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.