Topic: The Magically Flawed World of Disney (Read 32773 times)

Classic · « **Reply #1 on:** November 24, 2008, 12:49:48 PM »

I'm so ashamed, I cannot name them all.

Kashan · « **Reply #2 on:** November 24, 2008, 02:25:08 PM »

Wait. Is Mulan a princess or not? I didn't think so but I refuse to believe somebody would include Treasure Planet and Fantasia 2000 characters, but not Mulan.

Kayma · « **Reply #3 on:** November 24, 2008, 02:37:40 PM »

Who is the person with the spear? I'm behind.

Kashan · « **Reply #4 on:** November 24, 2008, 02:38:45 PM »

Quote from: Kayma on November 24, 2008, 02:37:40 PM

Who is the person with the spear? I'm behind.

Princess from Atlantis.

Brentai · « **Reply #5 on:** November 24, 2008, 04:07:20 PM »

Er, Marion's technically royalty, isn't she?

Büge · « **Reply #6 on:** November 24, 2008, 04:29:23 PM »

Yeah, but she's not a "princess." She's just a high-born lady. Whatever that means.

I think Mulan got her princess card on the basis of affirmative action. She's usually absent from any "Princess" products although I did see her in a poster with the others when I worked at Wal-Mart. I think it's because she doesn't wear princessy enough clothes.

Kayma · « **Reply #7 on:** November 24, 2008, 04:50:58 PM »

I need to brush up on my animation. I don't recognize a good chunk of them.

Brentai · « **Reply #8 on:** November 24, 2008, 07:28:24 PM »

I can only guess that's Eilonwy up in the tree there, hoping to God the rest of the gang doesn't actually dig up her movie and find out that, yep, princess.

...considering that the extent of her character is "never shuts the hell up about being a princess" I gotta assume that's supposed to be a joke.

Kayma · « **Reply #9 on:** November 24, 2008, 07:58:14 PM »

Wow. The only ones I recognized were Alice, Tinkerbell and Lilo... probably would have remembered Meg if I had tried a little harder.

Eilonwy?

Need more Kingdom Hearts to fill in the gaps, I guess.

Royal☭ · « **Reply #10 on:** November 24, 2008, 08:57:20 PM »

Quote from: DGorgon‫‬‭‮‪ on November 24, 2008, 07:29:55 PM

Winrar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Princesseilonwy2.jpg

...that's pretty obscure. I didn't even realize that The Black Cauldron was a Disney movie.

Oh and how Disney wishes it weren't.

Dooly · « **Reply #11 on:** November 24, 2008, 11:02:53 PM »

When I see that picture, I imagine her with a valley-girl voice saying "WHAT-EVERRRRRRRRRR!"

Mongrel · « **Reply #12 on:** November 25, 2008, 05:45:14 AM »

That reminds me, I need to watch that sometimes.

In terms of pure aesthetics my favourite Disney cartoons were that period from the 60's where they were animated with really scratchy, loose lines... and all the characters had British accents for some unfathomable reason (Robin Hood, 101 Dalmations, etc.). I thinik other things that are amusing are more situational bits of awesome (like Bob Newheart in The Rescuers or George C. Scott in the sequel, years later).

[/random ramble]

LaserBeing · « **Reply #13 on:** November 25, 2008, 06:11:50 AM »

Quote from: Iron_Mongrel on November 25, 2008, 05:45:14 AM

In terms of pure aesthetics my favourite Disney cartoons were that period from the 60's where they were animated with really scratchy, loose lines...

That scratchy look actually comes from the newfangled but imperfect Xerox technique they started using to transfer the pencil drawings to cel. Before The Jungle Book they had people who would trace each drawing onto the cel by hand. The Xerox method was obviously much faster and cheaper, but it also meant that each frame was closer to the original animator's hand, so make of that what you will.

Mongrel · « **Reply #14 on:** November 25, 2008, 06:31:31 AM »

I just like the loose, lively look it gives to the artwork. The types of character motions they used at the time also emphasized this (mostly realistic motion with a slight exaggeration, just enough for artistic effect).

Of course, this is probably because this is similar to my own instincts in drawing.

Brentai · « **Reply #15 on:** November 25, 2008, 08:01:47 AM »

The 60s is when a cartoon character couldn't go 10 seconds before howling and splaying his limbs all over, right? Fuck that time.

The Ariel-to-Simba era, though cheesy, is pretty much the pinnacle of animation, and you're not likely to see it again any time soon. Respek.

Brentai · « **Reply #16 on:** November 25, 2008, 08:19:37 AM »

Was that... was that supposed to be impressive? Or were you just demonstrating my point?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0AiN8vrn9Y

Royal☭ · « **Reply #17 on:** November 25, 2008, 08:21:36 AM »

Quote from: Iron_Mongrel on November 25, 2008, 05:45:14 AM

and all the characters had British accents for some unfathomable reason (Robin Hood, 101 Dalmations, etc.).

I'd hate to suggest that the reason is though two movies happen to take place in England, but you know..

Quote from: Brentai on November 25, 2008, 08:19:37 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0AiN8vrn9Y

I love Jeremy Irons. Wish I could find clips of his turn in the Dungeons and Dragons movie. Terrible, awful film but he goes into his role with gusto; he practically chews Thora Birch alive.

Büge · « **Reply #18 on:** November 25, 2008, 09:10:42 AM »

Quote from: Brentai on November 25, 2008, 08:01:47 AM

The 60s is when a cartoon character couldn't go 10 seconds before howling and splaying his limbs all over, right? Fuck that time.

The Ariel-to-Simba era, though cheesy, is pretty much the pinnacle of animation, and you're not likely to see it again any time soon. Respek.

I'm inclined to agree. Course, you get guys like John Kricfalusi who think that if you're staying on-model, you're doing something wrong and that all cartoon characters should be zany boneless caricatures modeled after physical comedians of days past.

Quote from: Brentai on November 25, 2008, 08:19:37 AM

Was that... was that supposed to be impressive? Or were you just demonstrating my point?

Quote from: Wikipedia

The Little Mermaid    November 15, 1989 (premiere), November 17, 1989
The Rescuers Down Under    November 16, 1990
Beauty and the Beast    November 13, 1991 (limited), November 22, 1991
Aladdin    November 11, 1992 (limited), November 25, 1992
The Lion King    June 15, 1994 (limited), June 24, 1994
Pocahontas    June 16, 1995 (premiere), June 23, 1995
The Hunchback of Notre Dame    June 19, 1996 (premiere), June 21, 1996

/nitpick

Also, did you notice how many visual cues to homosexual stereotypes there are in male disney villains?

Quote from: DGorgon‫‬‭‮‪ on November 25, 2008, 08:33:21 AM

...though it didn't quite stack up to this:

No. NO. NO. I am not watching that again, you douchewad. I've got enough tragedy in my life.

Mongrel · « **Reply #19 on:** November 25, 2008, 09:21:28 AM »

Quote from: Brentai on November 25, 2008, 08:01:47 AM

The 60s is when a cartoon character couldn't go 10 seconds before howling and splaying his limbs all over, right? Fuck that time.

Uhm. No.

Yeah, maybe if you're watching a Warner Brothers cartoon, or Hanna Barbera. But I was specifically speaking of Disney movies, and only their graphic qualities at that. At passing glance, that Xeroxed animation style might seem like it should get lumped in, but if you study the motion closely, you'll note that few motions - if any at all - exceed the normal range of human motion. It's brilliant work. Instead of allowing that little leeway, the later stuff begins to perfectly mimic normal human motion*, which is an impressive technical acheivement and really catches a person's eye, so I can understand it impressing anyone. It's just too polished for me.

Of course, I studied animation a bit, so I look for that kind of thing.

Of course, WB/HB and John K all have their place. The tent's big enough for everyone guys. I'm just saying I prefer "reality with a touch of spirit" personally.

*I think the first movie they really do it well is George C. Scott's character in Rescuers Down Under. His motion range is bang-on.

News:

Author Topic: The Magically Flawed World of Disney (Read 32773 times)