ArcLordOne
a month ago


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.

Originally Posted by: Jimmy Two Shoes 


https://thegoldenageofanimation.blogspot.com/search?q=van+beuren 

"You seem to have forgotten that you have continued to belittle Aesop's Fables on several occasions". Uh, it was YOU who was joining in on the massive backlash I got for saying I didn't like them, when I repeatedly said I just personally though some early ones were really bad NOT THE WHOLE STUDIO. You sure had a problem there. I never criticized them again, and a random jab once on my blog. YOU, on the other hand, mention Disney in virtually every comment, nomatter how irrelevant to the conversation, in a totally negative way. Talk about foot in mouth!

I didn't say Cabelleros was the "cartooniest" cartoon ever, but MOVIE ever. That is a fact. There is no movie that has that much cartoony action in it. It is opinion whether it is good or not. Considering you apparently don't believe it's cartoony implies you've never seen it. For example, it is not opinion to state that Tex Avery's cartoons are the fastest because objectively they are, but it would be opinion to say they are the funniest (which I think they are). And the fact you didn't acknowledge Hockey Homicide indicates you've never seen it, either.

My problem with what you say is no so much that you apparently detest Disney cartoons, but that you say things that are not true about them. You claim that Disney's "artistic vision" was to imitate reality, but that is totally bogus. Also, even if Walt's ideas make you angry, not everyone must direct cartoons the same way. You give the impression, at least, that to you "rubberhose" is the only legitimate style of animation. And I guarantee you Walt has nothing to do with the non-cartoons of today like Bob's Burgers and The Great North. That should be your real target, bro.

Walt Disney Memo to Don Graham 12/23/25

"The first duty of the cartoon is not to picture or duplicate real action or things as they actually happen – but to give a caricature of life and action – to picture on the screen things that have run thru the imagination of the audience to bring to life dream fantasies and imaginative fancies that we have all thought of during our lives or have had pictured to us in various forms during our lives. Also to caricature things of life as it is today – or make fantasies of things we think of today.

The point must be made clear to the men that our study of the actual is not so that we may be able to accomplish the actual, but so that we may have a basis upon which to go into the fantastic, the unreal, the imaginative – and yet to let it have a foundation of fact, in order that it may more richly possess sincerity and contact with the public.

A good many of the men misinterpret the idea of studying the actual motion. They think it is our purpose merely to duplicate these things. This misconception should be cleared up for all. I definitely feel that we cannot do the fantastic things, based on the real, unless we first know the real. This point should be brought out very clearly to all new men, and even the older men.

Comedy, to be appreciated, must have contact with the audience. This we all know, but sometimes forget. By contact, I mean that there must be a familiar, sub-conscious association.

Somewhere, or at some time, the audience has felt, or met with, or seen, or dreamt, the situation pictured. A study of the best gags and audience reaction we have had will prove that the action or situation is something based on an imaginative experience or a direct life connection.

This is what I mean by contact with the audience. When the action or the business loses its contact, it becomes silly and meaningless to the audience.

Therefore, the true interpretation of caricature is the exaggeration of an illusion of the actual; or the sensation of the actual put into action. In our animation, we must not only show the actions or reactions of a character, but we must picture also with the action the feelings of those characters.

My experience has shown me that the most hilarious of comedies is always based on things actual, possible, or probable. That idea, behind the things I just mentioned above, can be incorporated in every stage of instruction – from the life drawing clear on thru to the planning and staging of the work."


https://bulletproofscreenwriting.tv/walt-disney-memo/ 
PopKorn Kat
a month ago
I am concerned this thread is devolving into "personal attack" territory, so I'm going to be closing it before things escalate any further.

Quick Reply

© 2024 - YetAnotherForum.NET