DVDizzy Forum

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:48 am**

Goliath wrote:Then you must not have read Michael Barrier's book 'Hollywood Cartoons' or the countless of articles and forumposts I've read about the film.

Yeah, as if Michael Barrier complained about the Penny and Rufus scenes, or Milt's anmation of Medusa, or Frank's animation of Bernard. That's horsecrap. Barrier - like any sesible person - might complain about the writing, he might complain about the staging, he might complain about the backgrounds, he might complain (like we all do) of the poor budgets in all Disney animated films from 1967 - 1981, he might complain about the lack of ambition, he might complain about the company going through the motions -- but PLEASE - if the man complains about the character animation, then he is flat out wrong, and because I doubt so learned a man can be so wrong, it is YOU who I doubt, and I seriiously doubt you are quoting him correctly, so I now challenge you to provide quotes from Mr. Barrier where he disparages the character animation in The Resucers.

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:49 am**

BelleGirl wrote:
Flanger-Hanger wrote:On topic, everything from Little Mermaid through Hunchback (with oddly the exception of Pocahontas) has some obviously rushed/sloppy scenes in it. More so in Mermaid than Hunchback for example but the clear effort to rush these movies out every year is evident in these films. From Hercules onward however, the staff seemed to have gotten more used to the time frame to work in and produced much more consistent work.

Was 'rushing out' a movie every year really the cause of the sloppy/rushed scenes? I 've heard that different teams of animators worked on every film and that each film took some 2 or 3 (if not more)years to complete. So even if the movies followed eachother quickly, this didn't necessary mean the animators realy had too litte time to make the movies and hence had to rush several scenes. Compare this to the 40's: Pinocchio and Fantasia came out in the same year and neither of these movies appear rushed to me. (of course you will be able to spot some obvious mistakes if you look close).

I don't actually know a lot about the backgroud/making of the films (besides what's on the DVDs) but I think they do more in those 2-3 years they're given than animate. Most of it seems to be smoothing out the story, script, etc. You can't animate until you know what's supposed to be happening. And, of course, budget can have its effect, too. Didn't the Walt-era films usually have 4 to 5 years just to animate (could be wrong)? Have no idea.

I remember reading somewhere in its thread that The Princess and the Frog had only just started being animated a year or so ago even though its been worked on for a while now.

That's why I tend to have sympathy for Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid. Even Aladdin has its bad moments. I don't think it was until TLK onwards that they finally starting peaking (animation-wise).

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2009 5:22 pm**

Rudy Matt wrote:Yeah, as if Michael Barrier complained about the Penny and Rufus scenes, or Milt's anmation of Medusa, or Frank's animation of Bernard. That's horsecrap. [rest of pretentious rant]

Have you actually read his book? He basically slams every Disney-film after Cinderella when it comes to animation. (Actually, he came down pretty hard on Cindy, as well.) When it comes to The Rescuers, he wrote that the film "looked sluggish".

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2009 5:24 pm**

Disney's Divinity wrote:Even Aladdin has its bad moments.

I have literally seen 8 or 9 'different' Aladdins throughout the film. He gets younger, older, younger, older, and his hair keeps getting longer and shorter from scene to scene.

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:33 pm**

Here's a video that shows how much animation Disney recycled over the years:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOIrXGd51jE

Posted: **Sat Aug 22, 2009 1:55 am**

Barbossa wrote:Here's a video that shows how much animation Disney recycled over the years:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOIrXGd51jE

I wonder if the actors, who were the original character references for these sequences, got royalties each time their material was re-used?!

Matt

Posted: **Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:36 am**

it pains me to do it to my 2 favourite disney films but...

(note: i could only find screencaps for the IMAX version of BATB so please disregard the horrendous colour enhancements/changes)

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/ ... id_193.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/ ... mpe383.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/ ... mpe422.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

^^ i guess you have to see it in motion but these two look incredibly weird here.

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/ ... pe1058.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

My favourite scene in the movie has some of the worst background characters. Something BATB also suffered from.

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/ ... pe1086.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/ ... id_835.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/ ... b_0316.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

^^Yes, Belle is most off model here.

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/ ... b_1827.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

^^ Again like TLM, both the film's climactic scenes suffer from subpar background characters.

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/ ... b_1831.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/ ... b_1982.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/ ... b_2051.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

But despite their lapses, they both have some exceptional animation:

Part of Your World segment

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/ ... id_160.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

Poor Unfortunate Souls sequence

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/ ... id_478.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

The ballroom sequence (naturally)

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/ ... b_1654.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

... and the balcony scene after

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/ ... b_1738.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

and my personal fav,
Belle tends to the Beast's wounds

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/ ... b_1321.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

(more evident in the original VHS/LD versions)

Posted: **Sun Aug 23, 2009 1:53 pm**

I never really pay attention to most of the mistakes and "off model" moments in a Disney film , because I just enjoy watching the movie. (most scenes go by to quicly anyway for me to notice)But yes, if you look at some stills there are weird looking things. That guy in the background of picture no. 9 in Beast_enchantment's post, popping out of the coach from the "Assylum de Looms" is floating instead of standing.

Posted: **Sun Aug 23, 2009 4:37 pm**

BelleGirl wrote: That guy in the background of picture no. 9 in Beast_enchantment's post, popping out of the coach from the "Assylum de Looms" is floating instead of standing.

He's probably jumping out of the coach?

Posted: **Sun Aug 23, 2009 5:04 pm**

blackcauldron85 wrote:
BelleGirl wrote: That guy in the background of picture no. 9 in Beast_enchantment's post, popping out of the coach from the "Assylum de Looms" is floating instead of standing.
He's probably jumping out of the coach?

Yes, now that you mention it...you're probably right. That's the difficulty with judging a scene just from stills!

Posted: **Sun Aug 23, 2009 5:52 pm**

You know, I CAN forgive poor background characters. Why? Because they are background characters, the are placed there so the scene looks busy. Why pour so much attention on them animation wise? I think animators should focus on the lead characters since they are the ones we see the most throughout the film, not random character #176.

Posted: **Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:03 pm**

I think that that's a really good point, pap. At the same time, Disney is known for quality, so, while they shouldn't pour most of their time on the background characters instead of focusing on more major characters and other important things such as backgrounds, the background characters still should look really good. I think overall, the pictures shown in this thread aren't that bad. I mean, yes, some of the background characters look off, but I think, for the most part, the background characters look good as far as them serving their purpose and not looking too deformed or anything.

In THOND, the computer program was new, so it can be understandable that the crowds look different than what we were used to. I'm not sure if the program was a money saver, but it probably was a time-saver, to be sure, since there were SO many people in those crowds. If you focus on the crowds, then yes, they look a little off, and there only were 5 or 6 variations as far as the people, and then the clothing colors were changed and whatever...but if you just focus on the film as you're "supposed" to, then nothing really seems wrong about the crowds. If the crowds aren't brought up, then the average move-watcher probably doesn't notice anything off.

Posted: **Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:13 pm**

Beast_enchantment wrote: <a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/ ... b_0316.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

^^Yes, Belle is most off model here.

This is honestly the only time I've really noticed when a character was off model. I never pay attention to background characters because really, that's all they are and I'm usually much more interested in what's going on with the main characters.

This scene does always pain me, though, when I watch Beauty and the Beast. Belle just looks so strange

Posted: **Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:27 pm**

ColorsOfTheWind wrote:
Beast_enchantment wrote: <a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/ ... b_0316.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

^^Yes, Belle is most off model here.
This is honestly the only time I've really noticed when a character was off model. I never pay attention to background characters because really, that's all they are and I'm usually much more interested in what's going on with the main characters.

This scene does always pain me, though, when I watch Beauty and the Beast. Belle just looks so strange

Belle is for some strange reason rotoscoped in this scene. You can tell when she is waving her arms around that it is not traditional hand drawn animation.

Never quite understood why.

Amy: I know that Disney films are known for their quality, but I rather have them work on a great story, great character animation and solid music than to work on every single detail and have a bad movie at hand.

Besides, despite the mistakes we have mentioned here they are still heralded as the best of its kind and the animation surpasses anything seen at the time of its release.

Posted: **Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:32 pm**

Yes, pap, you're right about that, but still the fact is that Walt Disney would never have allowed that kind of off-model characters in his pictures. He would not have six different Cinderella's. The fact of the matter is, that, since Eisner came in, budgets have been far more tight and time has been far more limited. You can hear animators talk on the DVD's about how they didn't have time for this-or-that because of the budget. You wouldn't hear any of that in Walt's days. In Walt's days, they spend 2 million on one scene in Sleeping Beauty!

Posted: **Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:51 pm**

Goliath wrote:Yes, pap, you're right about that, but still the fact is that Walt Disney would never have allowed that kind of off-model characters in his pictures. He would not have six different Cinderella's. The fact of the matter is, that, since Eisner came in, budgets have been far more tight and time has been far more limited. You can hear animators talk on the DVD's about how they didn't have time for this-or-that because of the budget. You wouldn't hear any of that in Walt's days. In Walt's days, they spend 2 million on one scene in Sleeping Beauty!

Yeah, I do agree that the animation in the Walt Disney era films were nearly perfect. But even then I believe some shortcuts were made, including the long rumored use of rotoscope animation during the 50's features (which I believe was really just reference footage).

I'm not forgiving the bad animation. Just saying that some elements are more important than others and while good details are appreciated if it comes at the expense of a solid film then I rather take the mistakes than a perfect looking film that is garbage.

Posted: **Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:54 pm**

pap64 wrote:
Goliath wrote:Yes, pap, you're right about that, but still the fact is that Walt Disney would never have allowed that kind of off-model characters in his pictures. He would not have six different Cinderella's. The fact of the matter is, that, since Eisner came in, budgets have been far more tight and time has been far more limited. You can hear animators talk on the DVD's about how they didn't have time for this-or-that because of the budget. You wouldn't hear any of that in Walt's days. In Walt's days, they spend 2 million on one scene in Sleeping Beauty!
Yeah, I do agree that the animation in the Walt Disney era films were nearly perfect. But even then I believe some shortcuts were made, including the long rumored use of rotoscope animation during the 50's features (which I believe was really just reference footage). And if I am not mistaken, Disney changed Sleeping Beauty's director because he WAS wasting 2 mil on one scene.

I'm not forgiving the bad animation. Just saying that some elements are more important than others and while good details are appreciated if it comes at the expense of a solid film then I rather take the mistakes than a perfect looking film that is garbage.

Posted: **Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:13 pm**

Beast_enchantment wrote: <a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/ ... pe1058.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

Are the background characters supposed to be bad here? They look pretty good to me. The next boat scene is where the people start looking crazy.

And I agree about the "Part of Your World (Reprise)" scene--Ariel always looked weird to me there. I wonder if that was rotoscoped, or just very weirdly animated.

Posted: **Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:18 am**

pap64 wrote:Amy: I know that Disney films are known for their quality, but I rather have them work on a great story, great character animation and solid music than to work on every single detail and have a bad movie at hand.

I do feel that other elements of the films rightfully deserve more attention and work and money, and so, yes, I agree with your posts in that sense. And overall, I'm quite happy with Disney's background characters. I was just meaning that, even though they're just "background" characters, we don't need them looking like Goodtimes rip-offs or something; they still should have that Disney quality.

pap64 wrote:Besides, despite the mistakes we have mentioned here they are still heralded as the best of its kind and the animation surpasses anything seen at the time of its release.

Okay, maybe I should've read your next sentence before typing what I wrote above.

Disney's Divinity wrote:Are the background characters supposed to be bad here? They look pretty good to me.

I agree. I mean, they don't need to be the most detailed characters, but compared to some other background characters, all of these ones look quite nice.

Posted: **Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:31 pm**

pap64 wrote:Yeah, I do agree that the animation in the Walt Disney era films were nearly perfect. But even then I believe some shortcuts were made, including the long rumored use of rotoscope animation during the 50's features (which I believe was really just reference footage).

You're right, shortcuts were made. I believe rotoscoping was used. I can't watch Cinderella and believe none was used for Cindy and Tremaine, at least. I also forgot all about the 1940's 'package features', which were done on a very small budget and were put together only to make quick, easy money because the studio needed it. And after Sleeping Beauty, costs had to be reduced dramatically, so they started using the Xerox-proces. So budget *was* an issue with Walt Disney, I stand corrected. But, like I said before: the animation didn't suffer from it.

Disney's Divinity wrote:And I agree about the "Part of Your World (Reprise)" scene--Ariel always looked weird to me there. I wonder if that was rotoscoped, or just very weirdly animated.

The only time she looks weird there, to me, is at the very end of that scene, when we see her en profil:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovHpMSxgbVw (at 1:38)

Her eyes look weird to me. In all other shots, she looks fine to me, probably better than in any other scene.

DVDizzy Forum

LAZY ANIMATION!