The Princess and the Frog is hardly a cartoony film. Just because the alligator is a little more plump - doesn't mean it's all of a sudden a UPA or Warner Brothers cartoon. In Disney's films, have you ever noticed that the main characters appear to have a more realistic design, in comparison to the villains, side kicks and the rest of the film? Maybe not so much in the early years (1940's through the 1950's) but it's predominantly visible in their films. Below are a few I grabbed from the internet.Dusterian wrote:Style? Disney's feature films have always tried to be anything other than (i.e. better than) cartoons, I don't think they would ever purposely go for a cartoony style.
I may actually not like many modern Disney films, but I doubt it would be (all) because of the animation. Atlantis, Treasure Planet, Brother Bear are all said to be bad and I don't think Atlantis was very good, but from what I've seen of all their animation, it looks exceptional, the best. If Disney was getting bad in story, they stayed fantastic as far as animation.
Just to be clear, I said the heroes tend to be more "safer" and less of a push in the designs, often trying to simplify a realistic human. Now take a look at the villains, the shapes are much more dynamic and provide the viewer with more of a character than the "heroes".
Actually, they did rotoscope an Actress for Snow White, but for later films only relied on footage as a reference for the animators:Dusterian wrote:But you see, I'm kind of worried. When you get rid of everything that has to do with something, and then try to bring it back, it won't be the same. Yes, I'm talking about how they got rid of all the animation stuff, and are attempting to bring it back. Don Bluth and James Baxter may have been former Disney animators, but for whatever reason, neither were able to capture the same Disney quality in the films they worked on (any Don Bluth film, and Enchanted). Of course, Bluth probably wasn't striving for straight-up Disney...but he still had to rely on lots of rotoscoping (Disney never quite rotoscoped, they traced over pictures for reference but they didn't do any tracing for actual animation, just some pictures to look at), and we all know Enchanted was trying to be straight-up Disney (unless, because it was melded with live-action, and because it could risk making Disney look bad, as they were poking fun at Disney's fairy tale animation, they went for an un-Disney look so sharp people could say, "This isn't Disney!" and still love the superiorly animated fairy tale classics).
And I the point about Enchanted seems to be a little askew - they weren't mocking themselves, at least not in terms of design. Alphonse Mucha was a heavy influence for the designs. Gisele is considered a princess (if your fact was true, I doubt they would add her).Year 1937 was the beginning of Walt Disney’s rotoscoping milestone. Disney animators have delicately employed the tedious art of rotoscoping in the classic Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs film. After Snow White, rotoscoping was used in more Disney films and this includes Cinderella in 1950’s.
However, some of the Disney animators looked down at rotoscoping, since some referred to it as a “crutch” for the artists who lacked the skill in animation. Grim Natwick even said that rotoscoping was only used as basis for their work; however the elaborate portions in creating an animation were done beyond rotoscoping.
Later on, Disney didn’t used rotoscoping for the actual tracing rather they use rotoscoping in studying human and animal motion.
It's been about 15 years since The Lion King, and only 4 years since the last traditionally animated film - I doubt they "can't remember how to do it". Also, Eisner didn't control the creative side of the film - just the business.Dusterian wrote:Basically, I'm worried Disney films will never have the same quality and magic or whatever they had that they used to have. Unless enough people from the Eisner days or earlier remember exactly how to make good Disney animation again. Thanks for making me feel better with the "rushed" idea, though.
A classic is something that is symbolic of what the studio strives for - I don't think "The Great Mouse Detective" qualifies as such, but Snow White, Pinocchio, 101 Dalmations, Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast are staples to Disney.Dusterian wrote:It's right to ask what different people think are the classics, because if we're talking about the kind of classic that is good, has gone through time, and has long-lasting appeal, then it differs.
From the quick research - I've found nothing but the opposite of Walt's opinion.Dusterian wrote:My list could surely change, but this is basically what I think Walt Disney, the Disney studios, and the public regard as the classics and have made into the classics. Alice wasn't really liked by Walt, not sure about the studio, but it wasn't really liked by the public either, and today it's not really considered a good movie. It just has really great creativity, design, and animation. Kind of like Sleeping Beauty, except Walt actually intended it to be his masterpiece, and the film had more of a story and was more of a movie than episodic Alice in Wonderland. Fantasia is episodic and less like a movie, too, but that's definately a classic masterpiece, if not by the public, by Walt, the studio, and the whole company.
One last thing, you say that the new people can't achieve what was in the past but the directors of Aladdin and Little Mermaid are in control of this film, so don't be so quick to judge, it's not even the real trailer.