The Princess and the Frog Discussion - Part II

[Siren]

I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and realize the difference between animation and style.

Example:



compared to...



compared to...



compared to...




Now is ANY of that truthfully...."bad animation"....The character move fluidly, they belong in the environments, they express emotion well, their design is on mark.

Remember, animation is just moving art. And art is always up for examination and opinions.

Picasso did these both..



Is either of those truly bad art? Or is it just, a different style?

People are entitled to like whatever form of animation they do. I happen to LIKE the animation of the 70s films. I how its unclean lines. Its a nice style. Does that make me wrong?

[universALLove]

It's a different style in my opinion. By changing styles it shows you can be diverse whilst still creating beautiful, fluid animation.

[DARTH KNITE]

I few things to address here:

First, I vastly disagree with that the 90's movies, were inferior to Walt's. I think they were at the same level and in some cases more powerful. I will say that my fav ones are Beauty, Lion, and Hunchback, so I'm naturally inclined to like things that are more mature in nature.

As for what's wrong with Hercules and Tarzan:
IMO Tarzan was saturday morning cartoon looking people, with great backdrops. Really irritating to watch those two styles of animation so poorly mixed. I guess you could call that its style, but to me it made it impossible to take the movie seriously. Second, Tarzan had no story. He just swings around for an hour and they throw the villain and the heroin in at the last minute to wrap it up. As for the score, I probably would of liked it more had Phil Collins not sung it himself. He has that same whiny pitch that Randy Newman has. And I totally agree that Randy's music is a lot better when sung by someone else. Still not very good though and certainly not at the level of the studio's 90's composer/lyricist though. To me the score to Frog, based on his prior work, is already a lost cause.

As for Hercules, I almost found in insulting to follow up so much strong work with a something so fluffy and IMO pointless. Not after all the strong messages that dominated its predecessors.

I also don't think it's acceptable to say that "we'll never reach our previous quality" and move on. That should always be the goal. I don't think that's in any way an excuse for weak movies.

As for the trailer, there is no reason to not try to establish emotional ties right away. Are we forgetting the trailer for Lion King and Pocahontas??? The movies were so strong all it took was showing a song from it to make a powerful and moving trailer. That's what this needed sooo badly, and they have failed to deliver that. I remember seeing the audiences during those previews simply awestruck, and that is NOT happening with this movie at all. They needed something bold, and moving, and powerful, and this is not gonna be that movie. Especially if they're trying to return to hand drawn animation. I honestly wonder if they want it to be bad, so they can quiet people who complain about Pixar. It really feels that weak to me. It just feels like they're not even trying.

[Marce82]

Wow...so many things to address here...

As for the the films in Walt's lifetime were better...actually, I think they were when it came to the animation. The craftsmanship in those films (especially 50s) is amazing...there is incredible subtlety to the performances, there is weight, changing perspectives...just amazing stuff. But then again..which one of the films have both great storytelling and great style? They are all enjoyable...but they all have flaws.

The 90s films were darn good. The animation wasn't quite as good, but the storytelling was much stronger, better paced...

As for Tarzan and Hercules....

Hercules' problem isnt style....its often lame humor...too many characters (herc, Meg, Hades, Phil, Pain, panic, the muses, the fates, the titans, the gods...herc's parents...)...too many location changes...just too much plot. And when you have too much plot...its hard to keep a good rythm. You pretty much have four characters (FOUR!) each on their own quest for something...thats just too much!
Tarzan had an inconsistent plot. Almost two separate movies once Sabor dies. The father-son relationship isnt explored well...and since its in the jungle ALL the time, the art direction doesnt have much room to grow. And very much like Phil Collin's voice, the movie is pretty much mono-tone. There isnt even a romantic song! Only a break within a song. Also, design-wise, jane and Tarzan dont look like they belong together. He is very anatomy drive, she is very cartoony, and almost challenges logic with the length of her neck and position of her nose...

Again...my two cents.

I think its too soon to judge TPATF...I think the subject matter might be "playing it safe"...but one never knows. There is a lot of potential...

[Disney Duster]

Oh I gotcha pap and Divinity.

As for animation being cartoony 'because it's a cartoon'...look, I know these can and have been called cartoons or cartoon features by even Walt himself, but we all know that Walt intended these to be more than cartoons. They are simultaneously cartoons and feature films. However, the shorts were not considered short films, but cartoons. We all know Walt and every feature animator since him intends the animated features to be more than cartoons, and yes, even live-actiony, at least more live-actiony than the shorts.

Also, certain animated films can and have been considered more live-actiony than other animated films, or certain elements of those films have been, such as the backgrounds, animation, designs, pacing, editing, etc.

As for difference between style and animation, yes there is a difference, but that is not the only difference The Princess and the Frog shows.

The character designs or style of this film look great to me (except Mama Odie, she frightens me).

But the animation...not so. And an animator himself has been on here...

I bet there's some really flowy great animated scenes in this film, but it doesn't seem to be as much as in all previous films.

Which may be understandable for what happened to their 2D and what they have to do, but I don't know about exceptable. I'm just not sure they couldn't put in a few more frames and fluidity, as well as more more realisticness, or live-actionness...lol.

[pap64]

People also need to realize that this movie will be the first 2D theatrical feature in a while.

Someone please answer me this; didn't Disney close down a great deal of the 2D animation department after Home on the Range ended production? I know that the animated segments in Enchanted were done by another studio, which means that at the time they didn't have a proper studio to begin with.

The reason I am asking this is because if the animation in Princess and the Frog ends up not being as good as everyone expected its likely because even though they are being guided by the master Disney animators many of them are new and this is probably their first animated features.

Remember, the only animation house Disney had during the CG era was Disneytoon Studios, so maybe they hired some animators from there when the film began production.

Again, someone correct me if I am wrong. I know they closed some studios down but I am not 100% sure.

[Escapay]

Someone please answer me this; didn't Disney close down a great deal of the 2D animation department after Home on the Range ended production?

The entire Feature Animation unit in Orlando closed (all 400-or-so employees were laid off), though I can't remember if that was before or after Home on the Range. I have a strong feeling it was after production was finished.

The Burbank unit also downsized greatly from 1000/1500 traditional animators to a mere 60 (according to this 2003 mouseplanet article). The article is a good read, as it notes that 13 animators had to submit 5 CGI scenes in order to determine which 6 would be placed on the Chicken Little animation team. Also, it mentions how the animator's equipment and furniture were sold off, put in a warehouse, or junked. If an animator wanted to keep their desk, they had to buy it from Disney. BUY it.

I know that the animated segments in Enchanted were done by another studio, which means that at the time they didn't have a proper studio to begin with.

Yeah, Enchanted's animation was done by James Baxter Studios. Baxter himself became well-known via Disney as he started on Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and was a supervising animator for the DACs from The Little Mermaid to The Hunchback of Notre Dame, before leaving Disney to work at DreamWorks (again as supervising animator) from films between The Prince of Egypt and Madagascar, before returning to Disney for Enchanted (at which point he had already had his own studio). He went back to DreamWorks for Kung Fu Panda and Monsters vs. Aliens.

albert

[pap64]

So, there's a good chance Disney either hired back all of its old staff or hired brand new animators and had them train under the masters, in the same way that the animation team behind The Fox and the Hound trained under the surviving Nine Old Men.

So Princess and the Frog could be like the Little Mermaid in which they worked with a small team of animators and didn't really take off till Beauty and the Beast.

In other words, if Princess and the Frog is greatly successful and more 2D animated films are made they could be better than Princess and the Frog.

Note that I am not saying the movie has bad animation. In fact I think people are being nitpicky over it. But it might be because the team behind this is brand new to the art.

[Escapay]

So, there's a good chance Disney either hired back all of its old staff or hired brand new animators and had them train under the masters, in the same way that the animation team behind The Fox and the Hound trained under the surviving Nine Old Men.

Well, just looking at the names in imdb, most of the ones listed under Animation Department have been in the business for awhile and most have done their fair share of Disney films (in both traditional and CGI). Only a couple (Jon Krummel, Joe Pitt) look to be new hires based on their short resumes.

albert

[Escapay]

BBFC has cleared a "Sneak Peek" for The Princess and the Frog that will appear on the Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: Diamond Edition.

SNOW WHITE: DIAMOND EDITION - BONUS: PRNCESS AND THE FROG SNEAK PEAK
Video Feature
Classified 08 July, 2009 .
Run Time 7m 23s

Video 08/07/2009 Buena Vista Home Entertainment 7m 23s SNOW WHITE: DIAMOND EDITION - BONUS: PRNCESS AND THE FROG SNEAK PEAK

We all know what this means. Rampant discussion and arguments of what the 7 minute and 23 seconds will contain. Then, come October, it will be rampant discussion and arguments of what was in the 7 minutes and 23 seconds.

albert

[Elladorine]

So, there's a good chance Disney either hired back all of its old staff or hired brand new animators and had them train under the masters, in the same way that the animation team behind The Fox and the Hound trained under the surviving Nine Old Men.

Well, just looking at the names in imdb, most of the ones listed under Animation Department have been in the business for awhile and most have done their fair share of Disney films (in both traditional and CGI). Only a couple (Jon Krummel, Joe Pitt) look to be new hires based on their short resumes.

albert

I know that my friend was not hired back by Disney. He wasn't even aware of tPatF was in production until I told him late last year, he was under the assumption that Disney wouldn't go back to traditional animation so soon.

[Marky_198]

IMO Tarzan was saturday morning cartoon looking people, with great backdrops. Really irritating to watch those two styles of animation so poorly mixed. I guess you could call that its style, but to me it made it impossible to take the movie seriously. Second, Tarzan had no story. He just swings around for an hour and they throw the villain and the heroin in at the last minute to wrap it up. As for the score, I probably would of liked it more had Phil Collins not sung it himself. He has that same whiny pitch that Randy Newman has. And I totally agree that Randy's music is a lot better when sung by someone else. Still not very good though and certainly not at the level of the studio's 90's composer/lyricist though. To me the score to Frog, based on his prior work, is already a lost cause.

As for Hercules, I almost found in insulting to follow up so much strong work with a something so fluffy and IMO pointless. Not after all the strong messages that dominated its predecessors. .

I absolutely agree with you. People can call it "a different style" but I think the look of tarzan and Hercules is completely unacceptable for a classic. And my fear is that the cartoony, stretchy, slapstick style of TPATF will be exactly like that.

As for the trailer, there is no reason to not try to establish emotional ties right away. Are we forgetting the trailer for Lion King and Pocahontas??? The movies were so strong all it took was showing a song from it to make a powerful and moving trailer. That's what this needed sooo badly, and they have failed to deliver that. I remember seeing the audiences during those previews simply awestruck, and that is NOT happening with this movie at all. They needed something bold, and moving, and powerful, and this is not gonna be that movie. Especially if they're trying to return to hand drawn animation. I honestly wonder if they want it to be bad, so they can quiet people who complain about Pixar. It really feels that weak to me. It just feels like they're not even trying.

You are so right, those trailers were extremely strong and moving, the PATF trailer is really a saturday morning slapstick cartoon.

Yes, I know this is about animation, so in the end it is a cartoon, but if people don't see the difference they have just never watched a real Disney classic properly.

And I also agree that the music is very important, and it's about time they made a film again where the characters are actually singing instead of Phil Collins or someone else. It's a shame they didn't use a better composer for this one.

[Disney Duster]

Marky, maybe you want to consider that there's the traditional classic Disney legend or fairy tale, and then there's a comedic, edgy treatment of that legend or tale. Hercules was meant to be very comic, and so the style they chose fits it, but they also styled the characters after Greek art!

As for The Princess and the Frog, it is meant to be like a classic fairy tale, which means it should be treated more gracefully, but it also has a comedic edge, so I don't mind some cartooniness. It just needs a bit less of it, and a bit more of the realistic fairy tale grace the past ones had. It's just a little too cartoony.

Now that I think about it, some people complained Hercules was too comical, and one person even felt it was making fun of Greece culture and stories. Maybe it should have had a bit more realisticness and seriousness. But, I like the film a lot for what it's supposed to be.

And also now that I think about it, I disagree with The Princess and the Frog not being like the original royal tale of long ago, so maybe I just don't care if it's cartoony or not since it's kind of ruined. I wouldn't care if somehow Disney decided back in middle-aged Germany there somehow was a black princess, adopted by a very understanding and loving king and queen, in a very accepting made up kingdom somewhere in Germany. Hey, it's a fairy tale! And that would be imaginitive and new, wouldn't it?

[DARTH KNITE]

For the record, I always knew Hercules' style was based on Greek art, and I would even say that that style fit the comedic tone of the movie. The problem was that the Greeks are remembered for their tragedies more often than not, and while it didn't need to be as sad or mature as its direct predecessor, Hunchback, it was still too far of a leap to take seriously. The difference between Disney movies and the animation you usually see on television was the depth and meaning, and they abandoned that. To me the biggest problem with PATF isn't necessarily the style but the story. It's already a hard film to take seriously, they needed something much more powerful for this comeback to work. Again IMO.

[2099net]

I absolutely agree with you. People can call it "a different style" but I think the look of tarzan and Hercules is completely unacceptable for a classic. And my fear is that the cartoony, stretchy, slapstick style of TPATF will be exactly like that.

/facepalm

Classic/Smassic. It's only marketing labelling them as classics.

Really, you really think that? That all films should be the same. How is Hercules different from the cartoony dwarves in Snow White, or the angular stylisation in Sleeping Beauty.

I also see you ignore the fact it is also one of the best animated Disney movies or all too. It takes more skill to make non-realistic characters animate convincingly than characters closer to reality.

I still think Meg is the apex of all Disney animation.

The difference between Disney movies and the animation you usually see on television was the depth and meaning, and they abandoned that. To me the biggest problem with PATF isn't necessarily the style but the story. It's already a hard film to take seriously, they needed something much more powerful for this comeback to work. Again IMO.

I find Hercules a film with a lot more depth than say, Beauty and the Beast or The Little Mermaid and definitely more depth than Sleeping Beauty. Hercules is a very underrated film because people can't get past the style. And not just the visual style, but the comedy/satire style.

There's certainly more depth and tragedy in Hercules than Beauty and the Beast. Beauty and the Beast has very little drama, no romance, no huge tragedy - you never fell the Beast has to fight to win/keep Belle, when he let's Belle out of her promise at appears to be more because he has given up than a sacrifice. When the Beast "dies", he's dead for all of 2 minutes or less. None of the transformed enchanted objects angst over their position. In short, Belle arrives, and everybody in the movie just assumes she and the Beast will fall in love.

Compare that to Hercules. Even ignoring the fact Hercules must actually work to prove himself, you also have the story of Meg who has a hidden past, Meg's seemingly betrayal of Hercules, and Hercules actually makes a sacrifice at the end - the happily ever after isn't simply handed to him on a plate.

I think, apart from Treasure Planet, and Hunchback, Hercules is actually the most serious, tragic and adult animated films Disney has done (you need to be pretty adult and cynical to get some of the celebrity satire throughout the film too)

[yukitora]

All the previews make it took like a timeless classic, but I felt that the timing of things in the sneak preview just felt odd. In the end, I think it'll be a great, sucessful movie.

I also thinks it's funny how they keep saying stuff like "she'll won't be waiting for her prince" and "the prince won't be just a prize" when those movies (the three walt princess films) will always be regarded as highly suprior to anything else. and to snow whites/cinderella/rose's defence, theres not much else you can do when your locked in a tower or in a coma

Like I explained before, the sneak previews were made for the tween audience that were watching Princess Protection Program that night (hence why they focused a lot on the humor). The trailer was likely made to attract the older Disney fan, hence why the previews feel weird when compared to the trailer.

Uhm, you seem to eager to defend something that wasn't even being attacked. I was saying that (i thought) the timing felt wrong (as in, a few more pauses here and there, maybe different music). I think the humour is funnier than ever

[Elladorine]

It takes more skill to make non-realistic characters animate convincingly than characters closer to reality.

I can totally vouch for that. The stylized characters that we see in a film like Hercules aren't nearly as simple as they look and are actually much more difficult to depict in a convincing, appealing manner than most people would give them credit for.

[PatrickvD]

I absolutely agree with you. People can call it "a different style" but I think the look of tarzan and Hercules is completely unacceptable for a classic. And my fear is that the cartoony, stretchy, slapstick style of TPATF will be exactly like that.

/facepalm

Classic/Smassic. It's only marketing labelling them as classics.

Really, you really think that? That all films should be the same. How is Hercules different from the cartoony dwarves in Snow White, or the angular stylisation in Sleeping Beauty.

I also see you ignore the fact it is also one of the best animated Disney movies or all too. It takes more skill to make non-realistic characters animate convincingly than characters closer to reality.

I still think Meg is the apex of all Disney animation.

oh yeah, THANK YOU.

I can't stand the ignorance around the whole classics stuff. Hercules actually had strong writing. The same cannot be said about movies like Sleeping Beauty and Alice in Wonderland. Not the classiest of classy, lovely, round "classic" look could save poor storytelling.

The reason people like to exclude Hercules is because they simply don't understand the design of the film.

[pap64]

I'm honestly starting to believe the reason fans don't see Hercules, Tarzan and Treasure Planet as "Disney Classics" is because they didn't do well enough at the box office and Disney doesn't market them as incredible films. They are convinced that just because Disney labels Beauty and the Beast as a classic while ignore Hercules it means one is inferior than the other, which is a load of bull considering the films have a great visual style, great music and great writing.

[Neal]

I've heard a lot of negativity about "Treasure Planet" being an Eisner 'vanity project' and not a 'work of art'. I have yet to see TP (eagerly looking forward to soon), but multiple people have cast off TP because they feel it wasn't about being a good movie, it was about being a flashy piece of animation.