# Classic Disney.



## Chainy (Aug 12, 2009)

What's your opinion on it? I just LOVE the classic movies. The new stuff like hannah montana is TERRIBLE.


----------



## Beastcub (Aug 12, 2009)

nostalgia is part of it, but yeah i like the classics more


----------



## TwilightV (Aug 12, 2009)

Define classic.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Aug 12, 2009)

2-D Disney movies rule. 3-D movies blow...(sorry, I'm old-school animation.)


----------



## Chainy (Aug 12, 2009)

I like the ones like snow white, tarzan, Etc. Those ones were beuitiful.


----------



## Kaamos (Aug 12, 2009)

They're alright, even though most of them were _loosely based_ on something like a fairy tale or whatever.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Aug 12, 2009)

Kaamos said:


> They're alright, even though most of them were _loosely based_ on something like a fairy tale or whatever.



Very loosely. Most of the Disney animated films are nothing like the books they're based on...


----------



## DragonFoxDemon (Aug 12, 2009)

Ty Vulpine said:


> 2-D Disney movies rule. 3-D movies blow...(sorry, I'm old-school animation.)



Does this mean you were against integration? Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin both had help with CG during certain scenes. Granted most of both were hand drawn.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Aug 12, 2009)

DragonFoxDemon said:


> Does this mean you were against integration? Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin both had help with CG during certain scenes. Granted most of both were hand drawn.



B&B and Aladdin I do allow, since they were hand-drawn (and even the CGI LOOKS hand-drawn, and not easy to tell it was computer-drawn). But movies like Shrek, Cars, Toy Story, Up, etc, no thanks.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 12, 2009)

DragonFoxDemon said:


> Does this mean you were against integration? Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin both had help with CG during certain scenes. Granted most of both were hand drawn.



Same with The Lion King. Titan A.E integrated the two pretty well for an entire movie. 3D is just another tool, and the fact a lot of movies that use it suck isn't due to some inherent weakness of the medium itself.

inb4 Cyberfox


----------



## Chainy (Aug 12, 2009)

Ty Vulpine said:


> B&B and Aladdin I do allow, since they were hand-drawn (and even the CGI LOOKS hand-drawn, and not easy to tell it was computer-drawn). But movies like Shrek, Cars, Toy Story, Up, etc, no thanks.


 
Same. But shrek had it's moments. But still, not too good...


----------



## BlackCatOrian (Aug 12, 2009)

The Black Cauldron is still one of my favorite movies


----------



## DragonFoxDemon (Aug 12, 2009)

Oh, I meant to ask OP are we talking about the reinvention of animation Snow White up, before, or since you said Hannah Montana live actions like Davy Crockett?

Generalizing?


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Aug 12, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Same with The Lion King. Titan A.E integrated the two pretty well for an entire movie. 3D is just another tool, and the fact a lot of movies that use it suck isn't due to some inherent weakness of the medium itself.
> 
> inb4 Cyberfox



Maybe not, but the storylines do suck, and at least with 2-D, humans LOOK human. 3-D, no freaking way...


----------



## selkie (Aug 12, 2009)

BlackCatOrian said:


> The Black Cauldron is still one of my favorite movies



That is a fantastic movie.
I always loved "the Sword in the Stone" too.


----------



## DragonFoxDemon (Aug 12, 2009)

Chainy said:


> Same. But shrek had it's moments. But still, not too good...



Shrek is Dreamworks. Road to Eldorado was done by them. 

Titan A.E. was 20th Century Fox, they also did Anastasia.


----------



## Renton Whitetail (Aug 12, 2009)

Yeah, I'm more for the Classic Disney type. There's a lot of subtlety and magic within traditional animation that makes the classic movies more alive and real (though not necessarily real like in the sense of 3-D animation, which works well at times). I mean, the animators back in the Golden Age of Disney (1930s and 1940s), for example, worked their butts off to studying human and animal anatomy to make the characters on the screen more believable (for example, the movement of deer in "Bambi" and the human characters in "Snow White"). Yes, there are a few computer animation companies that are successful in making their films seem real and alive (like Pixar), but it's just not the same as doing animation by hand. With hand-drawn animation, the animators become like the character they draw and pour out what they knows and understand about their character into their drawings. That's where the real magic of traditional animation begins.


----------



## BlackCatOrian (Aug 12, 2009)

Renton Whitetail said:


> With hand-drawn animation, the animators become like the character they draw and pour out what they knows and understand about their character into their drawings. That's where the real magic of traditional animation begins.



 is that why the prince on the little mermaid gets a boner for two frames?


----------



## CAThulu (Aug 12, 2009)

Chainy said:


> What's your opinion on it? I just LOVE the classic movies. *The new stuff like hannah montana is TERRIBLE*.



*ears perk*  Is that a lathe I hear?

Nope...that's the sound of Walt spinning in his grave.




Wolf-Bone said:


> Same with The Lion King. Titan A.E integrated the two pretty well for an entire movie. 3D is just another tool, and the fact a lot of movies that use it suck isn't due to some inherent weakness of the medium itself.
> 
> inb4 Cyberfox



Titan AE was Don Bluth, hun *S*.   But they did integrate the two styles pretty well in that film.  I'm finding that it's difficult to find a movie that seamlessly integrates 2D and 3D, but one that I think gives it a good go is Atlantis.


----------



## aftershok (Aug 12, 2009)

selkie said:


> That is a fantastic movie.
> I always loved "the Sword in the Stone" too.


Me 2


----------



## BlackCatOrian (Aug 12, 2009)

CAThulu I want your pic as a shirt


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 12, 2009)

Ty Vulpine said:


> Maybe not, but the storylines do suck, and at least with 2-D, humans LOOK human. 3-D, no freaking way...



No, both are just approximations of humans. 3-D still has a ways to go in creating believable, realistic humans, but the 2-D humans you saw in the past were far from realistic. They were just more believable, because they were simpler. I've seen a decent amount of believable human 3-D characters in video games, but even those are just highly detailed and not necessarily aiming for realism.



			
				CAThulu said:
			
		

> Titan AE was Don Bluth, hun *S*. But they did integrate the two styles pretty well in that film. I'm finding that it's difficult to find a movie that seamlessly integrates 2D and 3D, but one that I think gives it a good go is Atlantis.



As someone who practically worships the ground Don Bluth walks on, I'm aware of that fact. I was just using his movie as an example that the notion that 3D is inherently bad or incompatible with 2D is complete bullshit.

You guys may as well learn to either appreciate 3D or debate what it would take to make the kind of 3D 2D fans would like, because the industry doesn't give a fuck about your nostalgia. I mean I wouldn't give up the 3D that follows principles of good animation and cinematography for all this Flash-based bullshit just because it's 2D.


----------



## CAThulu (Aug 12, 2009)

BlackCatOrian said:


> CAThulu I want your pic as a shirt



*L* I have other ones too *G*.   I just have to find them on my drive. 

I'd paint them on shirts for me to wear, but my family's christian and wouldnt appreciate the humour *L*.

However, if you do want a shirt, you could always commission one from me.


----------



## Renton Whitetail (Aug 12, 2009)

BlackCatOrian said:


> is that why the prince on the little mermaid gets a boner for two frames?



XD It's not a boner, it's his trick knee. Trust me, all this nonsense about the priest's boner is just one of many myths about Disney that isn't true.


----------



## BlackCatOrian (Aug 12, 2009)

Renton Whitetail said:


> XD It's not a boner, it's his trick knee. Trust me, all this nonsense about the priest's boner is just one of many myths about Disney that isn't true.



still funny...


----------



## TwilightV (Aug 13, 2009)

And everyone's forgetting the most epic of the blends of 2D and 3D in a Disney movie: Big Ben in The Great Mouse Detective. It was the most beautiful setting for a final confrontation at it's time.

Also, did we forget the few frames in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? where Jessica Rabbit was naked?! >:3


----------



## Chainy (Aug 13, 2009)

Hahaha, Those movies were hilarious. And google it, I bet you'll find what you seek.


----------



## Fluory (Aug 13, 2009)

I'm a sucker for anything with impressive animation. So yeah - I love Disney movies. Not as big of a fan of the recent stuff (with the exception of Up, that movie kicked some ass) and most of the sequels sucked. It was like some kind of rule set in stone. "If it's a Disney sequel, _it must suck ass._" 

But yeah. Disney. Great stuff.


----------



## Stratelier (Aug 13, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> 3D is just another tool, and the fact a lot of movies that use it suck isn't due to some inherent weakness of the medium itself.


Most movies that suck are due to the writing, not the production.


----------



## Jelly (Aug 13, 2009)

Pixar is not "Disney," people.
Its a studio.
Seriously.
What are you here?

Disney's the publishing house.
Disney has its own 3D with its own people.

I mean, John Lasseter was only recently put in charge of animation projects at Disney.
And even then he's hiring back people from Circle 7 and classic animators, not Pixar people to work at Disney's in-house CG (and Catmull and Lasseter are in charge of rebuilding Disney traditional animation). All he does is approves projects. People still need to pitch to him.

And while Pixar is part of Disney now, it still is a totally autonomous studio.
And Disney's in-house studios are, as well, but they report to Lasseter for greenlighting; Lasseter was also in charge of calling back laid off traditional animation employees after Eisner's great fucking culling of talent.

BUT YEAH
BACK ON DIS HERE SUBJECT

Fuck yes. Classic Disney.
Anything before Walt's death is fantastic.
The Cal Arts stuff wasn't bad either, I mean, I loved Sword and the Stone. That was a really fun movie, with a lot of neat animation.


----------



## Bambi (Aug 13, 2009)

Classic Disney rocked.

Can't you tell?


----------



## Chainy (Aug 13, 2009)

It Sure does. And up did have it's moments, despite how depressing part of it was.


----------



## DragonFoxDemon (Aug 13, 2009)

Fluory said:


> I'm a sucker for anything with impressive animation. So yeah - I love Disney movies. Not as big of a fan of the recent stuff (with the exception of Up, that movie kicked some ass) and most of the sequels sucked. It was like some kind of rule set in stone. "If it's a Disney sequel, _it must suck ass._"
> 
> But yeah. Disney. Great stuff.



I would say now days yes.
Rescuers Down Under was amazing. I also thought the Enchanted Christmas B&B was alright (It had Tim Curry in it <3). I love Lion King 2, goods songs. The 2nd and 3rd Aladdins were alright, not up to par with the first, but still watchable.


----------



## Chainy (Aug 13, 2009)

DragonFoxDemon said:


> I would say now days yes.
> Rescuers Down Under was amazing. I also thought the Enchanted Christmas B&B was alright (It had Tim Curry in it <3). I love Lion King 2, goods songs. The 2nd and 3rd Aladdins were alright, not up to par with the first, but still watchable.


 
So True. And The rescuers was WIN. One of my favorite disney movies.


----------



## prizzle (Aug 13, 2009)

DragonFoxDemon said:


> Rescuers Down Under was amazing.



Agreed! Marahute is <3

Having grown up during the "Disney Renaissance," I am especially partial to movies like Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, Mulan, and especially The Lion King. 
I like 3D stuff, but those movies just don't get me excited like the hand-drawn films do. 

And I also think Don Bluth and Dreamworks deserve some love. They've got some high quality stuff. I meet a lot of people who seem to think any impressive animation is just Disney by default.


----------



## Fluory (Aug 13, 2009)

DragonFoxDemon said:


> I would say now days yes.
> Rescuers Down Under was amazing. I also thought the Enchanted Christmas B&B was alright (It had Tim Curry in it <3). I love Lion King 2, goods songs. The 2nd and 3rd Aladdins were alright, not up to par with the first, but still watchable.



Dude, I totally forgot that The Rescuers Down Under was a sequel because _it's so good._ I'd almost go as far as to say the sequel was better than the original. The Lion King 2 was great as well. ..completely agree with you on the Aladdins too. I think these are probably the only exceptions.


----------



## BlackCatOrian (Aug 14, 2009)

OmG I played my VHS of Rescuers Down Under so much that it wore out and broke
"Did you know there was a Razorback in my truck? Did yah?! THERE WAS A RAZORBACK IN MY TRUCK!!!"


----------



## Jonnaius (Aug 14, 2009)

Lion King is my favourite movie ever. Also, I just rewatched Tarzan and forgot how good the sound track was. Phil Collins did that. And I never knew Brian Blessed was the bad guy!


----------



## Fuzzle (Aug 16, 2009)

Disney used to stand as a shining example of true dedication, passion and commitment to creating masterpieces of art. Every single classic Disney movie was masterful, until Walt died and management without conscience, skill or passion took over to bank on the empire he created. Today, Disney is nothing but cheap marketing of tweeny girl junk and buying actually talented companies to create movies with the Disney logo on it. I have zero respect for new Disney and I loathe them for throwing away the art of hand drawn animation...Also they should be stabbed in the face for making a sequel to Fox and the Hound.


----------



## MayDay (Aug 16, 2009)

Renton Whitetail said:


> XD It's not a boner, it's his trick knee. Trust me, all this nonsense about the priest's boner is just one of many myths about Disney that isn't true.



Oh yeah? Then what about the fact that disney is a secret pro-nazi organisation  started by Hitler (who disguised himself under the pseudonym of "Walt Disney") to brainwash little kids?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKOJ5bEKPLY&feature=PlayList&p=6C629BE5DE3D4084&index=0&playnext=1

I smell a conspiracy. 

That aside, I actually quite like Disney movies. The Lion King especially. Not exactly a masterpiece but the music and animation was top notch still.


----------



## Ivory Maddison (Aug 17, 2009)

Hi
 I think that Disney contracts with colleges somehow. You can intern there for college credit. That is how most of their employees work there. You may consider that when you're in college.


----------



## sindragon (Aug 24, 2009)

nothing can beat lion king that my fav movie ever


is just gives so much it give you mix emotion , happyness,sadness,funnynest,serrious,betray,revenge,plot,love,reuioins etc


----------



## sindragon (Aug 24, 2009)

MayDay said:


> Oh yeah? Then what about the fact that disney is a secret pro-nazi organisation  started by Hitler (who disguised himself under the pseudonym of "Walt Disney") to brainwash little kids?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKOJ5bEKPLY&feature=PlayList&p=6C629BE5DE3D4084&index=0&playnext=1
> 
> I smell a conspiracy.
> ...




dude Wtf are you brain dead that got to be the dumist thing i ever herd in my life what next vince mcmahon ploting all wrestling fans to kill Tna pepole giving me a fucking brake


----------

