|
|
Post by snsurone on Jun 5, 2017 17:14:33 GMT
I confess that I never saw THE LITTLE MERMAID, but I did see ALADDIN, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, THE LION KING, and POCAHONTAS.
Masterpieces, all of them!
In fact, I think B&TB was far more deserving of the Academy Award as Best Picture than THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS.
Walt Disney has been accused of being an anti-Semite (which his daughter Diane denied), but I'll wager that if he was alive when these movies were made (and his studio run by Jewish men like Michael Eisner), he would have been extremely proud.
I'd like to see more animated films like the ones I mentioned, and not that CGI garbage.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jun 5, 2017 17:39:02 GMT
Beauty and the Beast and CGI Beauty and the Beast was the second film, after The Rescuers Down Under, produced using CAPS (Computer Animation Production System), a digital scanning, ink, paint, and compositing system of software and hardware developed for Disney by Pixar. The software allowed for a wider range of colors, as well as soft shading and colored line effects for the characters, techniques lost when the Disney studio abandoned hand inking for xerography in the late 1950s. CAPS also allowed the production crew to simulate multiplane effects: placing characters and/or backgrounds on separate layers and moving them towards/away from the camera on the Z-axis to give the illusion of depth, as well as altering the focus of each layer In addition, CAPS allowed an easier combination of hand-drawn art with computer-generated imagery, which before had to be plotted to animation paper and then xeroxed and painted traditionally. This technique was put to significant use during the "Beauty and the Beast" waltz sequence, in which Belle and Beast dance through a computer-generated ballroom as the camera dollies around them in simulated 3D space.[The filmmakers had originally decided against the use of computers in favor of traditional animation, but later, when the technology had improved, decided it could be used for the one scene in the ballroom. The success of the ballroom sequence helped convince studio executives to further invest in computer animationWiki : Beauty and the Beast snsuroneI'd like to see more animated films like the ones I mentioned, and not that CGI garbage
(which was pioneered by Beauty and the Beast). |
|
|
|
Post by claudius on Jun 5, 2017 20:40:19 GMT
The films of the first half of the decade were fine (I would like to include A GOOFY MOVIE, its French 'Movie Toons' to that list). The remainder were not so well; I seem to notice that HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, HERCULES, MULAN, and TARZAN all shared a great start, an awesome piece in the middle ("Hellfire" Nuff said) with a not as impressive conclusion (I'm not saying the endings sucked, but they lacked something big, ala the Transformation in B&B, "Savages" in POCAHONTAS, the waterfall/"I to I" in AGM, the battle of Pride Rock in TLK, etc.).
|
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Jun 5, 2017 20:47:45 GMT
One of the best decades that Disney feature film animation has ever experienced. I'll admit the films released after The Lion King began to feel too homogenous with its adherence to the "Disney formula", but all of them are enjoyable in their own right.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jun 5, 2017 21:12:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jun 5, 2017 21:19:58 GMT
ALADDIN and CGI
This was the second Disney animated feature to use fully-rendered and textured 3-D CGI-moving backgrounds in combination with the traditionally animated character animation, a technique that was expanded upon in the Disney short Off His Rockers (1992) and previously in Beauty and the Beast (1991). This led to the creation of "Deep Canvas," a brand-new technique created by Disney seven years later for use in Tarzan (1999), which allows 2-D hand-drawn characters to exist seamlessly in a fully 3-D environment.
|
|
|
|
Post by snsurone on Jun 5, 2017 22:25:00 GMT
The first use of 3D CGI was TOY STORY.
Since then, every animated movie and even some TV shows use that format.
Personally, I just can't warm up to it at all.
There are some movies that mix CGI with live-action, such as SCOOBY DOO and ALVIN AND THE CHIPMUNKS, and they have been heavily panned by critics; they were also box-office flops.
I actually love computer animation paired with old-fashioned ink-and-paint art which was utilized in the movies I mentioned in the OP (and others, too).
It has a beautiful fluidity and naturalness that was sorely missing in the cheap Hanna/Barbera TV output of the '60's and '70's.
It's just that 3D CGI that I so dislike.
I just can't stand seeing "Peanuts" and Jay Ward characters in 3D!
Thank you for letting me vent.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 5, 2017 22:37:51 GMT
I don't mind their use of CGI so much that it seems they haven't done an animated film in some time that felt like an event or epic in some sense;when it comes to their more typical releases if that makes sense. Tangled, Frozen, and Moana are all fine in their own right but they didn't wow me like The Lion King or Aladdin or Pocahontas or Hunchback of Notre Dame or Hercules or Tarzan did. Even Atlantis: The Lost Empire and Treasure Planet felt like an event when being marketed (even though both were not as successful as hoped). Dinosaur (2000) definitely aimed for this sense of scale (its visuals and that score are amazing). Ironically I think the most recent animated films that come closest were Dreamworks' How to Train Your Dragon films.
|
|
Seto
Sophomore
@seto
Posts: 313
Likes: 227
 
|
Post by Seto on Jun 6, 2017 1:14:57 GMT
I confess that I never saw THE LITTLE MERMAID, but I did see ALADDIN, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, THE LION KING, and POCAHONTAS. Masterpieces, all of them! In fact, I think B&TB was far more deserving of the Academy Award as Best Picture than THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. The fact that Beauty and the Beast was nominated at all in 1991, was considered an achievement. The film was universally loved upon release with its beautiful story, great characters and amazing songs. I think the fact that it was the first animated film in a very long time to be genuinely accessible to adults as well as children really gave it that extra push it needed for an oscar nod. Should it have beaten Silence of the Lambs?? My short answer is no. Lambs is truly an astonishing achievement in all areas of film making. As to your other three favourites... I guess there could be a case made for The Lion King and Aladdin being 'masterpieces,' but Pocahontas?? I would go as far as to say that film is quite terrible actually. Complete style over substance, with a paper thin storyline and one dimensional characters to boot. |
|
|
|
Post by snsurone on Jun 6, 2017 20:33:53 GMT
I confess that I never saw THE LITTLE MERMAID, but I did see ALADDIN, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, THE LION KING, and POCAHONTAS. Masterpieces, all of them! In fact, I think B&TB was far more deserving of the Academy Award as Best Picture than THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. The fact that Beauty and the Beast was nominated at all in 1991, was considered an achievement. The film was universally loved upon release with its beautiful story, great characters and amazing songs. I think the fact that it was the first animated film in a very long time to be genuinely accessible to adults as well as children really gave it that extra push it needed for an oscar nod. Should it have beaten Silence of the Lambs?? My short answer is no. Lambs is truly an astonishing achievement in all areas of film making. As to your other three favourites... I guess there could be a case made for The Lion King and Aladdin being 'masterpieces,' but Pocahontas?? I would go as far as to say that film is quite terrible actually. Complete style over substance, with a paper thin storyline and one dimensional characters to boot. Well, "chacun a son gout", as I always say. I love POCAHONTAS as a sweet, tender love story, without the slobbering lustfulness of so-called "rom-coms". Same with BEAUTY AND THE BEAST. And, as an artist, I really love the song "The Colors of the Wind". Very poetic and imaginative. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jun 7, 2017 2:34:03 GMT
In terms of that year's Oscars, I find The Silence of the Lambs superior, but Beauty and the Beast is indeed a monumental achievement, possibly Disney's best picture since Walt's movies ( Snow White, Pinocchio, Dumbo, Bambi--as well as the "Sleepy Hollow" segment of Ichabod and Mr. Toad, Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, and Peter Pan--wow, that's a lot!). In terms of the story, I rate it only slightly under Cocteau's incredibly beautiful 1946 adaptation. I quite like Pocahontas, but it's not exactly a favorite of mine. I agree with snsurone about "Colors of the Wind," a gorgeous song. The Lion King was for a long time my young cousin's favorite film, and I watched it so many times with her that I think I've become a bit bored of it! It's fairly decent, to be sure, but also never a favorite. The Broadway play is superb, though. Aladdin and The Little Mermaid are quite good, though the former is most amusing for the late Robin Williams's manic genie. Hunchback of Notre Dame and The Rescuers Down Under are also fairly good; the latter is particularly underrated. For some reason, though it's '86, I always think of The Great Mouse Detective as a '90s film--probably because I watched it then. I think that's a great little story too, though not the same caliber as Beauty and the Beast, probably. |
|
|
|
Post by claudius on Jun 7, 2017 11:05:00 GMT
THE LITTLE MERMAID was the 'Do we have to watch it again?' film for me, in the case of my little sister. However, it never lost its appeal to me.
My brother made the mistake of thinking TGMD was 90s due to its VHS release in 1992; he forgot the time in '86 the family went to the movies and split up, with the males seeing HAUNTED HONEYMOON while the females went to see TGMD (I thought HH was going to be scary, so I went to see TGMD instead...which turned out be scarier!). I do think the film is underrated; I felt it was the first glimpse of Disney second Golden Age.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jun 7, 2017 14:04:10 GMT
claudiusI thought HH was going to be scary, so I went to see TGMD instead...which turned out be scarier!)This was pretty typical of Disney. Child in jeopardy. Separation from parent. Villain very often a fat female. Take a classic story and instead of just filming the story as written, Disney-fi it. Cutesy Quasimodo ring any bells, Disney-twist-wise ? Thank heavens that the Disney Studio never got their mitts on the Beatrix Potter stories.
|
|
