DVDizzy Forum

I'm reading a book at the moment called "Reading The Rabbit: Explorations in Warner Bros. Animation" Edited by Kevin S. Sandler.

Yes, I know, Looney Tunes. It will not go down well with some members of this forum.

It is a very, very deep academic book. It has chapters/essays on everything form The Portrayal of African Americans in Animation to The Portrayal of Hillbillies in Animation. From the Use of Sound in Animation to Discussions on Bugs Bunny in Drag! Everything is cross referenced and I'm finding I'm having to read each chapter a few times before it all sinks in.

Why am I mentioning this? Because in one chapter ("From Disney to Warner Bros. The Critical Shift") an interesting point is raised. Basically hidden between lots of other comparisons, it says that while Disney's ambition was to animate reality as much as possible, Warner Bros Animation took the opposite route and celebrated the unreality of animation.

It is I think a good point, but surprisingly the book doesn't really dig any deeper. Personally I think that this is a somewhat unfair statement.

It's true that for a time Disney was fixated on capturing reality - witness shorts like "The Old Mill" but all these shorts were being used as "research and development" for his full length animated features. Warner Bros. animators had nothing to aspire to apart from impressing and outdoing each other, while Disney animators had an ultimate goal of producing full-length animation.

Also while a short 5-8 minute cartoon can be non-stop "wackyness" - extreme perspective, stylised backgrounds, fast camera cuts and pans etc, such an approach would no work in a film intended to hold the audiences attention for 75+ minutes. After all the story was important in Disney's animated films. (Well, perhaps in these days of MTV it would, but not in the 40's and 50's).

I find it hard to imaging Snow White would have been as big a success had it looked and animated like some of the Silly Symphonies of the time.

So while it could be said that Disney and Warner Bros moved in two directions over the years, each was just as vaild as the other. And each has contributed to animation just as much as the other.

Plus, no one can claim films like Saludos Amigos, The Three Caballeros and Make Mine Music are realistic

But what do you think - is there a point where realism in animated films becomes redundant? If you push the realism too far you may as well watch a normal film? Is that why the Final Fantasy movie flopped? Did Disney themselves push realism too far with the design and animation of some of their characters, or does the realism mean that it's easier to identity with the characters?

I'm sorry. You post a good topic for discussion and all, but I can't get past the fact that you are possessed by the demons of Looney Tunes

I know Disney, himself, was critricized in his life time by fellow, animator people, for his realistic approach, as thet though cartoons, should be cartoony, and this lead to more cartoonish cartoons, but I personally prefer the realism. I think in addition to a good story the film has to look beautiful, and so far CGI hasn't achieved "beautiful" in my mind.

So, yes, I prefer realism in animation.... I also think in addition to looking better, it looks more adult, but something that kids will enjoy too....

Besides there's too much wacky crap out there as it is, it's nice to see a disney film with realistic animation.

But not realism to the point of errections?

2099net wrote:But not realism to the point of errections?

Oh my!

I have to disagree that Disney animators tried to make their animation as realistical as possible. Overall Disney animation is certainly more realistic than classic Warner, but Disney animators certainly understood the need for stylization (the opposite of realism).

Disney's use of the rotoscope never overwhelmed any of their work in features or shorts. For example see Ralph Bakshi's work, the guy never undestood the meaning of restraint, specifically in Fire And Ice.

Some things like Cinderella, are rotoscoped, but it is well disguised.

If you look at some of Goofy's shorts, it is obvious that Goofy was rotoscoped (the giveaway on these is that he has five fingers on these instead of the typical three fingers and a thumb). This is only obvious if you see the whole collection and make comparisons from short to short.

But no matter which work you choose as an example of realistic Disney, you will find intentional stylization even in that.

It depends Herman. Shorts like "The Old Mill" are as realistic as Disney could get at the time (including the animals) and the aim was to do a totally realistic cartoon.

Others like the Prince in Snow White are as realistic as possible as well. Generally something like the title character in Cinderella is close to realism as possible that would work in a film with stylised cats and mice also in it.

I'm sure if Cinderella's cast was all human there would be less stylisation. (I know, I've spelt that wrong ).

Of course Sleeping Beauty is just beautiful (excuse the pun) as it mixes realistic motion and anatomy with highly stylised (and when examined quite simple) designs.

Cinderella was rotoscoped? I thought Walt hated rotoscoping and that the animators only glanced back and forth between their drawing boards and the live action video, not deliberately trace over it. Hmmm...

When we say 'realism in animation' here I think we are referring to realism as far as movement goes, not necessarily trying to make the character designs look photorealistic. Disney did use rotoscope as a guide, but I don't think that we can say they traced everything. Most animators who used the technique used it that way except for Ralph Bakshi and of course the Fleishers, as the did in Gulliver. Using rotoscope, animators could see how things were supposed to move to avoid that 'rubbery arm' look. A good example of this can be seen on the DVD of Heavy Metal the movie.

2099net wrote:"The Old Mill" are as realistic as Disney could get at the time (including the animals) and the aim was to do a totally realistic cartoon.

Are you familiar with the Betty Boop cartoons? I own the whole set on tape. There are segments in which the Fleischers mixed the traditional "cell look" animation with live action backgrounds and people. There is a distinct separation between the two. And then there is the "middle ground" animation where a real object becomes animated (like a ceramic dog statuette, or a real fire hydrant, for example). This animation was not done with the traditional ink on cell method. It was more carefully painted and shaded to approximate real objects (see Photorealism, below).
"At the time" Disney could have done the same thing, if their goal was to be as realistic as possible, but that would have simply been too expensive, plus (IMO) would have defeated the artistic purpose of animation.

Photorealism is a movement which began in the late 1960's, in which scenes are painted in a style closely resembling photographs. The subject matter is usually mundane and without particular interest; the true subject of a photorealist work is the way we unconsciously interpret photographs and paintings in order to create a mental image of the object represented.

To say Disney began the photorealist movement or was a participant in it a mistake. You may not be talking about this kind of realism (I am), and if you are not then we simply are talking about two different things and not necessarily disagreeing. But for example see The Reluctant Dragon, for a discussion of the awareness of realism and stylization between two Disney artists, they certainly knew the difference between the two and valued a certain amount stylization in their work.

Or look at the animated+live action features like Mary Poppins. The penguins for example, could have been realistically animated, but weren't because of an artistic choice, not because of an inability to do so.

Another example is 20,000 Leagues. At one point it was hoped to integrate the live action with animated effects or animated fish. The DVD has the animated fish sequences. Even these sequences do not strive for full realism, when one would think that it would be desirable to do so. Ultimately the animation was mostly scraped, and as a result the films projects a different effect and shows a different artistic sensibility (than animated or partially animated films).

Another animator who comes to mind is Ray Harryhausen. In all interviews, Ray has claimed that he never tried for full realism in his model animation, even though he integrated it to live action sequences in a seamless manner. A certain degree of stylization was always the goal and it was always hoped that this degree of stylization was perceived by the audience.

I think we may be at cross purposes here. Obviously Disney has never done photorealism (that I'm aware of anyway).

But take into account a phrase Walt himself was fond of saying - the "Plausible Impossible" - taken at it's simplist this means making what are static drawings appear animated.

I don't think Disney ever wanted people to not realise that they were looking at drawings - but he did want his drawings to animate at realisically as possible. From the folds and flows of clothing to the realistic arm and leg movements. Look at how Disney animators study a raindrop for Bambi, or how Disney developed the multiplane camera for more realistic tracking shots.

Of course most animation has to have stylisation, or you may as well not bother animating it (in general - I accept some people's goal may be to create an animation indistunguishable from live action). But there is a point where realism overtakes style, and it could be argued makes creating a "cartoon" somewhat redundant. I think so some extent this did happen with Cinderella in Cinderella. Your point of view may be different.
For an much more blatent example see the Final Fantasy movie - what was the point of animating that? Was it like climbing Everest? We animated it just to show we could?

To some extent I feel Disney's animated realism - such as the multiplane camera - was driven by the demands of making feature length films. Lots of scenes in the Disney animated films emulate live action films. Panning, zooming, length of shots, lighting (including shadows) and to a certain extent camera angles. As I said, I doubt a 1940's-1950's audience would be able to see through a 1 hour plus 'Looney Tune'. Their shorts from the time are certainly more willing to forego realism for comic effect (for example realisic limb movement).

2099net wrote: For an much more blatent example see the Final Fantasy movie - what was the point of animating that? Was it like climbing Everest? We animated it just to show we could?

Final Fantasy was animated because of financial considerations. It is cheaper to do it that way than to do either cell animation or live action. Just look at what a lot of TV "animation" has become. Computer animation is just too cheap to ignore.

But since you go in depth, and have allowed me to go in depth also, I can see we simply are talking about different things.

I think Disney sorta achieves photo realism in Hercules, at the very beginning. I looks so real, like it is an actual photo, IMO.

I think we were discussing older cell animated features. But...

With the advent of computer animation you will see computer hyper-realism more and more. But I'll betcha anything that there will also be artistic movements that fully reject it. In fact the rest of the Hercules movie is anything but realistic (up to and including character design).

The best computer animation will be when you don't know that it is there, see Hunchback, Spirit or Spirited Away for example. Metropolis and A Chinese Ghost Story suck in this regard.

Herman The German wrote:Final Fantasy was animated because of financial considerations. It is cheaper to do it that way than to do either cell animation or live action. Just look at what a lot of TV "animation" has become. Computer animation is just too cheap to ignore.

I think they could have filmed live action for the human characters with actors and somehow matted them into computer generated backgrounds cheaper. And it cost them a fortune to set-up (and close) the studio!

No matter what the reason - I question the decision to make the characters as realistic as possible in an animated film.

Where the Final Fantasy stuff actually worked a bit better was in the Animatrix cartoon they did "Final Flight of the Osiris." Only about ten minutes long and it looked amazing. Surprisingly enough, the closer the camera got to the human characters, the more real they looked. But I agree that I think they are doing it for the sake of saying "look, we can animate human characters and make them look real." Its cool, looks amazing, but I see what you are saying. If you want it that photo real, why not just film actually people? Now that cg animation has come that far, maybe they can do some interesting things with it stylistically rather than just replicate real life?

And yes, I think that Herman and 2099 are talking about two different things here, but that's okay.