Topic: The Magically Flawed World of Disney (Read 32752 times)

McDohl · « **Reply #140 on:** April 13, 2009, 02:16:49 PM »

So, remind me why Disney has completely disowned the Black Cauldron?

I mean, stuffing corpses in to titular cooking device to turn them in to undead minions COULDN'T be against Disney's PR...

Büge · « **Reply #141 on:** April 13, 2009, 03:22:35 PM »

Dude.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI3esiWWi-s

It's Song of The South they'll never acknowledge.

Shinra · « **Reply #142 on:** April 13, 2009, 03:31:33 PM »

I don't understand what the problem with The Black Cauldron is. I enjoyed the movie as a child, and as an adult. It holds up very well if swords and sorcery is the kind of thing you're into. A little too much scruffy mascot character, but it has to have some defining feature that makes it a Disney film.

Quote from: Büge on April 13, 2009, 01:51:04 PM

Quote from: Arc on April 13, 2009, 10:44:52 AM
Quote from: Büge on April 13, 2009, 08:28:36 AM
cuing animation on twos rather than ones.

Film goes at 24 FPS, right? Snow White appears to make use of all 24 frames. Robin Hood on the other hand, looks like it goes at 12 FPS. So they cue the animation on two frames rather than one.

You can actually see this in action if you watch Titan A.E. Note how smooth the CG elements move in contrast to the hand-drawn pieces.

You definately see a lot more craft in the oldest Disney pieces. I understand that this statement is just broadly condensing the whole thread but really. It's kind of a shame that Disney deviated from being such a talented animation studio to churning out crap that they shipped in from Korea and China. Walt Disney's frozen head is spinning in it's glass capsule.

PS: Having seen Song of the South like 11 times when I was a kid, that movie is in no way offensive. The most laughable complaint I've heard is that it glorifies slavery, except for the fact that it's set during the carpetbagger era. It might be an old-timey Minstrel story, but considering the conduct of the characters I can't see the movie as being anything but a positive influence on children. If we're so obsessed with political correctness that we can't let our children watch a movie where a black man wears red lipstick, but we'll let our children watch a movie like Atlantis that features gunfights and inferred murder, I think it's a pretty good sign of what kind of nation we've become, and just how racist our society really is.

Brentai · « **Reply #143 on:** April 13, 2009, 03:48:10 PM »

Quote from: Büge on April 13, 2009, 01:51:04 PM

You can actually see this in action if you watch Titan A.E. Note how smooth the CG elements move in contrast to the hand-drawn pieces.

That's actually a feature of CG itself and not the framerate of the animation. Though in Titan A.E. it's really both.

Royal☭ · « **Reply #144 on:** April 13, 2009, 03:49:56 PM »

You do realize that even in the old days Disney was probably still farming its animation out to Korea and Japan, right? Sleeping Beauty alone has an entire wall of Asian names in it. And as I pointed out, the reason Disney's quality of animation dropped is that they lost their guiding light (so to speak) and the cost of animating just got very, very expensive.

And, though I've never seen it, from what I've heard Song of the South is looked down on by Disney because it's basically a "this is why black people are inferior" movie. That shouldn't stop Disney from being able to release it while saying "It's part our history, whether we like it or not".

Quote from: Third Strongest Brentai on April 13, 2009, 03:48:10 PM

Quote from: Büge on April 13, 2009, 01:51:04 PM
You can actually see this in action if you watch Titan A.E. Note how smooth the CG elements move in contrast to the hand-drawn pieces.

That's actually a feature of CG itself and not the framerate of the animation. Though in Titan A.E. it's really both.

Except, all movies are 24 frames per second. So the smoothness of the animation shouldn't be dependent on whether it's CG or hand drawn, only that it is 12 or 24 frames. It's a lot easier to get 24 frames of animation out of CG, though, specifically because a person doesn't have to draw each individual frame.

Mongrel · « **Reply #145 on:** April 13, 2009, 03:53:18 PM »

What he's saying that there are effectively 12 frames per second, halving the framerate.

P.S. Classical animation has gone as high as 32-36 frames per second. BUTTAH.

Brentai · « **Reply #146 on:** April 13, 2009, 03:59:43 PM »

Yeah, I figured someone would make me explain this.

Essentially what I'm saying is that there's always going to be a discrepancy between the "smoothness" between CG animation and cel animation because CG is procedural and cel is not. CG animation in the worst case is perfectly smoothed out - I say "in the worst case" because that sort of thing is what tends to drop CG straight into the uncanny valley. There are all sorts of horseshit algorithms to simulate actual spontaneity, but so far nobody's been able to totally conquer it. The bottom line is that, even if they're both being animated at the same rate, cel will (assuming the artists are at least competent) always come out "choppy" in a pleasing way when compared directly to CG which is "smooth" in an unpleasing way.

Of course mashing them together both at once tends to result in a "choppy-smooth" effect which is

.

Royal☭ · « **Reply #147 on:** April 13, 2009, 04:03:24 PM »

It's simpler than that. Hand drawn will seem choppy and unnatural compared to CG when it's only changing every other half frame. If they moved in sync they wouldn't seem weird. It's not a matter of procedural or not having enough spontaneity. It's just the two are out of time. It creates that weird tension like when a drummer plays half time compared to the rest of the band.

And it's only really apparent in Titan AE because of the number of scenes where the background changes camera angles. This isn't a big problem in most traditional animation because apparently animating a shifting camera angle is difficult.

Brentai · « **Reply #148 on:** April 13, 2009, 04:05:13 PM »

Quote

Though in Titan A.E. it's really both.

Even if that movie had had twice the frames it'd still look jacked up.

Kazz · « **Reply #149 on:** April 13, 2009, 04:19:21 PM »

i'd do that asian chick

even if she is voiced by drew barrymore

Arc · « **Reply #150 on:** April 13, 2009, 04:25:33 PM »

Quote from: Büge on April 13, 2009, 01:51:04 PM

FPS

Figured, just checking.

AT THE TURN OF THE CENTURY, I assisted a project which captured the rates of various anime projects.

!trigun

Büge · « **Reply #151 on:** June 03, 2009, 10:16:17 AM »

New York Times Article on "Princess and the Frog" discussing Disney tiptoeing around stereotypes

Interestingly, out of all the previous Disney films, they never mention "Song of the South."

And a letter to Pixar asking for a female leading role that isn't a princess.

Mr. Wonka · « **Reply #152 on:** June 04, 2009, 02:34:18 PM »

A good example of a Disney film that Disney acknologe, that uses extreme stereotyping is Bedknobs and Broomsticks.
Have you realised how Disney would never get away with a musical sequence like Portabello Road if it was made today.
Not only that, but the film condones alot of crimes too.
So why release that and not Song of the South.

Brentai · « **Reply #153 on:** June 04, 2009, 04:24:01 PM »

Quote from: Büge on June 03, 2009, 10:16:17 AM

And a letter to Pixar asking for a female leading role that isn't a princess.

Lilo?

Detonator · « **Reply #154 on:** June 04, 2009, 04:26:35 PM »

Quote from: Brentai on June 04, 2009, 04:24:01 PM

Quote from: Büge on June 03, 2009, 10:16:17 AM
And a letter to Pixar asking for a female leading role that isn't a princess.

Lilo?

Wasn't a Pixar movie. Hell, it wasn't even fucking 3D, so I don't know how you'd mistake it for one.

Brentai · « **Reply #155 on:** June 04, 2009, 04:42:07 PM »

I was assuming that the anti-Princess rant was aimed at Disney's history of every fucking leading girl being a princess instead of Pixar's, seeing as how they've never had one until now.

Detonator · « **Reply #156 on:** June 04, 2009, 04:48:19 PM »

Quote from: Brentai on June 04, 2009, 04:42:07 PM

I was assuming that the anti-Princess rant was aimed at Disney's history of every fucking leading girl being a princess instead of Pixar's, seeing as how they've never had one until now.

The letter was addressed to Pixar, not Disney. It says so on the link you quoted. The anti-princess thing is inspired by Disney, of course, but the content of the letter refers to Pixar's past (and future) films.

Brentai · « **Reply #157 on:** June 04, 2009, 04:51:05 PM »

Well yes, but it makes sense to ask Pixar instead of Disney because Disney is fucking Disney and Pixar is... well, fucking Pixar.

Detonator · « **Reply #158 on:** June 04, 2009, 04:59:50 PM »

Quote from: Brentai on June 04, 2009, 04:51:05 PM

Well yes, but it makes sense to ask Pixar instead of Disney because Disney is fucking Disney and Pixar is... well, fucking Pixar.

I think that's kinda the point. You expect this kinda shit from Disney, but it shouldn't take Pixar nearly a dozen movies before one has a non-princess female lead.

And you don't ask Disney because, as you pointed out, they already did it.

I assumed your original post was implying that Lilo & Stitch somehow invalidated the message of the letter, but I suppose that's an awful lot to surmise from a one-word reply to a quote. What point were you trying to make?

Brentai · « **Reply #159 on:** June 04, 2009, 05:58:36 PM »

That Disney, whose policy of frilly dresses is the one being railed against here, already tried doing that, and it wasn't even acknowledged.

Then again, the entire thing was kind of a self-aware deconstruction, so I guess it doesn't really count.

News:

Author Topic: The Magically Flawed World of Disney (Read 32752 times)