pre 1999 animation

[Innermike]

excluding UP and princess and the frog everything after 1999 seems to pale in comparison to before

Beauty and the beast
The lion king

Perfect examples of a time when animation was a nitty gritty business with many times more emotion and depth

Or at least thats what i think , ive beeen waiting for this forum to arrive to make this thread.

So NG animators , what do you think ?

[bl00db47h]

I do agree, I feel that the old classic animation had much more effort and a certain... charm, if you will.

[Alec-D]

Well princess and the frog was done with classical animation and they said that most of the new Disney movies will be hand animated :).

[Innermike]

At 1/29/10 05:31 PM, Alec-D wrote: Well princess and the frog was done with classical animation and they said that most of the new Disney movies will be hand animated :).

Yes , DISNEY ANIMATION , thats the problem , disney PIXAR (the more common one is still going to be in 3D , it ONLY does 3D , the only 3D disney animation have done is chicken little and bolt , which both sucked.So unfortunatley when the new rapunzel comes out pixar will be releasing some 3D shit like
"Shooz" 3D animated talking shoes who are radical cool dude !

[Kurai-Samurai]

I feel the traditional animation 'era' was the golden age of animation because it was new and exciting, a lot of hard work was put into the traditional animation movies and shorts and there was so much expression in the characters moves. Pixar then came along and made some really really good 3D movies, they looked better, they had very good story ect. But I seem to feel that they didnt have the magic touch of traditional animation, hand drawn is actually less restrictive than 3D animation becuase its drawn, whereas with 3D you only need to put in the key(frames) and extremes and the program can usually fill in the in-betweens, its quicker and less work. With flash I believe you can get the best of both and/or work out the best use of tweens and frame by frame animation. Anywayz thats just my opinion :)

[poxpower]

At 1/29/10 05:54 PM, Kurai-Samurai wrote: I feel the traditional animation 'era' was the golden age of animation because it was new and exciting

Well it was new and exciting for a good 70-80 years...So...

Disney was really kicking ass in the 90s though.

Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Alladin, Hunchback of Notre-Dame, Lion King... holy crap.
I think what really shot Disney into the hole is THE FUCKING SONGS.

Shut up already, we're not in the 50s anymore. Their songs were just bad for the most part, on top of interrupting the story.

I can understand why Alladin didn't wish for a giant, earth-shaking cock ( like he should have ) but I can't understand why he steals shit from people while launching into musical numbers.

Also there's something incredibly fake and pretentious about Pixar movies and I don't know what it is. Every character overacts and their faces and limbs feel like they're made of stretch armstrongs. They can't stop flailing for 3 seconds. Guess they couldn't do that shit when someone had to animate every little thing by hand.

Which is also why I like Anime. Using less animations to save money works out really well for a bunch of things and doesn't result in a Michael Bay-esque seizure party. He can make the camera flip around 30 times around a giant robot gorilla while he's falling down into a pit of dragons and giant snakes but he can't capture the sheer awesomeness of one dude just standing there while he slices a skyscraper in half with one arm swing.

Anyway, DISNEY WOO-HOO.

[PaperBagMask]

At 1/29/10 05:39 PM, HDXmike wrote: Yes , DISNEY ANIMATION , thats the problem , disney PIXAR (the more common one is still going to be in 3D , it ONLY does 3D , the only 3D disney animation have done is chicken little and bolt , which both sucked.So unfortunatley when the new rapunzel comes out pixar will be releasing some 3D shit like
"Shooz" 3D animated talking shoes who are radical cool dude !

There's a lot of anti-Pixar sentiment, they haven't really done anything wrong. They've given us many grand animations, Dreamworks on the other hand is more in line of what your insults suggest.
At least direct them to the proper entities.

[PBass]

At 1/29/10 06:46 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 1/29/10 05:54 PM, Kurai-Samurai wrote: I feel the traditional animation 'era' was the golden age of animation because it was new and exciting

Traditional animation wasn't really brand new when Disney popularized it in America. What they did that got everyone's attention was proper storytelling and animating characters that can think and feel emotion.

Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Alladin, Hunchback of Notre-Dame, Lion King... holy crap.
I think what really shot Disney into the hole is THE FUCKING SONGS.

A lot of people like the songs, which is why they're there. I can agree that some of them I really wish weren't there, but I really like most of them.

I can understand why Alladin didn't wish for a giant, earth-shaking cock ( like he should have ) but I can't understand why he steals shit from people while launching into musical numbers.

Because many people enjoy the musical numbers. Disney makes a certain type of movie, and traditionally it includes songs. Whether or not you like musical numbers, it's pretty appearant why they're there.

Also there's something incredibly fake and pretentious about Pixar movies and I don't know what it is. Every character overacts and their faces and limbs feel like they're made of stretch armstrongs. They can't stop flailing for 3 seconds. Guess they couldn't do that shit when someone had to animate every little thing by hand.

What? Both Pixar and Disney traditional animation use plenty of subtlety. I find Pixar to be a pillar of proper acting in animation. Sure there are plenty moments where it gets extreme, and that's just the style of it, it's the style of most animation. I don't think character in an animated film should emulate live-actors. The goal isn't to be realistic in the movements, it's to be believable.

Which is also why I like Anime. Using less animations to save money works out really well for a bunch of things

It's more common than you think

Now I sound like a disney fanboy yay.

[Ani-x]

One of the problems was the then president at the time of Disney animations
turned his back to hand animation in favor of 3D (the Disney vs Pixar debuckle)
Giving next to no financial resource to the animations studios.
Then John Lasseter and Ed Catmull took charge of the Burbank studio's,
Giving traditional animation full force again and leaving the 3D to Pixar (they are now joint)

Check out Dan Lund's documentary "Dream On, Silly Dreamer"
(he was the behind beauty and the beast, Lion king and so on and now the new Princess and the frog)
Its explains the fall of the tradition.

Also if you are into Disney animation but not all that stupid singing crap. ( I always hated the singing)
check out David Hand's "Animaland"
He was behind snow white, Bambi and so on.

As far as animation goes, as a animator its hard not to love Disney and what they did for the "biz"
They revolutionized animation and gave it the over the top, high budgets you see in blockbuster films (after more then a normal movie)
With the best animators, effect engineers and directors in the world.

although there style may not be wide spread and used by everyone. From America to Japan, Korea and to the world, there probably is not a single animator who went to school who hadn't met, learned or practiced a used techniques by Disney and its animators.

Its influence is also so wide spread and function that is seen even in Anime.
Even 3D movies wouldn't be where they are with out "Disney effect"
(see early 3D movies like Final Fantasy Spirits within" as a example.)

[PBass]

At 1/30/10 09:24 AM, Ani-x wrote: One of the problems was the then president at the time of Disney animations
turned his back to hand animation in favor of 3D (the Disney vs Pixar debuckle)
Giving next to no financial resource to the animations studios.

Not to mention he kept churning out those terrible Disney sequels simply to capitalize on the originals. While the mechanics of the characters are still decent, the animation is soulless and disturbing in the direct to video sequels. ugh.

[Ani-x]

At 1/30/10 10:05 AM, PBass wrote:

At 1/30/10 09:24 AM, Ani-x wrote: One of the problems was the then president at the time of Disney animations
turned his back to hand animation in favor of 3D (the Disney vs Pixar debuckle)
Giving next to no financial resource to the animations studios.

Not to mention he kept churning out those terrible Disney sequels simply to capitalize on the originals. While the mechanics of the characters are still decent, the animation is soulless and disturbing in the direct to video sequels. ugh.

haha yeah.
Most of those straight to dvd sequels was done cheap by korean animators.
also the simple fact was they was published under disney, but not the animation studio, they was headed by the marketing teams, so they mostly just went hand in hand with toys, games or promotions.
They rarely even had anything to do with the original movies other then the characters and maybe some small story plots.

I think the last of a full Disney animation studio spin off was the toy story series, But even that had nothing to do with the movie at all.

[PBass]

At 1/30/10 10:15 AM, Ani-x wrote: haha yeah.
Most of those straight to dvd sequels was done cheap by korean animators.

Didn't the Australia studio animate some of them, or at least take care of the keyframing? I know they used to. I think Adam Phillips worked on a few of them as well.

[Ani-x]

At 1/30/10 10:26 AM, PBass wrote:

At 1/30/10 10:15 AM, Ani-x wrote: haha yeah.
Most of those straight to dvd sequels was done cheap by korean animators.

Didn't the Australia studio animate some of them, or at least take care of the keyframing? I know they used to. I think Adam Phillips worked on a few of them as well.

Yeah, some, Those that was Disney In house studios. Australia and France i believe was under Disney Toon studios
But allot of them didn't do every single aspect. rest was done by contracted studios ( I think was HanHo studios, I will have to check)

I also remember in the past, another studio was contracted in Korea, But they didn't work out long because wasnt paid enough or something.

[PBass]

At 1/30/10 10:35 AM, Ani-x wrote: But allot of them didn't do every single aspect. rest was done by contracted studios ( I think was HanHo studios, I will have to check)

That's really unfortunate. The sequel possibility for a lot of great movies has been ruined by greed, it really makes me sad. But, I'm glad that Lasseter shut them down, one of the many reasons that he's my hero.

[Ani-x]

Speaking of Disney reusing its animations in other movies.
Do you guys feel its lazy? Tribute, or just allot of the same animators?

I think its a little bit of same animators/ Tribute.
there has also been instances of it in Anime (bruce lee- Cowboy beebop being a famous one)
that was done as a tribute, not to find a cheap way out.

I noticed that in the Princess and the Frog there was the same dance done it that was also seen in the Robbin Hood Animation and something else (forgot where i seen it, but I have, some cat i think doing the dance)

Allot like to jump on them as Lazy or cheating, but really its not 3D, so the animation was hand drawn,Inked and colored, Even if done before. To say they rotoscoped it would be laughable, they are pros who can do something like 400-600 pages in a day.
They know there stuff, so the need to rotoscope we can trow out.

It does save time, reusing the same moves, dances and things. But when i seen it in the Princess and the Frog, I felt it was a good tribute, almost a as way to say "were back baby"

I know every artist and animator is influenced by different ppl and things, and it shows in there work.
being a fan of something does also want to bring out parts of it in your pieces.

even in the game I am working on, the ferret has this ridiculous over the top walk, I didn't look at some Disney animation to make it,but in my head wile doing it i was thinking of the old style Disney cartoons. the personality, the moments the animals had, I wanted to kinda bring that out.

even back in 2006, Luis made a thread with weekly animations to a sound bit.
mine was kinda inspired by the old style Disney cartoons (even down to the discoloring of tiles, lol)
Seen here
game of chess

I would like to think if i ever got famous or was in a big project, how awesome it would be to pay some homage to a animation that inspired me. I would do it in a heart beat.
even at the risk of being called a "cheater" or so.

What about you guys?

[PBass]

At 1/30/10 11:35 AM, Ani-x wrote: Speaking of Disney reusing its animations in other movies.
Do you guys feel its lazy? Tribute, or just allot of the same animators?

I don't think it's lazy. People criticize Disney for it, but really Disney pioneered feature animations and was always facing money problems, especially during WWII. They usually only did it during gag, dance, or 'filler scenes as well, and never compromised character acting.

Another thing people don't always get is that even reusing the templates is still a lot of work, and it's still hard to keep it looking natural, much like the more you photocopy something the grungier it gets.

Now, when animation templates get reused for the sake of real laziness and greed, that's what I don't like, and usually the final product is terrible.

If there's good reasoning and spirit behind it, I think it's a perfectly fine thing to do.

[Starogre]

Personally I loved the songs from Lion King. Under The Sea from Little Mermaid fit as well. The other ones I don't really care for but I have to say those are what made the movie for a lot of people. Mulan had some popular songs as did Pocahntas.

Disney also used guidelines of classic stories to tell while Pixar was trying to invent whole new stories while telling them.

Aside from Disney owning Pixar now, Pixar actually started as a smaller company that didn't start doing full length movies until Toy Story. That means the people in charge of Pixar were also animators/storytellers and not total businessmen like the people in charge of Disney now. I give props to Pixar for coming up with more stories than just hero/heroine/villain movies.

I think 3d characters look like they are moving a lot is because it's supposed to replace the constant redrawing of frame by frame animation.

When I think of different Disney movies I actually start singing a song from that movie in my head so I think those were pretty successful. I think just the switch from 2d to 3d to keep up with Pixar is what stunted their progress.

I also think nowadays the Story Telling is too G-Rated. What made Lion King compelling is that the father actually died. In today's animated films, the father would probably end up coming back to life/wake up at the last second and everyone would live happily ever after just like that. Predictability in kids' stories is just getting really bad so I think they should go back to making the stories for adults as well and give a purpose to the film other than making money.

[poxpower]

At 1/30/10 11:35 AM, Ani-x wrote:

I think its a little bit of same animators/ Tribute.

Well in the example above ( and there's another video with even more examples ) they've clearly just reused the animation frame by frame.

So that's not a "tribute" or a "style".

Though they use it decades apart so who cares?

But when i seen it in the Princess and the Frog

That movie looks sweet.

your pieces.

Don't use that word.

I would do it in a heart beat.
even at the risk of being called a "cheater" or so.

If you do it like Disney did it in their example, that's pretty much plagiarism.

[PBass]

At 1/30/10 11:52 AM, poxpower wrote: If you do it like Disney did it in their example, that's pretty much plagiarism.

Suppose you gave credit and had permission? I think it'd be a neat little easter egg to see in a movie once and a while.

And yes, Princess and the Frog is a very good movie. I think it's a sign that Disney is going to go under another renaissance.

also, what's wrong with pieces? :P

[Innermike]

At 1/30/10 11:57 AM, PBass wrote: And yes, Princess and the Frog is a very good movie. I think it's a sign that Disney is going to go under another renaissance.

Hopefully for ANOTHER 70- 80 years :P cant wait for rapunzel , do you think theyll make a lot of these old tales before they go back to original stuff ?

[PBass]

At 1/30/10 12:03 PM, HDXmike wrote: Hopefully for ANOTHER 70- 80 years :P cant wait for rapunzel , do you think theyll make a lot of these old tales before they go back to original stuff ?

Knowing Lasseter, there's probably going to be some more original items than ones based on old stories and fairytales, but even when they do make the ones based on tales, they should be handled pretty well. As much as I love Disney movies, the 'princess' films were my least favorite because they were bound by the confinements of the fairytales and their rather thin plotlines, but now that we've gotten more used to loose adaptations of traditional stories I think the storylines will have much more depth to them.

[Ani-x]

cant say pieces pox? make you tingle a bit? i know i did.

but yeah, I think Disney will always have there back bone on old tales.
From snow white to Mulan, there is always a brink of it,
they do stray off from time to time. but usually go back.
even in cases like Aladdin, its a Original-sih story, but with the whole Genie and 3 wishes (see KaZaam!)
usually all found in old tails and fairy tales.

and i wouldn't call it plagiarism because your not stealing the whole, maybe a part.(more so if you are with the company that did it)
if your doing it because you cant do better,make money/fame off its likeness or just don't want to think up your own movements, yeah, not cool.

I guess in the end, its the spirit behind it. what you did and why.

although i do think its funny how allot of ppl think Disney came up with these story's (snow white, beauty and the beast etc)

[Starogre]

At 1/30/10 12:21 PM, Ani-x wrote:

although i do think its funny how allot of ppl think Disney came up with these story's (snow white, beauty and the beast etc)

that's why i just mentioned in my last post how disney had a crutch - they started with good material. pixar on the other hand started from pretty much scratch and made good material on their own and that's what makes them so different. disney tried to move from old tales in 2d to 3d weird stories like chicken little and meet the robinsons and those failed miserably in my opinion. disney has always used pre-existing stories in their films probably because their original theory was that it's all about how you tell the story in animation rather than coming up with the story and directly handing it to the audience all at once. so i think pixar was trying to both come up with a solid story and a good way of telling it and that's what made them stand out from disney from the very beginning (aside from 3d).

[poxpower]

At 1/30/10 11:57 AM, PBass wrote:

Suppose you gave credit and had permission?

From Disney?
Good luck?

also, what's wrong with pieces? :P

It's probably the most pretentious word in the universe that's used to refer to anything from a Caravaggio to some idiot art student's shitty digital black and white photography that they put on their blogs.

Things in museums are pieces, things you did as homework are projects / drawings / photos / whatever.

Also nothing under 200 years old can be called a piece.
I SO DEMAND

[PBass]

At 1/30/10 12:49 PM, Starogre wrote: 2d to 3d weird stories like chicken little and meet the robinsons and those failed miserably in my opinion.

While I agree that those movies aren't really that good, Chicken Little is still based loosely (And I stress loosely) on 'The sky is falling' and Meet The Robinsons is a book adaptation. It's not that the story for either of these were really all that bad, but the pacing and the screenplay kind of ruined them. I remember Disney 3D also released The WIld, which was basically Madagascar. I don't know who ripped off who, but they both did a terrible job.

[PBass]

At 1/30/10 01:06 PM, poxpower wrote: From Disney?
Good luck?

I was being a bit more broad with the concept, there's more than DIsney.

It's probably the most pretentious word in the universe that's used to refer to anything from a Caravaggio to some idiot art student's shitty digital black and white photography that they put on their blogs.

Just because it's used universally for both great works and crap doesn't make it pretentious. Why throw a good piece of vocabulary out the window just because someone else uses it manipulatively? That's just silly.

[Ani-x]

well i just use it to describe a thing of art. I didst know it had such weight behind it.
I would think the word "Pretentious" is the most over used word in the world of art.
but anyways, I digress, I will stop saying pieces to please the powers of the pox.

I also do not think it was just Disney failed on there 3D as much as the 3d movie world as a whole was just lacking at that time.
Part of the problem is 3D movies are cheaper to make then full blown traditional animated films, so it was allot easier to get get a mediocre script with some celeb voices a "Pass" to go gold.
also make no mistake the goal was probably no farther then banking off the success of Pixars films.
Guessing the average movie goer wouldn't know the difference from a Pixar, Disney. Dream works, Sony pictures film. ( Fly me to the moon a great example)
Hell ppl still refer to any 3D film as a "Pixar movie"

But allot of Pixars success was in fact using Disney s formula.
even on The incredible, they went and consulted former Disney animator (forgot his name) because most of the team had never done animation on computers before.(some never even 2d animation)
But there character story telling was influenced by Disney. They just took it to a new level. (see The Pixar story)

after that, just about all started to borrow the Pixar/Disney formula.
In fact, it wasn't till Disney left Pixar alone, that Pixar really started shining in the story telling department (Disney had some odd budgets and crazy short deadlines)

In the end we get some good movies out of it.
Although i feel that most are playing catch up with Pixar now.
Bolt, Monsters vs Aliens, Cloudy with a chance of meatballs. i found was all good, Just where Pixar was 4 years ago.

but I found Cloudy with a chance of meatballs funny as hell..i like random humor.

back around on topic, There was some really good none Disney animations in the 90's,
An American Tail being one of my favorites.
also Iron Giant is up there.
Anastasia, I didn't care for the movie its self, but the animation and art was great, I loved the background on it which brings me to Princess Mononoke. My all time fav as far as just backgrounds and settings go
and of course, perfect blue. Which just kinda refined how i looked at "Anime" and based alot of my style on Satoshi Kons work

[Starogre]

Yea I guess I was a bit harsh on Disney as most traditional techniques are taken from them. I still think Disney made a big switch too quickly just because Pixar used their 3d talents to make a full length film. Disney's stories they have chosen for their 3d films are just bleh and too 'modernized'. It's like as soon as they saw Toy Story and 3D, they thought, oh we can only do films about 'modern suburbs' now, in 3D. Like seriously a lot of 3d movies' settings are very modernized and lose their 'fantastic tale' feel. Of course there are things like Finding Nemo, Bee Movie, and Over the Hedge that take place in other settings but all include modernized homes and towns.

aka i want more things like ratatouille and monsters inc

[PBass]

I don't think setting is the problem. Proper storytelling can take place in any environment. I think the reason why a lot of these movies failed is a lack of good characters. Pixar puts a lot of emphasis on characters and developing them so you care about them, and they do it very well. That's why they're able to juggle pretty sizable casts and even some of the lesser characters remain memorable.

A lot of the other 3D movies seem to just go from event to event to event, and when the main character is in peril, you're not really sure if you care about what happens to him. At least thats how I feel, but I over analyze things often.

[Innermike]

At 1/30/10 03:25 PM, PBass wrote: I don't think setting is the problem. Proper storytelling can take place in any environment.

Absolutley , in fact this reminds me of a perfect example ! Raphsody in blue from fantasia 2000!

Just thin kabout it , no one says a word , pretty modern setting and yet they pull it off wonderfully