![besthd-fantasia-1080p.mkv_snapshot_01.21.44_[2016.01.02_10.34.47].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/BoahfYs.jpg "besthd-fantasia-1080p.mkv_snapshot_01.21.44_[2016.01.02_10.34.47].jpg")
Disney was good until WWII and hit their lowest point in the 70s
>>71412640
Name your top 5 Disney shorts from the 1930's.
>>71412640
Disney Animation was good until the early 60's when they started xeroxing their art to save money, which is why all of their animated films from 60's/70s look like dogshit.
That said, they made up for it with plenty of good live action films during that period.
>>71412730
I'm more of a fan of the films, so in no particular order
Fantasia
The Old Mill
The Band Concert
Pinnochio
Dumbo
![besthd-fantasia-1080p 10mbps.mkv_snapshot_02.03.14_[2016.06.28_19.14.34].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/0M0Fv2H.jpg "besthd-fantasia-1080p 10mbps.mkv_snapshot_02.03.14_[2016.06.28_19.14.34].jpg")
>>71412783
>we will never get hand painted glass slide animation ever again
>>71412926
Decent. Not the biggest fan of Dumbo myself though. Fantasia, Pinocchio, and Dumbo technically were released in the 40's anyway.
What year marked the death of Disney?
>>71413217
I'm not well versed in the 30's shorts other than those two. For me I think the period from the late 30s to ~1942 was great.
Anything I should watch from the 30s?
>>71412783
I've heard about xeroxing before but I'm not sure what exactly it means (in animation).
>>71413032
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5yJCncdiAc
![Pinocchio (1940) 1080p.Molpol.mkv_snapshot_01.13.40_[2015.07.10_00.01.29].png](https://i.imgur.com/zXy7hH8.jpg "Pinocchio (1940) 1080p.Molpol.mkv_snapshot_01.13.40_[2015.07.10_00.01.29].png")
>>71413442
in the old days, animators would redraw the lines/shapes every single time on to each slide/cel. in the xerox era they would literally photocopy linework and color over it. The result was a grainer rougher output as they stopped doing oil painting mattes and drawings.
>>71413442
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjmaOj3_sKk
Disney was pretty strong throughout the 40s, their decline definitely hit rock bottom in the 70s though. I don't think they made a single animated film in the 70s worth seeing or even remembering the name of.
Amazing how they came back from that, and I was afraid they'd slide again after the 00s but their CG stuff is better than I expected.
>>71413577
So you mean instead of inking the lines the xerox process produced roughly the same result?
>>71413637
>I don't think they made a single animated film in the 70s worth seeing or even remembering the name of
I like Robin Hood and The Rescuers, but it's 95% nostalgia
>>71413736
Yes its the same result, which is why they chose to do it in the first place, however the quality is not the best. (sure you can downsize a 24mp image to 800x600 and its still legible, but its not as good as it could be)
>>71413521
Those earlier animations are spectacular. Why don't they do that anymore?
>Inb4 costs
It'd surely win awards and bring massive attention to it.
>>71414117
It wont. Foreign animations constantly put out amazing visuals and art styles only to get shit on by Pixar every fucking year.
At this point if you want to see good animation, look to japan or a foreign market
>>71413295
All of the Silly Symphonies
>>71414164
Fuck...
>>71414117
I dont get it either. I feel like studios just wouldnt advertise it enough, because at this point a 2d animated film is considered "niche", which is why you only see like Japanese animated movies and other studios outside America doing it for limited theatrical runs.
I feel like Disney kind of sabotaged that kind of filmmaking, like once CG really kicked off they put more attention to that, and just didnt bother promoting their 2D films anymore to the point where theyre like "well, they dont make money guess we wont do them anymore."
>>71413521
The multiplane camera was an important invention but Disney didn't seem to make any great use of it. Just pans and zooms, which often looked fake. Disney couldn't really into three-dimensionality.
>>71413806
That's really cheap. It doesn't seem like even anime movies ever did that.
Warner's shorts from the 30's-40's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Disney's
>>71414343
>which is why you only see like Japanese animated movies and other studios outside America doing it for limited theatrical runs.
I hear jap animation is starting to go down the road of cellshading...
Funfact: In the 80s the parks paid for 70% of Disney's income and they didn't have a hit until the Little Mermaid in the 90s
>>71413577
Ah, Pinocchio. You're not going to see much of a more important or well animated film than that. Well, for importance there's the earlier shorts, like Silly Symphonies which defined the 12 principles of animation, multiplane camera, etc. Too good.
>>71414480
Mermaid was '89 but fuck it, your point is still good.
>>71414438
MGM's Tom & Jerry > either
>>71414478
There's hardly any 3D anime.
>>71414480
what actually paved the way for the "renaissance" was Who Framed Roger Rabbit, which Disney released through their Touchstone label
>>71414503
Do you have the book Lost Notebook? Probably the best classic animation Disney book ill ever read
For the rest of you, Disney studios were literally inventing techniques and machines on the spot for their films.Fantasia was more of a technical demo than anything really, and it still holds up well
>>71414478
for movies? cuz I havent really seen that yet. i know for shows its already a thing
>>71414549
Not 3D but cell shaded 3D, that's made to look 2D. Weeaboo friend of mine was talking bout this recently, showed me something that looked weird as hell.
>>71414509
You mean the 5 or 6 good shorts they made between the early ones that were utter crap and the later ones that were utter crap?
>>71414586
Yeah that's 3D, even if they try to make it look 2D. There's not a lot of it made. Almost everything is 2D supported by 3D.
>>71414575
cant believe i havent heard of that book, but awesome.
I know alot of the earlier history of Disney when he did the Alice shorts and came up with the different techniques for those. Animation in general is cool to learn about in the 20s-50s
![Vampire.Hunter.D.Bloodlust.2000.BluRay.Remux.1080p.AVC.DTS-HD.MA.5.1.mkv_snapshot_00.56.33_[2016.05.04_01.24.18].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/kcyJLv3.jpg "Vampire.Hunter.D.Bloodlust.2000.BluRay.Remux.1080p.AVC.DTS-HD.MA.5.1.mkv_snapshot_00.56.33_[2016.05.04_01.24.18].jpg")
>>71414406
nah, japanese animation jumped on the xerox process too. it retains the texture of the pencil lines (and adds a slight amount of its own) but it's a colossal savings in terms of labor.
the broken lines around her nose and chin in this frame, for example
>>71414504
The 80's was a weird time for animation. So much dark and nightmare fuel stuff (in between the bizarre commercial stuff of course)
>>71414551
This anon is right. Roger Rabbit created the big spark of interest in older animation. The best you could get before then was Don Bluth and nightmare stuff mentioned above.
>>71414575
Do not own, but I will have to check out one day.
>>71414645
I was made to understand that it's incipient, but that likely it'll eventually be the industry standard in some years. Please tell me this is wrong. I'm not the biggest anime fan but I do enjoy some from time to time, it would crush me if they started doing it all with faggy cellshading.
>>71414586
There are always a couple really cutrate shows or simple shorts made in mdd or otherwise made entirely in 3d, but it's far from the standard. Mixing 3d into 2d for objects like cars and mechs is commonplace but replacing character animation entirely isn't the trend.
>>71414712
god, most likely. I get that animation has always, in some form or another, cut corners, but at least in the older days it didnt devalue the artistry or the storytelling of what was shown. Now, most studios just dont seem to care, it makes me really sad.
>>71414790
phew
Fleischer animation also.
>>71414692
>>71414674
Schulthesis, a guy who worked for disney basically documented/sketched/notated/photographed a shit ton of behind the scenes stuff from the mid 30s to the early 40s. A great way to see how much innovation was going on back then.
>>71414847
Those fleisher shorts with the miniature backgrounds are amazing, such a unique look
Kino
>>71414674
Where did you learn about the Alice shorts? I don't know much about the really old animation from the 20's and before.
>>71414688
I was looking at credits for cel animated movies and they all credit people for inking. So does Bloodlust.
>>71414712
I can only think three or four 3D shows from the past several years. There are around 40-50 half hour long shows produced every season, i.e. every three months.
3D seems to be more time-consuming and expensive than 2D (American shows generally don't use it either), and nobody wants it. The industry is also so big and so committed to 2D that it would be really difficult for 3D to make significant gains. Even tablets aren't still commonly used for 2D animation.
>>71414847
This one is interesting yet weird because you get uncanny setting in with a primitive 2d character against a realistic background
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy7pZrJ0GsY
>>71414923
I still can't believe this is all hand drawn.
Fucking amazing.
>>71414923
Not Disney, but you've gotta respect that guy for making the film for 30 years, or however long it was. Too bad it isn't very good, besides the refined psychedelic nightmare animation, which was ahead of the time.
>>71414923
>interpolation
>>71414934
theres a book about it, i think called Disney in Wonderland or something like it. It doesnt have alot of pictures for the technical stuff, but it does talk about what the background of the time and some depth of how he shot and animated it with his small studio of people.
theres some info about it in the Ub Iwerks doc too
>>71414955
are you sure it was specifically ink? the ones i glanced at just list people with 'ink & paint' as a general departmental term
>>71414847
Fleischer was so god-tier. Even Disney couldn't compete with some of their special effects.
>>71414955
Also, the way things work is that almost nothing is made fully in-house, and instead work is distributed to different studios and freelancers. Pen and paper animation is a simple, cheap and standard way for everyone to work.
>>71415109
Well, if there's no inking involved then I don't know why they would even mention it. When I looked at some TV shows, there was no mention of inking.
>>71415182
'cause ink & paint is the traditional name i guess
>>71412640
nice ass
Favorite non-Disney short? I like this one, even though it's a little overrated. I'm still going through a lot of 30's releases right now.
![Fantasia (BDrip 1080p ENG-ITA-GER) Multisub x264 bluray (1940).mkv_snapshot_01.54.08_[2015.07.04_00.41.30].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/8nRYjQx.jpg "Fantasia (BDrip 1080p ENG-ITA-GER) Multisub x264 bluray (1940).mkv_snapshot_01.54.08_[2015.07.04_00.41.30].jpg")
>>71415390
stop
Best Popeye coming through.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtzjOpt-vMw
Anyone know the name of thost 1930s mininamist animations that Fantasia was inspired by? I think it was german? and featured colored dots or circles
>>71415353
But then you'd expect to see it TV credits too.
And come to think of it, I believe in the anime industry the animators always drew on paper, not on cels. If that's the case, then xeroxing shouldn't have even been an option.
I just looked at an old documentary about the making of Astro Boy, and the animators are shown drawing on paper and then the drawings are traced on cels. So it seems like xeroxing has never really been used in the anime industry.
so nice
>>71414847
Fleischer was shit. Ever since the 1930s, Disney was the clear leader in their industry. They couldn't even transition to sound well lmao
This is 80 years old.
>>71415554
>If that's the case, then xeroxing shouldn't have even been an option.
uh, no? i think you're a little confused about the process.
>>71415953
As I understood it, they drew on cels with pencils and then xeroxed the cels to make them look inked. Xeroxing a paper drawing is useless.
>>71415718
this is 92 years old.
Speaking of old animation, this is from 1947:
https://sakuga.yshi.org/post/show/16879/
>>71416171
That reminds me a lot of Fleischer's animation. Not surprising (see video for some history) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHTUHT4kAOY
>>71416052
>xeroxed the cels to make them look inked
wot
they draw a pencil master on paper and then use a photocopier and chemical treatment (the aforementioned xeroxing) to transfer that image to a sheet of celluloid, removing the painstaking step of carefully tracing the pencil rough onto the cel by hand.
i looked it up because i was curious and apparently in cases where a line or two needed to be a different color than the xeroxed lines (ie: not black) those would still be inked on by hand, which would explain retaining the name.
>>71416458
The point of the clip is the three-dimensional camera work, which this Betty Boop short doesn't have.
>>71416527
Ok, I thought xeroxing meant just photocopying.
>>71416689
to be fair it sort of does, just not the same kind of machine the photocopier you'd use for handouts or whatever
>>71416689
>which this Betty Boop short doesn't have
That wasn't the point I was making, when I compared it to Fleischer's style. The short I posted is significant, because it was created in response to the surprising popularity of Fleicher's cartoons in Japan pre-WW2.
>>71416458
Mickey's got moves
>>71417092
That short is on YouTube too (with sound).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byAfC5yW_hw
>>71416126
what the fuck
>>71413032
You know, if nobody is doing it, and you love it....
Just saying, that's pretty much how art is made.
>>71417259
You don't know the Alice shorts?
>>71413637
Yeah man, The Rescuers was good. I just rewatched and held up fine...well that is if you ever watched any of the Bob Newhart sitcoms.
Bambi from 1942 is probably one of my favorite full-length animated movies.
Nothing and everything happens.
>>71417259
in his first works, walt didn't care too much for hiding his pedo interests.
>>71413262
1966
>>71417092
so cool
