|
Haha looks like that involved another appearance of Sport Goofy
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2024 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
Would look forward to reading your watchthrough! I did one of my own finally in this and predecessor threads, over the last couple of years. I'd never successfully watched them all when I had them on DVD (I bought them all but then lost steam somewhere during the WWII package movies lol), but now with streaming the excuses are hard to come by.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2024 00:44
|
|
|
Robindaybird posted:I do wonder if they were stinging from their attempt to update Minnie in the 80s and shied away from trying it with Mickey. Actually you know what, it's weird that this came up just now because for some completely unrelated reason I found myself wondering why I had two completely different competing sets of lyrics jostling around in my mind for that "Hey Mickey" song, and realized I've always idly wondered why the version I knew didn't go "you're so fine you blow my mind" like in Wayne's World, but apparently never cared enough to try to figure out why. Anyway after much spelunking it turns out that this is the version I was familiar with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CY2yIkzceE Which was rewritten completely but makes no mention of mice or other Disney characters so I never even suspected it wasn’t the original. As opposed to this one which was apparently all shot and choreographed by one person on an Amiga or something, and dancing in her original high school cheerleader outfit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aqLwHP4y6Q I never even loving knew. Let alone realized that that's what the Weird Al video was parodying, not the Minnie one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZlLQLFq_H4 And weirdly, the wikipedia page for the Toni Basil version has a whole section for "other versions and adaptations" but doesn't even mention the Minnie one. What the gently caress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_(Toni_Basil_song) That's about enough of that, god drat Data Graham fucked around with this message at 03:41 on Jan 22, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2024 03:33
|
|
|
Lol I have the title song of CDD stuck in my head as we speak because I looked up the opening credits yesterday just to put it there. It's like the proto-Zootopia-titles, and has the same effect on me
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2024 11:37
|
|
|
Lol I was watching the "Sketchbook" miniseries on Disney+ which has one episode of Eric Goldberg drawing the Genie (each 12-minute episode features a single animator telling their life story as they draw a character they're associated with). What I kept noticing about each of those episodes as it went on (there are only 6) was that the artists were clearly just copying a single frame that was put in front of them, rather than drawing from memory or whole cloth, because the show had to redraw it again digitally for the credits sequence, in more or less the same way the artist drew it on-camera on their light table, and there's a lot of continuity-breakage that kind of sucks the magic out of it. And even worse was that Goldberg seemed to have completely forgotten ever having drawn the Genie and was just sort of copying the character feature by feature off of a frame from the movie, maybe not even a keyframe judging by the weird position of the leg and how he kept narrating how he was drawing each piece of the figure like it was the first time he'd ever seen it, or gamely giving tips on 3D construction interspersed with Ed Emberley style shortcuts that teach you nothing, like "just put the fingers in here like this". And the reason I bring this up is that he talked about the "bracelets" as though completely unaware that they were meant to be shackles. Such a weird experience watching these guys trying to put on a show as best they can and perform for the camera. I mean yeah it was 30 years ago but something just felt so off about it. (Mark Henn's episode was a bit better and more revealing about the kind of characters he got typecast into drawing, but I only wish it had spent more time showing how apparently not a single finished frame of Simba in the movie looked remotely like his concept art or key drawings)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2024 00:29
|
|
|
Clicked through to make sure this was what I thought it was lol it was
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2024 00:04
|
|
|
Anecdotally I think the ATLA shipping wars were the ones that left the deepest scars on a generation.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2024 03:40
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:I mean, you're already halfway to The Iron Giant there. (Which is itself based on a children's book that's waaay old) Yeah I was about to say, like when the robot's color scheme goes red it sure seems like it's priming for a "omg the robot is a horrible weapon" reveal. I don't mind seeing The Iron Giant again for sure but I hope this is taking a different tack than it looks like.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2024 14:08
|
|
|
An animated series featuring "twilight" "sparkle" you say
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2024 11:40
|
|
|
Almost as though any company once it reaches a certain size cannot continue to Grow At All Costs without actively harming the environment in which it operates
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2024 15:01
|
|
|
This is more animation-adjacent than strictly on-topic but I just wanted to say that I saw my niece yesterday in a regional/community theatre production of the Hunchback of Notre Dame musical that was adapted from the Disney movie. Has anyone else seen this thing? It is loving wild It was first produced in Germany by an independent team under license from Disney, and it turned out so jaw-droppingly well that they re-domesticated it and brought Menken/Schwartz back on to further flesh out the script for a fully localized English version. I'm blown away by the impact all the new changes have on the story, and particularly the performance by the guy playing Quasimodo, who (as the script dictates) is interpreted as being deaf or nearly-deaf (due to the bellringing) and with a speech impediment/delivery that just has to be observed to be believed. The actor has to absolutely 1000% sell it or it can completely feel mean-spirited or otherwise extremely uncomfortable at best, but the guy in my niece's troupe (who is a dance teacher and has been doing this role for a couple of years) absolutely has it nailed. The presentation is a lot more abstract and unconventional, with narration being delivered by the characters it describes, as though floating in and out of their selves, and with the POV shifting into and out of Quasimodo's own unreliable-narrator head. It's incredible how well it works. The story is much truer to the source and accordingly ends on more of a downer (while being simultaneously gut-wrenching and transcendent) than the movie does, which I thought was kind of hilarious considering that the movie's ending when it came out was hailed as being incredibly bold and daring and mature for Disney just in that they didn't pull some magic poo poo to make Quasimodo get the girl (as I remember at least one of the instant direct-to-video checkout-lane knockoffs did). This one's story makes the movie seem kind of laughable in retrospect, not just for the gargoyles (which are completely rethought in this, thankfully) but also for having Quasimodo just be Tom Hulce swinging around like Spider-man when doing it the way this did is so powerful in its own right. Disney never put this show on Broadway but I felt like it might not survive the transition away from the small, intimate kind of staging I saw it in, not with the choices they made
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2024 19:29
|
|
|
Short answer: yes. Long answer: the "gargoyles" are portrayed as ensemble players in monk robes who peer out of crevices and around columns like statues and serve as aspects of Quasimodo's inner voices. They also do things like move pieces of masonry around to depict the scene changing to different parts of the cathedral. Think of them as the very EYES of Notre Dame statues from the opening song of the movie (they all line up shoulder to shoulder at one point and he has to weave in and out between them, the effect is extremely striking) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JZvLjjsYnU ^^ This performance doesn't have anything like the "voice" that the Quasimodo I saw does, which is ... god I don't even know how to talk about it but it is 1 million percent the highlight of the show
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2024 21:27
|
|
|
Yeah there is very little humor and zero comic relief in the stage show. What laughs there are are of the  variety, like what they did for the vision of St. Aphrodisius appearing out of a stained glass window (in which he is depicted decapitated and the actor's head is sticking through the window in the crook of the saint's arm at first, before the panels fall away and he shimmies himself back into human shape) to sing the "Flight into Egypt" song,To connect it with animation, one of the other things that really struck me about the Quasimodo actor's performance was that he had an extremely good sense of silhouette. He knew just how to hold the right posture, how to maintain this weird loping gait as he hopped around the stage, how to let his legs drag all cockeyed, how to plant himself and create a dynamic image as he hauled on the huge rope depicting the bell he rings
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2024 23:41
|
|
|
Awesome, thanks for finding that ^^ I needed to go back and rewatch a few bits and see how else it had been staged (e.g. in higher-budget productions). But that actually helps illustrate that I don't think it necessarily would need to be a massive Broadway production, because the version I saw was with a much more modest stage, limited lighting, recorded music and no mikes, but the effects like the hunchback costume elements and especially the makeup smears (which are used in a highly stylized and allusive way to suggest deformities rather than using actual prosthetics or masks or anything like that) are seemingly keyed around the intimate-scale theater of the kind I saw it in. To put those same elements into a big-budget production kind of defangs the inventiveness of the choices they made in the name of economy, I think. More money doesn't necessarily improve it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2024 02:47
|
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:This is one of those things that's really been twisted in the pop culture understanding of the movie. I remembered it the same way and was surprised to learn otherwise - like that's the story we all know, right, she goes to the ball to meet the prince? Similar to how Ariel and Belle's actual motivations in their movies get flattened in the discourse. A nitpick along these lines that I mentioned before during my same-kinda-thing-you're-doing was that the titular song says something like "As lovely as your name", as though the name "Cinderella" is just ... like ... a pretty-sounding name. Not that it's supposed to be literally a mocking epithet making fun of how she has to work cleaning cinders out of coal grates. It's like the writers just completely whiffed on a basic pun at the center of the story. Much like how later in The Fox & the Hound when the old lady makes a big to-do about naming the fox "Tod" because ... it's short for "toddler"  Not like, it's literally a regional synonym for fox or anythingSame with how they never bother to explain or even allude to the meaning of the name Pinocchio etc. I don't know why that keeps happening with them, seems like they're doing it on purpose for some god-only-knows reason
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2024 00:44
|
|
|
Someone forwarded me this and it's extremely my poo poo Him and jaaaaaames baxter Data Graham fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Apr 16, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 14:22
|
|
|
Lol fantastic. I have been seeing this with a friend of mine who is not artistic at all but has been going nuts with AI art, trying for literally months to refine and perfect this one image he's been iterating on over and over and over and over. It is simply not possible to "refine" AI art, not in the way we would naturally assume. You can't just use AI to get "in the ballpark" and then touch up the fine details. All you can do, if you're an AI prompter, is tweak the prompts and try again, starting again from scratch, and the AI has no idea of context or history or what you're actually trying to accomplish, what you liked of the previous thing and what you want changed, and to what. You're just tossing dice and hoping it just magically turns up the thing the client wants. Like the random number generator at Bender's execution. Oh hey! Perfect! It's hilarious that the "artists" in that story don't have the self-awareness to understand that there is any area where their e-ticket gold-rush genie lamp falls flat on its face and they themselves have nothing to bring to the table to make up for it
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2024 23:16
|
|
|
OK well by "you" I meant "someone whose only skill is AI prompting"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2024 23:30
|
|
|
"We don't want people in it" "I don't know how to drat unreasonable clients
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2024 03:22
|
|
|
 I admit to some perplexity as to what role snow plays in the TLK setting
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2024 13:09
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:Parts of it is probably on a mountain. Yes that's the presumption but even on Kilimanjaro you don't get snow until like 18k feet up, not your usual lion habitat. My reaction was "if he escapes from a zoo I swear to god"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2024 13:16
|
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:Sleeping Beauty "Once Upon a Dream" is maybe the earliest example I can think of of what would become the archetypical "Disney Musical song", complete with Broadway-tier lyrics and production values. It benefits of course from borrowing existing music from Tchaikovsky but the lyrics are fuckin' great! They're playful and artful. They dance through the otherwise simple structure by playing with the poetic meter and rhyme scheme, using gentle twists on repetition of words to keep things light and moving. "I... know... you" at the beginning being reflected later in the stanza as "But if I know you" with enjambment straddling the musical line's beginning is just a delightful little fillip, like a lift in ballet. And then "You'll love me at once... the way you did once" toying with the varying meanings of that word. It's all surprisingly intricate and delicate and you can sort of see the whole modern Disney musical tradition harking back to it as a guiding light instead of the goofball gimmick songs from stuff like Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland. Also don't overlook just how modern the visual design was in Sleeping Beauty. Coming at the end of the 50s when the minimalist, geometric UPA style was ascendant, it's a film whose visual look was carefully engineered to catch the modern wave and ride it away from what was starting to feel stale and dusty in their older, softer, more lavishly hand-painted looking movies. You get some fascinating stylization in things like the opening credits and in how the horses of the soldiers are rendered. If you look up the developmental art where they were playing around with impossibly tall castles and fairy-tale tree canopies hundreds of feet high, figures looking layered on top of each other like construction paper cutouts, it was maybe the first time Disney was really consciously trying to invent a new and bespoke look for a movie. It was incredibly ambitious and really caught a lot of people off guard at the time, just as much as The Little Mermaid did 30 years later making people go "whoa! Where the hell did THIS come from?"
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2024 13:38
|
|
|
101 Dalmatians is also the first place where what we think of as the "Disney look"—particularly for animal characters—came to the forefront. It isn't Milt Kahl's first movie but it's the first one where he really brought to bear his strength with animal face construction, and it completely took over the studio.Data Graham posted:I mean look at this:
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2024 13:04
|
|
|
I just spent ten minutes digging through the previous iteration of this thread for my wallotext review when I was doing my own watchthrough of all the features, and apparently I just never did one because I found it so unremarkable or something  drat that squirrel episode though. I remember they snipped it into one of those Valentine's Day specials along with a bunch of other things in an anthology narrated by Ludwig von Drake, and as a ten year old I remember being hosed up by it for weeks.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2024 10:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
MikeJF posted:There's a very horny lady squirrel who wants to get it on with Arthur and Arthur is like 'um no' and she doesn't care and Merlin is like 'oh ho ho ho' and very much 'sorry kid no means yes!' The bit at the end where he's a human and trying to explain the situation to her is the worst. Because you're this close to a human and an animal no-poo poo communicating, and they're clearly speaking the same "language", they just can't... quite... connect. It's maddening
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2024 21:00
|
|