DVDizzy Forum

The cool thing about Pinocchio... it always has the shortest line at Disneyland!

I'm looking forward to the PE edition.

Barbossa wrote:The cool thing about Pinocchio... it always has the shortest line at Disneyland!

Actually, I think Snow White's line is shorter. At least it is when I'm at Disneyland.

I don't mean that the animation is bad,the characters looks kinda cubby,thought it was also in Snow White,I prefer the animation in Peter Pan,Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty or Aladdin or Beauty and the Beast.
Okay,whatever ,the story is boring ,it's long and bring IMO.

I'm guessing Ariel's prince hasn't seen Pinocchio in a long time because it really is a wonderful film.

.
I already re-watched clips on YouTube and the animation is just slow,the film is just slow and boring.

Just like I know Atlantis: the Lost Empire is a terrible movie despite my love for it.

I think terrible is a bit harsh...

On Pinocchio, I had the VHS as a kid and watched it again and again. I haven't seen it in years and can't wait for the Platinum Edition. I hope they give it a decent treatment though in the special features department - more Snow White, less Peter Pan please...

steve wrote:

Just like I know Atlantis: the Lost Empire is a terrible movie despite my love for it.

I think terrible is a bit harsh...

Ehh, not for the movie in question.

The animation in 'Pinocchio' bad? Does this mean that 'Pokemon' is the height of artistic excellence?

Seriously, I think the animation in the Golden Age films (Snow White through to Bambi) is generally better than any of the later films, and I don't think that's a radical statement at all. Even those of the Nine Old Men who worked on the film (which was all except Marc Davis, I think) do some of their best work on the film; in the case of Reitherman, Lounsbery, Kimball, Thomas and possibly even Kahl it may even be their best work. There are also contributions from the old masters, like Bill Tytla, Art Babbit, Ham Luske and Norman Ferguson.

Not to mention the superior art direction, second only to 'Fantasia' (and possibly tied with 'Bambi'). The style established by Gustaf Tenggren and Albert Hurter works far better withv the animation than the style of, say, Eyvind Earle, or even Mary Blair. For me 'Pinocchio' and 'Fantasia' represent Disney animation at the height of its excellence.

Ariel'sprince wrote:I already re-watched clips on YouTube and the animation is just slow,the film is just slow and boring.

Yes, because the best way to judge anything is to watch it in 5 to 10 minute chunks with inferior video quality on YouTube.

And MagicMirror gets a . I always love his posts.

Albert

Yeah, Pinocchio has great animation. It's the design that bothers me mostly (Stromboli and the Coachman are menacing in intention, though silly in design). Overall, though, Pinocchio's a great film and one of the last ones I've been waiting for.

I think terrible is a bit harsh...

I agree. I re-watched Atlantis recently and was surprised that it wasn't as horrible as I remembered. It's still a failure in many respects, but it wasn't "terrible."

MagicMirror, you've said that the animation of the earliest Disney films is generally superior to that of the later ones. By later ones, I take it you're referring to the 50s features. I have to ask though, by superior animation do you mean the movement of the character animation is better, in that it's more life-like or has more spark and verve to it? Or are you referring to the fact that it seems films like Cinderella or Peter Pan have a blander look? Let me explain myself. A Snow White still would reveal the rouge on Snow's cheeks, a white/grey line around her hair, giving it a soft look, and many shadows. Basically, a lot of finishing touches to the cels which go beyond simply inking the outlines and painting the insides. The same goes for Pinocchio, Fantasia or Bambi. But looking at a feature film like Cinderella I can't help but notice that those 'luxuries' were no longer administered. Alice, Peter and Lady all seem to suffer the same fate, and I seriously doubt that the exclusion of these refinements were simply an artistic or stylistic choice. If they were deliberate, however, then I'd guess it was because of the flat nature of Mary Blair's artwork (though I personally don't feel Blair radically influenced the look of certain films ... she seems to be reflected in the little things. I think Alice is the most Blairish Disney film. Cinderella and Peter Pan aren't always that obvious).

In the end, is animation quality also defined by the painstaking 'finishing touches', which, however, don't really affect the way a character moves?

I personally like to judge animation based on the original pencil animation drawn by the animator, before it is coloured, enhanced and cleaned-up. Hence, I think one can find great animation in the simplest of character models. I'm referring to simplicity here because Emperor's New Groove and Lilo & Stitch were criticised for their animation as not being up to standard. The critics normally cite a lack of detail in the characters. So what!? It's the way a character moves that counts, not how many wrinkles you can draw on his face! If detail was really the issue, then anime would win the animation crown because your average Miyazaki film is ten times more detailed than a Disney animated feature. That doesn't mean it's superior. American animation simply differs from Japanese animation, that's all. They both have their merits.

So, the Emperor's New Groove is criticised with having the quality of its animation a notch below the usual Disney level. But I disagree. It may not have the effects animation and stunning Deep Canvas sequences of Tarzan or Treasure Planet, but I think it has some (very) stunning character animation in the form of Yzma. Let's face it ... the animation in Emperor rocks! I don't think a mediocre animator can pull off Yzma! And that original animation may have been just a scruffy form of doodles on the animator's original sheet of paper. But even in that scruffy form, lacking detail, it's already a great animation - because it's the movement that counts ... the passion in the movement of something as subtle as an eyebrow or an elbow. The clean-up artists can do the rest.

I think the only thing that dates Pinocchio is its use of rotoscoping on the Blue Fairy.

Pinocchio was made during the high of what I like to call "Walt's realist animation." Around this time, Walt was striving to really blur the line between live action and animation, which is why those early film used a heavy amount of human and animal models in an attempt to mimic their movements on screen without using rotoscoping. At the same time, he was still using a his type of the "plausable implausible" scenarios for some of his physics defying, light hearted material. I really don't want to get to an argument about what is "good" or "bad" animation. I just think that Pinocchio was one of the best film the studio did using this style.

Also, I think this was probably the best depiction of a sympathetic, naive young boy to come out of the studio until their release of the Lion King (Simba) 50 years later. The strength of this character, along with that of Geppetto and Jiminy Cricket, who balances the role of comic relief and sincere friend extraordinarily well. One of the studio's best.

I personally like to judge animation based on the original pencil animation drawn by the animator, before it is coloured, enhanced and cleaned-up. Hence, I think one can find great animation in the simplest of character models. I'm referring to simplicity here because Emperor's New Groove and Lilo & Stitch were criticised for their animation as not being up to standard. The critics normally cite a lack of detail in the characters. So what!? It's the way a character moves that counts, not how many wrinkles you can draw on his face! If detail was really the issue, then anime would win the animation crown because your average Miyazaki film is ten times more detailed than a Disney animated feature. That doesn't mean it's superior. American animation simply differs from Japanese animation, that's all. They both have their merits.

I agree that both Groove and Stitch were very well animated films.

Big Disney Fan wrote:

Barbossa wrote:The cool thing about Pinocchio... it always has the shortest line at Disneyland!

Actually, I think Snow White's line is shorter. At least it is when I'm at Disneyland.

Whatever is across from Peter Pan and Toad always has a short line.

Julian Carter wrote:MagicMirror, you've said that the animation of the earliest Disney films is generally superior to that of the later ones. By later ones, I take it you're referring to the 50s features. I have to ask though, by superior animation do you mean the movement of the character animation is better, in that it's more life-like or has more spark and verve to it? Or are you referring to the fact that it seems films like Cinderella or Peter Pan have a blander look?

The former. I agree that the raw animation is what is being judged. I think the 'poster boy' for the Golden Age animators is Tytla; colleagues stress how powerful his original animation drawings of Chernabog were. This actually demonstrates the disadvantage of applying all the chiaroscuro and sfumato to the animation in 'Fantasia' - some of these original qualities are lost. That's probably why the animators loved the xerox process so much.

Let me explain myself. A Snow White still would reveal the rouge on Snow's cheeks, a white/grey line around her hair, giving it a soft look, and many shadows. Basically, a lot of finishing touches to the cels which go beyond simply inking the outlines and painting the insides. The same goes for Pinocchio, Fantasia or Bambi. But looking at a feature film like Cinderella I can't help but notice that those 'luxuries' were no longer administered. Alice, Peter and Lady all seem to suffer the same fate, and I seriously doubt that the exclusion of these refinements were simply an artistic or stylistic choice. If they were deliberate, however, then I'd guess it was because of the flat nature of Mary Blair's artwork (though I personally don't feel Blair radically influenced the look of certain films ... she seems to be reflected in the little things. I think Alice is the most Blairish Disney film. Cinderella and Peter Pan aren't always that obvious).

Agreed, though I think most of these films use the limitations to their advantage stylistically. 'Cinderella' doesn't use shadows all the time but that means that, when it does, it ensures quite a powerful dramatic moment.

I personally like to judge animation based on the original pencil animation drawn by the animator, before it is coloured, enhanced and cleaned-up. Hence, I think one can find great animation in the simplest of character models. I'm referring to simplicity here because Emperor's New Groove and Lilo & Stitch were criticised for their animation as not being up to standard. The critics normally cite a lack of detail in the characters. So what!? It's the way a character moves that counts, not how many wrinkles you can draw on his face! If detail was really the issue, then anime would win the animation crown because your average Miyazaki film is ten times more detailed than a Disney animated feature. That doesn't mean it's superior. American animation simply differs from Japanese animation, that's all. They both have their merits.

I love the animation in 'Lilo and Stitch' and 'Groove' as well. Lilo's particularly well done and, as you say, with a very simple design. The characters in 'Groove' are deliberately stylized and angular and I agree that that does not detract from the animation. Particularly Yzma!
Detail I think can sometimes weigh the animator down and make them forget about movement.

Disney's Divinity wrote:It's the design that bothers me mostly (Stromboli and the Coachman are menacing in intention, though silly in design).

A story necessity - had they been menacing in appearance, Pinocchio would never have been taken in by them. They were imposing and creepy when they needed to be, later on.


P.S.: Thanks for the Elephant, Escapay!

Escapay wrote:

Ariel'sprince wrote:I already re-watched clips on YouTube and the animation is just slow,the film is just slow and boring.

Yes, because the best way to judge anything is to watch it in 5 to 10 minute chunks with inferior video quality on YouTube.

Whatever.
The animation in Pinocchio is bad and slow,not cheap or horrible but it's bad and slow,Pinocchio is the most boring movie Disney ever created,even more then Fantasia.

It might be your opinion that the story is slow and is made up of too many different episodes, but I dont think you can say the animation is bad and slow. Are you an animator or expert in the field? I think it is some of the best animation Disney has ever produced and resolved many of the issues in Snow White and improved them. It was one of the only films Disney was fully engulfed in from the very start. Poor animation can be seen on my animated television show, but Pinocchio isnt even close.

Then anyway I think that the plot is slow and boring.
The character desgin is different but still,it's the seuqel and TV shows with the bad animation.

Pinocchio has to be my first or second favorite Disney film, after Aladdin. The story is very long, but rich and fulfilling. The characters are greatly animated, and amazingly voiced. Stromboli and the Coachman's smile scared me to death as a child.

And a fox and a cat as con men - imagine!

Dudealadude wrote:And a fox and a cat as con men - imagine!

The cat has a lot of similarities to Dopey (which by the way is my least favorite dwarf), as most people probably have noticed.

The pair is also said to be modelled after the typical stage duo often seen in America some dacades ago. I don't remember what it's called, but you see an example in the Mickey Mouse short The Nifty Nineties, with the comic duo on stage.

Pinocchio is a masterpiece, and one of the most impressive animated movies ever made. I once said in a discussion in another forum that I was very impressed with the fact that everything was done by hand, including all the toys in Gepettos home. Another poster replied something like "Duh, not impressive at all, I have seen CGI movies where objects are much more realistic."

Gideon was originally to have a voice, provided by Mel Blanc. The decision to make the character silent was also a result of the enormous success of Dopey, and the fact that, as Frank and Ollie put it, Foulfellow spoke enough for both of them combined.

I think there's also a link between Dopey and Mickey as he appears in 'The Sorcerer's Apprentice' - also silent, and with a similar floppy gown.

Pinocchio is a masterpiece, and one of the most impressive animated movies ever made. I once said in a discussion in another forum that I was very impressed with the fact that everything was done by hand, including all the toys in Gepettos home. Another poster replied something like "Duh, not impressive at all, I have seen CGI movies where objects are much more realistic."

The sequence with all the clocks is one of my favorites in the film. I think they were all designed by Albert Hurter, with actual models constructed by Joe Grant and company. Hopefully there will be extensive galleries of all this sort of thing on the DVD - I was very disappointed with the tiny galleries on the 101 Dalmatians' DVD.

I can't wait for this DVD, I'll buy both formats... I only have Pinocchio on video (It's from like 1987 or something)... I bought it at my library's video sale. It has an insert for "Return to Oz" in it and a black clamshell.

Is this DVD going to have a new restoration or will it be that R2 version?

The Sorcerer's Apprentice sequence in Fantasia was originally intended for Dopey, but ended up with Mickey. At least that's what I read somewhere.

The sequence with all the clocks is one of my favorites in the film. I think they were all designed by Albert Hurter, with actual models constructed by Joe Grant and company. Hopefully there will be extensive galleries of all this sort of thing on the DVD - I was very disappointed with the tiny galleries on the 101 Dalmatians' DVD.

Yeah, what the Disney studio was able to achieve during those years have never been repeated, and never will, at least not using the same equipment used then.