I have no more faith in Disney
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 чер 2024
- what are your thoughts on disneys evalution over the past years? do you bealive that they can safe themselvs?
instagram
ellen_s_artwork...
cara
cara.app/ellensartworks
#art #disney #disneyshort #donaldduck #2danimation #animation #disneyisdying - Розваги
It's almost like Disney firing all their 2D animators in 2003 crippled the company, and it's almost like firing all the new 2D animators they had on board for Princess & the Frog and Winnie the Pooh in 2013 without ever building a new team ensured the company's demise
They never should’ve pitted those films against gay vampires and Harry Potter
The backgrounds are admittedly significantly worse, but it definitely made up for it with the downright beautiful character animation on Donald Duck at least.
Ngl the animation is really good but the background artist did them really dirty
The old donated duck episodes most likely hand hand painted background which explains the textures and natural feel to it but the new one totally feels like a bucket tool used over and over again
Donated duck?
@@dogman15they donated him after the incident
They very hand painted traditionally back then, just like the animation. It was done on paper, but doing it digitally Is not an excuse for not putting in textures. They could have easily made a hand painted look digitally.
Plenty of digital art programs come with texture brushes already installed or you can make your own. I don know how much extra it would’ve cost just to digitally paint in textures or checking that.
I could buy the minimalist backgrounds being an intentional stylistic choice but that cut off cloud is just unforgivable
Right! Don't tell me they dud it on purpose. It was very clearly a mistake
They want us to not like it so they can say “okay so we should do cgi animation instead then, right?”
Haha true!
maybe. it's not that 3d animation is bad it's just often lazily done. also no offense but the technical scope of 3d animation is ridiculous when compared to 2d animation. it takes far more time to set up a good-looking scene in 3d than in 2d, and even the best tools are deeply confusing to learn. defining an artstyle for a 3d work is extremely challenging because most software focuses on realism over artistic control. in the case shown here, the donald duck short having NO detailed backgrounds is inexcusable. the classic backgrounds were painted over a week by 2 or 3 people. disney should be able to get it done in a day with that much money and talented people.
I thought the short was weird also because they clearly use archive voice samples from previous Donald Duck shorts and maybe they used archive music as well, so it's like weird mix match of old and new. In comparison to other modern style shorts, like "Get a horse", it felt rushed somehow
They also used reused music from "Alice in Wonderland" as well.
Why couldn't they just have had the sketchy simple yet detailed backgrounds from the mickey shorts
it''s like Disney is entering it's cheap 80's saturday morning cartoon phase lol
I’m looking for junior background artist positions at the moment and I know for certain I could have done way better than those… and quickly too 😂
Exactly! I’ve just finished the background you see me working on in the video and it’s 10 times better than this
That background looks a lot like 2000s House of mouse and it doesn’t look a lot like the 40s version
It reminds me of the backgrounds from some of the 90s shorts. Which had a lot of issues like that. They also aren’t as well remembered because of the lack of quality.
Apparently Disney is going for that era to try to persuade us to hate 2D so they don’t have to waste money on it anymore
I think they were kinda different tho, because they at least tried to capture the Maurice Noble/Hawley Pratt style.
Ren and Stimpy matched the style well in the Rough Draft and Carbunkle episodes.
I don't hate the simplistic backgrounds themselves. What bothers me is that anything animated has an outline while everything else doesn't. It just doesn't look right with the minimal background detail. It was more disappointing than anything really bad, though it is nice to see something hand-drawn come from modern-day Disney, even if the full thing is 2 minutes long while most "Golden Age" animated shorts are around 7.
Disney is going cheap by cutting corners on everything in the company
The animation is decent but it's not top notch. It's on par with a good House of Mouse episode. It's fine so long as they aren't pitching this like some special A-star project like Once Upon A Studio, heck if we got some more of these, I'd be all for it.
It was fun to hear Clarence Nash as Donald I must admit. The archive footage treatment definitely works better with him that it did Mickey in Get A Horse. Same for the music, I find it a shame no composer ever nailed that old style with these nostalgia projects, always going for jazzy stuff.
Minor detail, but I do LOVE that bit when Donald realises he installed the window the wrong way up. We rarely see them do a subtle slow paced reaction gag like that in a callback short, they always try to do more Looney Tunes than classic Disney.
It's because the music genre was swing music
looks cheap what a downgrade
It honestly looked more like a tech demo or a proof of concept rather than an actual classic Disney short.
They also did a couple for Goofy a few years back, and I remember thinking they were fine... but I also remember thinking "Couldn't you just have done a proper 7 minute short, instead of this set of shorts that's just a couple of minutes each?".
It's a bit of a shame that aside from "Get a horse" and "How to hook up your home theater" the last time Disney did shorts like this, and seemed to put afford into, was Mouse Works/House of Mouse. And that's very close to be 25 years old.
At least we have Paul Ruddish's Mickey from the 2010s, which does more of its own thing, but it does fulfill its intent better as a successor to the classic Disney shorts.
I love replicating Disney's style by myself and it's kind of crazy that a team of actual Disney animators, including some from the Renaissance, could only produce something that looks like it's from House of Mouse. I do think many of them are new to the studio though (probably apprentices from the 2D program they ran a few years back, who also worked on Once Upon A Studio). I hope they get back into the groove of the traditional 2D pipeline eventually 😭
I thought the backgrounds looked really poorly done, especially in comparison to the beautiful backgrounds in older disney shorts. But the animation on Donald was pretty smooth, so at least there's that. Not upset at the animator, though, I'm upset at Disney for their disregard for traditional animation. Feels like they're practically dangling 2D in front of us. They can do classic stuff but they just...choose not to.
Money is your answer, the people that run disney nowadays are not passionate about animation. They're passionate about money and that's why we're getting mufasa in that "live action" look...like I'm actually interested in the story but I hate that they didn't do it in some other style. Just imagine if we got that in the same 2d animation as the first lion king 🤯
@@ellensartworks I feel that so much! I love Lion King and would love to see Mufasa's backstory, but in the universe of the original, not the stupid remake. Animation has come so far, a Lion King prequel about Mufasa in traditional animation would be so beautiful, so golden, yet they refuse to even give us that. Passion has left the entertainment industry in general it seems, but it has especially for animation, at least here in the west :((
not only did it look like a cheep flash cartoon, but the audio suck. it was so inconsistent, they used donald’s original voice actor and some original music and sound effects, but what bugged me was that they also used modern sound effects in it as well to and didn’t think to put a stereo filter over it so it’s just inconsistent, once you notice this stuff the short feels like a fan made video with a cheap budget.
Graphic design seems to be more style than substance. Those flat colors were likely meant to look neat, rather than organic.
I mean, have you seen modern logos?
Disney (if i remember right), fired a lot of people because BS reasoning. then a crap tone of writers on Disney up'ed and quit of them, then Disney had the bright idea to use AI to "Smooth" everything out, only for the smart half of their actors bash on them and there's way more I know...
all this happened because Bob Chapek. (idk if that may be true or not, BUT it was around that time were the slow moving slope of quality turned into a sheer cliffside.)
The Result of the new prevalent culture In Disney, Pushback on poor work might cause "discomfort" and we can't have that in current year.
Yikes. They couldve added some random texture, a gradient, or something.
When i saw this short released i just knew it was going to be the tipping point for someone's likeness of disney
I’m genuinely becoming more depressed the more I see videos like this saying how bad Disney’s gotten ☹️
I'm sorry If this video weren't the most optimistic one I've made but I think we need to speak up about stuff like this so that the industry might change. The more people who speak up, the louder it will be😊
It because ALL the animation of 90s was made by hand and this short was made with digital utilization, in agreement of Disney’s production. For example, the background, like you mention, was made with digital colors and, in the 90s, was made with watercolor, giving more texture and tonality. That because I’m prefere Cuphead (the game) 👍
Digital can look It's because they cheaped out on the animation when compared to indie animation
Classic cartoons mainly had extremely detailed background with lots of shades and decorations, like this 2:13 . And the only things that werent like this were usually items the character’s would Pick up or interact with (sometimes it would be details dead just pop into being on the same level of detail as the Character like some freaky friday dimension hopping.) i Think the only reason they didnt do this was because it was too much work for something they deemed not worthy. 2:30 here i Think it looks a Big better, a lot of stuff is shaded and sorta detailed, but the Walls, sky, and grass just look bland and like flat color despite there being no reason for it.
I dont Think its completely on model with original Donald duck, but im not even gonna go there. I dont wanna be one of those guys that cry about things not being perfectly on model and contribute to puppet animation. Im honestly shocked they didnt puppet this though, it seems like a very Disney thing to do. I think they did pretty good on his animation anyways, but he was probably the main thing in the budget.
They kinda dug Their own Hole here. By making an animation to honor Their classic animations they just show how much they’ve regressed in actually animating. I Think at the time of the classics (like snow White and the classic shorts), the workplace was apperantly like a family and had parties and had an actual culture. Now Disney is a giant Corporation who only cares about budgets, what sells best, looking good, and deadlines. Simply because they just Got too Big.
Yes... I think this is what happens when a majority of the old greats leave the studio for whatever reason, and the replacement talent is either restrained or unable to match the skills of the original talent. I'm an animator myself, but I'd rather have a devoted background artist handle my backgrounds.
This was my thought exactly while watching it. The moment I saw how flat it was, my excitement sank instantly.
They clearly don’t have anymore artists who understand the beauty of the original cartoons from the (late) 1920s - (early) 1960s. Back then they had thick shading, visible sketch/linework, saturated colors, palpable depth, clutter/life (meaning the spaces felt lived in by more than our lead characters), and most importantly: a passionate artist’s vision for an engaging location the cartoon takes place in.
The new cartoon (while I still appreciate the… effort…) was extremely flat, empty… almost dead… and it felt like something made on Microsoft paint. Extremely disappointing…
Especially because I grew up wanting more than anything to be hired by Disney, to work on more cartoons and animated movies that harkened back to the spirit and energy of the original Disney aesthetic. But through the years they’ve abandoned their 2D animated roots, and now require computer animation skills for 97% of their projects… it really shows just how many passionate 2D animators they have left… which clearly isn’t many..
The short itself felt like a sub-par test animation of Mickey Mouse Works.
I would not call it a new low. With all of the cash grab choices they've made, now seems like the time to be happy about what we do get instead of getting nitpicky.
It's a new story, and they actually brought cell animation back in and did it justice. The clear visuals from the digital ink/paint job remind me of House of Mouse but with the plot and gags being like the early shorts. My guess is that they held back from the painted backgrounds because of how the visuals in Wish were criticized. Flat looking characters in a textured environment. The classics may have pulled it off, but I think they were scared to take the risk.
The simple backgrounds, although something Looney Tunes did more than Disney during the classic era as an artistic choice, really stand out from what the CGI movies do. We don't see a lot of 2D animation anymore, and this short makes it very clear that it is different from the CGI we have been seeing the past decade. I think the choice for the simplistic backgrounds is ok.
Yeah but the backgrounds in something like those 60’s looney tune shorts had simplistic backgrounds but they had texture and they had great composition. Here it’s just flat. No texture, no depth, nothing.
@@-imgonnarexit-12349 They've got basic cel shading
You have a nice voice. Totally on point with what you said. Those are insultingly bad...
Thank you!
Just a hunch I think it's because using cell animation back in the day gave way for more imperfections and detail that isn't as clear in the cell-to-film process
So when you try to go for the same style digitally all of the detail shows and nothing blends together as well as it did but idk the reason
I think they could at least have given the walls a bit og gradient or something. Like if you look at something like bluey the backgrounds are so well done with such detail even though the characters are not the detailed. Tge characters and background does not have to be at the same level of detail to match
@@ellensartworks yeah thats the thing too lol
the backgrounds just look so flat and boring
I'm just glad it was pure entertainment and wasn't trying to push any woke politics.
Mind you SpongeBob has literally hand painted their backgrounds for 25 years. If Nickelodeon can do it so can they
Any attempt to praise How to Hook Up Your Home Theater I'll take, but this short is fine enough. Claiming it's a "classic" Donald short is a bit of an exaggeration, though. It's definitely more Mouseworks levels. Which isn't bad (especially considering Disney doesn't want to mention Mouseworks ever again... PLEASE I'M BEGGING), but there's some dissonance. With the music and Don's voice being from archive sources, it sort of clashes with the clean digital look and sound effects. But I guess stuff like this, those three Goofy quarantine shorts and Mickey in a Minute are mostly just to keep the, like, three 2D animators they still have from leaving.
It’s sad to see that they kinda lost their roots
Oddly enough, the "How NOT to Draw Donald Duck" short had more effort put into it, and the background was just real world objects.
I do agree with your points but overall I really did enjoy the short and thought Disney still kept the same charm they did in the early years. (That’s just my personal opinion)
I don't have a problem with the new cartoon, tho. I kinda enjoy it.
But I'll admit, it's a downgrade from the Paul Rudish Mickey stuff. I wish this was made by Rudish, tbh.
I also think the exaggeration was lacking. Nothing had that real animated feel cuz everything felt real in how he moved, not cartoony
Who let Augustus gloop cook 💀
I'm sorry what?
i will also say, the perspective on alot of the background shots is rather poor. this is partially due to assets being re used between scenes despite changing angle. pause any scene and you'll be able to nitpick more little things the more you look at it. things like bad angles, random bg elements having shading while others dont. shading not being consistant. tangent lines. one thatbugged me personally was in the scene of donald driving down to the store, all the way up until he turns into the parking lot, his animation is offset from the road making it look like his car is floating the whole time. i could understand it being like that on a segment of the hill, but it's like that the whole way down.
Just when ya think Disney couldn’t set the bar any lower…
And with as much money as they have… or perhaps had…
I agree that this short just felt disappointing. The moment I started watching it I thought the animation was just "okay" but there was always something that I felt was missing compared to the old animated shorts: the shots (or 'camera movement') felt less dynamic, donald's animation felt less fluid overall, and I think at the back of my mind I was asking myself "have we really gone backwards? Or is this the cost of replacing pen & paper, or ink, physically-made, old-school hand-drawn animation for its digital counterpart?". I dunno it just felt too... flat and unengaging. And taking a look back at the backgrounds... my god, that is just freaking dull and LAZY, Jesus Christ. This just shows that Disney truly has lost its spark, if everything else sorrounding Disney wasn't enough for you to lose faith in them, somehow.
This is more reasons why I stopped watching anything Disney when I left the company. This was the first short in year from Disney I see and it was very disappointing
it looks like flat colors... I wanted to ask, but given the fact that is Disney, of course they're cutting the budget for that
dear baby child, those are 1930's and 1940's shorts. xD " 80's " hahaha, forgive me.
I totally agree with your statement; it dropped the ball.
unrelated but you sound *very* danish
Disney devolved because of new management, political correctness and budget cuts. Walt would turn in his grave if he could see what's become of his legacy.
Old 2D animators were layed off when computers started stepping in to do the animation. Sure, Disney has made some good stuff still, like the short Mickey cartoons and some of the new Ducktales episodes. But overall I'd say the quality took a nose dive somewhere after 2000. The last good movie Disney released was The Princess and The Frog. A movie I still haven't seen, because I'm saving it for a rainy day.
I'd love however to see them return to their original art styles, like how they animated Quack Pack, Darkwing Duck, Tailspin and so on. Those were the days.
Unpaid interns happened.
That's that worst thing thar the animation/film industry created. I hate the concept of having to prove yourself worthy of working at a company. Like either you hire me or not and if I don't live up to you standards after a few months, then Fire me
welcome to the club, what took you so long?
Delusion and a bit of hope for change I think😅😅
Just watched it as well, the backgrounds suck. Really bland flavourless short
Cheap and laziness that's all this is & is all Disney is now as well.
I think a new short dedicated to Donald Duck hasn't happened since the 1950s.
I liked Donald's animation, but at the same time I didn't like the backgrounds and everything else at all. So bland, flat, stilted, expressionless.
Quite disappointing. I didn't want to say anything about it because I didn't want to sound like a person who is always complaining about Disney.
If disney was a small indie company then I would put them up to these high standards but when it's a huge company that is known for revolutionizing 2d animation then they nerd to be critiqued when they don't deliver the quality that they're known for and is capable of doing. It's sad that an indie animator can deliver more quality than Disney at this point
@@ellensartworks That's right, Disney was at the top of the food chain for in the 2D animation era; now you see easily indie doing better work than Disney.
Yet, the Disney short film about the raccoon a few years ago I really liked.
I would have liked to see a whole film made that way but it never happened.
Tbh, the backgrounds aren't that bad. They are pretty well made and abstracty. But I think they fit way better for a more "UPA"-esque cartoon like Dexter's Laboratory or Animatic Battle (yes, the latter is indie animation). Even the Rudish Mickey stuff fits that background style too.
He looks so out of place
This is disappointing
Yeesh, that's the blandest backgrounds I've seen in a long time, even the cartoons from "Mickey Mouse Works" and "The House of Mouse" does a better job with them. 🤢🤮
The fact you all only complain about modern compared to classic makes me as a desired animator to make even worse content for you. You only encourage me to make all my content ai-generated.
The reason we complain is because we want more than just okay stuff. I animate a bit myself and I strive to make more quality than quantity. I'm not a master animator but I do hope that the ones that are really good will aim for the best. Why not be that animator that people will praise for giving us some quality back?😊
@@ellensartworks I’ve personally been going through tough times lately and have really been pushed to feel as if all that extra work doesn’t pay off well. No matter how much work you put into it, not how good the quality is, it’s still not good enough, even offensive/controversial. And considering that’s my reputation in general, why bother? At this point as an artist, it really is only about the money.
@ellensartworks Don't listen to this guy, I checked his channel, and it's filled with "I fixed X with AI" and really bad custom Mario Kart tracks.
@@X2011racer It's people like you that discourages me to even try to put effort into my work.
@@jbcJohn10v10 What...? If you really are an Animator, then why are your Mario Kart tracks so lifeless? They're all Gray and lacking in environment... you didn't even implement proper maps as they all default to Luigi Circuit's map. But on the positive side, the layouts aren't bad through, they look fun. They just need a more established atmosphere and further refinement for better competition.
Considering they went woke, it's no wonder that the quality of everything else just dropped like a rock -- I mean what do you call those "new" mickey shorts from a few years ago, that was almost ren-and-stimpy quality designs/animation (and in fact almost looks worse than r&s). Walt Disney was probably turning in his grave. If they ever get back to Judeo-Christian traditional nuclear family based morals and ethics, I'm sure their animation and art would come back to it's full glory.