Jimmy Two Shoes
a month ago
Allow me to continue here a discussion that had to be interrupted because of the totally despicable behavior of Disney fans.

Even though Kimball and Sibley were important animators, Disney did not have comical animation in a majority of productions. For every Ward Kimball or Goofy cartoon, there's a few dozen animators and cartoons without the sensibilities there. Also, even when Iwerks were still at the studio, Disney was pushing the animators to be a bit more "natural" in their drawing and animation, and when Iwerks left his way of doing things was pretty quickly abandoned, although the studio wasn't ready for the jump forward and there were mixed results for the time being. That said, I think people neglect this history in part because the more comical and looser films are the more entertaining cartoons (there's a reason DUMBO is many people's favorite Disney Feature), but because it tends to be what many cartoon fans prefer. I'll leave it at that

Originally Posted by: S. C. MacPeter 



In fact, when I wrote my first post, I had in mind Disney cartoons produced in the early '30s, but ArcLordOne misled me by posting excerpts from cartoons from the '20s and '40s, and that's why I retracted it.

However, you were right to correct me as it was indeed Ub Iwerks' departure that prompted Walt Disney to abandon body distortions in his cartoons. In fact, I think the disappearance of body stretching began to disappear in Mickey Mouse cartoons after Walt entrusted them to animators other than Ub Iwerks, and you only have to compare The Barnyard Battle cartoon with Mickey's Choo-Choo to realize the difference.
The same thing happens even more brutally in the Silly Symphonies, where the body distortions almost completely disappeared as soon as Ub Iwerks left, with the notable exception of Cannibal Capers, which was very probably directed by Iwerks, although his animation is not perceptible in this cartoon.





Needless to say, Ub Iwerks' animation clearly had a charm and innate talent that no other Disney animator will be able to match.
PopKorn Kat
a month ago
First off, I would like to say that I am glad you heeded my advice and started a new thread for this topic. Thank you for that. That said, comments like this....

Allow me to continue here a discussion that had to be interrupted because of the totally despicable behavior of Disney fans.

Jimmy Two Shoes wrote:


...could be seen as flaming, so it is highly advisable that you refrain from such. You've been warned several times in the past for this attitude, and it could lead to a suspension from posting if it continues. I would appreciate it if everyone in this thread remains civil and constructive with their posts, lest it be closed and the members in it have their posting privileges revoked.

Thank you.
DudleyDud
a month ago
I thought Mickey's Choo-Choo was directed by Ub Iwerks?
ArcLordOne
a month ago
Uh, characters ALWAYS distorted their bodies in Disney cartoons, not just in the Thirties. It was only in the features of the 50s (Peter Pan) where there was a literal quality. I feel like I should post these again:




ArcLordOne
a month ago
Some scenes:












nickramer
a month ago



Needless to say, Ub Iwerks' animation clearly had a charm and innate talent that no other Disney animator will be able to match.

Originally Posted by: Jimmy Two Shoes 



Actually, I can name more than ten animators at the studio that also had a unique charm to their drawings.
ArcLordOne
a month ago
@Jimmy Two Shoes I'm going to try to say this respectfully.

You say that there has been "despicable behavior by Disney fans", presumably myself included. But think: nomatter the thread topic, you go on there and instantly attack Disney and the work made under him, knowing how popular they are. And not just attacks; VISCIOUS attacks. Why? Not everyone must be a cartoon culture warrior.

I will politely say I do not believe you have watched that much Disney stuff. A lot of what you say is almost verbatim John K.'s blog, and John K. is not only hostile to Disney but pretty much anybody not Bob Clampett, even Jones, Avery, and especially the genius Friz Freleng. A confession: I know this is true because I was once like you! I repeated badmouthing about the Diz from John K. and others based on vague memories of Snow White. After actually watching the films, I realized I had missed out on a great universe. They have distortion, even in the late Thirties; Moving Day has Goofy flattened by a piano before Friz ever got in on the act.

I suggest you actually WATCH some Disney SHORTS from all the eras: 1927-196-something, and see that what you are claiming is simply not true. Also watch the Package Features, especially The Three Caballeros.

I was kind. Now it's your turn.


ArcLordOne
a month ago



Needless to say, Ub Iwerks' animation clearly had a charm and innate talent that no other Disney animator will be able to match.

Originally Posted by: nickramer 



Actually, I can name more than ten animators at the studio that also had a unique charm to their drawings.

Originally Posted by: Jimmy Two Shoes 


I can name double that!
Jimmy Two Shoes
a month ago
I apologize for the late reply, but I've been unable to connect to this forum since the update.

So to get back on topic:

I thought Mickey's Choo-Choo was directed by Ub Iwerks?

Originally Posted by: DudleyDud 



Ub Iwerks' animation in Mickey's Choo-Choo doesn't dominate the cartoon as it did in the early Mickey Mouse cartoons; here Iwerks mainly animates the locomotive scenes and does very little character animation.

Actually, I can name more than ten animators at the studio that also had a unique charm to their drawings.



Charm perhaps, but certainly not genius.

Because Ub Iwerks had a real innate talent for drawing, everything he did was good, and unlike the vast majority of other Disney animators, he didn't need to do thousands of pencil tests to get good work.

Above all, Ub Iwerks had a decisive influence on animation that very few animators can claim to have; only a few great animators like Bill Nolan, Otto Messmer and Winsor McCay can rival him.
Jimmy Two Shoes
a month ago

Uh, characters ALWAYS distorted their bodies in Disney cartoons, not just in the Thirties. It was only in the features of the 50s (Peter Pan) where there was a literal quality. I feel like I should post these again:



Originally Posted by: ArcLordOne 



As I've already explained on several occasions, I was referring to the Disney cartoons released just after Ub Iwerks' departure in early 1930, and not to the cartoons released in the late '30s and '40s.

So, allow me to post a few Silly Symphonies released after Iwerks' departure, which confirm that body distortions had already all but disappeared from Disney cartoons by that time.







Jimmy Two Shoes
a month ago

@Jimmy Two Shoes I'm going to try to say this respectfully.

You say that there has been "despicable behavior by Disney fans", presumably myself included. But think: nomatter the thread topic, you go on there and instantly attack Disney and the work made under him, knowing how popular they are. And not just attacks; VISCIOUS attacks. Why? Not everyone must be a cartoon culture warrior.

I will politely say I do not believe you have watched that much Disney stuff. A lot of what you say is almost verbatim John K.'s blog, and John K. is not only hostile to Disney but pretty much anybody not Bob Clampett, even Jones, Avery, and especially the genius Friz Freleng. A confession: I know this is true because I was once like you! I repeated badmouthing about the Diz from John K. and others based on vague memories of Snow White. After actually watching the films, I realized I had missed out on a great universe. They have distortion, even in the late Thirties; Moving Day has Goofy flattened by a piano before Friz ever got in on the act.

I suggest you actually WATCH some Disney SHORTS from all the eras: 1927-196-something, and see that what you are claiming is simply not true. Also watch the Package Features, especially The Three Caballeros.

I was kind. Now it's your turn.

Originally Posted by: ArcLordOne 



Your problem is that you haven't understood that I'm not just criticizing Walt Disney, but above all the artistic policy he imposed on his studio and the rest of the animation industry, with all the catastrophic consequences that entailed.

By forcing his animators to animate characters realistically, Walt Disney not only stifled their creativity, but also their personalities. In fact, in the early '30s, each animator had a very different style and way of animating, and Walt Disney was the one who wanted to standardize animation by imposing rules on animators, in a way applying a form of Fordism to the animation industry.

Even Tommy Stathes recognized that the cartoons of the '20s and early '30s had much more personality than those of the late '30s and '40s.

And John K.'s criticisms of the Disney studio are all very fair, and so far no one has ever been able to contradict him, hence the fact that Disney fans constantly seek to belittle him in order to discredit him.

And your assertion that I would never have seen Disney cartoons is extremely hypocritical on your part, given that you have denigrated all Van Beuren cartoons by saying that they were horrible and poorly animated when you yourself have admitted that you have seen almost none of Van Beuren's cartoons apart from the Cubby Bear series. Contrary to what you say, I've seen a lot of Disney cartoons.
ArcLordOne
a month ago

@Jimmy Two Shoes I'm going to try to say this respectfully.

You say that there has been "despicable behavior by Disney fans", presumably myself included. But think: nomatter the thread topic, you go on there and instantly attack Disney and the work made under him, knowing how popular they are. And not just attacks; VISCIOUS attacks. Why? Not everyone must be a cartoon culture warrior.

I will politely say I do not believe you have watched that much Disney stuff. A lot of what you say is almost verbatim John K.'s blog, and John K. is not only hostile to Disney but pretty much anybody not Bob Clampett, even Jones, Avery, and especially the genius Friz Freleng. A confession: I know this is true because I was once like you! I repeated badmouthing about the Diz from John K. and others based on vague memories of Snow White. After actually watching the films, I realized I had missed out on a great universe. They have distortion, even in the late Thirties; Moving Day has Goofy flattened by a piano before Friz ever got in on the act.

I suggest you actually WATCH some Disney SHORTS from all the eras: 1927-196-something, and see that what you are claiming is simply not true. Also watch the Package Features, especially The Three Caballeros.

I was kind. Now it's your turn.

Originally Posted by: Jimmy Two Shoes 



Your problem is that you haven't understood that I'm not just criticizing Walt Disney, but above all the artistic policy he imposed on his studio and the rest of the animation industry, with all the catastrophic consequences that entailed.

By forcing his animators to animate characters realistically, Walt Disney not only stifled their creativity, but also their personalities. In fact, in the early '30s, each animator had a very different style and way of animating, and Walt Disney was the one who wanted to standardize animation by imposing rules on animators, in a way applying a form of Fordism to the animation industry.

Even Tommy Stathes recognized that the cartoons of the '20s and early '30s had much more personality than those of the late '30s and '40s.

And John K.'s criticisms of the Disney studio are all very fair, and so far no one has ever been able to contradict him, hence the fact that Disney fans constantly seek to belittle him in order to discredit him.

And your assertion that I would never have seen Disney cartoons is extremely hypocritical on your part, given that you have denigrated all Van Beuren cartoons by saying that they were horrible and poorly animated when you yourself have admitted that you have seen almost none of Van Beuren's cartoons apart from the Cubby Bear series. Contrary to what you say, I've seen a lot of Disney cartoons.

Originally Posted by: ArcLordOne 


*sigh* It's hard to return kindness for polemics.

Note how you completely ignored my statement that constantly attacking Disney on every thread is not necessary even if you feel that way, as I do not go on every thread bashing cartoons I think are overrated.

The Tommy Stathes statement is an Appeal to Authority Fallacy  not worth refuting. How was that supposed to make me change my views? He is also biased toward pre-1940 cartoons in the first place.

"No one has been able to contradict" John K.? Look at my previous posts displaying Disney cartooniness; I'd say I did. He is also the doofus that said Friz Freleng was "really boring and not cartoony" (actual quote), indicating he's never watched any with any sort of scrutiny. Did you happen to see Ward Kimball's reel? Or John Lounsbery? And this "Fordism" thing is fake; I can tell out a Thomas and a Johnston.

As for me being a hypocrite, you are trying a whataboutism/tu quoque that wasn't even true; I have seen other Van Beuren cartoons. And I meant EARLY VB, not later. I meant the Mickey ripoffs from the heyday. What is hypocritical is accusing people of "despicable behavior" when it is not we who are randomly attacking one studio endlessly. And by you've seen "a lot" I'm assuming you mean ten, because what you are saying does not add up.

Also, not only have I watched the cartoons, I've read the books by the people who worked on them, as well as bios of Disney. I might know what I'm talking about.

If anything, you have yet to prove Disney cartoons were not cartoony by essentially dodging the evidence and repeating the same-old Kricfalusian strawmen.

I insist, please watch the actual cartoons. I think you will get along with people better.
PopKorn Kat
a month ago
Just a reminder to remain civil or else this thread will be closed. Thank you.
nickramer
a month ago
Regarding body distortion in the Disney shorts, there was some in "The Goddess of Spring" (1934), but to be honest, that was the most disappointing part of the short. The animators needed a lot of practices and training if they wanted a human like Snow White to act believable.

Also, for future reference, this site was originally "The Encyclopedia of Disney Animated Shorts" before morphing into "The Internet Animation Database". It would be nice if everyone would be considerate on that fact. Please and thank you.
LrgMini523
a month ago
I'll throw in my two cents ~
I'm not gonna say that Disney's shorts from 1930-1931 are particularly stand out. I would rather watch an Oswald or a Krazy from the same year. But that has less to do with the animation and more with the rather boring story and musical direction in the period... mostly from the Mickeys, but that's another can of worms. The Silly Symphonies, however, are hitting their stride. I actually really like 'toons such as Frocking Fish, Cannibal Capers and Playful Pan. They have that *oomph* that the Mickeys at the time were lacking.

The Celebrity and Columbia Mickeys are all fine. The animation's perfectly serviceable. Again, nothing standout. Could it have been better? Yeah, probably. But by the time Diz gets to UA in '32, production ramps up ten-fold. Mickey's model is much cleaner, the color Symphonies are all livelier, and best of all, the cartoons actually have story and good music again! Once the Donald and Goofy series begin, the shorts are as animated and as funny (though perhaps not as witty) as the competition. Even after the war, individual shorts are still humorous. Aquamania entertained me just as much as How to Swim from 20 years prior! Even a short I don't really enjoy, like Sea Salts, I won't blame on the animation but instead on the story.

The remaining color Symphonies are pretty much just animation tests for the features. Granted, it makes a production like Goddess of Spring or Old Mill rather boring on their own, but the results are obvious in how well Snow White came out. Practice makes perfect. Look at Gulliver's Travels for an example of going in for a big show without practice. (not to diss Gulliver - I still love it, just think Mr. Bug is better). And there are still plenty of wacky films. When there's a Bambi, there's a Three Caballeros on the horizon

I'd say putting 100% of the credit on Iwerks in those early days is a fault. Iwerks is a great animator! It's true! I love the later Flips and Willie Whoppers, despite their flaws. But to say that no one else in the studio could capture his same spark is a blatant lie. Plenty of great animators (your Ward Kimballs and etc. come to mind) were at the studio in its heyday. Perhaps it's not that we disagree with your point, but that coming in with absolute negative statements like that is sure to generate a negative response. Just because Mickey's Choo-Choo doesn't feature as much bouncy animation as Plane Crazy doesn't mean it's bad.

Animation by Iwerks in Willie and Gaucho look stellar. But I think he didn't feel the same way. Most of the time, during production of the ComiColors and etcetera, he was puttering away out back on mechanics. And when he returned to Disney, that's the role he took. Not trying to discredit his work or anything. Just something to ponder about.

Some of the "rustic charm" in a 30-31 Mickey probably comes from the influx of new hires to the studio at the time. Animated cartoons were still a burgeoning field, and not everyone was the best at it. Just look at him in Fiddling Around! They can't make up their minds on how big his head or limbs are from shot to shot. I feel like can detract from the artistry in Disney cartoons from this period. But everyone has their growing pains, right? By the following year, Mickey is much more developed and solid. Not rigid, mind you, just solid.

And on Disney "imposing a certain view" on the industry... no. It's well known that Disney didn't have as much control over his cartoons as the opening title would like to admit. Other than features, most of the decisions were still made by the artists and staff. We don't know a lot about the structure or popular opinion at the studio in 1931, but I'd imagine that it wasn't nearly as strict as you are describing. And by the time we reach the 50s, Walt pushes more attention to the Parks anyway, despite his whole studio still being built around needing his approval on things.

Other studios are bound to imitate what's popular and makes money. When Mickey was big, there were a million Mickey copies. Some of said clones are scrappy enough that I actually enjoy them more than the Mouse. When Disney was doing realistic features, the other studios said "hey, we can do that too!" Harman-Ising's stint at MGM proves that it can go successfully. But this isn't just a Disney thing. It's happened in TV, live-action features, movies, books, pretty much all kinds of media flock to trends. Even cartoons themselves started imitating WB come the 40s. It's not exclusively a Diz thing.

How important is "body stretching" to a cartoon, really? Just because characters aren't contorting like a Fleischer entry doesn't make one bad. It feels like a subjective preference. I personally wouldn't go so far to describe this era of Disney as "stiff" or "lifeless"- there's plenty of good acting. Sure, I may prefer a bouncier Bill Nolan Oswald cartoon, but again, that doesn't make a short like The Moose Hunt worse in comparison. They're just different.

I understand that your point here is primarily on the Disney shorts from late Celebrity through Columbia. But that is such a short period in the studio's overall life that it seems pointless to nitpick. I'm more confused about how Mouse got so popular when there were much better cartoons on the market. Name value? MM does have a good marquee ring to it...

If you don't like Disney cartoons in general, that's okay! No one is saying that your opinion is wrong. But claiming that you don't like something and claiming that something is bad are completely different beasts. I personally prefer cartoonier cartoons, but I can respect more serious and realistic animation for trying to do different things with the medium. If every cartoon was bouncy and silly, I'd get bored. And boredom is something up with which I will not put.
Anyways, if you don't have any actual critique about these shorts, it's pointless to keep shitting on Disney fans who only want to explain why they like 'em. Are there bad parts? Yes, but those are behind us. You're not gonna hear a Mickey Mouse fan praise the immediately post-Iwerks shorts because they're kind of crap. But you will hear praise on the 40s shorts that they grew and evolved into. There's plenty of stretchiness there, if that's what floats your boat.

I'll just say that for every dull cartoon like The Picnic, there's a great cartoon like The Little Whirlwind down the line. All I'm sayin'. Peace.
ArcLordOne
a month ago

I'll throw in my two cents ~
I'm not gonna say that Disney's shorts from 1930-1931 are particularly stand out. I would rather watch an Oswald or a Krazy from the same year. But that has less to do with the animation and more with the rather boring story and musical direction in the period... mostly from the Mickeys, but that's another can of worms. The Silly Symphonies, however, are hitting their stride. I actually really like 'toons such as Frocking Fish, Cannibal Capers and Playful Pan. They have that *oomph* that the Mickeys at the time were lacking.

The Celebrity and Columbia Mickeys are all fine. The animation's perfectly serviceable. Again, nothing standout. Could it have been better? Yeah, probably. But by the time Diz gets to UA in '32, production ramps up ten-fold. Mickey's model is much cleaner, the color Symphonies are all livelier, and best of all, the cartoons actually have story and good music again! Once the Donald and Goofy series begin, the shorts are as animated and as funny (though perhaps not as witty) as the competition. Even after the war, individual shorts are still humorous. Aquamania entertained me just as much as How to Swim from 20 years prior! Even a short I don't really enjoy, like Sea Salts, I won't blame on the animation but instead on the story.

The remaining color Symphonies are pretty much just animation tests for the features. Granted, it makes a production like Goddess of Spring or Old Mill rather boring on their own, but the results are obvious in how well Snow White came out. Practice makes perfect. Look at Gulliver's Travels for an example of going in for a big show without practice. (not to diss Gulliver - I still love it, just think Mr. Bug is better). And there are still plenty of wacky films. When there's a Bambi, there's a Three Caballeros on the horizon

I'd say putting 100% of the credit on Iwerks in those early days is a fault. Iwerks is a great animator! It's true! I love the later Flips and Willie Whoppers, despite their flaws. But to say that no one else in the studio could capture his same spark is a blatant lie. Plenty of great animators (your Ward Kimballs and etc. come to mind) were at the studio in its heyday. Perhaps it's not that we disagree with your point, but that coming in with absolute negative statements like that is sure to generate a negative response. Just because Mickey's Choo-Choo doesn't feature as much bouncy animation as Plane Crazy doesn't mean it's bad.

Animation by Iwerks in Willie and Gaucho look stellar. But I think he didn't feel the same way. Most of the time, during production of the ComiColors and etcetera, he was puttering away out back on mechanics. And when he returned to Disney, that's the role he took. Not trying to discredit his work or anything. Just something to ponder about.

Some of the "rustic charm" in a 30-31 Mickey probably comes from the influx of new hires to the studio at the time. Animated cartoons were still a burgeoning field, and not everyone was the best at it. Just look at him in Fiddling Around! They can't make up their minds on how big his head or limbs are from shot to shot. I feel like can detract from the artistry in Disney cartoons from this period. But everyone has their growing pains, right? By the following year, Mickey is much more developed and solid. Not rigid, mind you, just solid.

And on Disney "imposing a certain view" on the industry... no. It's well known that Disney didn't have as much control over his cartoons as the opening title would like to admit. Other than features, most of the decisions were still made by the artists and staff. We don't know a lot about the structure or popular opinion at the studio in 1931, but I'd imagine that it wasn't nearly as strict as you are describing. And by the time we reach the 50s, Walt pushes more attention to the Parks anyway, despite his whole studio still being built around needing his approval on things.

Other studios are bound to imitate what's popular and makes money. When Mickey was big, there were a million Mickey copies. Some of said clones are scrappy enough that I actually enjoy them more than the Mouse. When Disney was doing realistic features, the other studios said "hey, we can do that too!" Harman-Ising's stint at MGM proves that it can go successfully. But this isn't just a Disney thing. It's happened in TV, live-action features, movies, books, pretty much all kinds of media flock to trends. Even cartoons themselves started imitating WB come the 40s. It's not exclusively a Diz thing.

How important is "body stretching" to a cartoon, really? Just because characters aren't contorting like a Fleischer entry doesn't make one bad. It feels like a subjective preference. I personally wouldn't go so far to describe this era of Disney as "stiff" or "lifeless"- there's plenty of good acting. Sure, I may prefer a bouncier Bill Nolan Oswald cartoon, but again, that doesn't make a short like The Moose Hunt worse in comparison. They're just different.

I understand that your point here is primarily on the Disney shorts from late Celebrity through Columbia. But that is such a short period in the studio's overall life that it seems pointless to nitpick. I'm more confused about how Mouse got so popular when there were much better cartoons on the market. Name value? MM does have a good marquee ring to it...

If you don't like Disney cartoons in general, that's okay! No one is saying that your opinion is wrong. But claiming that you don't like something and claiming that something is bad are completely different beasts. I personally prefer cartoonier cartoons, but I can respect more serious and realistic animation for trying to do different things with the medium. If every cartoon was bouncy and silly, I'd get bored. And boredom is something up with which I will not put.
Anyways, if you don't have any actual critique about these shorts, it's pointless to keep shitting on Disney fans who only want to explain why they like 'em. Are there bad parts? Yes, but those are behind us. You're not gonna hear a Mickey Mouse fan praise the immediately post-Iwerks shorts because they're kind of crap. But you will hear praise on the 40s shorts that they grew and evolved into. There's plenty of stretchiness there, if that's what floats your boat.

I'll just say that for every dull cartoon like The Picnic, there's a great cartoon like The Little Whirlwind down the line. All I'm sayin'. Peace.

Originally Posted by: LrgMini523 


Amen.

The basic argument here is not an argument; it's a matter of taste. The gist of this thread essentially a "you MUST prefer Italian food to barbeque!"

This cannard that Walt was a dictator is bogus; Jack Kinney virtually ran a kingdom of his own in the Goofy department.

Finally, if we're supposed to believe "Ub was better than Diz" because he was "funny" (as if that's the only judge of talent), he made the most deadpan serious cartoon ever, The Brave Tin Soldier. And "funny" is not the sole judgement of even directors like Tex Avery.
Jimmy Two Shoes
a month ago

@Jimmy Two Shoes I'm going to try to say this respectfully.

You say that there has been "despicable behavior by Disney fans", presumably myself included. But think: nomatter the thread topic, you go on there and instantly attack Disney and the work made under him, knowing how popular they are. And not just attacks; VISCIOUS attacks. Why? Not everyone must be a cartoon culture warrior.

I will politely say I do not believe you have watched that much Disney stuff. A lot of what you say is almost verbatim John K.'s blog, and John K. is not only hostile to Disney but pretty much anybody not Bob Clampett, even Jones, Avery, and especially the genius Friz Freleng. A confession: I know this is true because I was once like you! I repeated badmouthing about the Diz from John K. and others based on vague memories of Snow White. After actually watching the films, I realized I had missed out on a great universe. They have distortion, even in the late Thirties; Moving Day has Goofy flattened by a piano before Friz ever got in on the act.

I suggest you actually WATCH some Disney SHORTS from all the eras: 1927-196-something, and see that what you are claiming is simply not true. Also watch the Package Features, especially The Three Caballeros.

I was kind. Now it's your turn.

Originally Posted by: ArcLordOne 



Your problem is that you haven't understood that I'm not just criticizing Walt Disney, but above all the artistic policy he imposed on his studio and the rest of the animation industry, with all the catastrophic consequences that entailed.

By forcing his animators to animate characters realistically, Walt Disney not only stifled their creativity, but also their personalities. In fact, in the early '30s, each animator had a very different style and way of animating, and Walt Disney was the one who wanted to standardize animation by imposing rules on animators, in a way applying a form of Fordism to the animation industry.

Even Tommy Stathes recognized that the cartoons of the '20s and early '30s had much more personality than those of the late '30s and '40s.

And John K.'s criticisms of the Disney studio are all very fair, and so far no one has ever been able to contradict him, hence the fact that Disney fans constantly seek to belittle him in order to discredit him.

And your assertion that I would never have seen Disney cartoons is extremely hypocritical on your part, given that you have denigrated all Van Beuren cartoons by saying that they were horrible and poorly animated when you yourself have admitted that you have seen almost none of Van Beuren's cartoons apart from the Cubby Bear series. Contrary to what you say, I've seen a lot of Disney cartoons.

Originally Posted by: Jimmy Two Shoes 


*sigh* It's hard to return kindness for polemics.

Note how you completely ignored my statement that constantly attacking Disney on every thread is not necessary even if you feel that way, as I do not go on every thread bashing cartoons I think are overrated.

The Tommy Stathes statement is an Appeal to Authority Fallacy  not worth refuting. How was that supposed to make me change my views? He is also biased toward pre-1940 cartoons in the first place.

"No one has been able to contradict" John K.? Look at my previous posts displaying Disney cartooniness; I'd say I did. He is also the doofus that said Friz Freleng was "really boring and not cartoony" (actual quote), indicating he's never watched any with any sort of scrutiny. Did you happen to see Ward Kimball's reel? Or John Lounsbery? And this "Fordism" thing is fake; I can tell out a Thomas and a Johnston.

As for me being a hypocrite, you are trying a whataboutism/tu quoque that wasn't even true; I have seen other Van Beuren cartoons. And I meant EARLY VB, not later. I meant the Mickey ripoffs from the heyday. What is hypocritical is accusing people of "despicable behavior" when it is not we who are randomly attacking one studio endlessly. And by you've seen "a lot" I'm assuming you mean ten, because what you are saying does not add up.

Also, not only have I watched the cartoons, I've read the books by the people who worked on them, as well as bios of Disney. I might know what I'm talking about.

If anything, you have yet to prove Disney cartoons were not cartoony by essentially dodging the evidence and repeating the same-old Kricfalusian strawmen.

I insist, please watch the actual cartoons. I think you will get along with people better.

Originally Posted by: ArcLordOne 



I've never attacked Disney as you say, but I've just given my opinion about this studio. I have every right to give my opinion about the Disney studio, just as you have the right to give your opinion about Aesop's Fables series. Especially when I see that you spend your time disparaging his cartoons for no reason at all.

I mentioned Tommy Stathes to prove that I also read the opinions of animation historians, because you tried to make me look like a fool who stupidly repeats John K's assertions, but that's not the point.

The important thing is whether or not you agree with the assertion that cartoons from the 20s and early 30s have more personality than those from the 40s.

Currently, I haven't seen you give any solid arguments that would contradict John K.'s criticisms of the Disney studio, you've just been content to post videos about the animators and scenes that suited you without understanding that John was criticizing the Disney studio as a whole. And I don't see what this has to do with Friz Freleng because he wasn't a Disney director and I never said I agreed with John on everything.

And I don't think you've seen all the Aesop's Fables cartoons featuring Milton and Rita because you say they're bad cartoons when in fact there have been some very good cartoons featuring Milton like Western Whoopee for example which is better than most of the Disney cartoons produced the same year.


To clarify my position, I've seen all of Disney's cartoons released between 1927 and 1929 and all of Silly Simphony released between 1929 and 1932, as well as most of his other films more periodically, so contrary to what you say, I know exactly what I'm talking about.

Regarding body distortion in the Disney shorts, there was some in "The Goddess of Spring" (1934), but to be honest, that was the most disappointing part of the short. The animators needed a lot of practices and training if they wanted a human like Snow White to act believable.

Also, for future reference, this site was originally "The Encyclopedia of Disney Animated Shorts" before morphing into "The Internet Animation Database". It would be nice if everyone would be considerate on that fact. Please and thank you.



That's an interesting note.
It's a pity that Disney was obsessed with the idea of animating a character realistically, because if they'd allowed the studio's animators more freedom, the Snow White film could have contained many pretty scenes like those present in this film.
Jimmy Two Shoes
a month ago

I'll throw in my two cents ~
I'm not gonna say that Disney's shorts from 1930-1931 are particularly stand out. I would rather watch an Oswald or a Krazy from the same year. But that has less to do with the animation and more with the rather boring story and musical direction in the period... mostly from the Mickeys, but that's another can of worms. The Silly Symphonies, however, are hitting their stride. I actually really like 'toons such as Frocking Fish, Cannibal Capers and Playful Pan. They have that *oomph* that the Mickeys at the time were lacking.

The Celebrity and Columbia Mickeys are all fine. The animation's perfectly serviceable. Again, nothing standout. Could it have been better? Yeah, probably. But by the time Diz gets to UA in '32, production ramps up ten-fold. Mickey's model is much cleaner, the color Symphonies are all livelier, and best of all, the cartoons actually have story and good music again! Once the Donald and Goofy series begin, the shorts are as animated and as funny (though perhaps not as witty) as the competition. Even after the war, individual shorts are still humorous. Aquamania entertained me just as much as How to Swim from 20 years prior! Even a short I don't really enjoy, like Sea Salts, I won't blame on the animation but instead on the story.

The remaining color Symphonies are pretty much just animation tests for the features. Granted, it makes a production like Goddess of Spring or Old Mill rather boring on their own, but the results are obvious in how well Snow White came out. Practice makes perfect. Look at Gulliver's Travels for an example of going in for a big show without practice. (not to diss Gulliver - I still love it, just think Mr. Bug is better). And there are still plenty of wacky films. When there's a Bambi, there's a Three Caballeros on the horizon

I'd say putting 100% of the credit on Iwerks in those early days is a fault. Iwerks is a great animator! It's true! I love the later Flips and Willie Whoppers, despite their flaws. But to say that no one else in the studio could capture his same spark is a blatant lie. Plenty of great animators (your Ward Kimballs and etc. come to mind) were at the studio in its heyday. Perhaps it's not that we disagree with your point, but that coming in with absolute negative statements like that is sure to generate a negative response. Just because Mickey's Choo-Choo doesn't feature as much bouncy animation as Plane Crazy doesn't mean it's bad.

Animation by Iwerks in Willie and Gaucho look stellar. But I think he didn't feel the same way. Most of the time, during production of the ComiColors and etcetera, he was puttering away out back on mechanics. And when he returned to Disney, that's the role he took. Not trying to discredit his work or anything. Just something to ponder about.

Some of the "rustic charm" in a 30-31 Mickey probably comes from the influx of new hires to the studio at the time. Animated cartoons were still a burgeoning field, and not everyone was the best at it. Just look at him in Fiddling Around! They can't make up their minds on how big his head or limbs are from shot to shot. I feel like can detract from the artistry in Disney cartoons from this period. But everyone has their growing pains, right? By the following year, Mickey is much more developed and solid. Not rigid, mind you, just solid.

And on Disney "imposing a certain view" on the industry... no. It's well known that Disney didn't have as much control over his cartoons as the opening title would like to admit. Other than features, most of the decisions were still made by the artists and staff. We don't know a lot about the structure or popular opinion at the studio in 1931, but I'd imagine that it wasn't nearly as strict as you are describing. And by the time we reach the 50s, Walt pushes more attention to the Parks anyway, despite his whole studio still being built around needing his approval on things.

Other studios are bound to imitate what's popular and makes money. When Mickey was big, there were a million Mickey copies. Some of said clones are scrappy enough that I actually enjoy them more than the Mouse. When Disney was doing realistic features, the other studios said "hey, we can do that too!" Harman-Ising's stint at MGM proves that it can go successfully. But this isn't just a Disney thing. It's happened in TV, live-action features, movies, books, pretty much all kinds of media flock to trends. Even cartoons themselves started imitating WB come the 40s. It's not exclusively a Diz thing.

How important is "body stretching" to a cartoon, really? Just because characters aren't contorting like a Fleischer entry doesn't make one bad. It feels like a subjective preference. I personally wouldn't go so far to describe this era of Disney as "stiff" or "lifeless"- there's plenty of good acting. Sure, I may prefer a bouncier Bill Nolan Oswald cartoon, but again, that doesn't make a short like The Moose Hunt worse in comparison. They're just different.

I understand that your point here is primarily on the Disney shorts from late Celebrity through Columbia. But that is such a short period in the studio's overall life that it seems pointless to nitpick. I'm more confused about how Mouse got so popular when there were much better cartoons on the market. Name value? MM does have a good marquee ring to it...

If you don't like Disney cartoons in general, that's okay! No one is saying that your opinion is wrong. But claiming that you don't like something and claiming that something is bad are completely different beasts. I personally prefer cartoonier cartoons, but I can respect more serious and realistic animation for trying to do different things with the medium. If every cartoon was bouncy and silly, I'd get bored. And boredom is something up with which I will not put.
Anyways, if you don't have any actual critique about these shorts, it's pointless to keep shitting on Disney fans who only want to explain why they like 'em. Are there bad parts? Yes, but those are behind us. You're not gonna hear a Mickey Mouse fan praise the immediately post-Iwerks shorts because they're kind of crap. But you will hear praise on the 40s shorts that they grew and evolved into. There's plenty of stretchiness there, if that's what floats your boat.

I'll just say that for every dull cartoon like The Picnic, there's a great cartoon like The Little Whirlwind down the line. All I'm sayin'. Peace.

Originally Posted by: LrgMini523 



Well, I'll try to clarify my opinion, because I think you've misunderstood my thinking.

To begin with, my criticism wasn't about taste in cartoons, or whether or not you liked Disney's cartoons, but rather about Walt Disney's artistic vision of animation, and the fact that the decisions he made in this area would have enormous consequences for the future of the medium.

For the cartoons of the 20s and early 30s were distinguished by the great difference in style between each animator; each character could be conceived and animated very differently, depending on the animator. And since, at the time, there were as yet no rules to which animators were obliged to adhere, animation offered enormous scope for creativity and ingenuity. Fleischer's cartoons of the early '30s are perhaps the best example of how each animator can bring a radically different sensibility to every cartoon he or she produces, and I don't think you can find anything quite as radical in the later cartoons produced in the late '30s and '40s.

Unfortunately, Disney took a completely different approach to these cartoons: they wanted all the animators to draw the characters in the same way, and for them to be animated realistically. Of course, this wouldn't have bothered me in the slightest if these decisions had only concerned the Disney studio, but the problem was that this studio had established a hegemony over the field of animation, and competing studios began to imitate Disney, whereas until then they had been inspired by it, but had generally retained their own style.

Soon, studios that had been producing highly personal, often crazy and surreal cartoons, began producing bland, personality-free plagiarisms of Disney films.

I think you're making a mistake by seeing the history of animation as something linear: Snow White wasn't the culmination of the art of animation, it was the culmination of Walt Disney's vision, but there were countless voices that animation could have taken, and the medium could have been radically different from what it has become.

Disney thought like a painter, he only wanted perfection, and from Disney's point of view, the Snow White film is indeed a marvel, all the characters and sets are incredibly beautiful and there's a great story. Except that I don't see the point of using animation to make something realistic, since the whole point of animation is to do things that can't be done in a live-action film. From this point of view, Snow White misses the opportunity to present us with a surreal world, with wild rubber-hose animation and a more comic scenario that makes a mockery of the original tale.
ArcLordOne
29 days ago
@Jimmy Two Shoes

This is the most confusing thread in the world. First of all, I do not periodically criticize VB cartoons on every thread like you do with Disney. I criticized VB on a VB thread, and never again. Also it was just my opinion, ad it did not reflect on the studio as a whole.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x45sxec \

Also The Three Caballeros is the most wild, violent, and cartoony movie ever made, period.

You do just repeat John K's stuff,. It is almost literally verbatim. And Freleng was relevant because it shows that most everything John K says is nonsensical and biased.

If anything, you seem to be trying to imply I'm a Disney shill, but actually Disney did make some literal and unanimated films in the 1950s like Cinderella and Peter Pan. However, they are NOT representative.

Yes, you are okay if you don't like Disney. Just don't spread fake news about it, since evidently you have not read The Illusion of Life or other books to know how Disney actually was rather than what he's been turned into. I would suggest researching some more.
Jimmy Two Shoes
29 days ago

@Jimmy Two Shoes

This is the most confusing thread in the world. First of all, I do not periodically criticize VB cartoons on every thread like you do with Disney. I criticized VB on a VB thread, and never again. Also it was just my opinion, ad it did not reflect on the studio as a whole.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x45sxec \

Also The Three Caballeros is the most wild, violent, and cartoony movie ever made, period.

You do just repeat John K's stuff,. It is almost literally verbatim. And Freleng was relevant because it shows that most everything John K says is nonsensical and biased.

If anything, you seem to be trying to imply I'm a Disney shill, but actually Disney did make some literal and unanimated films in the 1950s like Cinderella and Peter Pan. However, they are NOT representative.

Yes, you are okay if you don't like Disney. Just don't spread fake news about it, since evidently you have not read The Illusion of Life or other books to know how Disney actually was rather than what he's been turned into. I would suggest doing your research first.

Originally Posted by: ArcLordOne 



Once again, I'd like to say that my review has nothing to do with whether or not you like the Disney studio's films, since it's all about Walt Disney's artistic vision.

Furthermore, you seem to have forgotten that you have continued to belittle Aesop's Fables on several occasions, notably on your blog, but once again, I have nothing against anyone criticizing VB and you are entitled to have a negative opinion concerning this series, the problem is that you don't seem to accept that others can have a negative opinion concerning Disney.

Proof of this is when you say that The Three Caballeros would be the most savage, violent and cartoonish film ever made, as if this opinion should automatically be accepted by everyone, you don't take into account the fact that people can have a different opinion about this film.

Once again, John K.'s criticism of Disney remains very relevant, and just because he made mistakes doesn't mean that all his criticism and opinion should be thrown out.

Furthermore, you still haven't clarified whether or not you agree with the assertion that cartoons from the 20s and early 30s have more personality than those from the 40s.

And you still haven't managed to prove to me how my assertions about Disney's artistic vision would be wrong.

Quick Reply

© 2024 - YetAnotherForum.NET