DVDizzy Forum

There should be distinct styles also in the computer animated features, but here I was thinking about the handdrawn movies.

We have the so-called classic Disney style in most of the features, but now and then there are films that stands out.

Some examples:

For the stylized art direction in One Hundred and One Dalmatians, Anderson took inspiration from British cartoonist Ronald Searle.

Atlantis was inspired by the style of Mike Mignola.

Chris Sanders have this to say about Lilo & Stitch and Hercules:

"Lilo & Stitch" was created in my style just as Disney's "Hercules" was created in "New Yorker" cartoonist Gerald Scarfe's style. I do not believe any other animated feature has been made in a Disney artist's style before or since.

I pitched a new film idea to Tom Schumacher, who was then the president of Feature Animation at Disney.

Tom contacted me a few days later, and said he wanted to make the film.

"But I'll only make it on one condition," Tom said. "I want it to look like you drew it. I want it to be in your style."


Any other examples where the classic Disney style have been replaced by another one for some reason?

I've been watching so many Disney movies and documentaries lately...Didn't Walt want one artist to design the look of Sleeping Beauty (obviously Eyvind Earle) because Mary Blair's style never fully translated to the final film? So he wanted to have one seamless look that did translate to the final film...? I'm sure I'm butchering that but I *think* it was a SB documentary I watched that mentioned that...

Yes, he wanted the movie to look like "living tapestry", and Eyvind Earle was allowed to push his style on the overall of the film. It was possibly also influenced be the more stylized look known from UPA and television back then.

The animated work that has the most of Mary Blair's style is probably the cartoon A Cowboy Needs A Horse. Would have been interesting to see a whole feature inspired by it.

I think this is what I miss most about hand drawn, in addition to the magic and timelessness of it, I miss the versatility in styles that hand drawn brings. Not to rag on CGI, I’m not anti or opposed to it but it all looks the same, it’s pretty generic looking style wise. Yes it can be beautiful and there are scenes wonderfully rendered in computer animation but all of the CGI films from Disney look samey to me. They all have the characters have that goofy bug eyed, turn up nose massive heads thing going on. Rapunzel, Anna, Elsa etc.
It’s not like they’ve ever rendered a movie in the style of say a Tekken rendering like Nina Williams with a more realistic style or something that feels completely different to something that’s come before, they’re all pretty interchangeable with a haircut and a dye job.

The old school animation does allow you to experiment with styles a lot more. In CGI the design normally has to look a bit more realistic, which can lead to less variation, even if there is some room for experimentation there as well. So I'm often excited to see what we can expect when a new movie is announced. Except if it's a sequel, then we know what to expect. But luckily both Pixar and Disney have promised we won't see anymore of those anytime soon.