Disney's animation department was at its best from 1937

Ok.

>>85114916
I don't think anyone will disagree with that.

>>85115065
That's surprising, everyone tends to prefer the 90s if asked.

>>85115680
I hate 90s they killed my sister

>>85114916
He's so cute :3

>>85115791
its a shame about him and the jews

>>85114916
The animation is top notch, I just consider it boring

>>85116338
Boring in what way?

>>85115847
I'm pretty sure he hated communists more.

>>85114916
Walt seems so happy in that picture. If only he knew

>>85116484
He hated paying his employees. Communists were a red herring.

>>85116408
Not the anon you're asking but compared to Warner, MGM and Fleischer/Famous, the cartoons weren't entertaining and that's why they're remembered less fondly.

File: Sleeping Beauty.webm (997KB, 1650x448px) Image search: [Google]

997KB, 1650x448px

>>85114916
It was rather nice

File: Once upon a dream.webm (3MB, 1650x448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1650x448px

>>85117201

>>85117201
Early Disney made cartoon kino

>>85117201
Nice rotoscope.

>>85117201
>>85117357
The cinematography is as flat as flat gets, the background is flat and just sort of ends in some mysterious fog (this isn't a real place, it's a soundstage), and the animation I believe is rotoscoped.

>>85117571
>mysterious fog
Oh, it's you again.

>>85117916
What? Is there someone going around saying "mysterious fog"?

File: moana4.jpg (916KB, 1150x1640px)

916KB, 1150x1640px

First =! Great.

he was simply a good businessman.

>>85117995
It's that one guy who doesn't understand that an image has a focal point, and that focal points pop out more the less detail they're surrounded with. Not to mention that backgrounds don't always have to establish exact geography if it's not relevant to the content of a scene.

>>85118507
I don't see live action movies/TV and anime having to have flat cinematography because of some "focal point" issues, and it's also standard that scenes have realistic sets and a sense of place whether or not it's important to the scene.

If they wanted to de-emphasize everything except the performances to make the performances stand out more then that's a valid decision I guess, but it makes the scenes look dull and fake. It's something I've noticed in other Disney movies too, and not just during musical scenes.

>>85117201
>>85117357
Rotoscoped.

>>85118018
I sure hope this doesn't end up with one of them becoming a bear halfway though

>>85118675
>it's also standard that scenes have realistic sets
You should reevaluate this notion.
>look fake
Anon, we're talking about animated films. If you cannot appreciate them while being aware that they're entirely fictitious, then I'm not sure whether you can appreciate them at all.

I can't know what you believe, but Disney animators were perfectly capable of painting detailed, three-dimensional backgrounds in the 40s. They often didn't, as a stylistic choice, because they were artists rather than architechtural illustrators. I won't ask you to like it, but it's not objectively worse filmmaking than if they had handled the backgrounds differently.

File: tumblr_o64fkdJKbY1ry7whco1_1280.jpg (184KB, 925x1200px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 925x1200px

>>85119164

Where did you get that impression?

>>85119186
>You should reevaluate this notion.
Why? It's true.

>Anon, we're talking about animated films.
I did mention anime too, which uses realistic "sets" and camera angles the same way live action does. It's simply a matter of painting and drawing (and doesn't require hiring architectural illustrators).

>I won't ask you to like it, but it's not objectively worse filmmaking than if they had handled the backgrounds differently.
Barebones filmmaking and simplistic sets are aesthetically inferior to cinematic filmmaking and detailed backgrounds, unless there is a lot of stylization (and there isn't).

>>85119144
Yeah, most of the early Disney films were rotoscoped. Has that suddenly become a problem?

>>85119448
Why? Because animation's purpose isn't realism. Realism is a preference that not all animators share. Anime isn't strictly realist either, only the backgrounds tend to be and it doesn't always work well.

>aesthetically inferior
This is nonsense, as is conflating the amount of detail with 'cinematic filmmaking'. The composition as a whole is more important than the amount of detail in individual elements that compose the image.

>>85119448
You're looking at this from a cinematographer's perspective, but you have to understand the context. Most early film (live or otherwise) was presented in a stage-like way because they saw film as a half step up from movies.

Half the bullshit you mentioned wasn't even a factor back then because they weren't aware of it. Holding them up negatively to modern advances in film is beyond autistic

>>85119905
>step up from stage acting

fix'd

>>85119905
It's not a science, claiming that a film that borrows from theatre is less advanced than some other kind doesn't mean anything. Film is always borrowing something from other artforms because it's a composite medium.

>>85119831
Animation's purpose is whatever you decide it is.

>Anime isn't strictly realist either
Strictly speaking, nothing is truly realistic. Even a documentary or news broadcast can be intentionally or intentionally unrealistic. Anime is or strives towards realism in many ways, not just in the background art.

>This is nonsense, as is conflating the amount of detail with 'cinematic filmmaking'.
Cinematic filmmaking means for example the placement and angle of the camera. Sets/backgrounds that attempt to give a realistic sense of place are not exactly necessary for cinematism (some movies have sets that look intentionally unreal), but they are the default and are especially meaningful in animation.

>The composition as a whole is more important
There is basically no composition involved in cartoon filmmaking.

>>85119905
Sleeping Beauty came out in 1959.

Wings and Metropolis came out in 1927:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9P3XXvleo4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSExdX0tds4

>>85120235
Wings and Metropolis were landmark films that pushed the boundaries for films at the time but they weren't the standard.

>>85120235
Do you even know what composition is.

>>85120235
this is the dumbest anyone has ever sounded ever

>>85120743
Again: Sleeping Beauty came out in 1959. Cinema was very well-established by then. Citizen Kane came out in 1941.

>>85120955
Yes, and there is little composition involved in the cartoon animation perspective.

>>85121080
Great argument.

>>85121204
>Yes, and there is little composition involved in the cartoon animation perspective.
You don't know what composition is.

>>85121673
There's more composition going on in those two Sleeping Beauty scenes than in outright cartoon animation, but it's not much to write home about. When you start doing varying kinds of shots in three-dimensional spaces, composition becomes more complex.

>>85121791
the composition in sleeping beauty is supposed to mirror the types of composition common in the middle ages - it's supposed to be reminiscent of a medieval tapestry, not be a realistic depiction of perspective using post-renaissance rules of perspective. the idea that more complex composition = better composition is a complete fallacy and shows misunderstanding of art.

on the topic of the thread - yes, the older disney animation is better. 90s disney is good, but it's more standard and (in my opinion) boring in style compared to original disney, which, while style conservative, had a wider range of animation abilities (cartoon like dumbo, medieval and modernist inspired sleeping beauty, more naturalistic bambi, and fantasia, which had naturalistic, cartoony and abstract in one film). in the 90s, they mainly had one single "disney" style, and just changed a few details such as line styles and coloring styles between each film.

>>85122081
Those shots are just upgraded versions of standard cartoon animation. If you look at modern TV shows you can see the same kind of shots everywhere. The purpose is not to imitate the composition of the Middle Ages but to focus on the performers. Cartoon animation has its roots in Vaudeville. And from what I've seen of Middle Ages tapestries, they are flat and don't have the depth that those shots have. The shots look realistic in the sense that they are something you'd get with a camera, but it just doesn't look like the characters are anywhere other than a soundstage.

>>85122393
no, that's not the case here. disney was perfectly capable of 3D perspective by this point. this was a stylistic choice. and it's supposed to be reminiscent of medieval tapestries, not to be perfect recreations of them, disney was conservative and often wouldn't go all the way with stylisation because they were afraid they wouldn't sell, so you get a lot of half - stylized half naturalistic stuff in their animation.