DVDizzy Forum

Disney Duster wrote:

Disney's Divinity wrote:Also, just because there are some idiots who like princess films for the glamour and the cliche, don't hold it against everyone. Serious fans look beyond the surface of a film.

If you are saying that to think something is the best just because it has things in it you like (magic, castles) like a comic book hero buff thinks a superhero movie is best because it's about superheros, then I will agree with you. But I certianly hope you're not calling me an idiot for my favorite movies being princess movies just because they are princess movies. Liking a movie because it has things in it you like doesn't make you an idiot.

I only meant that simply liking a movie because it's a "princess" film rather than because you enjoy its story/characters is idiotic. I mean, if all we wanted is a princess film, we'd all be satisfied with the Barbie CGI movies that've been churning out lately.

I just read through this thread for the first time (admittedly with some skimming). I wrongly assumed that it was another "Diznee rulz univerzal sux LOLZ cinderella 3'z muh favrut moovE" threads and so avoided it. But it turns out that it's a wonderfully lively discussion, the kind we've been in need of! (Although going forward, let's all make sure we're donning the cap of civility... the cap has gotten blown off a time or two). I've written a terribly long reply, one which is undoubtedly incoherent and nonsensical...

Some terrific points are being made here. Criticism of an era of Disney history (say, the present) doesn't have to be wholesale. A lot of things may have gone wrong this decade but that doesn't mean that every movie has been tainted by an irremovable Eisner stain. A lot of people seem to latch onto the notion of "contemporary Disney" sucks, at least when it comes to movies. An abundance of direct-to-video sequels and stinkers like <i>Atlantis</i> (which, before I'm jumped, is not without its merits) have convinced people that nothing Disney has done since <i>Tarzan</i> is worth seeing. That simply isn't true. As Netty, Loomis, and Ichabod have said, some of Disney's all-time best work in the feature film division has come since 2000.

On the flip side, I think there's a tendency to dump on commonly revered classics (<i>Cinderella</i>, <i>Sleeping Beauty</i>, etc.) largely because they're revered. That's understandable; I love <i>Cinderella</i> as much as the next guy buy my eyes start to roll on their own when I've seen the 500th thread on the subject.

The truth is that Disney has made both relatively good and relatively weak films all along. The year in which a movie was released is important for a symptomatic analysis, but otherwise shouldn't be a criterion on which a movie is critiqued. Strength of story, characterization, and animation are all valid points of praise or criticism, but condemning something by association with the decade it was released in lead to false and unfair categorization.

Perhaps worst of all, I fear that people won't even watch a recent Disney animated feature film simply because it's recent. <i>Cinderella III</i> was good but <i>Treasure Planet</i> was infinitely better. How many <i>C3</i> lovers give <i>TP</i> a chance, though? Maybe it's stereotyping on my part, but I suspect the answer is not many. Certainly not enough.

Loomis wrote:nothing annoys me more than something like The Polar Express and Beowulf that hire big names and then recreate them wrinkle for wrinkle on screen. What is the point of that, when you could just shoot the actors? If you want realism, go for live action.

Criticism of <i>The Polar Expressed</i> in the midst of a great point earns double applause from me!

ichabod wrote:But yet there are so many people here that will state till they are blue in the face that Sleeping Beauty is a masterpiece and yet sweep Treasure Planet under the rug.

What about people who praise both? Seriously, I'm thrilled to see so much love for <i>Treasure Planet</i> in this thread. I'm sad to see so much <i>Sleeping Beauty</i> hatred, though. As I've said many times, it's tied for my personal favorite of the animated classics. I recognize its flaws, of course, particularly in the story department, but its strengths far outweigh them. <i>Sleeping Beauty</i> <u>is</u> a masterpiece (if your definition of masterpiece allows for something less than perfection)... at least in the departments of animation, character design, score, etc. But <i>Treasure Planet</i> doesn't belong under anyone's rug.

ichabod wrote:Treasure Planet is quite possibly the most innovative twist on a classic, having the most character driven plot, the most intricately thought out characters. Some of the finest emotion in animation ever made from any studio. With stunning animation, design and effects.

More applause from me!

ichabod wrote:No. instead we get all this drivel about how Maleficent is one of the best Disney characters. Now Maleficent is wonderfully designed, have a superb voice provided by Eleanor Audley and is well animated. But, let's face she has hardly any character development and no motive. I mean she turns up at the palace and curses a baby. Why? Revenge? Jealousy? Anger? Prophecy? Greed? What? She does it, just, well, because she does.

True, her motive is lacking (but let's be fair, it's not absent). I think there's something to be said, though, for embracing a pure good-pure evil dichotomy. Do you really think most people hold Maleficent in such high regard because of her motive, though? A large part of a villain's job is to be scary, through whatever means they achieve that. Maleficent's merits might be a bit more aesthetic (read: shallow?), but I don't think it's fair to dismiss her as a villain or her fans on those grounds.

ichabod wrote:Has anyone ever said The Lion King sucks because Pumbaa has certain wind problems?

I'm sure they have, but there's a subtlety to the gas jokes in <i>The Lion King</i>. They function as a credit to Pumbaa's character, not to go for an obvious joke in the bluntest fashion available to the filmmakers (loud noise + silly = laugh). I don't think Pumbaa's problem ever becomes... audible (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm not trying to attack <i>Home on the Range</i> (which wasn't as bad as many make it out to be but was far from a masterpiece, as you yourself have said... I don't mean to imply that you contend anything of the sort), but my point is that though <i>The Lion King</i> does contain "fumor" (hey I just coined a phrase! ... Unless someone's said it before), its approach is more respectable than that of most movies.

(I wrote this before scrolling down and seeing that Disney Duster already made essentially the same point. Meh, I don't want to delete.)

ichabod wrote:By the same logic, if Chicken Little stinks because of a fart, then so does The Lion King.

Was the pun intended?

Kossage wrote:I have to agree, though, that after the song-driven DACs of the '90s I was initially somewhat disappointed in Tarzan using a different kind of style, although I still appreciated the catchy songs it had.

The problem with <i>Tarzan</i> is that it couldn't decide if it wanted to be a musical or not. The problem wasn't departing from the Disney+Menken musical formula. The problem was thinking that Disney+Collins was an acceptably different substitute. Why have a character start to sing a few lines and then shift from diegesis to a well-known pop singer's off-camera rendition? And the fact that they chose Phil Collins just added insult to injury.

ichabod wrote:... LEAVE CINDERELLA ALONE! ...

Marky_198 wrote:The decided to go in a completely different direction while they knew what the winning formula was.

Why is completely different a bad thing? Formula is not something to be desired in filmmaking, at least not generally speaking. Now, "fairytale" or "musical" is not a formula, but a (sub-)genre (with certain conventions, of course). Is that what you meant? You want more musicals and fairytales? Well, as a lover of both musicals and fairytales, I can sympathize. I don't want <i>only</i> musicals or fairytales or a combination of the two, though, and I can't imagine why anyone else would. Do you like different kinds of movies from other studios? If so, then why not welcome new kinds of movies from Disney? The only thing that ultimately matters is if they're good, not whether they adhere to a pattern established by past successes.

-Aaron

I'm finally going to give some opinions. I've been meaning to for some time, but I haven't found the right way to put my words across on the matter for some time.

Marky_198 wrote:The decided to go in a completely different direction while they knew what the winning formula was.

Whilst everybody has kinds of films that they will prefer to another kind of film, to say that any film in a genre less preferred is bad is narrow-minded. Now, I like fairy-tales and musicals, but if Disney had carried on making musicals, then chances are that they would have completely ruined the genre for themselves, just as (arguably) the huge wave of CG films has messed the market for animated films made using computers a bit. They almost came close to that, actually, as some critics in the late 90s, whilst appreciating Hercules and Mulan, also couldn't help but think that Disney were beginning to just redress The Little Mermaid in a more exotic place. This is probably what caused the move away from the stereotypical fairy-tale/legend/novel musical into films that were either non-musical or simply films-with-songs (aka songs of a consistent style throughout the film...).

Now, whilst some of the films that have come out of Disney in the past seven or eight years aren't all that great (Atlantis is a bit mediocre, but nothing in comparison to Chicken Little... ), it's not down to them not necessarily being conventional or unconventional or whatever. Rather, it's because I just don't like them artistically. Atlantis weren't completely to my taste, and whilst I might have to watch the film again, the general way the story was told didn't rub off too well on me. Chicken Little could have been okay, yet I didn't like how they inserted an alien story into the father-and-son story, making it feel as though I was trying to watch two different films at once (and Runt-of-the-Litter's design wasn't nice to look at, frankly). Yet they don't taint the Disney image in my eyes, and I feel that there are enough truly good films that overshadow these (Lilo and Stitch, Brother Bear, Home on the Range, Fantasia 2000 and Meet the Robinsons). In my opinion, over-merchandising is actually one of the things that is more destructive, with the Princess line having done much damage, in my opinion.

I think that the time has come for Disney to try and do some more musicals and/or fairy-tales alongside non-musical/normal-type-of-story films, as if done well, they would probably be well-received, and some people would stop moaning so much. However, if Disney really goes over-board, then Disney animation may just end up having to die altogether, unless you want to get press-releases like this:


"After having just brought to the screen classic fairy-tales and fables likeThumbelina, Puss in Boots, The Snow Queen, The Nightingale, Hansel and Gretel, Rumpelstiltskin, The Wild Swans, The Princess and the Pea, Jack and the Beanstalk, Tom Thumb, Donkeyskin, Bluebeard, The Wizard of Oz, The Nutcracker, The Selfish Giant, Dick Whittington, The Tinderbox, The Emperor's New Clothes, Little Red Riding Hood and Town Mouse and Country Mouse, Disney brings you their latest all-new animated musical classic:

THE FOX AND THE GRAPES

An eighty-minute extravaganza based on the Aesop fable, with the following hit songs: "I'm a fox!", "Let's all break into the vineyard", "Under the Tree", "Gotta get those grapes" and "I couldn't catch the grapes (they must have been sour)"






I know that press-release wasn't particularly amusing, but you get the point.

Ichabod, well yes, I did read your post. I already pointed out what Marky was (and was not) saying. Then you came in and said you were annoyed and there was imbecillic mindless prattle, that being old and being liked did not mean something was the best. Marky never said that, never said the word best at all, was just talking about realistic and mature and serious animation and stories - realistic for fairy tales but it's in the way the stories are told. Then you said there are a lot of posters who talk like they know what they are talking about, but really do not, that they confuse animation with digital colorings, backgrounds with characters, and animation with story, characters, or songs. It appeared to me you were directing this at Marky, since it was at least inspired by his post, and so it appeared you were assuming things about him he never revealed he thought.

Now, it's time for Disney Duster to admit that his love for Disney very much comes from the fairy tale films. There movies of fantasy. And Disney's the best at these fairy tales, with the great music and art and ways of telling the stories. And fantasy usually looks best in animation, because in animation anything is posssible. I like some of their other films, but Hercules is probably considered fantasy, too. And so I will admit I will only want to wtach a Disney film if A) It looks like it will be ABOUT something I like, or B) I hear it's really GOOD. Pixar films are usually really good, so I will be more willing to watch one of them even if they don't have castles or magic.

But never forget, I still think that beyond the fairytaleness, my favorite Disney films are good. What can I say, if I enjoy it I think others will enjoy it, too.

Wonderlicious, that press release actually was funny. Very. And I don't think anyone wants that to be Disney's future. They should only pick stories they think will work, and not all fairy tales will work. Also, loved the funny song titles!

How can anyone say what is Walt's taste? How do we know what Walt would like. I don't know if anyone realises this, but he's dead.

Looking at Walt's work we can suppose almost anything. There's evidence to support any view.

Walt's taste was for fairytales, told in a simple style? Well, by all accounts his favourite animated film was Bambi. Yet he never attempted such an animal/nature film again (Lady and the Tramp is perhaps the closest, but that was 9 films later). So perhaps he only made more fairytales because fairytales were popular? As for being told in a simple style, look at Pinocchio his second film. It's considerably darker and more complex than Sleeping Beauty or Cinderella.

Walt wouldn't like films like Home on the Range. Why not? When Walt was alive he allowed Saludos Amigos and the even more surreal The Three Caballeros to be made.

Walt wouldn't like Atlantis? Again why not. As has been pointed out, he seemed to lose interest in animation towards the end of his life and was much more enthused by live-action adventure films. Including 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. Perhaps Walt would have been awed by the sheer scope of the action and imagination in Atlantis. The same for Treasure Planet - even his first live action film was Treasure Island, and Treasure Planet although more modern, keeps the essence of the original text intact. In fact, I consider it a better adaptation than Walt's original.

We could go on all day - ever argument can be countered one way or another. Every view point can be validated. He's dead, and we'll never know what Walt would or would not want. Personally, I would hope he would veer on the side of experimation rather than stagnation.

This thread is a very interesting read. One rather frivolous point I'd like to make is that I believe Walt was cremated, so it would be very difficult for him to roll anywhere (even if we overlook the fact that the poor chap's dead in the first place).

Disney are restricted more than other studios because the family audience expects their animation to follow a specific ideology. Audiences seem to like the same story, or at least the same sort of story, over and over again. This is why the Princess films are so popular; they present an ideology which is much more satisfying to an audience than the rather more accurate ideology of 'Pinocchio' and 'Bambi', in which the world is a much more merciless and hostile place and people don't always get what they deserve. Although 'When You Wish Upon a Star' has become the Disney anthem it is outweighed in the actual film by the darker events that occur; in my opinion, this is what makes it and 'Bambi' such great films, but it also explains why the average audience is more disturbed by them and would much rather watch 'Cinderella' or 'The Little Mermaid', where they know there will be no permanent loss or darkness. When people think of the Disney ideology they generally think of the 'Snow White' ideology of 'everything will be alright in the end and all people will get what they deserve', and that is what audiences have come to expect from a Disney film. The studio can no longer be as creative as in the days of 'Pinocchio'; they have to follow this ideology, and the occasions where they haven't have not produced a profit.

The only 'Snow White' copy that didn't initially make a profit is 'Sleeping Beauty', where the ideology and sentimentality were there but the 'heart' wasn't. '101 Dalmatians' proves that bucketloads of sentimentality aren't required for a successful film; the 'happily ever after' ideology is still there but it doesn't feel so forced.

The style of '101 Dalmatians' is among my favourite of all the Disney features, second perhaps only to the first five films. It is satyrical and descriptive, it gets the animator's pencil line directly on the screen without any middle-man (or woman), it is absolutely perfect for animation (unlike the restrictive style of 'Sleeping Beauty'), it's delightfully British, and it's simply a pleasure to look at. I'll never understand how people dismiss Disney's greatest artistic success since 'Bambi' as 'grotty angular xerox stuff'.


Related to the subject of this thread is the blog of draconian animator John Kricfalusi. I don't always agree with what he says but it's a healthy read if only to show that Disney isn't always perfect, and he does often make good observations:

http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/

2099net wrote:How can anyone say what is Walt's taste? How do we know what Walt would like. I don't know if anyone realises this, but he's dead.

Seriously! I have to agree I think it's naive of Marky to suggest that something is no longer 'Walt's style' - Walt's style died when Walt died, because only he possessed it, but his style inspired those who worked for him, and it molded to the times and the new people. Live changes, life goes on, things change. To say what we see isn't Walt, or isn't Disney is a bit ludicrous - Walt himself was all about change and the acceptance of technology. Disneyland is a walking testament to that. If he said that as far as he was concerned Disneyland would NEVER be completed, why wouldn't he have that same vision towards the rest of his company, and his movies?

In short: What we see today is not "Walt" - and some of us who prefer "Walt" may not be all that enthusiastic about what we see today. But, fair enough, Walt was quick to embrace advances in the technology of his field (and even more), so there's really no way to tell that what we see today could not have been "Walt" if he were still alive (or had lived to see the 90s). It's never going to be the same again - and it never was.

Lars Vermundsberget wrote:In short: What we see today is not "Walt" - and some of us who prefer "Walt" may not be all that enthusiastic about what we see today. But, fair enough, Walt was quick to embrace advances in the technology of his field (and even more), so there's really no way to tell that what we see today could not have been "Walt" if he were still alive (or had lived to see the 90s). It's never going to be the same again - and it never was.

Well said, I hope everyone reads that. Walt Disney's movies did reflect his times, and so it's safe to assume his film would have changed with the times. Still, me likes princess, so I'm willing to accept old fairy tale with new information, new mentaility, new technology, new viewpoint, new story-telling methods, new art style, etc.


Okay, MagicMirror, I feel a need to understand some things you have said.

I will say it's true that Bambi is not the happiest happy ever after, because even though lots of animals, and our main hero and his girlfriend, get saved, and he has a baby, it's rather depressing because it is safe to assume his child will just go through similar misfortunes.

However, in Pinocchio, everything turns out right in the end! I'll admit the villains don't get their just deserts, but people should realize that even if this makes them happy, another's misfortune making you happy is not a good thing. Anyway, one criticism of Cinderella is that the villains do not get their justice either, though I would say Cinderella leaving them and the look on Lady Tremaine's face showed the stepfamily getting some backlash from all they did. However, this is comparable to Monstro probably feeling lousy that he didn't get to kill (and eat?) Pinocchio and Gepetto. Likewise, in The Little Mermaid, King Triton has to give up his daughter, and Ariel can't return to her home (excluding the sequel).

Do you think it's bad that some movies have more happy and less sad than others? If children are exposed to movies where things are better than in real life alongside those that depict life more like it is, will those movies that make it seem like things will be happier for them overtake their memories of the darker ones and they'll only expect the happy life?

And I'm wondering why you think 101 Dalmations was the only artistic success after Bambi, when Sleeping Beauty is in between, and the art is the most it has going for it. By the way, you are entitled to your opinion, and while I wish all films were able to have the benefit of having the animator's drawings transferred right to the cel, if they have to look sketchy with lines overlapping each other, no thanks. And so I do not like that Xerox style, but the rounder, storybook animation of, you betcha, the fairy tale films, as well as Bambi's and Fantasia's.

And as for "forced" happily ever afters, I don't agree with that word as a good descriptive for them, but I will say the princess happily ever afters do feel more dreamy and give more illusion that everything will be right afterward, unlike the other endings which seem to say, "events as bad as the ones you just watched won't happen to them again, but their's still room for everyday problems."

By the way, that blog is great! I loved what it said about qaulity of animation! The screencpas were so funny because the animation did look ugly. The Shrek princesses are ugly, and ugly and princess usually do not go in the same sentence. But how is the blog writer draconian?

I will say it's true that Bambi is not the happiest happy ever after, because even though lots of animals, and our main hero and his girlfriend, get saved, and he has a baby, it's rather depressing because it is safe to assume his child will just go through similar misfortunes.

However, in Pinocchio, everything turns out right in the end! I'll admit the villains don't get their just deserts, but people should realize that even if this makes them happy, another's misfortune making you happy is not a good thing. Anyway, one criticism of Cinderella is that the villains do not get their justice either, though I would say Cinderella leaving them and the look on Lady Tremaine's face showed the stepfamily getting some backlash from all they did. However, this is comparable to Monstro probably feeling lousy that he didn't get to kill (and eat?) Pinocchio and Gepetto. Likewise, in The Little Mermaid, King Triton has to give up his daughter, and Ariel can't return to her home (excluding the sequel).

Do you think it's bad that some movies have more happy and less sad than others? If children are exposed to movies where things are better than in real life alongside those that depict life more like it is, will those movies that make it seem like things will be happier for them overtake their memories of the darker ones and they'll only expect the happy life?

I think the difference between the worlds of, say, 'Snow White', and 'Pinocchio' is that, while the defeat of the Queen is sort of depicted as the elimination of all evil in the world - with the possible exception of the vultures who gobble her up, she's really the only character in the film with malicious intent, and she is the reason for all the misfortune in the film - evil is allowed to exist in many forms in 'Pinocchio'; though Stromboli probably threw a tantrum and Monstro has the mother of all headaches, they are all still alive and, more importantly, are still preying on innocent victims. Everyone Pinocchio meets outside Gepetto's workshop is either a bad influence on him or has sinister intentions - and the world of 'Pinocchio' remains a dark and terrible place. It's not like 'Sleeping Beauty', where the source of misfortune is completely and utterly vanquished - in Pinocchio it's merely avoided, so the characters still have to beware of danger.

I think with Cinderella, the implication was, at least for me, that Cinderella was free of her stepfamily's wrath when she married the Prince. I think a lot of people say the few seconds where Lady Tremaine gapes in shock at the second slipper - though short - are the most satisfying frames in the film! I think it was a necessary scene because of the way 'Cinderella''s story works; Lady Tremaine is a sort of 'Umbridge' villain who the audience loves to hate, and the payoff is her final defeat as much as it is Cinderella's success. Though she was not killed in the film, she was certainly defeated.

I don't have any problem at all with the ideology of films like 'Cinderella' and 'Snow White', but I think it is repeated too much; the majority of the 90s films, for example, even 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame', all follow the plot structure established in 'The Little Mermaid' (which is in turn inherited in part from 'Snow White', 'Cinderella' and so forth). In 'The Little Mermaid' it always seemed to me, even without the sequel, that she could go back and visit her father anytime; though they part, it isn't as much a feeling of loss or sacrifice as in Andersen's original story, or 'Bambi'. Similarly, 'The Lion King' treats the loss of a parent theme in perhaps a less poignant way than 'Bambi', because, while there is a feeling that Bambi's mother is gone forever, Mufasa lives on through his son and even converses with him at one point. Again, I don't think that these films are worse because of this, but Disney is forced to be a little kinder to family audiences now. I don't think they'd get away with making anything as dark as 'Pinocchio' now.

And I'm wondering why you think 101 Dalmations was the only artistic success after Bambi, when Sleeping Beauty is in between, and the art is the most it has going for it. By the way, you are entitled to your opinion, and while I wish all films were able to have the benefit of having the animator's drawings transferred right to the cel, if they have to look sketchy with lines overlapping each other, no thanks. And so I do not like that Xerox style, but the rounder, storybook animation of, you betcha, the fairy tale films, as well as Bambi's and Fantasia's.

It certainly wasn't the only artistic success since 'Bambi' (all the Disney films are artistically successful to an extent, in my opinion), but I personally think it was the greatest artistic success since 'Bambi'. I think many assume that 'Sleeping Beauty' is more artistically successful simply because it's more detailled, but I strongly disagree.

To quote 'Cartoon Modern' author Amid Amidi:

Amid Amidi wrote:There is no question that Earle produced some excellent work during the 1950s, particularly on the Disney shorts, but in my opinion, his art direction on SLEEPING BEAUTY was an artistic failure. It took me a long time to understand why I didn’t like Earle’s art direction on the film. That’s because in and of themselves, there are some beautiful backgrounds throughout SLEEPING BEAUTY. It’s not that Earle’s vision for the film is poor; it’s that as art director, his vision extended only as far as his backgrounds and didn’t encompass the needs of the entire film.

The costliest mistake was that Walt Disney granted an inexperienced animation artist like Earle so much control over the look of the film. When Earle was made the film’s art director in 1955, his total experience in animation totalled less than four years. He failed to understand the nature of animation production, which demands a creative give-and-take between competing artistic visions. Instead, Earle insisted that everybody follow his unwavering artistic ideas, not recognizing that his vision wasn’t expansive enough to carry an entire animated feature on its own. He ended up alienating himself from the animation crew, and didn’t pay attention to how his backgrounds worked in context of the character designs, animation and storytelling. Perhaps that’s one reason why people frequently describe the film’s look as ‘cold.’ Earle was unable to bridge the visual gap between backgrounds and characters, and there is an uneasy distance between the film’s visual elements. Granted, Tom Oreb did a commendable job of styling the character designs to fit into Earle’s visual scheme, but it is a superficial stylization that wasn’t followed through by the animation director or the animators.

The poor visual harmony of SLEEPING BEAUTY is moreso apparent when placed alongside Disney’s follow-up feature 101 DALMATIANS. Here is a terrific example of what happens when an entire crew is on the same page. DALMATIANS screenwriter and storyboard artist Bill Peet, who set the tone of the film’s design, had worked in animation for over twenty years, and he understood the type of characters that could work in animation. Peet’s direct and sketchy visual styling was picked up by the film’s art director Ken Anderson, who developed the look of the film in tandem with other artists like layout stylist Ernie Nordli, color stylist Walt Peregoy and character stylist Tom Oreb. Animator Marc Davis, who was sympathetic to the modernist qualities of the film, delivered one of the finest animation performances of his career, Cruella de Vil. 101 DALMATIANS feels solid visually because it was creatively inclusive and the entire crew was working together, unlike SLEEPING BEAUTY where a single individual took charge of the design and unsuccessfully tried to force the entire production to adapt to his stylistic eccentricities.

By the way, that blog is great! I loved what it said about qaulity of animation! The screencpas were so funny because the animation did look ugly. The Shrek princesses are ugly, and ugly and princess usually do not go in the same sentence. But how is the blog writer draconian?

I believe he's actually referred to himself as an 'Animation Machiavelli' or something of the sort, but all I was really referring to was his rather quick dismissal of, for example, the UPA cartoons, recent Disney features, and 'Ratatouille', as rubbish; he tends to have very strict requirements for good animation, and often dismisses what doesn't comply with his set of rules. But this is the case with all critics, and his blog is invaluably in other ways as it encourages aspiring animators to keep trying new things and not be 'inbred', and his criticism of Disney features and their 'stock characters' are often very accurate, and show how similar many of the films actually are. I agree that calling him 'draconian' probably was rather harsh, as, as I've said, he acknowledges his bias and always makes for an interesting read. I definitely agree with many of his criticisms of current animated films.

There are actually lots of animation blogs out there; my personal favourite is http://mayersononanimation.blogspot.com/, which has detailled scene-by scene analyses of 'Pinocchio'. http://cartoonbrew.com/ is another great one with a strong community.

Bravo Magic Mirror. You have rejuvinated my interest in this forum with that one post.

Best. Post. Of. The. Year.

disney magic still exist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5IE8PPI2Ko

2099net wrote: Bravo Magic Mirror. You have rejuvinated my interest in this forum with that one post.

Best. Post. Of. The. Year.

Thank you. I had written a much longer post originally, but eventually shortened it to something a little more concise, as I felt it was worthy of 'pseud's corner'!

And, akhenhaten, that video is very well done - I was laughing the whole way through.

Okay, well Magic Mirror, yes it was a good post. I pretty much agree with everything, all that about how evil has been thwarted but not defeated, and all else except the stuff about Sleeping Beauty. I think that even though the backgrounds are so stylized and so detailed that people say the characters might be overshadowed by so many painted shadows, the characters actually stand-out for their fewer lines and solid colors. And I think their vertical geometrical design is enough to fit in with the rest of the picture. But I guess that's my opinion.

And I really agreed with the part of the stepmother's reaction being so satisfactory. Cinderella's, "Haha up yours I beat you" expression matched with Lady Tremaine's "OMG impossible she out-smarted me no!" espression and the music and the mice dancing...perfection. To me. Geeze let me have my opinion.

Yes, I think I see where you're coming from with 'Sleeping Beauty'. I think it may be the Disney film on which most opinion is divided! For me it has very, very strong points and very, very weak points as well; it depends where one's passion lies I suppose. I think I just get rather annoyed at '101 Dalmatians' reputation as a cheap, grotty film when, in my opinion, it's a triumph of modern design. It is acknowledged by all as a commercial success but not many recognise it as an artistic one, which I think is rather sad.

Sorry if I sounded as though I was forcing my opinion on you; that wasn't my intention. It's just fun to have a debate.

Very well debated, I'd say - questions of "good "and "bad" don't really fit well within the realm of "fact" and "non-fact".

I'm late in replying to this, but I thought I'd better

AwallaceUNC wrote:That simply isn't true. As Netty, Loomis, and Ichabod have said, some of Disney's all-time best work in the feature film division has come since 2000.

Another ally in the war for 2000s film love!

AwallaceUNC wrote:On the flip side, I think there's a tendency to dump on commonly revered classics (<i>Cinderella</i>, <i>Sleeping Beauty</i>, etc.) largely because they're revered. That's understandable; I love <i>Cinderella</i> as much as the next guy buy my eyes start to roll on their own when I've seen the 500th thread on the subject.

I think you and I are of the same mind. Whilst I too enjoy watching these films. I think I do become slightly bitter towards them as thread upon thread appears about films like Cinderella with claims that "Cinderella is the greatest film created", or that Cinderella should be honoured as a masterpiece" or that "Two viewings of Cinderella a day helped my son walk again"!

The (at times) nonsensensical claims drive me crackers!

AwallaceUNC wrote:Perhaps worst of all, I fear that people won't even watch a recent Disney animated feature film simply because it's recent. <i>Cinderella III</i> was good but <i>Treasure Planet</i> was infinitely better. How many <i>C3</i> lovers give <i>TP</i> a chance, though? Maybe it's stereotyping on my part, but I suspect the answer is not many. Certainly not enough.

Precisley. I recently made the comment in another thread about someone claiming that Cinderella III had great animation. Now whilst Cinderella III is certainly an improvement in all ways from the first few Direct to video sequels that appeared. The hard truth is that it still is not up to the standard of a WDFA project, by a long way.

AwallaceUNC wrote:What about people who praise both?

Well it's not often we find them, and when we do they're usually on display at Ripley's believe or not and we can't get them for interview.

AwallaceUNC wrote: Seriously, I'm thrilled to see so much love for <i>Treasure Planet</i> in this thread. I'm sad to see so much <i>Sleeping Beauty</i> hatred, though. As I've said many times, it's tied for my personal favorite of the animated classics. I recognize its flaws, of course, particularly in the story department, but its strengths far outweigh them. <i>Sleeping Beauty</i> <u>is</u> a masterpiece (if your definition of masterpiece allows for something less than perfection)... at least in the departments of animation, character design, score, etc. But <i>Treasure Planet</i> doesn't belong under anyone's rug.

Like I said earlier, I find value in every animated classic. But when I hear such ridiculous exaggerated claims about how brilliant something is. I think to combat the persistance of these claims, the counter argument also becomes a little exaggerated simply to out balance the original unbalance.

If that makes any sense whatsoever.

AwallaceUNC wrote:

Bows, humbly

AwallaceUNC wrote:I think there's something to be said, though, for embracing a pure good-pure evil dichotomy. Do you really think most people hold Maleficent in such high regard because of her motive, though? A large part of a villain's job is to be scary, through whatever means they achieve that. Maleficent's merits might be a bit more aesthetic (read: shallow?), but I don't think it's fair to dismiss her as a villain or her fans on those grounds.

As I pointed out, Maleficent has her strong points. In terms of design, she is visually stunning and she does command a chilling prescence. However she is far from "The full package", and this does make her far from being labelled as the ultimate quintessential Disney villain. A claim lauded upon her far too often.

AwallaceUNC wrote:

Ahem, no comment

It could be argued that as Pumbaa's windy problem was character defining, so could Runt's. After all what goes in must come out.

So, I searched for "Bill Justice", but um, this thread showed up and he's not mentioned.

But, regardless, it's a general enough thread!

Giving Thanks for Bill Justice
http://thedisneyblog.com/2009/11/19/giv ... l-justice/

I'm planning on sending a card. Maybe it'll brighten his holidays a bit if fans send him cards!

Geez, does anyone here ever come to think that Disney animation has always been changing? That the movies have always changed with styles in storytelling and art? None of the "classic" films are exactly the same and each has their own good, bad, and ugly qualities. I don't see how anyone can say that just because of some financial disappointments that the film's are bad or not worth being appreciated. I agree that the Disney company has been changing, but it can be for the better, instead of the worse.

Dragonlion wrote:Geez, does anyone here ever come to think that Disney animation has always been changing? That the movies have always changed with styles in storytelling and art? None of the "classic" films are exactly the same and each has their own good, bad, and ugly qualities. I don't see how anyone can say that just because of some financial disappointments that the film's are bad or not worth being appreciated. I agree that the Disney company has been changing, but it can be for the better, instead of the worse.

Here, here! Besides, if everything they did was the same, it would get extremely boring after a while. I love hearing about new or unusual projects that they have planned. Different can be very, very good!