best animated movie?

[Elladorine]

To me, animation is more about acting, feeling, intuition, and sincerity than the rigid technicalities of a character remaining precisely on model. If technical proficiency of the art was the most important thing to me, I'd have lost interest in hand-drawn animation long ago. After all, it's not about making drawings move, it's about moving people with those drawings.

Of course, the point of creating model sheets is for consistency in design, as it's relatively important to try to make it look like the entire film (or at least specific characters and backgrounds) were all created by one person. This is obviously not the case of course, and it's more than likely that each individual artist's style will somehow sneak into the final picture . . . I think that's fine as long as individual scenes don't get all wonky.

[SWillie!]

To me, animation is more about acting, feeling, intuition, and sincerity than the rigid technicalities of a character remaining precisely on model. If technical proficiency of the art was the most important thing to me, I'd have lost interest in hand-drawn animation long ago. After all, it's not about making drawings move, it's about moving people with those drawings.

Of course, the point of creating model sheets is for consistency in design, as it's relatively important to try to make it look like the entire film (or at least specific characters and backgrounds) were all created by one person. This is obviously not the case of course, and it's more than likely that each individual artist's style will somehow sneak into the final picture . . . I think that's fine as long as individual scenes don't get all wonky.

Oh absolutely. I certainly wasn't trying to say that the technical stuff like the eyes being half way down and stuff is the most important aspect. The acting and emotion is a bajillion times more important. But, nevertheless, it is very important to have characters on model.

[Elladorine]

Oh absolutely. I certainly wasn't trying to say that the technical stuff like the eyes being half way down and stuff is the most important aspect. The acting and emotion is a bajillion times more important. But, nevertheless, it is very important to have characters on model.

Oh, I totally get where you're coming from. I wasn't pinpointing anyone here, but I do think some fans get way too caught up in such things. I have my breaking point as well, lol . . . one of my favorite movies is The Little Mermaid, and there are two scenes in particular that bother me. Not so much that they were drawn badly, but because her hair was painted in wrong. And the reason I can't stand certain sequels or series is that it's painful to watch my favorite characters go completely wonky in a bad way (which I prefer to the term off model).

See, this whole "on model" conversation makes me think of what John K. was saying when he worked in animation in the early 80's. In that context, on model basically meant that the producers were so strict about the look of the characters that the artists often traced off the model sheets! Which is a big part of the reason why takes and squash & stretch were pretty non-existent in a lot of television animation from that era, adding any type of creative fluidity was considered going off model and a big no-no. And if they needed to draw a character with an expression that wasn't already on a model sheet, they had to ask for permission. If I remember right he said he once had to draw George Jetson with an angry expression, but there was no angry expression on the model sheet to choose from. I know this is a bit extreme but maybe you get the idea.

It's been a few years now, but this all makes me recall how people were equating the number of frames drawn per second with "quality." While I'd say a higher number is definitely preferable, I think it's the quality of those frames that matter more.

Enough of my rambling, my whole point is that what people like or dislike about any art is subjective and everyone's entitled to their own opinions. I just find myself cringing whenever someone goes off with "ZOMG, she's SO off model in that scene" when I barely see anything wrong.

[SWillie!]

Oh wow that's really interesting about the 80s stuff with the tracing over the model sheet, I've never heard that! That seems like that would've not been too much fun working in animation at that time...

[DisneyFan09]

I would say "Hunchback", "Bambi", "Pocahontas" and "Treasure Planet" has the best animation.

[Elladorine]

Oh wow that's really interesting about the 80s stuff with the tracing over the model sheet, I've never heard that! That seems like that would've not been too much fun working in animation at that time...

Yeah, it's something that actually started in the 70's and continued through the mid-80's. I think it totally would have sucked to have to be so restricted. Check out this page from the Filmation layout manual from Fat Albert! Sorry to go off on this tangent, but with all this on model talk I feel a need to illustrate this.



So let's get this straight . . . trace off the model sheets whenever you can. Use the Xerox machine to resize so you can continue to trace whenever a zoom is needed. And when the character has to speak, draw the character at a 3/4 pose so only the lips need to be animated. Stray from the model sheets in any form and you're in danger of being off model!

For the George Jetson story I referred to, check out this link (I was wrong about which facial expression but you get the idea). I personally think this practice died out due to higher-quality shows being produced in the mid-80's (especially the ones from Disney and later WB), although John K. seems to insist it's still the industry norm (to be fair I don't think he's had to work under these kinds of restrictions himself since 1987 or so).

This is part of the reason I cringe whenever someone complains about a character being off model, I always think of these issues! Anyway, now back to your regularly scheduled Disney thread.

[SWillie!]

This is part of the reason I cringe whenever someone complains about a character being off model, I always think of these issues! Anyway, now back to your regularly scheduled Disney thread.

Wow, really! I'd much rather have an Ariel that might have a few weird eyes but has actually been animated than something like THAT.

[Wonderlicious]

...but guess another reason why Mary made the backgrounds gray or dark? It's because Wonderland is underground, with little light, etc.!

Well, if that were the case, then Wonderland would be near to pitch black and muddy!

I think the main reason why there is some incorporation of grey, black and white is that it harks back to the influence of the Tenniel line drawings and the black-and-white world that he created, both of which have become so iconic.

[Flanger-Hanger]

So many aspects of a movie make it hard to determine what is best, especially when considering only the needs and tone of the story and characters in influencing the artwork itself. Would Mary Blair's style work for every DAC? Probably not, so I think it's partially wrong to say film's with her influence are visually superior than others (not that I greatly admire her work) because sometimes it comes to a matter of personal taste.

However to add to the technical argument about off-mode drawings and what not, every time I look at BatB again it just seems worse and worse. All the characters move like they are made of silly puddy and are covered in excessive CAPS based effects* (could you have more gloss on Belle's lips?). It just makes me want to cringe at times.

Compare the human characters in that movie to the ones in Peter Pan or Alice and you can see a huge difference in the realism in how they move. Alice and Peter have much more weight and dimension to them because of not only how they move but at the speed they do. It's hard to explain, really.

*Could be the 2001 IMAX job though.

[Disney Duster]

A model isn't animation, that's what your animating.

But if we are talking about "good animation" in a cohesive whole, yes closeness to the model is a part, but only one small part.

Walt's artists had something I think was better than any animators had before, during, or after. Maybe it was their balance of realism and cartooniness, reality and fantasy, which includes things like live action reference and study, weight, and aiming for truth within the dream. To try and describe it more...something about the way the Walt Disney artists drew was so delicate and refined... It was Disney. And maybe it's just personal preference, but something in what they made, which slowly disappeared as the new regime took over, was superior. At least to me. They're the tops. And renaissance Disney was the next tops.

The Princess and the Frog looked to be missing frames all the time and...did you miss those things being dragged across the screen instead of actually animated? The frog hunters and Ray's song stand out in my mind from the time ago I saw them as such lesser animation. I just remember seeing Treasure Planet and Brother Bear commercials and thinking the animation had gotten so fluid and everything was moving so well and wonderful to look at...and then they had to pack up their animation desks and their latest effort doesn't look as good, to me.

Not to mention the design looked very un-Disney to me. All the characters, including the white ones. I remember looking at Louis the alligator and Tic-Toc the crocodile and in the way the lines were...Walt's looked and felt more lovely and fairy tale-ish. And it's a big reptile!

Newer Disney animation also seems...looser, while older Walt Disney animation seems tighter...or something.

[jpanimation]

enigmawing, what John K. was saying about the Filmation crew having to stick soo much to the model sheet that their was no real acting choices being made, and as a result the whole production looked generic and crappy. John K. emphasized the importance of being on-model but also the importance of acting (something Filmation disregarded). What sad days those were.

Anyways, I personally love Lilo and Stitch. The characters are very much on model and the the acting is fantastic (keep in mind that Stitch has no pupils to work with). The whole movie feels solid and I attribute this to the small nature of the Florida studio and the tightness it brought to these productions. The bears looks pretty solid in Brother Bear.

[Disney's Divinity]

The Princess and the Frog looked to be missing frames all the time and

Maybe you watched a different film than I did, but it looked perfectly fluid and beautiful to me all 15-20 times I've watched it.

...did you miss those things being dragged across the screen instead of actually animated?

You must be talking about the leaf at the end. Which, itself, looked to me to be a 3D model, and not animated along with everything else (which also didn't nearly stick out to me as badly as in the theater). There might be some other points I'm missing, 'cause I don't remember them.

I also found the scene with the froghunters to be very well-animated, regardless of how I felt about the comedy they presented.

Not to mention the design looked very un-Disney to me. All the characters, including the white ones. I remember looking at Louis the alligator and Tic-Toc the crocodile and in the way the lines were...Walt's looked and felt more lovely and fairy tale-ish. And it's a big reptile!

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here. The only character I might say looked un-Disney-ish is (maybe) Charlotte's father (who looks more like he belongs in HOTR than here, anyway). Charlotte reminded me a lot of Thumper in the face, Tiana was basically a black Belle, and Naveen (as a human) was alarmingly similar to Eric. Facilier also reminded me heavily of Cruella in the facial expressions and movements. Unless you consider Eric and Belle to be un-Disney (since you apparently have recently decided the Renaissance look is below that of the earlier features; which I disagree with personally, of course, but whatever).

And it's true that Louis doesn't look like Tic-Toc...but I'm thinking that is a conscious decision. I remember from the audiocommentary, someone was talking about Juju (Odie's snake) and how they conciously designed it differently than in earlier films because they didn't want him to look just like Sir Hiss or Kaa. I think they wanted to show variety despite using the same kind of animal. Besides, I loved Louis' design. Something about the way his body bulges with every line on his belly was very vivid to me. He also had a somewhat Genie-ness to him, with the way his face would alter (I found most all of these expressions hilarious).

Oh, btw, you and several others have mentioned Treasure Planet, and I feel ashamed I forgot that movie. It really had some beautiful character animation in Jim and Amelia (though the blend of 3D and 2D doesn't work out so well).

[SWillie!]

And it's true that Louis doesn't look like Tic-Toc...but I'm thinking that is a conscious decision. I remember from the audiocommentary, someone was talking about Juju (Odie's snake) and how they conciously designed it differently than in earlier films because they didn't want him to look just like Sir Hiss or Kaa. I think they wanted to show variety despite using the same kind of animal. Besides, I loved Louis' design. Something about the way his body bulges with every line on his belly was very vivid to me. He also had a somewhat Genie-ness to him, with the way his face would alter (I found most all of these expressions hilarious).

I've read some interviews with Eric Goldberg and he has talked about that. He was the supervising animator on Louis, and he said that he distinctly tried to stay away from the look of other Disney gators. Same with Andreas Deja and Juju.

(It's funny that you say he has a Genie-ness to him, because Eric Goldberg is also most famous for animating the Genie.)

[pap64]

Enigmawing: Those facts about character design are great! I am a sucker for character design stuff and hearing stories about how they used to do cartoons back in the day fascinate me.

I'm not surprised at all about the Filmmation stuff. They may have had some great cartoons back in the day, but you could tell that if a character was more animated than usual they broke the budget for it!

As for best animated Disney film...

For the classics I have to go with Cinderella. Not only is the character design great, I like how it mixes the subtle and the comedic and still feel natural. I know there's some controversy about it and many other features being rotoscoped but regardless of the techniques used the animated adds a lot to the story. Add to the it the Mary Blair backgrounds and the films emits a magic and romance different from other Disney features.

From the modern classics, I think the post fab four films are underrated in terms of animation. Tarzan, in particular, has gorgeous animal and human animation. Hercules has great stylistic animation while Atlantis has beautiful comic book style animation.

[Disney Duster]

The Princess and the Frog definately looked a bit choppy at times and I think because of the frames...or maybe some other bad reason?

Notice I said the lines of these reptiles. I think I can better describe it now, there was a whole structuring and drafting that was amazing (and yes I'd say superior) and only belonging to Walt Disney's artists, and that kind of passed as they passed but this Disney look was kept relatively well into the Renaissance films, but now The Princess and the Frog looks like it is only barely there. The studio is going farther and farther away from their Disney look, they need to make sure they hold onto something that can be found in all their films so they are all distinctively Disney. Of course, we can think they magically somehow do anyway. It would just be great if there was more conscious effort. Maybe there is. Just doesn't look that way.

Pap, YAY! But just in case you didn't know, though I don't know how you could, the rotoscoping was just looking at the live action they drew over, they didn't trace the live reference into the final film animation. I wish they never used the term rotoscope so loosely!

And yes I think pretty much any film from Aladdin until (and perhaps except for) Home on the Range just got better and better in terms of animation...then it ended and now...I hope they get back there again! I guess they are on their way...

[UmbrellaFish]

Just for the record, the only characters I think that looked drastically un-Disneyish in The Princess and the Frog are the party goers at the Le Bouff's welcoming for Prince Naveen.

[DisneyFan09]

Just for the record, the only characters I think that looked drastically un-Disneyish in The Princess and the Frog are the party goers at the Le Bouff's welcoming for Prince Naveen.

I agree with you on that one. In fact, all the random crowd people were badly drawn, in my opinion.

[BelleGirl]

I've never been very picky on details like a figure being 'off-model' in certain instances. Maybe the movie goes to quickly for me to notice this.

Without studying stills or screencaps in particular I can say that I admire the animation in Bambi which has beautiful dreamy forest scenes. The animal characters are neatly balances between being 'realistic' and 'cute'. I also adore the animation in the "Night on bald mountain' sequence in Fantasia. By contrast, the style of "Pastoral symphony" I find overly cute. But maybe that's just a question of taste.

[Goliath]

Pocahontas. Are you kidding me?? The animation is pretty darn stiff!

That's actually the problem I had with Hunchback. [...] But as soon as it zooms down into the streets, you have this person throwing water into the street and people walking around, and it just looks very flat and stiff. [...]

You wanna talk about stiff characters? What about The Princess and the Frog? I'm surprised I've haven't seen any complaints about it on this board. It's not so much the main characters (although Tiana has her share in her human form) as well the supporting characters. (Tiana's boss, Charlotte, Big Daddy, Tiana's mom and the minor parts.) They never move smooth, the stiffness always remind me I'm watching a film, which is getting me out of the movie experience. It's a real shame, since the animation for e.g. Dr. Facilier is very lively and loose and extremely well done. I have no problems with the animals or Mama Odie, either. But the rest... is stiff, man!

The best animation is hard to tell. People maybe will say I'm crazy, but I want to nominate Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Yes, it was Walt's first feature lenght animated film, so the animators still had a lot to learn. Yes, the animals are not realistic at all. Yes, Snow White is rotoscoped. Yes, the prince is mostly absent because the animators couldn't animate him believable enough. And *yet*... the film looks spectacular, even after more than 70 years. All the individual dwarfs, Snow White, the backgrounds, the queen, the castle, the hunter, the effects... Still stunning!

Pinocchio is also great when it comes to animation. I'm sorry, but I can't discover any flaws in it. It's amazing how much the animators had progressed in those few years since Snow White. Just a look at the beautiful town where Pinocchio lives, or Gepetto's workplace should convince everybody. The designs and the execution is amazing. Just close your eyes and try to see before you the scene in which Honest John and Gideon are luring Pinocchio to Stromboli. They're singing their song ("an actor's life for me") and we watch them filmed from above. Now that's stunning animation.

Sleeping Beauty is an artwork. Even if the characters are sometimes a bit stiff, the whole film is a joy to watch. Whenever I watch it, it's not because of the story or characters. They bore me. I just like to marvel at the animation, the backgrounds in particular, and imagine how much time, care and eye for detail were spend on it. Just simple things like trees are even sensational to look at. How many films can make you look like a tree in amazement? And that's not even mentioning the interiors of the castle, etc.!

Just plain good, solid animation can be found in Lady and the Tramp, Mulan and Lilo & Stitch. I don't get the bad rap Oliver & Company gets. I give you that it's not Sleeping Beauty, but "shoddy"? Are you kidding me? The animation looks good, character animation is okay, and I didn't see characters off-model, like in TLM, BatB and Aladdin.

[Disney's Divinity]

I don't get the bad rap Oliver & Company gets. I give you that it's not Sleeping Beauty, but "shoddy"? Are you kidding me? The animation looks good, character animation is okay, and I didn't see characters off-model, like in TLM, BatB and Aladdin.

Yes. I’m kidding you.

*sigh*

I'm sorry, but Oliver and Company looks really bad --and I can't help but see it that way. The animals don't, in any way, move like animals--not like in Dalmatians, Lady and the Tramp, or Lion King. There's absolutely no weight or reality to them (and, yes, most of the characters are caricatures--but that doesn't mean I enjoy looking at it). There are plenty of moments where it's as if the bodies stop moving and only the heads do anything. I don't know, the movie looks like a complete mess to me everytime I watch it, except for maybe a few special moments ("Perfect Is Me" and "I Don't Worry"). The whole thing comes off like it should be playing on the back of Burger King.

And, yes, B&tB and TLM and Aladdin have mixed animation. We've established that. (Over and over and over). But I don't ever get the same "crappy" feeling when I watch them. Some of that, of course, might be bias--I'm just too distracted by how good the films are to get worried about the animation's flaws (though they have as many slam-dunks to make up for those)--but even when looking at single shots, I'd take anything from the "Fab Four" over Oliver and Company.

Do I have to fight over everything? This is a discussion forum, not a debate one, isn't it?