DVDizzy Forum

Neal wrote:blackcauldron85 - Disney's racist against whites, now!

Oh no! The backlash against Disney has started yet again!

Seriously, I'm sure that it all makes sense in the story, but, just like with SOTS, some people who haven't even seen the movie will complain just because they heard something about the movie out of context.

What an awesome trailer, and such awesome reviews! Our villian is really going to be a baddie!

The best thing about the trailer to me, was that it managed to get me more excited for future 2-D animated films, rather than nostalgic for the old ones.

It seems that the weakest point of the movie will be the music, but I'll wait to hear some before I'll make my final judgement.

I'm just so excited!!!!

ColorsOfTheWind wrote:I think it was a few of the scenes that remind me of Anastasia. One of them is the carriage one, along with the building with the clock in it, Naveen posing on the boat, and the scene of the redish-pinkish room.

Yes, all those! And the one where Naveen dances in the street reminded me of the "Rumor in St. Petersburg" scene in Anastasia. But I guess it's understandable because both movies take place in the same time period.

The similarities just concern the backgrounds (buildings, rooms, boat etc)and Naveen's attire. The characters are nothing alike. Anastasia's character animation (and the Fab Four's for that matter) was way more "human-like" and realistic while The Princess and the Frog's are more "cartoony", "squash and stretchy" or whatever you wanna call it.

I just hope that it will be as good as Anastasia.

I find the villain to be a mixture of Jafar and Hades. What do you guys think?

Neal wrote:
I thought I heard that the snakes binding him to the chair was cut from the film. That's what one of the reviews from a recent screening stated. Perhaps not since it was in the trailer, but I wonder why there's a contradiction.

There have been trailers for several films, before, that showed scenes that were cut. Sky High, and LOTR: Return of the King are just a couple.

I like Mama Odie's cackling voice!

Yeah, but did they have to have it at that moment in the trailer? Couldn't they have just saved it for an ad that was less epic?

Overall, an excellent trailer! The films looks every bit as epic and colorful as I've been hyped for!

That, I agree with.

sotiris2006 wrote:The similarities just concern the backgrounds (buildings, rooms, boat etc)and Naveen's attire. The characters are nothing alike. Anastasia's character animation (and the Fab Four's for that matter) was way more "human-like" and realistic while The Princess and the Frog's are more "cartoony", "squash and stretchy" or whatever you wanna call it.

I just hope that it will be as good as Anastasia.

I find the villain to be a mixture of Jafar and Hades. What do you guys think?

sorry but the fab four's animation was definitely not human-like. look at jasmine. her eyes and features are just as exaggerated as tiana's. anastasia's was definitely more human-like however. i mean look at aladdin too, he had big eyes and a big nose, jafar was very exaggerated, little mermaid was a little more human like, belle was exaggerated in spots too, however not as much as in aladdin.

nomad2010 wrote:sorry but the fab four's animation was definitely not human-like. look at jasmine. her eyes and features are just as exaggerated as tiana's. anastasia's was definitely more human-like however. i mean look at aladdin too, he had big eyes and a big nose, jafar was very exaggerated, little mermaid was a little more human like, belle was exaggerated in spots too, however not as much as in aladdin.

You are talking about Aladdin's and Jasmine's character design not animation. They are more human-like in their facial mannerisms and body language and their animation is mostly based on nuances than exaggerated expressions. Jafar, yes, his animation is more cartoony but that's because he's a villain and usually villains are more stylized and cartoony.

Jafar, yes, his animation is more cartoony

To his detriment.

And, I could be wrong, but wasn't Anastasia heavily rotoscoped? Personally, regardless of whetheer the animation turns out slightly "cartoony," I would appreciate that they not resort to rotoscoping.

sotiris2006 wrote: You are talking about Aladdin's and Jasmine's character design not animation.

what? that makes no sense. animation has to do with character design. the animation doesn't look any different from aladdin's. other than i think a few shots look a little generic, like the church, and so on but who knows honestly.

I think the frog emulates Jimmy Early, but he'll only get away with it until he turns back human and white.

Disney's Divinity wrote:
And, I could be wrong, but wasn't Anastasia heavily rotoscoped? Personally, regardless of whetheer the animation turns out slightly "cartoony," I would appreciate that they not resort to rotoscoping.

The bonus features on the DVD certainly seemed to imply that, and even flaunt that. Even when I was a kid, I could tell that something just wasn't right about the animation in Anastasia, but we have no reason to believe that PATF is being rotoscopped at the moment.

what? that makes no sense. animation has to do with character design. the animation doesn't look any different from aladdin's. other than i think a few shots look a little generic, like the church, and so on but who knows honestly.

Animation, from my understanding is the movement of the character on paper. The definition of animate means "to bring to life", so animation definitly means the giving of life to drawings on paper (I love that definition, it makes Disney even more magical). That's the movement, not the character design. If you think the characters have, for instance, jerky moves, then that is a flaw of the animation. If you think that the characters resemble those in Aladdin, or the sets, that has nothing to do with THE animation, but the character or background design.

PatrickvD wrote:oh and for all the purists out there (me included)

did any of you notice the most important thing about this trailer?? The Beauty and the Beast footage at the beginning... did mine eyes deceive me or were those the original colors??.....

could the new re-release actually be the original film? not the effed up version?

I saw that moment in the trailer and I knew someone would start about that .
Nice trailer though. It looked a little generic to me, but that's just my problem. I've seen too many great trailers for lousy movies and vice versa. So I'm naturally a little bit cautious, I think. It did remind me of Anastasia, though.

I think one thing that makes people think it has that anastasia vibe is the simple reason that Anasasia is heavily disney influenced. Its one of Don Bluth's least original films (compared to early works) and although is good it seriously owes a big debt to disney films of past.

On another note i am really really looking forward to the film after seeing this trailer, shame us brits have to wait until feb 2010. The animation is apsolutly superb and not only reminds me of disney films of past but also has a refreshing and new feeling to it.

I believe that it will not only be comparable to Disney films of past it will also give us disney fans something that we've wanted for ages but also introduce loads of small kids who have never seen such enchanting and exiting films on the big screen before.

Roll on 2010!

mrfivefingers wrote:
On another note i am really really looking forward to the film after seeing this trailer, shame us brits have to wait until feb 2010. The animation is apsolutly superb and not only reminds me of disney films of past but also has a refreshing and new feeling to it.

I believe that it will not only be comparable to Disney films of past it will also give us disney fans something that we've wanted for ages but also introduce loads of small kids who have never seen such enchanting and exiting films on the big screen before.

Roll on 2010!

I completely agree. And it is too bad that the movie isn't being released in Britain till 2010, I couldn't imagine having to wait even longer for this movie.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

Jafar, yes, his animation is more cartoony

To his detriment.

And, I could be wrong, but wasn't Anastasia heavily rotoscoped? Personally, regardless of whether the animation turns out slightly "cartoony," I would appreciate that they not resort to rotoscoping.

Disney from the beginning of animated features films has used extensive rotoscoping and i don't just mean live-action reference footage.

Rotoscoping

From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoscoping

1) "Walt Disney and his animators employed it carefully and very effectively in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in 1937. Rotoscoping was also used in many of Disney's subsequent animated feature films with human characters, such as Cinderella in 1950. Later, when Disney animation became more stylized (e.g. One Hundred and One Dalmatians, 1961), the rotoscope was used mainly for studying human and animal motion, rather than actual tracing"

2) "Peter Pan: Bobby Driscoll as Peter Pan, where his performance was filmed, and then rotoscoped for the animated character"

From the book "Hippo in a Tutu"

http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hilll ... eview.aspx

1) "Of course, when it came to "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs," Disney did have a secret weapon: 14 year-old Majorie Belcher. Starting in 1934, this professionally trained dancer appeared in dozens of 16 mm films that the Studios artists then blew up into photostats. Which were then traced so that the movement of this film's title character would be that much more life-like, would come across as that much more believably human".

2) "Marge may been the first dancer to toil in secret for Disney (Says Belcher: 'I was sworn to secrecy about all that I did ... The words rotoscoping and tracing ... were forbidden')".

Re-used Animation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOIrXGd51jE

Does that make Snow White (and other Disney films) any less of film? Does it make it less "animated" or less "artistic" or less "professional"? Or is it OK for Disney to do it but not for other studios?

Then, you cannot use Anastasia's admitted usage of rotoscoping (something that Disney always tried to deny for their films) to belittle the film, its animation or its artistic merit.

UmbrellaFish wrote: I completely agree. And it is too bad that the movie isn't being released in Britain till 2010, I couldn't imagine having to wait even longer for this movie.

I know, we have it 2 months later than the US. Same for UP exept we get that in October of this year. Disney have always done this, they always delay films, we never get the expensive dvd releases (like treasures) and what we get is usually late. Its a suprise that Pinnochio came out as soon as it did.

I hate to be negative but i'd like to remind disney that they're are some fans who really respect you over seas that don't get anyware near the same quality as us fans, another example the terrible £70quid postage cost for the D23 magazine.

Anyway enough of the negative, although we dont get it as soon as the U.S i am just glad that disney have done the right thing and are making such a stunning film as this one, suprising to say thequality of their last few films.

sotiris2006 wrote: Does that make Snow White (and other Disney films) any less of film?

Not as a film, no. But it's animation is less of breakthrough when it's not done without outside help.

Does it make it less "animated" or less "artistic" or less "professional"?

A little, yeah.

Or is it OK for Disney to do it but not for other studios?

Nope, I don't think it is.

Then, you cannot use Anastasia's admitted usage of rotoscoping (something that Disney always tried to deny for their films) to belittle the film, its animation or its artistic merit.

Oh, good. At least I'm consistent.

lol at the rotoscoping talk. Compare Waking Life for example with Anastasia and you'll see a big difference in direct rotoscoping and the technique which Don Bluth uses which involves exaggerating the actor's features and appearance plus smoothing out the action so that it doesn't appear "shaky" like direct tracing of live action footage and clean up artists who do the same job as they do with regular animation, making sure the characters are on model, and in between animators to finalize the movements of the characters.

As someone who had to use rotoscopig for a school project I have great respect for how the technique is done in all of Bluth's works and find it hilarious that people are so quick to insult it when a) they've never done it before and b) many classic Disney films like Snow White and Pinocchio also have much more direct rotoscoping with less of an effort to exaggerate the designs of the respective characters. Plus the logic of it looks different from "regular" Disney and therefore it's awful.

Flanger-Hanger wrote:lol at the rotoscoping talk. Compare Waking Life for example with Anastasia and you'll see a big difference in direct rotoscoping and the technique which Don Bluth uses which involves exaggerating the actor's features and appearance plus smoothing out the action so that it doesn't appear "shaky" like direct tracing of live action footage and clean up artists who do the same job as they do with regular animation, making sure the characters are on model, and in between animators to finalize the movements of the characters.

As someone who had to use rotoscopig for a school project I have great respect for how the technique is done in all of Bluth's works and find it hilarious that people are so quick to insult it when a) they've never done it before and b) many classic Disney films like Snow White and Pinocchio also have much more direct rotoscoping with less of an effort to exaggerate the designs of the respective characters. Plus the logic of it looks different from "regular" Disney and therefore it's awful.

I like you

Well, there was a reason that Disney kept the practice of rotoscopping hidden. They considered it unprofessional and unartistic, and used it only out of necessity.