Recycling whole animated scenes, that is. According to this Huffington Post article,
. This is called “rotoscoping”. However, it seems that rather than redo the process for later animated movies, they just dug out the old rotoscopes and redrew new characters making the exact same movements as the characters in the previous movie. The examples shown in the link are amazing.
I think it’s funny that the first line is “A new video has cast some doubt on the originality of a few of your favorite childhood films”. Disney movies aren’t original to begin with. Nearly all of them (IIRC) are based on older, out of copyright, stories and fairy tails. I get what they’re saying, but Disney didn’t write Robin Hood or Sleeping Beauty.
Anyways, I think it’s pretty cool that they did that. I’ve known about rotoscoping for quite some time, I think I learned about it here. But reusing complex sequences to save money seems like a good idea. That video mostly showed dance sequences. It wouldn’t surprise me if some of those scenes took a month to create from start to finish. If this meant it took two weeks, that seems like a good use of resources…especially if it took us over 30 years to catch on.
Why get upset now, though–I remember seeing comparisons of these videos years ago, too. I agree with JoeyP, pretty cool.
I just find it very interesting. Have any rotoscopes been used in more than two movies?
I think this is one of those ‘discoveries’ that Disney-obsessed kids, choreography students, and animation buffs have known about for years and thought was just the way thing were. I’ve actually sat with cousins with my VHS and fast forwarded the movies to show the dance scenes matching up in Aristocats and Robin Hood and Jungle Book - I didn’t catch that the original was Snow White, but that one was never a favorite.
Several of the movies given as examples of ‘copying’ are from Disney’s ‘not-so-hot’ phase: Aristocats, Robin Hood, and Jungle Book. It’s been known for a long time (I thought) that the studio did everything humanly possible to save money and cut production costs for the individual films.
I think the headline is unnecessarily clickbaity - making it seem like they did something wrong or shady.
Why is this an issue?
I like the symetry of it -
original - 1937
re-used - 1973
I didn’t find it an issue-I just found it interesting.
Disney used to swear it didn’t use rotoscoping (a process invented and patented by their competitors, Fleischer Studios, who made Popeye and Betty Boop), but it’s been known for a long time that they did, in fact, use it for a lot of cartoons. Usually you have very specific movements that you want to rotoscope, so you film the actors – often the voice actors – performing those motions.
I wouldn’t be surprised by the studio’s re-0using very common motions, though.
Preston Blair, who animated all those sexy gals for MGM cartoons in the 1940s, is supposed to have claimed to never have used rotoscoping in animating those women that Tex Avery’s wolves leered over. For some reason, I’m willing to believe him.
I’m pretty sure Disney has long acknowledged that the Beauty and the Beast waltz scene was identical to Sleeping Beauty as a homage to link the newer animations to the older ones.
Animators are environmentally conscious, what with all the reuse and recycling. Tangentially related, when I watch animation I like to look for these little tricks that can save a lot of man hours:
Not showing the feet and/or knees during walk cycles.
Any excuse not to show someone talking, which can include holding something up in front of their face (like a book or magazine or a refrigerator/cabinet door), cutting to another person reacting to what they say, have the speaker turn around and face another direction, medium or long distance shots that require less detail than close ups, or cutting to or starting in a static exterior shot while the characters talk.
To hide the lack of camera movement or animated backgrounds, when someone does something action-y just turn the background into a splash of color.
I used to trust their word, despite my suspicions, by assuming they copied real life footage by eye, rather than drawing over the top of it. But I have to admit it’s clear that it’s actual full-on rotoscoping.
You should watch Avalon, Mamoru Oshii’s live action film.
It’s also something that’s made the rounds on the Internet multiple times. I’ve known about it so long that I don’t remember not knowing about it. I specifically remember learning about the copy from The Jungle Book and Robin Hood. The bears even look the same, just colored differently.
It’s even the same voice actor, Phil Harris.
Oh, recycling their own stuff. Not recycling other people’s stuff. I see.
Either way, pretty much doesn’t matter to the House of Mouse.
My response is:* So*? :dubious:
I do, too. There’s a quality to rotoscoping where you can just “feel” a human underneath the movement. I don’t get that with his gorgeous showgirls.
First world problems.
If you don’t have anything to offer other than this, you should just ignore the topic altogether.
Don’t make thread-shit posts like this or you may get a warning next time.