously worked at Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network.

Just to name a few:

Paul Rudish: co-art director of Dexter's Lab, storyboarder on The Powerpuff Girls, character designer on Samurai Jack, co-creator of Symbiotic Titan

Clayton Morrow: storyboarder on Dexter's Lab, Powerpuff Girls, Camp Lazlo, and Chowder

Stephen DeStefano: storyboarder on Ren & Stimpy and Drawn Together, and The Venture Brothers.

Chris Savino: layout artist on Ren & Stimpy, character designer on Rocko's Modern Life, writer-director-producer on Dexter's Lab, The Powerpuff Girls, animator on Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends

Aaron Springer: writer-director on SpongeBob Squarepants, writer on Samurai Jack

Alex Kirwan: art director on My Life as a Teenage Robot

Dave Wasson: director on Oh Yeah! Cartoons, creator of Time Squad

DisneyJedi wrote:Well, I think it's downright dumb how people say hand-drawn animation is more expensive than another medium like- per say- CGI.

Bull. Crap. There are PLENTY of CG films that are well over +$150 million. Don't ask me how that makes sense.

Winnie the Pooh had a $30 million budget, which Disney could've very easily earned a profit from if they hadn't put it up against Harry Potter.