Goliath wrote:I can relate to what you wrote. Years ago, I used to take my personal problems out on innocent forum members (an other forum). I've learned not to do that anymore.
I've had the same experience. A couple forums in my past I got into a bad trend of being snarky and rogueish. Most of those happened while I was in middle school/a freshman in high school. So, yes, worst time of my life. But I intentionally tried to avoid that when I came here a few years ago, and I think this has been my favorite forum experience so far. That's why I had to apologize, because bad trends can turn into bad habits, and I don't want to ruin my time on this forum. Besides, it's unhealthy.
Now on to the actual on-topic stuff.
I watched the movie this morning, not just to be overcritical and analytical, only because I hate talking about something I'm only relying on memory for. Because sometimes my memory has proven to be faulty over the years. Besides, I haven't watched it in a while and didn't mind seeing it again.
The ones in the former film move like cartoon animals. You made a similar distinction between the dogs in Lady and the Tramp, 101 Dalmatians and Oliver & Company. So naturally, since I didn't see the difference myself, I was curious to learn which differences you see.
The only way I can describe it is...well...it's as if the animals kind of plop their feet back and forth without really moving any of their legs the way a dog would. I mean--don't get wrong--they look enough like animals that it doesn't
ruin the movie, but it's as if there is no muscle or structure to their legs (particularly their hind ones). I think the best way to see this is by comparing the Pongo look-a-like/cameo in "Why Should I Worry?" to the actual Pongo. Kind of horrible. Of course, this isn't completely across the board. DeSoto and Roscoe, in particular, are beautifully animated, and I think it's partly the fact that they
are animated more realistically that makes them so ferocious, because they are at odds with what we see of Dodger, Rita, etc.
Also, just as a side comment, I realized the humans are very well done in this movie (Winston, Sykes, and Fagin) even if their designs can be a bit off-putting. I think my only criticism would be Jenny. For the most part, she does what she's supposed to do (be cute and sympathetic), but her eyes seem to be a mixed bag. I don't know if she just isn't designed to
have complete eyes (there seems to be no pupils, only irises) or if she just lacks it in several scenes. In most of her earlier moments in the film, she seems to have pupils, or maybe the darkness of the blue gives the
illusion that she does (so I'm not sure), but other scenes (such as when she's at the fountain during her song about Oliver, or when she's at the dock with Fagin right before the climax) have a big blob of blue without any defintion. Which was kind of creepy. Either way, that is definitely a quick fix way of cutting costs, I would guess. Just not sure if it's related to the animation exactly. Maybe I've just got the evocation that the movie is "cheap-looking," even though the animation works fine for the most part, because of certain of these types of things.
That's kinda strange, when you think of the huge improvements in animation The Little Mermaid had.
Yeah, I always thought the fact that they had such a huge amount of effects for
Mermaid was rather strange. I mean, didn't they lose a lot doing that with
The Black Cauldron? And, from documentaries, the company never expected that much out of
Mermaid (it was a "girl's movie"; and they don't sell as well), and it seemed as if the animation department was getting the short end of the stick being relegated to lots, trailers and all that. Maybe it was just in response to seeing Bluth be successful at doing that with Secret of Nimh, etc. at the time. It's all very strange.
(Incidentally, there is a similar strangeness with
Treasure Planet; if you--or anyone else--ever have the time I strongly recommend this review:
http://antagonie.blogspot.com/2009/12/d ... ngs-i.html; this guy is a very in-depth and rational reviewer of animated films and their background, production, context, etc., especially where Disney's concerned. His other reviews are excellent, too).
But they *are* great films. The Little Mermaid and Aladdin are even in my top 10 of Disney films. I recently watched Beauty and the Beast for the first time in many years and was disappointed by it. I still think The Lion King is way overrated and I like the films following it much more.
True. I don't mind when people dislike the films because of actual
reasons instead of what seems like a bias or a grudge. I've had my own set of those that I've tried to overcome over the years, and I've actually come to recognize some good in nearly all their films, even the ones I still don't really like (
Peter Pan,
HOTR, and
Brother Bear, I'm looking at you). Also, sometimes I focus on the flaws so much that people think I hate a movie when I don't. For example, I actually do like
Pocahontas, though I think somewhere out there
BelleGirl thinks I despise it.
And
Hunchback has a lot of flaws that keep me from adoring it, but I don't hate that movie either. I love nearly everything Disney's done in some way or another.
You're right, of course, but Oliver & Company never tries to be a great, epic film, like the 'Fab Four'. Not all films can be alike. This film is just a fun, little film. The kind of animation like you mention wouldn't be fitting for it. Just like how Dumbo didn't have the same effects as its predecessors (sp?). While its animation is great, it's definitly much more low-key.
That's right. The main impression I got from re-watching the movie is that the animation seems to do what it
needs to do, without ever exceeding that. And, while that doesn't make it a bad film (animation-wise), it doesn't make it a great one either. It kind of sits in the middle. But sometimes being in the middle can be a bad thing--you just kind of forget about it.
Now you're introducing an extra argument. Now you make a distinction between main characters and sidekicks. You didn't before. I thought your main point of criticism with Oliver & Company was, that the animals don't move realistically. Well, neither does Louis. I don't say that's a bad thing, but it is a fact. I don't see why being a sidekick would make it less important. Either you value realistic movements, or you don't. I still don't see how the animals in Oliver move drastically different from those in Lady and the Tramp or 101 Dalmatians.
I didn't mean to sound like I'm just making things up--I know that comes across as if I'm consciously being inconsistent (part of the reason I'm a terrible debater; the emotional thing is another factor;
), but I just have some things in my head that come secondary to other things, and I have to introduce new things to help explain what I meant before. I know I've read something by you (or maybe it was someone else) that you don't understand this modern trend of identifying characters as "sidekicks" when they add to the story themselves (Dwarves, Genie, imo Sebastian). And I do agree with that
completely. I just think some characters, especially these days where companies has gotten themselves hooked on a formulaic assumption of what
is an animated film, some characters are relegated to comedic relief with nothing else to do. Not that that's a bad purpose for a character, but it kind of draws the eye away from them. So when I think of those types, I almost don't even consider their animation because the film doesn't seem to take them seriously, so I (wrongly or rightly) assume I shouldn't either. But you're right that Louis doesn't move anymore like a real animal than dodger, Rita, etc., it just doesn't hurt the film as much in my eyes as in
Oliver and Company because Louis is given the backseat to the characters we pay attention to. Ray, on the other hand (who is thankfully given a role more akin to the above characters--a rare thing to see now, sadly), is animated very well and, though there is a "funniness" to him, he's more than that. A very nice surprise.
Overall, I don't think
Oliver and Company is a bad film (I would feel that way regardless of the animation; I hope you weren't targeting me for being one of those people who are brainwashed by the Disney company into think everything from the 60s to late 80s--or even the late 90s--is crap). It has its flaws, such as characters jumping around and seeming to "float" in slow motion (I don't know if this is an example of what
Disney Duster means when he says "low frame rate") and some characters are noticeably bad when some quality is lost in side scenes, namely Georgette. Perhaps because we first meet her in "Perfect Is Me" where she's richly animated, that the times where she is drawn with an extra
lack of detail (looking like Missi Pyle) that it's more jarring. Oliver and Dodger's first meeting is also off a bit because the mouths only vaguely connect with the voice work (and this happens occasionally throughout the movie--more noticeable when compared to times when every word is clearly pronounced, such as when Francis is mimicking the actor on TV--and he isn't even the one speaking there!
). But, like you said, it is more of a fun film, and "epic" animation would be out of place in it. Again, there are moments of great character animation here, but I think this film does represent a bit of a substandard in quality. The 'small scope' of the story contributes to some of that, but I'm thinking they picked a film like this (or one like
The Great Mouse Detective) because they
knew it wouldn't require that much hard work, and used them as ways to make as much bang for your buck without having to do as much. So I think there is a reason why it doesn't stand out as very great next to other masterpieces Disney's had.
Wow, this turned off more ramble-some than I meant it to.
And I did realize that there wasn't that much of the "moving head, static body" flaw I thought there was. That's why I didn't mention it here.
Also, I wish someone would explain more clearly what they mean about
The Princess and the Frog, and, to
Disney Duster, the low frame rate thing. Because I thought the movie was beautiful and fluid, and the character animation was exquisite (I would rewind and watch most every scene with Charlotte and Naveen--as human or frog--in them). The movie does have a grounded stiffness to it at times (especially with some of the side characters, like Tiana's mother), but I loved the movie. Not just thematically, but its animation as well. I think the only thing that bothered me is the growing use of 3D techniques to side-step traditionally painted backgrounds. Overall, it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb, and, yes, that's a bit of a different topic, but it's the only thing I can think of as being bothersome in the film. I don't know what I'm missing here.
Oh, and
Disneykid, I loved reading what you said about
Alice in Wonderland's backgrounds (of the sky and other things), and how they reinforce the subjectivity of Wonderland and how it's defined by Alice when she's a part of it. I have to admit I haven't watched that film very much, but it's small things like that--which I don't always keep in mind when watching some of their films--that adds so much to the atmosphere and story direction without people like me even realizing it.
Also, I agree on both counts about your accuracy v. acting bit.
Cinderella has always been amazing to me in the way that it does capture those small (human) details. Any scene with Tremaine is absolutely amazing to me. The "if" scene is a particularly brilliant example. The way she 'giggles' and cocks her head as she lets her daughters in on her intentions is beautiful in its 'complex' simplicity.
I also had
Pocahontas in my first post on the same terms as
Hercules as being one of my favorite 'stylized' modern films, but I had seen people complaining about the noses and deleted it for sake of not arguing. But I always liked the design for that movie. Yes, I'm a little bit edgy towards any of the films that have a jagged, sharp edge (that look just never connects well to me), but I think the design works very well in
Pocahontas and the accuracy is a large part of its success. There is some stiffness that results from the design, but nothing deal-breaking. It also contributes to the feeling of Native American culture, influence, ideas, etc. throughout the movie.
Hunchback also is supposed to be influenced by the jagged architecture of Notre Dame, but I just never thought it worked as well as in
Pocahontas. Not because it's bad, but it seemed like Esmeralda, Clopin, Phoebus, and even Frollo come from a different, more "real," rounded film that Quasimodo or most of the peasants.
Oh, and
Lilo & Stitch definitely has a nice, round style to it that I like. (I recently saw this film a few weeks ago when it aired on the Disney XD channel) I think my only complaint is that the style goes a little far with Lilo. She almost looks like a muppet in a lot of her scenes.
