Donald's Mouse Works shorts fit in the Treasure line...NOT!

[PrincePhillipFan]

Wait a minute! You can't compare Walt's cost-cutting methods with what has been done to MMW and other Disney television programs. At least Walt always made sure that, despite any money-saving techniques, his pictures always brought quality. Even though they worked with Xerox, they still managed to put out truely classic films, with animation animators put their heart and soul into.

I'm not trying to make them sound as similiar products though. I was just giving comparison since so many people are praising Walt as always lavishing money on something, when he himself was not beyond cost-cutting to fit the bottom line, such as xerox in some of Sleeping Beauty and all the 60s animation films and onward. Not to mention all the cost-cutting he had for Disneyland - selling to outside corporations and having to install a Bathroom of Tomorrow and Aluminum Hall of Fame in Tomorrowland at Disneyland to fill in dead space for opening day, or a canal boat ride through barren mounds of dirt for a year. There's no denying that Walt was a great genius and tried to spare no expense, but that doesn't mean he himself wasn't victim to having cut costs.

Wow. You honestly think the animation on MMW can be compared to the work of talented artists like the 'Nine Old Man', who delivered such incredible products like The Jungle Book?

Animation performance and animation style are two completely different things. Animation performance is brougt to life through the pencil of the animator; animation style is determined by the art director, color styling, and types of material used, such as characterization style or ink and paint/xerox, etc. The animation performance of the Nine Old Men in the classic films and shorts are definitely superior to the ones in MMW, but that doesn't change the fact that I don't care much for the look of the xerox in the films and think that style is very sloppy looking. 101 Dalmatians, The Sword In The Stone, and The Rescuers are some of my favorite films, but there are times where the characters look so sloppy due to animators not cleaning them, it makes me cringe a tad. (Incidentally, I think Jungle Book is probaby Disney's most overrated film ever. )

I'm not trying to say that the MMW shorts are better in terms of animation or style than the original Donald Duck shorts, but I'm just pointing out that the story and some of the gags are no different and just as cliche sometimes as the classic cartoons. I too echo the sentiment that maybe they shouldn't have been included on the Treasures and should be on their own release, but I'm happy still though to at least released in some form now, rather than having maybe nothing else on the disc. Particularly since they were created for the same reason the original shorts were created for - to make people laugh and be entertained for six to seven minutes.

[slave2moonlight]

While I definitely will not defend outsourcing (and I believe Walt would never have allowed that in regards to animation), I'm always annoyed with some of the arguments so-called die-hard fans of the older material make when shooting down the new stuff, especially when it is made for TV. Not only was Walt willing to cut costs at times, even if it made the final product look less finished (and the xerox technique definitely did that, though I liked it myself since it was more often used for animal stories anyway), but some of the new animation created for his television programs during his lifetime was very cheap indeed in comparison to their bigscreen work. Walt never got around to any fully animated TV shows, but I'm sure he would have at some point, and they probably would have been on a TV budget. I don't believe he would have outsourced, but I do believe he would have done some animated shows and they wouldn't have been bigscreen quality. Of course, that is speculation. I will never understand though, why folks insist on comparing TV animation to bigscreen animation.

Something else that bothers me is how self-proclaimed animation experts or professionals act like there are only two-grades of animation: awesome and crappy. Anyone who watches lots of animation should be able to recognize that there are many levels inbetween, and for television the Mouseworks shorts were pretty darn good. Yeah, they could be formulaic at times, but same goes for the old bigscreen shorts. I mean, c'mon! They still have their inspired moments and even show recognition (in my opinion) that older fans might be watching. I grew up on the old-school shorts on the Disney Channel, and I still find many of the Mouseworks shorts delightful. And I found that part where Daisy thinks Donald is crossdressing totally hilarious! They even revisited that gag in a short with Mickey and Donald together I believe, ha. Surprising and bold joke for Mickey and Donald cartoons! And no, it's not the same as Bugs' old crossdressing bits. These involved girlfriends walking in at the wrong moment for awkward surprises...

Anyway, having said that stuff, I'm not saying they were perfect choices for the Treasures sets. I would have been very happy to have them there if there weren't better choices to be had. Heck, I'm still happy to have them on there, though I would prefer to get House of Mouse and MouseWorks sets of their own. Fact remains though, the final Donald set should have included "This Is Your Life, Donald Duck" and "Your Host, Donald Duck" OR the other Chip N Dale shorts and Scrooge McDuck and Money rather than shorts from Mickey MouseWorks.

I won't fault Maltin for including the Mouseworks shorts. I love them and want them on DVD, and who knows if they'll ever get their own release, like they should. I will however continue to complain that the sets lacked some material they could have and should have had. The Mouseworks selections are great but shouldn't have been chosen OVER those. Definitely better than nothing or previously released material though.

[Goliath]

[...] modern tv animation is a far cry from the in house studio animated short subjects created for theatres where the intention was for inhouse animators to improve and experiment as well as create a quality product for theatres.

Very good points, especially about the animators improving their artwork and experimenting to make even better products. I mean, look at a classic like The Old Mill, a Silly Symphony from the 1930's. It was made only as a 'training ground' for Bambi (was it?). And it won all kind of rewards on its own, because it was that good! That's one of the most beautiful cartoons I've ever seen. I can't say MMW can even stand in its shadow.

I'm not trying to make them sound as similiar products though. I was just giving comparison since so many people are praising Walt as always lavishing money on something, when he himself was not beyond cost-cutting to fit the bottom line [...]

Fair enough. That's true. And let's not forget he had to do a lot of that when he was just getting started. All that cycle animation in the first years of Mickey Mouse cartoons and Silly Symphonies. It's tiring! However, Disney quicly learned from that and he evolved. In later years, when he had to cut costs, he would rely on previously done animation, yet disguise it in such a way the audience wouldn't notice. (I'm sure you've seen images of One Hundred and One Dalmatians or The Sword in the Stone and Jungle Book side by side.)

[...] but that doesn't change the fact that I don't care much for the look of the xerox in the films and think that style is very sloppy looking. 101 Dalmatians, The Sword In The Stone, and The Rescuers are some of my favorite films, but there are times where the characters look so sloppy due to animators not cleaning them, it makes me cringe a tad.

I think you're right when it comes to Sword and Rescuers, and I think that's because the first didn't have Walt's personal attention and the second was made after his death. However, other Xerox-animated films from the Walt-era look fine to me. Yes, the design is different, but that doesn't mean it can't look good. No matter how great Sleeping Beauty looks, when it comes to design and artwork, I still prefer Dalmatians. I find that to be much more inventive.

(Incidentally, I think Jungle Book is probaby Disney's most overrated film ever. )

I would go for The Lion King, but when it comes to Walt's days, I would say Sleeping Bauty. Looks nice, great art, but I find it boring...

[...] but I'm just pointing out that the story and some of the gags are no different and just as cliche sometimes as the classic cartoons.

I see some major differences. For instance, telling a story with the characters. The classic shorts always told a story by using the characters. Their personalities were used to develop the story. In MMW, I feel their personalities don't matter anymore. It's only the situations they're in that count. Also, timing is different. MMW is a lot faster, which requires the jokes to come faster after one another. This gives each seperate joke far little impact than the classic shorts had. Also, I I think most MMW shorts relied too much on 'easy' humor, like inflicting pain on the characters far too much. It seemed more like Looney Tunes than Disney.

For the sake of fans of MMW, I wish Disney would put out dvd's. I'm sure there are enough fans who would buy them. I liked House of Mouse better, because of the segments in-between the cartoons. Those were animated slightly better and more care was put into the characters' personalities.

[Goliath]

[...] Not only was Walt willing to cut costs at times, even if it made the final product look less finished (and the xerox technique definitely did that, though I liked it myself since it was more often used for animal stories anyway),

I disagree. It was finished and it did look finished, but in a different style. They didn't paint and color anymore the way they did with Bambi, but they still delivered a polished, finished product.

[...] but some of the new animation created for his television programs during his lifetime was very cheap indeed in comparison to their bigscreen work. Walt never got around to any fully animated TV shows, but I'm sure he would have at some point, and they probably would have been on a TV budget. I don't believe he would have outsourced, but I do believe he would have done some animated shows and they wouldn't have been bigscreen quality. Of course, that is speculation. I will never understand though, why folks insist on comparing TV animation to bigscreen animation.

That is a good point. It is unfair to compare tv animation to theatrial releases, since the latter ones have such big budgets, tv animation could never compete with. In a similar way, you can't compare a direct-to-video sequel to the original Disney Classic. When it comes to animation. When it comes to writing, that's a whole different story. You could write a 7-minute short for tv that has the same quality as a 7-minute short for theatrical release. However, they never did that, in my opinion, for MMW, and the scripts were always (very) poor.

Something else that bothers me is how self-proclaimed animation experts or professionals act like there are only two-grades of animation: awesome and crappy. Anyone who watches lots of animation should be able to recognize that there are many levels inbetween, and for television the Mouseworks shorts were pretty darn good.

You're right when you say there are many levels inbetween and I recognize them. However, MMW still is in the lowest regions of animation as far as I'm concerned. Duck Tales was animated for tv, too, and Darkwing Duck, and Gargoyles, Quack Pack etc. And while there could be major differences in quality between individual episodes, on the whole those series looked a lot better than MMW, in my opinion.

Yeah, they could be formulaic at times, but same goes for the old bigscreen shorts. I mean, c'mon! They still have their inspired moments and even show recognition (in my opinion) that older fans might be watching. I grew up on the old-school shorts on the Disney Channel, and I still find many of the Mouseworks shorts delightful. And I found that part where Daisy thinks Donald is crossdressing totally hilarious!

I've not seen any instance where I thought the MMW shorts were inspired by the old classic cartoons. Just the example you mention is one of the kind of jokes I don't like in MMW. It's just so out-of-character for Disney characters, I can't laugh about it. It just doesn't belong in the Disney universe. Again, my humble opinion.

[slave2moonlight]

I disagree. It was finished and it did look finished, but in a different style. They didn't paint and color anymore the way they did with Bambi, but they still delivered a polished, finished product.

Well, one can always use the "it's a different style" line about something. To me, while I didn't altogether dislike it, the sketchy lines gave it an unfinished look at times, anything but polished. The reason the "it's just a different style" line doesn't work for me here is that it was about cost cutting, and that's all it was about. It was a time and money thing. When Disney tried to view it as a style and recreate it years later with their John Henry short, they (in my opinion) proved that as an intended style it doesn't work too well. They left so many sketch lines in that short that it became distracting and hard to watch, though it's a great short otherwise.

When it comes to writing, that's a whole different story. You could write a 7-minute short for tv that has the same quality as a 7-minute short for theatrical release. However, they never did that, in my opinion, for MMW, and the scripts were always (very) poor.

I agree that it's different when it comes to writing. I believe a few (very few though) of the direct to video features did succeed in that regard though, and while not all of the Mickey MouseWorks shorts did, I feel there were several that did. The timing may have been faster, but that's more about catering to the current majority of the cartoon audience. I don't feel that faster timing doesn't work. I've seen a lot of comedies screwed up by the slower approach, and the Looney Tunes shorts were always hilarious. Though I'm not saying Disney should be trying to copy Looney Tunes, but I don't believe they were. There were Disney shorts that were stories, and there were Disney shorts (especially Donald shorts) that were more about everyday frustrations. Consider Drip Dippy Donald. The whole short is Donald vs. a leaky faucet. I think saying that short is so very different from the MouseWorks shorts in writing quality/style is more about sounding snooty than anything else. No different are most of the Goofy shorts in which he is simply trying to get something done or demonstrate "How To" do something. In fact, MouseWorks created more of such shorts. Of course, I suppose in response to that there are folks who will complain that "MouseWorks wasn't original". That's six degrees of Kevin Bacon though. You can always find something in a short to make it seem unoriginal, but if they are too original, then they're "not in character".

You're right when you say there are many levels inbetween and I recognize them. However, MMW still is in the lowest regions of animation as far as I'm concerned. Duck Tales was animated for tv, too, and Darkwing Duck, and Gargoyles, Quack Pack etc. And while there could be major differences in quality between individual episodes, on the whole those series looked a lot better than MMW, in my opinion.

I don't know. I was watching my DuckTales DVDs just the night before I saw Mouseworks. Personally, I think what makes us remember those shows as being so well done visually (though Gargoyles is probably an exception) is that they had such detailed backgrounds. The backgrounds for the Mouseworks shorts are designed in a more toony way than the classic shorts or '80's animated shows. I believe they were trying to tie the MouseWorks world in tightly with the Toontown of the Disney theme parks. In some of the shorts, they are shown to live in the same houses.

I've not seen any instance where I thought the MMW shorts were inspired by the old classic cartoons.

Really? The Donald Treasures set itself includes a Mouseworks short in which Donald is trying to photograph the Aracuan Bird. Another has him up against Chip and Dale if I remember correctly.

Just the example you mention is one of the kind of jokes I don't like in MMW. It's just so out-of-character for Disney characters, I can't laugh about it. It just doesn't belong in the Disney universe. Again, my humble opinion.

Well, I expected that reaction really. It's actually a rare kind of gag for Mouseworks, and I only mentioned it because I found it hilarious and it showed they weren't just relying on the same old humor, but it was innocent enough in my opinion. Not like the horrible cage dancer gag in A Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie. There is a point where edgy humor can be taken too far with characters we are not used to seeing in that light, but I didn't feel that was the case here and it was really quite funny and showed that the characers' comedic range was not stuck in the '40's. Like I said though, while they did that gag in two different shorts, over all the Mouseworks humor was much more traditionally innocent or slapstick. There was a lot of variety in the shorts too, including ones that were purely stories set to music, like the delightful Mickey and Minnie Hansel and Gretel. I also loved that the girls got their own very amusing shorts too, and we saw the return of characters like Mortimer, Ludwig, and Scrooge, and even an animated Roy Disney. It was a darn good show. There were great new characters too that worked well with the classics. I loved the shorts with the annoying baby turtle frustrating Donald. There was also the great "Around the World in 80 Days" short with Mickey and Scrooge and the gang... There's a lot to miss out on by snubbing these shows just because they're not theater quality and made in the first half of the 20th century.

[Elladorine]

While I definitely will not defend outsourcing (and I believe Walt would never have allowed that in regards to animation)

Er . . . didn't he do that with the Merbabies short actually? http://www.disneyshorts.org/years/1938/merbabies.html

[slave2moonlight]

Er . . . didn't he do that with the Merbabies short actually? http://www.disneyshorts.org/years/1938/merbabies.html

Well, I read in an article somewhere (wish I could remember where, but it was probably something someone posted here) that one of Walt's main rules was that they never put the Disney name on anything they didn't make themself (I believe he was talking about films here, not little plastic toys). It may have been in a documentary or something. I can't remember, but it wasn't that long ago that I heard it. In regards to Merbabies, apparently that was the only one during Walt's day, and it was to return a favor. Plus, it was in the still kind of early days of Disney. That quote from Walt was probably from later years, though I don't really know.

[geniuswalt]

Saying these should be destroyed for posterity and never be seen again (ever) is an understatement

Wow, I'd say that's a bit radical. I understand that people here might not like the Mickey Mouse Works shorts, but this discussion I'd say is almost just getting hysterical now.

C'mon Prince Philip it's all in good fun

[Goliath]

Well, one can always use the "it's a different style" line about something. To me, while I didn't altogether dislike it, the sketchy lines gave it an unfinished look at times, anything but polished. The reason the "it's just a different style" line doesn't work for me here is that it was about cost cutting, and that's all it was about. It was a time and money thing. [...]

Yes, it was, but Walt Disney managed to approach the necessary cost-cutting in such a way that it *did* result in a very unique, different style of art. Just look at One Hundred and One Dalmatians, the first DAC that was made with the Xerox-process. They hired Walt Peregoy to make a very distinct design for all the backgrounds in the film. That was his own style, which used colors to shape objects, instead of lines. And it was way more graphic. It's not just the same round Disney animation, but in Xerox; it's a very stylized, new kind of design.

[...] There were Disney shorts that were stories, and there were Disney shorts (especially Donald shorts) that were more about everyday frustrations. Consider Drip Dippy Donald. The whole short is Donald vs. a leaky faucet. I think saying that short is so very different from the MouseWorks shorts in writing quality/style is more about sounding snooty than anything else.

I think that's very prejudiced. As if nobody who disagrees with you on this issue has reasonable arguments... They just say it to sound snooty? Why would they? I'll give my reasons why I think there's a diference between a short like 'Drip dippy Donald' and MMW, and that is the way the story is build. 'Drip dippy Donald' slowly builts to a climax, with Donald getting just a little bit more angry every time. This is animated all very nuanced. If you would have a similar story on MMW, it would be all very over-the-top, very bombastic, no sense of proportion. That's why I think the old cartoons are better.

[...] I don't know. I was watching my DuckTales DVDs just the night before I saw Mouseworks. Personally, I think what makes us remember those shows as being so well done visually (though Gargoyles is probably an exception) [...]

You mean you don't think Gargoyles was well done visually? Why do you think that? And beware: you're talking to Goliath here!

[...] is that they had such detailed backgrounds. The backgrounds for the Mouseworks shorts are designed in a more toony way than the classic shorts or '80's animated shows.

It's not only the background. It's also the way the characters are animated. They moved much more fluidly in the shows I mentioned, and the coloring was much better; many more different kind of shades and nuances.

Really? The Donald Treasures set itself includes a Mouseworks short in which Donald is trying to photograph the Aracuan Bird. Another has him up against Chip and Dale if I remember correctly.

Using the same characters doesn't mean it has the same spirit as the old vintage Disney shorts.

[...] There is a point where edgy humor can be taken too far with characters we are not used to seeing in that light, but I didn't feel that was the case here and it was really quite funny and showed that the characers' comedic range was not stuck in the '40's. Like I said though, while they did that gag in two different shorts, over all the Mouseworks humor was much more traditionally innocent or slapstick.

Still, the humor is too different and too much oriented at slapstick and most of all inflicting main on the characters. Which is funny one time, or two or three times, but it gets boring once it gets done every single cartoon. They even had recurring segments for this purpose, like the one in which Donald discovers bombs everywhere and he can't get rid of them. Have you see those? That's stupid, it doesn't make any sense, it's totally random.

[...] There's a lot to miss out on by snubbing these shows just because they're not theater quality and made in the first half of the 20th century.

Who said I'm snubbing this show at all? I've watched it a lot. How else could I judge it? But I don't think it's good at all. And that's not because it was made in a certain time, but because... I think it's just not good.

[pap64]

I have to agree with Tim and Albert. Yeah, the MMW shorts aren't the greatest but the extreme hate it is getting is ridiculous.

They ARE part of the character's history, just as Three Caballeros and even Mickey Mouse Clubhouse are. So they should be mentioned in a set that talks about the history.

Second, I am sure that many fans missed the series back in the day. This is a great opportunity for them to watch the shorts.

Finally, they are merely BONUS shorts. The main attraction are still the classic shorts so no need to curse anyone.

[slave2moonlight]

Yes, it was, but Walt Disney managed to approach the necessary cost-cutting in such a way that it did result in a very unique, different style of art. Just look at One Hundred and One Dalmatians, the first DAC that was made with the Xerox-process. They hired Walt Peregoy to make a very distinct design for all the backgrounds in the film. That was his own style, which used colors to shape objects, instead of lines. And it was way more graphic. It's not just the same round Disney animation, but in Xerox; it's a very stylized, new kind of design.

I think you're making a flawed connection between the Peregoy designs and the Xerox effect. How did the Xerox effect factor into the intended designs? I don't believe it did. The overall sketchy look of the Xerox technique, which, again, I am not saying I actually disliked, was simply a side-effect of cost cutting.

I think that's very prejudiced. As if nobody who disagrees with you on this issue has reasonable arguments... They just say it to sound snooty? Why would they? I'll give my reasons why I think there's a diference between a short like 'Drip dippy Donald' and MMW, and that is the way the story is build. 'Drip dippy Donald' slowly builts to a climax, with Donald getting just a little bit more angry every time. This is animated all very nuanced. If you would have a similar story on MMW, it would be all very over-the-top, very bombastic, no sense of proportion. That's why I think the old cartoons are better.

I can see what you're saying, but I brought up that particular example more to illustrate that many of the old shorts had minimalist stories/plots too. Granted, I probably should have explained my point better, because I can see how "writing quality/style" was not the intended or correct choice of words in retrospect, but I am often typing in a hurry. It was the plot concepts I was talking about in response to the idea that the Mouseworks shorts had no "stories" in comparison to the classics. Still, I feel a lot of the statements about how bombastic and graceless the MouseWorks shorts are seem greatly over exaggerated, and such comments sound rather snooty to me. It's not the attitude that the older shorts are better over all that I take issue with, it's that the new shorts are utter schlock with nothing in common with the old. That's what comes off as snooty to me.

You mean you don't think Gargoyles was well done visually? Why do you think that? And beware: you're talking to Goliath here!

No, ha, my singling out of Gargoyles was to imply that it WAS better quality than the typical animated series, even from Disney.

It's not only the background. It's also the way the characters are animated. They moved much more fluidly in the shows I mentioned, and the coloring was much better; many more different kind of shades and nuances.

Going to have to disagree here. What I think the issue is, besides the backgrounds, is that the colors on MouseWorks are much brighter/more vivid. As I said, with MouseWorks there was an attempt to get a much more Toontown look to the characters' worlds. The colors of the Disney Afternoon shows were less bright. Everything was much drabber, and frankly, it just made for a more real-world, gritty look. Perhaps there were more different shades of colors used, but I believe that has more to do with the design choice in Mouseworks to make it all look more "cartoony". As for the animation, I don't agree that it was more fluid than Mouseworks. I WILL point out that some Disney shows did have better animation, like the Saturday morning episodes of Aladdin. But then the daily episodes were not as good as Mouseworks. Mouseworks itself was on par with stuff like DuckTales I'd say, but that is still much better than most non-Disney animated shows of the time and even many of Disney's own.

Using the same characters doesn't mean it has the same spirit as the old vintage Disney shorts.

No, but you didn't say you were talking about spirit, you said you've not seen any instance where the MMW shorts were inspired by the old classic cartoons, and that's why I responded thusly. However, I don't see why these new, made-for-TV cartoons need to have the SAME spirit as cartoons made 50 years ago and more for a different format, as much as I love those old cartoons. These new ones have their own spirit while doing a decent job of staying true to the characters, and it's both faster-paced for a current (and unfortunately, a targeted younger) audience and on a budget. I do have to correct the both of us on one point, now that I think about it. Budget IS an issue when it comes to writing. That's why direct to video features usually have lousy songs. Better quality writers cost more, as with anything else.

Still, the humor is too different and too much oriented at slapstick and most of all inflicting main on the characters. Which is funny one time, or two or three times, but it gets boring once it gets done every single cartoon. They even had recurring segments for this purpose, like the one in which Donald discovers bombs everywhere and he can't get rid of them. Have you see those? That's stupid, it doesn't make any sense, it's totally random.

I HAVE seen those bomb segments and in truth I never cared for them, though I didn't view them as the true Mouseworks shorts. However, Disney has always used slapstick in many of their shorts, so I don't see this as a big thing, and even if MouseWorks does focus more on that, disliking it is just a personal preference. It's just one more type of comedy, and a type that these Disney characters are not unfamiliar with.

Who said I'm snubbing this show at all? I've watched it a lot. How else could I judge it? But I don't think it's good at all. And that's not because it was made in a certain time, but because... I think it's just not good.

The arguments just seem to come off more as a prejudice against new material, especially or specifically when it's on a TV budget, to me. It's like the folks who would never say any Disney direct-to-video is good just because it is direct-to-video, or a sequel, or things of that nature. Sorry, but that always comes off like snubbing to me. It's cool if you genuinely dislike it, I just sense hostility towards the new or different (or budgeted) in most of the anti-MouseWorks statements people have made here.

[Chernabog_Rocks]

I don't really see any difference between including MMW work shorts on CDDV4 than the inclusion of Runaway Brain on MMLCV2.

I really don't see the whole problem with incuding them, it was to show what the shorts have become in this day and age from the look of it. In a way it's just so people can compare what was made then with the stuff now, or it's just pure bonus stuff. Besides if you don't like it just suck it up and don't watch them What's done is done.

[geniuswalt]

I don't really see any difference between including MMW work shorts on CDDV4 than the inclusion of Runaway Brain on MMLCV2.

I really don't see the whole problem with incuding them, it was to show what the shorts have become in this day and age from the look of it. In a way it's just so people can compare what was made then with the stuff now, or it's just pure bonus stuff. Besides if you don't like it just suck it up and don't watch them What's done is done.

I'm sorry but artistic merits aside (if there are any), the production value of Runaway Brain doesn't even compare to the cheap mouseworks shorts.

[Goliath]

I think you're making a flawed connection between the Peregoy designs and the Xerox effect. How did the Xerox effect factor into the intended designs? I don't believe it did. The overall sketchy look of the Xerox technique, which, again, I am not saying I actually disliked, was simply a side-effect of cost cutting.

The Xerox process took out the practice of painting an animator's drawings on cells before they were being filmed. You just get the animator's actual work projected on the screen, without a second or third person in between inking and painting. That very process makes for a harder, edgier look of the characters that wouldn't be obtained had they not used Xerox. And it is only this new style that works with Peregoy'd design. Because it works with angular forms. It wouldn't match with the kind of animation Walt was doing before One Hunderd and One Dalmatians.

I can see what you're saying, but I brought up that particular example more to illustrate that many of the old shorts had minimalist stories/plots too. [...] It was the plot concepts I was talking about in response to the idea that the Mouseworks shorts had no "stories" in comparison to the classics. Still, I feel a lot of the statements about how bombastic and graceless the MouseWorks shorts are seem greatly over exaggerated, and such comments sound rather snooty to me. [...]

It's true that many of the classic shorts had just little stories or hardly any story at all. However, the old shorts worked out of a character's motivation: situations and gags came forth out of the behavior of the character. As opposed to MMW, where a character is just put in a particular situation and is subjected towhatever the writers thought would deliver a good laugh. MMW shorts are not very much about personalities and that's why they seldom remind me of the old Walt-era shorts.

No, ha, my singling out of Gargoyles was to imply that it WAS better quality than the typical animated series, even from Disney.

That's one thing we can agree on.

Going to have to disagree here. What I think the issue is, besides the backgrounds, is that the colors on MouseWorks are much brighter/more vivid. As I said, with MouseWorks there was an attempt to get a much more Toontown look to the characters' worlds. [...]

That's true. That's also part of why I don't like it. The way it was colored made it look like the type of show that is targeted only at very little/young children, which of course, is a turn-of for me. (More on that subject below.)

[...] Mouseworks itself was on par with stuff like DuckTales I'd say, but that is still much better than most non-Disney animated shows of the time and even many of Disney's own.

I don't think we will ever agree on this one, and partly that's because it's also a matter of taste.

No, but you didn't say you were talking about spirit, you said you've not seen any instance where the MMW shorts were inspired by the old classic cartoons, and that's why I responded thusly.

Correct. But what I meant was, that I didn't see anything in MMW's content (story-wise) that reminded me of the vintage shorts. I had seen the reappearance of old characters, but I never thought they were used very wisely. First of all because I think some of them had better remaind one-shot characters in a distant past (e.g. Mortimer) and second, like I said, MMW works too much from situations instead of personalities in the first place.

However, I don't see why these new, made-for-TV cartoons need to have the SAME spirit as cartoons made 50 years ago and more for a different format, as much as I love those old cartoons. These new ones have their own spirit while doing a decent job of staying true to the characters, and it's both faster-paced for a current (and unfortunately, a targeted younger) audience and on a budget.

I don't think they should have the exact same spirit as the old cartoons, but they could try to remain somehow faithful to the way of storytelling. The much faster, and, in my opinion, over-the-top and exaggerated pacing indeed does appeal to younger adiences, but it also diminishes the classic characters, because they work better in a more traditional form of story-telling. The old theatrical shorts were never intended for children, contrary to what most people think. They were played before movies adults came to see. But Disney made sure the whole family could be entertained, and that's what I'm missing in MMW.

However, Disney has always used slapstick in many of their shorts, so I don't see this as a big thing, and even if MouseWorks does focus more on that, disliking it is just a personal preference.

However, I see a difference in the kind of slapstick, since MMW's kind of slapstick was mre random and more concentrated on hurting/targeting the characters, which was seldom if ever done in the Walt-era cartoons.

It's just one more type of comedy, and a type that these Disney characters are not unfamiliar with.

I think the MMW kind of humor fits more with Looney Tunes characters.

The arguments just seem to come off more as a prejudice against new material, especially or specifically when it's on a TV budget, to me.

Or maybe you are in a mindset that sees all critcism of new material as *just that*: criticism of new material, when in fact I have reasons to dislike MMW which have nothing to do with something being new or old.

It's like the folks who would never say any Disney direct-to-video is good just because it is direct-to-video, or a sequel, or things of that nature. Sorry, but that always comes off like snubbing to me.

Well, to be honest, although some DTV's are decent enough, none of them are good, indeed. And yes, that's *because* they're DTV's. Their very nature prevents them of being any good, because DTV's are made not out of creativity, or a genuine interest or care for the characters, or because somebody wanted to tell a good story, but just because of sheer greed on the part of the Disney Company. To sell stuff. Make a few extra bucks. And anything made with that particular purpose can never be any good.

[Goliath]

I don't really see any difference between including MMW work shorts on CDDV4 than the inclusion of Runaway Brain on MMLCV2.

I really don't see the whole problem with incuding them, it was to show what the shorts have become in this day and age from the look of it. In a way it's just so people can compare what was made then with the stuff now, or it's just pure bonus stuff. Besides if you don't like it just suck it up and don't watch them What's done is done.

I'm sorry but artistic merits aside (if there are any), the production value of Runaway Brain doesn't even compare to the cheap mouseworks shorts.

Not only is that true, but it's also tiresome to see so many people demand we stop discussing issues on a discussion forum! Why does someone have to say "suck it up"? And then rolling their eyes? What good does that? If you don't agree: fine, just say so. But there's no need to demand we stop discussions.

[Chernabog_Rocks]

*Sigh* What I mean by "suck it up" is just that, suck it up and don't watch them, you have that option. When I say "whats done is done" I mean Disney's gone and put them on there and they won't just recall all the Treasures and take them off to make you happy. When has Disney EVER done something for their fans? Did they ever finish any t.v series they put out that was animated? Did the continue with Narnia? No, they do what they want and what's in THEIR best intrest, very rarely ours.

Also I never once said "oh stop discussing it already" that's nowhere near what I meant My last paragraph was simpy trying to state something along the lines of "your stuck with it so if you don't like it suck it up and don't watch them"

Also I'll roll my eyes however I please and if I end up crosseyed that's my problem

Onto Runaway Brain, I wasn't aiming at artisitc merits. I was merely stating that both are modern and I don't see the difference between including one modern short that's similar to other modern shorts. If you don't know the similarities then reread my original post.

[Goliath]

*Sigh* What I mean by "suck it up" is just that, suck it up and don't watch them, you have that option. When I say "whats done is done" I mean Disney's gone and put them on there and they won't just recall all the Treasures and take them off to make you happy.

Where did any of us ever suggested Disney should do that? We know they won't and we're not asking for it. We're just stating that, in our opinion, they don't belong on the Treasures set. I think we are entitled to hold that opinion.

"Also I'll roll my eyes however I please and if I end up crosseyed that's my problem

[slave2moonlight]

The Xerox process took out the practice of painting an animator's drawings on cells before they were being filmed. You just get the animator's actual work projected on the screen, without a second or third person in between inking and painting. That very process makes for a harder, edgier look of the characters that wouldn't be obtained had they not used Xerox. And it is only this new style that works with Peregoy'd design. Because it works with angular forms. It wouldn't match with the kind of animation Walt was doing before One Hunderd and One Dalmatians.

Oh, c'mon. That's a stretch to say that those designs could not work without the Xerox process, or that a hard/edgy look cannot be done with the older process if intended.

It's true that many of the classic shorts had just little stories or hardly any story at all. However, the old shorts worked out of a character's motivation: situations and gags came forth out of the behavior of the character. As opposed to MMW, where a character is just put in a particular situation and is subjected towhatever the writers thought would deliver a good laugh. MMW shorts are not very much about personalities and that's why they seldom remind me of the old Walt-era shorts.

I think the problem I have with the generalizations like the one above is not that I don't recognize that to be true of some of the MouseWorks shorts, but that it doesn't correctly describe all of them. What I see a lot is people watching just a bit of something, not liking it (which is such an opinion/personal taste thing anyway), and then declaring it all to be garbage without seeing all of it. I can't help but get the impression that is the situation here.

[...] Mouseworks itself was on par with stuff like DuckTales I'd say, but that is still much better than most non-Disney animated shows of the time and even many of Disney's own.

I don't think we will ever agree on this one, and partly that's because it's also a matter of taste.

Well, let's not take the above out of context. I am not saying I prefer MouseWorks to DuckTales there, I'm saying the animation of DuckTales wasn't any higher quality. Not an issue of personal taste at all. I do prefer DuckTales as a show because I prefer DuckTales to most animated shows, having grown up with the Scrooge and other Duck/Disney comics.

I don't think they should have the exact same spirit as the old cartoons, but they could try to remain somehow faithful to the way of storytelling. The much faster, and, in my opinion, over-the-top and exaggerated pacing indeed does appeal to younger adiences, but it also diminishes the classic characters, because they work better in a more traditional form of story-telling. The old theatrical shorts were never intended for children, contrary to what most people think. They were played before movies adults came to see. But Disney made sure the whole family could be entertained, and that's what I'm missing in MMW.

Yes, I'm aware that the old shorts were not intended only for entertaining children. But, again, I find myself wondering if you've really seen that many MouseWorks shorts, because I really believe you are making an over-generalization. Yes, their pacing is faster, but it's not just the kid audiences who look for that nowadays either and it is not to the excessive Looney Tunes point. And while it's a different style of comedy (sometimes), the characters maintain their classic personalities with this new style, and whether or not it is entertaining or "good" falls into the opinion zone. In addition, not all the Mouseworks shorts were as loaded with fast paced slapstick as you make it seem. There were some cute and clever stories among them too. This is why it is puzzling to read such generalizations that it is all Looney Tunes style slapstick.

Or maybe you are in a mindset that sees all critcism of new material as *just that*: criticism of new material, when in fact I have reasons to dislike MMW which have nothing to do with something being new or old.

But your arguments do make it sound like your criticism is due to it being new/different, that's the problem.

Well, to be honest, although some DTV's are decent enough, none of them are good, indeed. And yes, that's *because* they're DTV's. Their very nature prevents them of being any good, because DTV's are made not out of creativity, or a genuine interest or care for the characters, or because somebody wanted to tell a good story, but just because of sheer greed on the part of the Disney Company. To sell stuff. Make a few extra bucks. And anything made with that particular purpose can never be any good.

Ah, there's some of that prejudice I knew was there finally poking its head out. Truth is, a few of them WERE good, though not perfect. Bambi 2 or An Extremely Goofy Movie for example, or the Once and Twice Upon a Christmas films or Lilo and Stitch 2, among others. Even if they came about from greed, there are artists involved in the creation of all of them and in some of those cases those artists put themselves to making something great and were successful. Most sequels can be blamed of being created out of greed, and yet there are many great ones. A lot of great things can be labeled correctly as created out of greed. They still can be great. Even some of the classic material we love so much was at least partially about bringing in a cash flow. A lot of the beloved episodes of the Disney anthology series were just big commercials... But they were good anyway!

[Chernabog_Rocks]

*Sigh* What I mean by "suck it up" is just that, suck it up and don't watch them, you have that option. When I say "whats done is done" I mean Disney's gone and put them on there and they won't just recall all the Treasures and take them off to make you happy.

Where did any of us ever suggested Disney should do that? We know they won't and we're not asking for it. We're just stating that, in our opinion, they don't belong on the Treasures set. I think we are entitled to hold that opinion.

I wasn't trying to say that you guys were saying that, just merely stating that just because you guys, and other people may not like it doesn't mean they would recall and fix it to make you the fans happy I probably should have clarified that more, my bad.

[geniuswalt]

What we are saying is that these mouseworks shorts (unlike runaway brain or other modern Disney fare) are not worth including in such a collection because these do not artistically fit into the Disney canon.

No hard feelings toward anyone, OK