DVDizzy Forum

Wow, ichabod. I can't believe you called people idiots.

But are you sure that people think a movie is badly animated just because they don't like the story as opposedto the look? And are you sure when people say Cinderella is better than Home On The Range it's not because Home On The Range tells its story with farts jokes and large old woman sass while Cinderella tells it's story with songs about not despairing over your situation, scenes of temporary surrealist animation and music, and cinematic portrayals of sadness, danger, and bliss?

I will admit, I haven't seen Home On The Range, so I'm assuming what the movie's like from what I hear. Just like you're assuming what people think based on what you read, and they don't say the things that you say they think. That's all fair, right?

Anyway, Cinderella may appear more cartoony in the animals and perhaps the more characticured humans, but the main human characters like Cinderella, Lady Tremaine, and the Prince, look more human than Alameda Slim and Rico. All characters do also look simpler because of the cost-cutting, but that may add to it's beauty in impressions of a dreamy fairy world, storybook illustrations, pure shades of color moving to represent life, not convoluted with strokes and shadows that get in the way of what we need to see. I'm sure Disney did decide, "All right, it will have to look simpler. So let's make that the style and use it to the pciture's advantage, make it a strength, not a weakness." Complaints about Sleeping Beauty included the characters getting lost among the too rich backgrounds. Though I love Sleeping Beauty just for that, crtitics back then did not, I suppose.

Maybe people feel Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and The Little Mermaid are the best because they feel the animation really is the best in the stylized but yet realistic movement and designs. Or maybe they're the best because they have the most beautiful movement and designs. And beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but beauty is often a factor in what we decide is best. To say something is the best means to judge it, and that's why we have more than one judge or critic, because judges will all think differently even though they're saying something is, they feel, the best.

But the most important thing I would like you to realize is: you can not say that ANYTHING in ART is a FACT. Art is about objectiveness and subjectiveness. Different visions, different perspectives, different opinions. After all, in art we usually take things from real life that are factually green and brown trees and we paint them red and purple. We take what in real life looks like it has always looked and use art to look at them in a certain way, a different way, a stylized way, the way of the artist. And we may think one person's painting of a forest that has lots of detail sucks compared to another person's much simpler impression of a forest.

ichabod wrote:I think we know the answer, don't we.

Until we see the film? No, not really.
(Wonderful post though. I'll put up a proper comment soon.)

I hope you're sitting, this a long one, sorry.

Disney Duster wrote:But are you sure that people think a movie is badly animated just because they don't like the story as opposed to the look?

I've been a member of this forum for about 4 years now. And in that time if I had a penny for every time someone said Atlantis or Home on the Range or Hercules etc sucked because they were badly animated, I'd probably be hiring a servant to type this reply out for me. So yes, I'm incredibly sure that.

Like I said, everyone can have an opinion of whether the 'artier' films suit them or not. It's like going into a gallery, some people like the realism of michaelangelo, some the abstract use of colour and shape of Picasso. Tastes differ, which is fine. But I am so sick of reading (countless times on this forum) about how the animation in such films is crap.

I mean it probably takes much more skill to draw a abstract, angular character such as Mrs Caloway than a standard rounded character such as Aladdin etc, and such creativity shows the talent and ambition of the artists much more. I can appreciate that a style may not appeal to everyone, but it only shows the ignorance of people to label something badly animated because they do not like the style.

And are you sure when people say Cinderella is better than Home On The Range it's not because Home On The Range tells its story with farts jokes and large old woman sass while Cinderella tells it's story with songs about not despairing over your situation, scenes of temporary surrealist animation and music, and cinematic portrayals of sadness, danger, and bliss?

I think three main causes are the answer to this.

1) Unreasoned logic.

2) The rose-tinted Disney glasses effect

3) The search for recapturing childhood

1) You see people hone in on the a fart joke which lasts a couple of seconds? A couple of sassy lines from a horse and therefore the film is dismissed. The is unreasoned logic for many reasons. First of all why should a movies flaws cancel out its merits?

Similarly, you know it's funny, every time a fart appears in Shrek, Chicken Little etc everyone goes crazy and screams from the roof tops that the film sucks and such crude humour is killing cinema. People will leap at the chance to tear a film apart because of a fart.

But let me ask you one question.

Has anyone ever said The Lion King sucks because Pumbaa has certain wind problems?

By the same logic, if Chicken Little stinks because of a fart, then so does The Lion King.

Home on the Range has many morals and ideas. Loss, heroism, tragedy, action, comedy, rivalry, anger etc. It has a far more complex story than Cinderella, full stop. Now I am in no way suggest Home on the Range is a flawless masterpiece. But compared to Cinderella, the characters are more rounded character, history and depth. The story whilst not exactly Dickens has more plot. Granted Cinderella does have a charm that HotR lacks somewhat. I'm not claiming Cinderella or any other of the older films are worthless and inferior, nor will you ever hear me say that. I find value in all 46 of Disney's animated films. Naturally I like some more than others, but even in the ones I do not watch so regularly, than I don't find up to par. I still find things that astound me. But sometimes the logic of reasoning is sometimes blinded (see bit below this for more), and whilst Cinderella is a film which I have seen and enjoyed many times and having much to offer, in certain areas it is weaker than the average Disney film, both modern and current. 10 years before Cinderella, films like Pinocchio with complex drama and solid story and more modern films are simply much more stronger as a whole. And it annoys that people will idolise a film and claim it is beyond criticism.

By all means people are allowed to like a film. But there comes a point when some become so narrow minded and so wrapped up in their liking for the film, that it just clouds their judgement.

2) As I mentioned in my original post, I as a child loved Robin Hood, and to this day still do, it is one of my favourite Disney films. And I'm sure that everyone on this forum knows the films they grew up, and adored as a child. They have a certain memory about them. They may not be perfect, but we love them now, because we loved them then.

And it's quite natural to look back on things we loved with fondness as it makes us happy, it helps us in a way to perhaps relieve our childhood, hopes and dreams. For 75 minutes we can go back into to mind of a child. Where teapots sing, teddy bears get stuck in trees, bears dance in a jungle and children fly over London and land of the hands of Big Ben. It allows us to return to a time in our hearts and minds where everything is safe and all the bad things in the world are forgotten.

But there comes the danger, that we idolise these films and label them flawless, any newcomer to the gates is dismissed as "it's not the same". Partially that's proably why most modern films don't get the attention from most Disney fans they deserve. Most classic Disney film have lots in common, whereas in more recent years Disney tried the tack of "Try something that breaks the mould". Therefore in tone, style, character and story most recent Disney films have been quite varied and quite unlike the average Disney film.

And forum members have often criticised the modern films for reasons which are often insane. I've heard Treasure Planet called bad on several occassions because it doesn't have any musical numbers. I've heard Atlantis criticised for not having any comic relief, I've heard Home on the Range attacked for not having a romance.

Whether anyone likes it or not. There is an expectance of what a Disney film is. People have a round hole and expect Disney to give them a round peg. And when Disney makes a film that doesn't match that expectance and throws a square peg at the audience, it's usually a case of "Oops it doesn't fit" rather than "Let me try and make a new hole".

3)This was sort of covered in the above. But since Disney is so integral to most of our lives we anticipate a new film and hope that we will love it, like we did the films we watched as a child. There is a hope that it will join in our memories the films of our childhood days. And very rarely will that happen to a full extent. Whilst we may like one of the newer films we see, we look at it through different eyes. The eyes of child which marvelled at the witch at the cauldron and the rose in the glass are not the same eyes that watch the new film. The eyes of an adult which work through a different, more objective brain are quicker to see the flaws in something new than the recognition of something we alredy love.

In summary the above waffle was a way of saying that it is rare we will love a new film like we will ever love a film we adored as a child.

However some people simply cannot accept the fact that a film the adore is not always perfect and get very defensive about it. Of course we all hold these films on a slightly higher pedestal, but there comes that point when some forum members minds and opinions are so clouded and so closed that what they type just simply goes against sensisble logic.

Maybe people feel Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and The Little Mermaid are the best because they feel the animation really is the best...

Disney hit a period from about Little Mermaid to about Tarzan (with a couple of exceptions) where the character design was very realistic , very highly polished, very classical which to be honest is probably what most today consider the "Disney look". I wholly admit that this to my mind too is the Disney look I think of and associate, and deep down want to see more of.

But with films like The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast, in spite of the amazing films they are. There are some undeniable facts. For example The Little Mermaid, quite possible is the least consistent Disney film in terms of animation. Whilst there are some stunning sequences,it has to be said that sometimes the animation is actually quite poor. On quite a number of occassion Ariel is off model. Sometimes she doesn't even look like Ariel. The same goes for Belle, sometimes she doesn't even like she should, her face is all wrong. I know that this hasn't been released in the US yet, but on the 2 disc special edition of Lilo and Stitch (I think) Andreas Deja is quite frank about such animation. He makes a comment something along the lines of "When I see a scene with Lilo, I want to see Lilo, not like Beauty and the Beast with about 7 different Belles.

Now whilst Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast should rightfully be commended for many things. Claiming the animation is the best of all the Disney films, is something that simply is not true. Again as I addressed in an earlier post the distinction between animation/backgrounds/colouring/shading/effects/score/story/music etc is seemingly so muddled by some people that because they think the characters are great and the songs and score are great and the effects and shading and backgrounds/environments are great they automatically seem to put 2 and 2 together and get 96 and assume the animation is top notch.

It just seems to me that an objective mind is needed at times, which some just do not display.

I mean why should people complain Ariel is off model on the DVD cover, when she spends half of the film off model anyway?

But the most important thing I would like you to realize is: you can not say that ANYTHING in ART is a FACT.

Well art is one thing, technique is another. In my previous statement, like I said The animation in the Little Mermaid is not up to the same standard as Atlantis.

That is a fact. It just isn't of the same level of accuracy and consistency. Even half of the Disney staff have commented upon the problems of the inconsistent and at times poor animation of the Little Mermaid.

Art is about objectiveness and subjectiveness. Different visions, different perspectives, different opinions. After all, in art we usually take things from real life that are factually green and brown trees and we paint them red and purple. We take what in real life looks like it has always looked and use art to look at them in a certain way, a different way, a stylized way, the way of the artist. And we may think one person's painting of a forest that has lots of detail sucks compared to another person's much simpler impression of a forest.

HALLELUJAH!

Precisely the point I and numerous others are trying to get across. The whole point of Disney films is about the art. It's what you do with the medium. Just because Atlantis looks different to Aladdin doesn't make it badly drawn. That is the point that some forum members just cannot grasp. It's how you use the medium to make an impact which since Fantasia 2000 Disney have tried to do in virtually every film.

Like Netty said somewhere about the Sorcerer's Apprentice. In the midst of god knows how many 7-10 minute shorts, why should the sorcerer's apprentice stand out? It's because of how the medium is used, the artistry that went into and progressed and expanded the field of animation in Fantasia is what makes it so special. And quite frankly Cinderella whilst entertaining, did not push any boundaries of art to make it memorable. Now to some extent I am fully understanding that funds were low, money was tight after the war and that the Disney staff had to do the best with what they had. But in terms of story/character/music and most importantly creativity and innovation Cinderella is one of the few Disney films which has very little.

I'm not saying Cinderella isn't enjoyable. I have and will again watch Cinderella numerous times. It has some wonderfully staged scenes, The great entrance of Lady Tremaine, her eyes glimmering our of the darkness from her bed, the superb animation of the confunded Lucifer trying to find the mice under the cups by master animator Ward Kimball, the playfullness of his movements up the stairs are highlights from Kimball's career. But you can throw slices of chocolate cake in a vat of slurry, but it doesn't help the overall effect.

Somewhere in the middle of his War and Peace length post Ichabod wrote:Like Netty said somewhere about the Sorcerer's Apprentice. In the midst of god knows how many 7-10 minute shorts, why should the sorcerer's apprentice stand out? It's because of how the medium is used, the artistry that went into and progressed and expanded the field of animation in Fantasia is what makes it so special.

OK, just to clear something up - when I brought up the Sourcerer's Apprentice it was a comment on over all design. OK - I'm aware Mickey was slightly redesigned for the segment, but generally its the same "cartoon" and "unrealistic" design as Mickey had is the shorts before and after. And yet, The Sourcerer's Apprentice stands out as being a masterful example of animation.

It's not the design as such that makes or breaks animation and the illusion of movement. It's how the design is animated.

But I do think design is important. I do have problems with Cinderella - it just doesn't have a consistant design throughout. It's a tizz. Cinderella and the Prince look human (and dare I say it somewhat bland). Lady Tremain looks human, without looking bland. The other humans look overtly cartoony. The mice look cartoony, but in a more simplistic style, and the birds look a lot more realistic except for the fact that they are wearing headressess (headressi?). There is no consistancy at all. And, I'm sorry, but it does take me out of the animation when I watch it. Personally, I think even the simplistic the Powerpuff Girls has a more consistant and appealing design philosophy.

Now, you can't level that complaint about films like Treasure Planet, Home on the Range or Hercules. All are examples of creating a wonderful, appealing and consistant world. The same was done for Sleeping Beauty - rules are decided upon and those rules are stuck to, and the films benefit from them.

Now, I can understand people wanting more "broadway" style musicals. There's nothing wrong with that. You like broadway musicals as a genre, you'll most likely like classic Disney films and the more modern "Fab Four". But don't just dismiss those films that aren't.

For example Brother Bear - it may not be Disney's best, but its far, far from its worse. If Brother Bear had "broadway" style musical numbers, do you think you would see if differently? And if so, why would the inclusion of character singing improve the design or animation?

Lots of people like Steven Spielberg's films, especially those where he pushed the boundries of visual effects. But it doesn't stop those same people appreciating and enjoying his more recent films which are more historical dramas. There's room for all genres of film from Spielberg.

Walt Disney would talk about the "illusion of life". I'm sure that if he were around today that description would include realism, abstract and cgi character designs.

Wow, ichabod, I couldn't agree more! Now, before I begin my short rant, I will admit that I'm not going to be held liable for any things I may have said in the past. Why? Young, uneducated and was having a hard time accepting Disney persuing a non-musical route again.

ichabod wrote:Often people will claim a film is well animated, based upon their liking of a story, a character or a song, and quite frankly this ridiculousness needs to stop.

And it doesn't stop at that. Sometimes the fans will see a pretty special effect or a nicely done background, and on that basis alone will claim the film is well animated. (yes, I'm looking at all those reviewers of sequels that claim the animation is actually good.) I think that people have forgotten that animation is first and foremost plausible reality within a fantasy world. When the character movements are so akward, off-model etc it doesn't matter that the lighting looks awesome. That is not good animation.

ichabod wrote:I mean I cannot for the life of me ever work out how people can suggest Sleeping Beauty has a better story than Treasure Planet. When quite obviously it does not.

Color me confused as well. Treasure Planet is perhaps one of Disney's best told [and drawn!] tales, yet the praise continuously flows to movies like Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty. Why that is, I will never understand.

Mr. Toad wrote:Unfortunately that is the direction this forum has taken in the last six months. Too many intellignent posters disappearing and way too many unintelligent ones posting to every thread. I echo your frustration.

I am starting to agree that this is the case. Too many superfluous threads about new Princess merchandise, Tinkerbell movies, slipcovers and (dare I say it) posts about The Little Mermaid and not enough intellegent debate about what we all fell in love with in the first place.

ichabod wrote:I mean why should people complain Ariel is off model on the DVD cover, when she spends half of the film off model anyway?

No need to rub it in.

ichabod wrote:Well art is one thing, technique is another. In my previous statement, like I said The animation in the Little Mermaid is not up to the same standard as Atlantis.

I agree, and I wish people would see that. A superior story won't neccessarily be backed by superior animation, or vice versa. Atlantis is edgier, more daring and, most importantly, more consistant then my favorite movies. Sad? Yeah, but it is a fact. I agree with your posts wholeheartedly, ichabod, and I hope that they will make way for some change regarding how things are debated around here because right now we're reaching neww areas of absurdness.

ichabod wrote:
Treasure Planet is arguably the most character driver films Disney have made, second only to possible Atlantis. The character development and character interaction is simply astounding. We have distinguished characters with wants, needs and views. I make take the villains from these two films, Long John Silver and Rourke. Here are examples of characters with greed, ambition, the ability to deceive and fool. An particularly with silver, such a complex character. I doubt any character is Disney history shows so finely the inner turmoil, the greed coupled with the shining glimmer of hope of a good soul than Long John Silver. Complex, intruiging characters which really make animation come alive. And yet do these villains get much praise?

eh...I dunno if I can agree with you on Atlantis being runner up. I do agree that LJS is the Disney villain with the most depth to him. But I dunno about Rourke. To be honest all I saw in Atlantis was cliche, cliche, cliche, cliche, cliche, cliche, cliche,....and uh cliche?

I'll agree with some of the things ichabod said. I'm one of those people who feels that films such as Hercules and Treasure Planet are too underrated. Particularly TP, because it had pretty much everything I wanted from a Disney animated classic. It was a bit sad that the song bit was lacking (although I enjoyed the use of those two rock songs, because they were quite relevant to the story and despite the un-Disney-like approach they were catchy and not horrible), but it wasn't necessarily a flaw but just the way the film makers preferred to go with the story. I too enjoyed the character development in the film, particularly Long John Silver (my favourite character in the film) who had quite a bit of depth in him to make him a memorable antagonist. I don't know if TP would end up being in my DAC Top 10 list, but it's by no means as bad as a lot of people keep saying it is.

However, I often don't notice drastical changes in character animation (like the inconsistent look of Belle in BatB as was mentioned earlier in this thread) unless it's really visible like in many of the sequels, and even if I do it hardly matters to me unless it truly distracts me from the story. This is not to say that I think there shouldn't be quality in animation, but when I'm enjoying the story, it doesn't matter too much if the animation is occasionally inconsistent with the overall look as long as it isn't too noticeable for my standards. For me the experience of Disney Animated Classics is the whole package: animation, acting, narrative, music etc. As long as all of those work to at least some extent, I won't consider the film a failure, and if they all work together well, then there's more reason for me to like the film even more. But that's just me.

ichabod wrote:But in terms of story/character/music and most importantly creativity and innovation Cinderella is one of the few Disney films which has very little.

I bolded the part I was particularly curious about in that statement. I know this goes to individual taste, but I'd like to know what exactly makes you think that the score and songs of Cinderella are not so good?

In my opinion the songs are cute and catchy and quite emotional ("A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes" is right up there among the best Disney songs, IMHO), and the score is quite touching and energetic in appropriate parts not to mention it has the necessary leitmotivic development done in a consistent way so that music itself helps tell the story.

All the Disney Animated Classics that I've seen so far (haven't seen Chicken Little and Meet the Robinsons yet) have always had at the very least good scores and alright songs and at the peak the scores and the songs truly brought the films to another level.

I'm a music-oriented person and a film score buff, and I enjoy listening to the music of Disney DACs. I like many of the songs that can elevate the films in question, and I've always liked listening to the often complex scores that have great themes of their own. To my surprise often the scores of the dreaded sequels have been quite consistent and good as well (particularly Joel McNeely's output in films like Return to Neverland, Mulan 2 and Cinderella 3 to give you some examples) even when the songs themselves haven't necessarily been up to the standard.

2099net wrote:Now, you can't level that complaint about films like Treasure Planet, Home on the Range or Hercules. All are examples of creating a wonderful, appealing and consistant world.

I'll have to disagree with you a bit. I did find the CGI space whales or whatnot a bit too glaring to fit in, particularly when you could see them with traditionally animated characters. However, some CGI stuff did work in that film, though, like Silver's cybernetic arm. In general it's often too obvious (although luckily not always) when CGI is being used in traditionally animated films: another example would be the sea monster in Dreamworks's Sinbad which just didn't fit in.

2099net wrote:Now, I can understand people wanting more "broadway" style musicals. There's nothing wrong with that. You like broadway musicals as a genre, you'll most likely like classic Disney films and the more modern "Fab Four". But don't just dismiss those films that aren't.

I don't know if one could say that the early Disney classics had songs in a "broadway" style per se (I've always thought this particular style came to DACs through The Little Mermaid with the help of Ashman and Menken while the older musical classics weren't using the "broadway" style in that way, but please correct me if I'm wrong), but whatever the case I get what you mean by the musical stuff in general, and I agree with you.

I have to agree, though, that after the song-driven DACs of the '90s I was initially somewhat disappointed in Tarzan using a different kind of style, although I still appreciated the catchy songs it had. As some of the later classics used either the Tarzan formula (background songs) or didn't use songs at all, I did feel a bit sad that there weren't any epic musical moments like in films like Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King. I'm a person who thinks that the score and the songs can truly enhance an animated film to new levels, and I kept wondering what these films might've been like had they followed the musical formula.

However, as years have gone by I've gradually come to appreciate the decisions of the film makers on these particular films. Although I'd prefer musical style in Disney films, the DACs that don't have songs can be as enjoyable as the ones with the memorable songs: after all, the "overall package" is what matters the most. Good songs and score can elevate a bad film a bit for me, but a good film with no songs isn't bad even if it lacks the musical magic. And despite the lack of character-driven songs in some of the later classics, at least one thing has been clear in DACs as far as music goes: the underscore has always been good and has never disappointed me as of now (I've yet to see CL and MTR, but with such good composers as John Debney and Danny Elfman I doubt those scores will disappoint me either).

Sorry if I went a bit off tangent with my post as far as the topic of this thread goes, but I just wanted to comment on some of the things people have said in this thread. In any case I'm glad to see people having these kind of discussions as well, so keep up the good work!

akhenaten wrote:i wouldnt put the blame solely on disney.yes disney is changing, so is the world and the way we perceive things. life is getting a little more trickier and critical nowadays that we have to work extra hard to survive.no matter how hard pixar tries to emulate the days of uncle walt, it too just wont be the same.remember the mid 20th century was a time of technological advent, now everything has settled into place and challenges r everywhere. the company must cater to the public in order to survive.but if disney is smart enough, it wont neglect its principles laid down by the founding fathers.

I think that marky, who is 25 is blessed to be influenced by the values portrayed in the Disney classics. In spite of the fact that the world today seems so insensitive and cynical, that is not to say that a standard for a better existence shouldn't continue. I have had the recent exposure to
seeing patrons at one of Disney's flagship theaters. It is apparent that
the adults who "drag" young children to the theater do so out of the reputation that Disney has for quality entertainment and the upholding of traditional family values. What I have seen is overworked parents who do not have the time to, or have not taken the time to properly instruct their children on correct behavior. Many times they do not supervise their children, and other times are not keeping them under control, allowing them to wonder off, or almost run out of the theater into the street with heavy traffic. Many of such parents bring children much too young to appreciate what they are seeing, and such parents use their children as an excuse to see the film they really want to see themselves.
In some cases, there is a sort of seeking of validation as a parent by doing this under the concept of "spending quality time" with the child.
But children under the age of five do not have the attention span to understand and appreciate a film that is over an hour.

Parents who bring small children to have the Disney experience, do so
with the right idea, but do not seem to choose the right age in which to offer this experience. In some ways, introducing children too young creates a resentment in the minds of children who might have been ttramatized by something on the screen that they were not old enough
to accept.

On the other hand, the traditional values contained in the Disney Classics can only have meaning if those values are passed on. This is the role of good parenting. If the parent does not instill the values of good manners, the cause and effect of actions, as well as and ethical behavior, the values contained in the classics that have stood the test of time are meaningless to future generations.

I was reminded of the reprise of "A Spoonful of Sugar" from MARY POPPINS. When Burt sings this to Mr. Banks, it is in response to
his and his wife's lack of attending to their children and giving of themselves. Mr. Banks in particular is too focused on his job, and
fails to recognize the value of his own family life. As Bur says in the song, "You've got to grind, grind, grind at that grindstone, though childhood slips like sand through a sive (sic). And all too soon they've up and grown, and then they've flown, and it's too late for you to give."

While the reality is that the cost of living keeps people working all the time, they are simply too stressed out to live. On the one hand, society
pressures us to procreate, yet it makes it increasingly difficult for people to properly nurture their children. As a result, we have generations coming along who have missed out on a lot of basic foundations that establish what we have regarded as basic human values. That is one of the reasons why there is so much anger, disrespect, and mean-spiritedness today. The only way that attitudes and life can be changed for the better is to be a leader showing a better example. Thank goodness there are still examples of a better form of behavior that is presented in the Disney product, which is something that people still want to believe in.

toonaspie wrote:eh...I dunno if I can agree with you on Atlantis being runner up. I do agree that LJS is the Disney villain with the most depth to him. But I dunno about Rourke. To be honest all I saw in Atlantis was cliche, cliche, cliche, cliche, cliche, cliche, cliche,....and uh cliche?

I've been venting so much, my mind and fingers have got tangled. Whilst the characterisations of Atlantis are up there behind Treasure Planet, I didn't intend for it to read like I was saying Rourke was the second best villain behind Silver, because he was somewhat lacking. Although he's still streaks ahead of the likes of Maleficent!

And what exactly is it that you say is Cliche about Atlantis?

And is it any more cliche than princesses talking to animals? Fuzzy sidekicks who can't talk but mumble in a cutesy-wootsy way? Or birds wearing bows in their hair? Or a princess being miserable about the life she leads and singing about it? Or a princess brought up in one world, craving life in another?

Kossage wrote:However, I often don't notice drastical changes in character animation (like the inconsistent look of Belle in BatB as was mentioned earlier in this thread) ... and even if I do it hardly matters to me unless it truly distracts me from the story.

I'm not trying to suggest Beauty and the Beast is by any means badly animated. I grew up with the film as a child and easily place it in my top 5 films. The film is a masterpiece and deservedly so. And I'm not saying in any way that the film is awful because every frame is not perfect. I dug out the DVD and got Deja's quote.

To give the comment some context, Deja as lead animator of Lilo, is lecturing his assistant animators of getting Lilo precise. This is from late 1998 / early 1999 ish as this is the team who had just finished up work on Mulan.

Andreas Deja wrote:I have to tell you that it's very important to me on all the characters I've worked on that it looks like one ... You guys just coming off Mulan, where I only see one Mulan, I don't see four or five, but I see five Belles.

Now if someone thinks I am wrong in saying Belle has off model moments, that's fine.

But if someone is honestly going to say Andreas Deja is wrong, then that person is a moron.
(edit: Rereading my post this looked like it could have been directed at you Kossage, but it is just a general comment)

Again even though i do see inconsistency in Belle, it doesn't ruin the film for me in anyway. All I'm pointing out is that these inconsistencies (which are virtually non existent from about Hercules onwards, simply mean that the animation of more recent films are of a higher level.

And it's not just about off model scenes, I mean the look at the animation of Tarzan, I mean the movement of those characters is simply stunning, so fluid so expressive it almost looks like you can see the muscles working. Even in such a short period of time there is a huge progression from the likes of Ariel and Belle to Tarzan.


This thread has opened into so many different avenues and arguements, I think everything is getting a bit muddled, like above when i trying to type so much all at once.

The original point about consistency in animation was me ranting about the fact that so many posters on this forum like the princesses, more often than not The Little Mermaid or one of the other princess or "fab four" films being their favourite. But these members take it to the extent where no matter what the question they automatically select their favourite film is. It's almost predictable with some of them and their is often no considered reason behind it.

I mean i remember a couple of threads along the lines of "Which is the best platinum DVD" or "Which has the best bonus features", and the number of members who posted "The Little Mermaid" as a response was ludicrous. Regardless of how much they like the film, to claim The Little Mermaid has been given the best bonus features and DVD release is ludicrous?

Now I'm not saying the Little Mermaid is bad, but all I'm pointing out is that when you compare the animation to other films, it clearly is in no way superior.

kossage wrote:I know this goes to individual taste, but I'd like to know what exactly makes you think that the score and songs of Cinderella are not so good?

I don't think my sentence was phrased too well a couple of extra word jumped into the sentence, it should have read. "But in terms of story/character/music creativity and innovation Cinderella is one of the few Disney films which has very little.

I agree the music is quite good, I wouldn't say it is bad at all, the same with the animation or story. I wouldn't condemn it and say the whole film stinks and is without merit. As I mentioned somewhere else ( i think) in a post in this thread, or god knows I've been typing these replies so long it may be a different thread, a different forum or even a different life, but I find value in all 46 animated films.

But Cinderella has very little in the way of creativity an innovation, it brings nothing new to the table, following the war Disney needed a "safe option" and that's what Cinderella is. It's not "bad", but it doesn't push any boundaries like virtually every other film does. I mean even the following years "Alice in Wonderland", despite it's story being an episodic mess and Alice being as charismatic as a fungal nail infection, the film still exhibits the results of experimentation and something new. In the creativity of the design and absurdity of the animation/characters and songs. It's a playground of ideas.

Now I'd appreciate it if no one would reply to any of my posts till at least Tuesday. My bloody fingers are knackered!

Well, I noticed that I never seen something wrong, until they used some mediocre films, in whcih, I like, starting out with the 5, "Hercules (1997)," "Mulan (1998)," "Tarzan (1999)," "The Emperror's New Groove (2000)" & "Chicken Little (2005)."

ichabod, everyone noticed about Disney films nowadays. But, everyone knows how Disney makes 5 bad films, but some love them, some hate them. Their opions are welcomed. Including ours.

And I'm Happy ( ) to say that Disney might make "American Dog (2008)" if it's good or not. If it's good, I'm excited!

Thanks for giving your explanations (particularly the stuff about the music of Cinderella), ichabod. I appreciate your comments. In order to save your fingers I'll just quickly comment on something you wrote.

ichabod wrote:I'm not trying to suggest Beauty and the Beast is by any means badly animated ... And I'm not saying in any way that the film is awful because every frame is not perfect. I dug out the DVD and got Deja's quote.

I apologize if my post came that way, because it wasn't my intention. I was just trying to say that I don't have as sharp an eye to spot the inconsistencies of, say, Ariel and Belle's animation in their respective films than you or others might. Whenever I watch these films, I'm usually too occupied by the story, the acting, the music or some other thing and thus I just don't notice these things often even if they're there, that's all.


Anyway, as for the original topic on the thread, I'm cool with Disney exploring different ways of animation. Although I'm fond of the Disney classics that I saw as a child, I can appreciate the experimentation done in the newer classics. Although the looks of, say, Hercules, Atlantis and Home on the Range looked curious at first, I got used to them quickly and I appreciate the way they're used to tell the story, and I like the way how Disney's trying different story types instead of relying too much on certain formulas. It'll be interesting to see how Rapunzel and The Frog and the Princess turn out.

Marky_198 wrote:But then something happened.
The Disney classics started to change.
The characters became childish, simple, like the cartoons you see on Nickelodeon. The people in "Home on the Range" the old lady, the bad guy have nothing to do with the classic Disneys.

In terms of visual development, Home on the Range has a lot in common with experimental Disney animation from the 50's and some of the 90's classics, like Aladdin, Pocahontas, Hercules and Mulan.

most of the blame can be found in the managementt. Uninteresting concepts that never should have gone beyond a story pitch made it into full development. Too late for damage control. Brother Bear, Home on the Range and Chicken Little suffered most of all.

Okay, I'll make this short. I promise, this is me getting to the bottom of things, not making it harder and giving you much more to type!

Thank you for answering all of what I said back, ichabod, and for even agreing with what I said about art!

Anyway, I re-read Marky's first few posts, before you came in, and he said thinks like:

I remember seeing Sleeping Beauty for the first time and everything fell into place. This was wat true beauty is.

I love how that movies are not childish at all, the way they are drawn is very realistic and mature. They are masterpieces.
To be honest, I think some people need to be a little bit older to understand the artwork, true beauty and meaning of those movies.

The Disney classics started to change.
The characters became childish, simple, like the cartoons you see on Nickelodeon. The people in "Home on the Range" the old lady, the bad guy have nothing to do with the classic Disneys. They are just caricatures.

So, basically Marky is talking about a classic style and look, not just the fact that the films are considered classics. And he never said that the movies were the best because of the looks, but did show they he prefers them, and he probably would consider them the best.

So I said you were assuming things about him, and "other people like him", like he confuses the story with the animation, that he doesn't know what good animation is, that he thinks certain movies are best just because of their look.

Well, the only possible thing out of those that could be true as that he think something is better because of how it looks and that's his opinion on art. You have your opinion on the later Disney films having looks and moevment only possible in animation and being better because of it, right? Let people have their opinions on art, they can call it the best of they want, they recognize it's their opinion, not fact, and they want to see more of the stuff they think is best.

This is why we have judges and critics. They say something is best or better than others, but even though they're opinion "matters" so much, they have lots of other judges because people have lots of other opinions. Hey! Isn't it much harder to make something move like it does in real life than just do some cartoonish fast-moving stuff? Harder doesn't equal better, but...

Now the farts. The Lion King referrred to and hinted at farts, but didn't actually have any. Also, Puumba's gas problem not only was a part of his character, indictaing the kind of character you'd expect to have such a problem, whatever it implies to you, but it also was part of his background, and was the reason he was an outcast to join Timon and live freely with his only friend who sticks with him regardless of his problem. It was not just a throwaway joke for the kiddies.

As for later Disney movies having more complex stories and characters, that does not a better film automatically make. Yes, I'm challenging many learned people and majority opinion, but unless the characters are interesting, likable, or their situations are handled cinematically well, I don't care if they have some long history and they go through way more obstacles than a Disney princess. If anything, a movie that can make you feel for a character we know little about and become involved in the most simple of stories is a greater achievement than doing so with an epic and lots of time to develop the characters.

Whoops I'm writing more than I planned. Okay, the last of it. I'll agree on something else. I think all the Disney films (unapplicable to the sequels and direct-to-video fare) are well-animated. They're just going to be because the Disney artists were so well-trained and would not let anything bad happen. But the inconstencies aren't, in my opinion, a sign of bad animation, but just some of the artists not getting exactly how the character should look. If the character morphs from looking like one character to some off-model version of that character in the middle of a shot, okay, that was badly animated, but I think animation is design and movement, because how well-something moves depends on it's design, etc.

Finally, my defesne of Cinderella's boundary-breaking creativity. Well, I personally think it did break boundaries. Cinderella is quite different from Snow White and Sleeping Beauty in that it can have Cinderella walking up the stairs gracefully while Lucifer slinks past her taking the shape of the stairs. The cat can also fly without magic and Lady Tremaine was able to give birth to such buffoonish offspring that hardly look like her in features or realism. You get what I'm saying? Now, some people don't think it worked, but I don't really have a problem with it, and think it's wonderful such things are possible not only in animation, but only in Cinderella. Aside from that, I'm not sure, but I think today's conecpt of sparkling, moving fairy dust was invented by Cinderella in the fairy godmother's magic. It was dubbed Disney dust, and I haven't seen enough of anything before Cinderella was made to know, but I'm sure the only thing close to that was just the role of fairy dust in Peter Pan the book. Perhaps the illustrations looked like what Disney came up with, I don't know. I might research it sometime. Aside from that, I think "Sing Sweet Nightengale was pretty creative and covered new ground, since it was the first time a person's voice was doubled (and tripled, qaudrupled, etc.) and the bubble sequence is just a creative beauty. And their's definately creativity in the surrealistic ballroom sequence as well as any of the magical doings by the fairy godmother. I also believe Cinderella was the first use of Mary Blair's style, so I believe it broke some ground in the art direction there. Everything looks dreamy and implied, like a fantasy world we can't quite physically reach.

And I'm done! Oh, but here is a thread people here may want to check out: What is quality in animation?

Now I'm not saying the Little Mermaid is bad, but all I'm pointing out is that when you compare the animation to other films, it clearly is in no way superior.

Yeah, I think most of the time people confuse animation with design. Though there are moments where the animation shines (the final battle with Ursula, "Part of That World" and the second half of "Poor Unfortunate Souls"), character design really helps the viewer to ignore most inconsistencies. I mean, as long as Ariel has big, blue eyes and red hair, then why would it matter if occasionally her arms are longer and more slender?

As for Atlantis and Home on the Range, while the animation is excellent, the design is [to me] horrible to look at. All those jagged edges. Ugh. Which, compared to films like Mulan and Hercules, just doesn't really catch my attention.

Also, just because there are some idiots who like princess films for the glamour and the cliche, don't hold it against everyone. Serious fans look beyond the surface of a film.

I'm sorry for returning so late to this thread. I don't have much to say, other than that ichabod is to me a breath of fresh air in the UD forums. Don't know if the rest of you feel the same, but most of the points he ranted about were the things I too was growing increasingly annoyed with.

I just feel endlessly better that someone has finally dropped all finesse and blurted out the truth. Thanks ichabod!

If I have something worthwhile to say I'll post again, but at the moment I don't really have any ideas. I'll be following this thread though ... because it is developing into a topic that I find highly interesting.

OH!

Now I remembered! I couple of days ago I read that around 2003 or 2004, Steve Jobs (Pixar CEO) commented on the lack of creativity in Disney's Brother Bear and Treasure Planet.

I was furious on reading it. Treasure Planet is a celebration of the imagination and that is not bias, not opinion - but rock solid fact! Nobody can deny that Treasure Planet is bloody imaginative! Nobody! If you disagree, just read what ichabod has already posted and save your breath.

Say what you want about the animation... but you can't TOUCH Howard Ashman and Alan Menken's amazing music for Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin.

I'll admit that my favorite Disney movies come from the late 80's/early 90's. I'll also admit that it's probably mainly due to nostalgia. Of course, it's probably the type of humor, the story-telling, the type of animation, and especially the music.

Which reminds me... hearing you guys praising Treasure Planet makes me want to go out and rent it, as I have not seen it.

Inspired by youtube's number one wailing Britney fan,
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc

I wonder how long it will be until someone on this forum makes a video like that warning all of us Cinderella H8ers.



I can picture it now.

Delusional Fan wrote:*wailing* How f****** dare anyone out there make fun of Cinderella? After all she's been through!

She lost her original hair colour, she went through a subpar sequel, she had two horrible sisters whose designs make them look like they're not even part of the same film, her stepmother turned out to be a user! Her world is made up of plot holes where mice can talk and wear clothes but dogs and cats can't! And now she's going through a custody battle to get back the talking mice! And she has the daily struggle of living life with no personality.

All you people care about is viewers and whether or not you can sit through watching her!

She's a drawing!

What you don't realise is that Cinderella is making you all realise how generic she is and all you do is state those abvious facts!

She hadn't performed in a movie for years, her sequel is called "A twist in Time" for a reason, because all you people want to do is have the time back you wasted after watching her being dull! Time TIME TIME TIME!!!

LEAVE HER ALONE

You're lucky she even appears in films, for you B*******! I mean what were the chances of Disney digging her up after all those years and having to give a personality after all this time!

LEAVE CINDERELLA ALONE!

Please! If you keep stating the obvious, I may have to come out of my delusion!

Movie reviewers said that if Cinderella was a professional, she would have exhibited some traits of personality! Speaking of personality, what kind of a personality would bash someone who's has the turmoil wearing a dress that isn't exactly the same shade it was in the original film!?

LEAVE CINDERELLA ALO-O-ONE! PLE-EASE!

*uncontrolable sobbing*

Leave Cinderella alone right now! I mean it!

Anyone who has a problem with her, you deal with me! Because judging by the japanese animation of her in Cinderella III, she's not well right now!

Leave her alone!

Disney Duster wrote:Okay, I'll make this short. I promise, this is me getting to the bottom of things, not making it harder and giving you much more to type!

Thank you for answering all of what I said back, ichabod, and for even agreing with what I said about art!

Anyway, I re-read Marky's first few posts, before you came in, and he said thinks like:

I remember seeing Sleeping Beauty for the first time and everything fell into place. This was wat true beauty is.

I love how that movies are not childish at all, the way they are drawn is very realistic and mature. They are masterpieces.
To be honest, I think some people need to be a little bit older to understand the artwork, true beauty and meaning of those movies.

The Disney classics started to change.
The characters became childish, simple, like the cartoons you see on Nickelodeon. The people in "Home on the Range" the old lady, the bad guy have nothing to do with the classic Disneys. They are just caricatures.

So, basically Marky is talking about a classic style and look, not just the fact that the films are considered classics. And he never said that the movies were the best because of the looks, but did show they he prefers them, and he probably would consider them the best.

So I said you were assuming things about him, and "other people like him", like he confuses the story with the animation, that he doesn't know what good animation is, that he thinks certain movies are best just because of their look.

Well, the only possible thing out of those that could be true as that he think something is better because of how it looks and that's his opinion on art. You have your opinion on the later Disney films having looks and moevment only possible in animation and being better because of it, right? Let people have their opinions on art, they can call it the best of they want, they recognize it's their opinion, not fact, and they want to see more of the stuff they think is best.

This is why we have judges and critics. They say something is best or better than others, but even though they're opinion "matters" so much, they have lots of other judges because people have lots of other opinions. Hey! Isn't it much harder to make something move like it does in real life than just do some cartoonish fast-moving stuff? Harder doesn't equal better, but...

Now the farts. The Lion King referrred to and hinted at farts, but didn't actually have any. Also, Puumba's gas problem not only was a part of his character, indictaing the kind of character you'd expect to have such a problem, whatever it implies to you, but it also was part of his background, and was the reason he was an outcast to join Timon and live freely with his only friend who sticks with him regardless of his problem. It was not just a throwaway joke for the kiddies.

As for later Disney movies having more complex stories and characters, that does not a better film automatically make. Yes, I'm challenging many learned people and majority opinion, but unless the characters are interesting, likable, or their situations are handled cinematically well, I don't care if they have some long history and they go through way more obstacles than a Disney princess. If anything, a movie that can make you feel for a character we know little about and become involved in the most simple of stories is a greater achievement than doing so with an epic and lots of time to develop the characters.

Whoops I'm writing more than I planned. Okay, the last of it. I'll agree on something else. I think all the Disney films (unapplicable to the sequels and direct-to-video fare) are well-animated. They're just going to be because the Disney artists were so well-trained and would not let anything bad happen. But the inconstencies aren't, in my opinion, a sign of bad animation, but just some of the artists not getting exactly how the character should look. If the character morphs from looking like one character to some off-model version of that character in the middle of a shot, okay, that was badly animated, but I think animation is design and movement, because how well-something moves depends on it's design, etc.

Finally, my defesne of Cinderella's boundary-breaking creativity. Well, I personally think it did break boundaries. Cinderella is quite different from Snow White and Sleeping Beauty in that it can have Cinderella walking up the stairs gracefully while Lucifer slinks past her taking the shape of the stairs. The cat can also fly without magic and Lady Tremaine was able to give birth to such buffoonish offspring that hardly look like her in features or realism. You get what I'm saying? Now, some people don't think it worked, but I don't really have a problem with it, and think it's wonderful such things are possible not only in animation, but only in Cinderella. Aside from that, I'm not sure, but I think today's conecpt of sparkling, moving fairy dust was invented by Cinderella in the fairy godmother's magic. It was dubbed Disney dust, and I haven't seen enough of anything before Cinderella was made to know, but I'm sure the only thing close to that was just the role of fairy dust in Peter Pan the book. Perhaps the illustrations looked like what Disney came up with, I don't know. I might research it sometime. Aside from that, I think "Sing Sweet Nightengale was pretty creative and covered new ground, since it was the first time a person's voice was doubled (and tripled, qaudrupled, etc.) and the bubble sequence is just a creative beauty. And their's definately creativity in the surrealistic ballroom sequence as well as any of the magical doings by the fairy godmother. I also believe Cinderella was the first use of Mary Blair's style, so I believe it broke some ground in the art direction there. Everything looks dreamy and implied, like a fantasy world we can't quite physically reach.

And I'm done! Oh, but here is a thread people here may want to check out: What is quality in animation?

Thanks!
I couldn't have said it better myself.

ichabod, that's really funny!!! That's awesome!!!

Disney's Divinity wrote:Also, just because there are some idiots who like princess films for the glamour and the cliche, don't hold it against everyone. Serious fans look beyond the surface of a film.

If you are saying that to think something is the best just because it has things in it you like (magic, castles) like a comic book hero buff thinks a superhero movie is best because it's about superheros, then I will agree with you. But I certianly hope you're not calling me an idiot for my favorite movies being princess movies just because they are princess movies. Liking a movie because it has things in it you like doesn't make you an idiot.

ichabod wrote:she had two horrible sisters whose designs make them look like they're not even part of the same film

I spoke about how that is one of the things that makes Cinderella so wonderful, that such a thing is possible in the film and it works (in some opinion, not in all).

ichabod wrote:Her world is made up of plot holes where mice can talk and wear clothes but dogs and cats can't!

This is not a plot hole. Just like on "The Cinderella That Almost Was" on the Cinderella DVD, Walt deliberately decided not to make the birds talk. Perhaps it has something to do with being mammals. Though later it was decided only the mice could talk, which may have ties to Mickey Mouse. I'm sure you can apply whatever logic was behind the animal decisions to reason why only the small animals wear clothes. For instance, the stepsisters don't see the mice or birds, but they will see the dog. The cat wouldn't wear clothes because Cinderella would not make them for Lucifer. Just do some thinking. If you think plot holes are purposely decided upon, allright then.

As for Cinderella's personality, maybe this is also a matter of opinion, but like I said, a complex background or history or more screentime for a character does not a personality or a compelling character automatically make. Cinderella certainly has a personality. She's kind and caring, but she still will tell off and joke about those who are mean, such as Lucifer and her stepsisters. And when she gets an invitation to a ball she stands up for herself and tells her stepmother she has every right to go. Finally, when she needs to get out of a locked room, she tells her dog to chase the cat away, realizing her love of animals cannot get in the way of her love for a human Prince, and getting away from her stepfamily forever. So there's even some character development and change!

ichabod wrote:Because judging by the japanese animation of her in Cinderella III, she's not well right now!

Cinderella III was completely animated in Disney Toon Studios Australia, at the height of its quality and was the last chance for the studio to show it's all in a film, so we can assume they put the most effort into it and looking at the film, I know they did.

Also, ichabod, I hope you read what I previously said before this, about how you were saying Marky and people like him were thinking and saying things which he didn't actually say at all.