# Today's animation vs yesterday's animation **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 22, 2005, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/todays-animation-vs-yesterdays-animation/295684 "2005-03-22T04:25:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/todays-animation-vs-yesterdays-animation/295684/21 "2005-03-22T20:54:58Z")
> [@puppymeister](#): > > So I got Bambi for my girls today, as it’s out for the first time on DVD … One daughter is bored. How old is she? As others have noted, kids won’t sit for something just because it’s animated. Younger kids, especially, need something happening every few minutes just to keep them engaged. She might be more up for the _Spongebob Squarepants_ movie instead (recommended in a Tex Avery screwball comedy way). > [@1010011010](#): > > Also, _Bambi_ is from back when Disney was making cartoons for children… now they make animated features for children _and their parents_. [You’re kidding, right?](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0299172/) Pixar, yes; Disney, no. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/todays-animation-vs-yesterdays-animation/295684/22 "2005-03-22T21:30:18Z")
Sorry, **Cal**. I don’t mean to continue the hijack _too_ much, but I can’t really see it that way. The Disney version is simply the worst when it comes to fidelity to the text. Carroll’s extremely _clever_ puns are discarded and replaced with weak ones. Why? Lines are mangled and then put into different character’s mouths as though it doesn’t matter _who_ says them. It’s infuriating how often Wonderland creatures’ lines are given to _Alice_, completely altering the concept of her character. Not a _single_ verse of a single poem makes it into the film without dubious ‘improvements.’ Bits of _Jabborwocky_ spoojed into _The Walrus and the Carpenter?_ A representative example of how Carroll’s verse it treated: Alice’s recitation of _Father William_. Only one verse makes it in, and it’s given to Tweedledee. Carroll’s version: > [@](#): > > “You are old, father William,” the young man said, > “And your hair has become very white, > and yet you incessantly stand on your head– > Do you think, at your age, that it’s right?” > > “In my youth,” Father William replied to his son, > “I feared it would injure the brain, > But now that I’m perfectly sure I have none, > Why, I do it _again and again._” Put through the Disney-fier, it becomes: > [@](#): > > “You are old father William,” the young man said, > And your hair has become very white, > and yet you incessantly stand on your head– > Do you think at your age it is right, is right, do you think at your age it is right?" > > “Well, in my youth,” Father William replied to his son, > “I’d do it again and again and again > and I’ve done it again and again and > and I’ll do it again and again and again and again.” And Alice wanders off, leaving Tweedledee bouncing up and down. Oh yeah. Brilliant. The ‘abridged’ _Walrus and the Carpenter_ isn’t much better. Again, there’s only one verse of poetry, and it’s a spooje of Carroll’s 1st, 4th, and 5th verses. I’m sorry, but… > [@Disney](#): > > The Walrus and the Carpenter were walking close at hand; > The beach was white from side to side but much too full of sand. > “Mister Walrus,” said the Carpenter: “My brain begins to burke. > We’ll sweep this clear in half a year, if you don’t mind the work.” …does not remotely do justice to… > [@Carroll](#): > > The Walrus and the Carpenter > Were walking close at hand; > They wept like anything to see > Such quantities of sand: > “If this were only cleared away,” > They said, “it _would_ be grand!” > “If seven maids with seven mops > Swept it for half a year, > Do you suppose,” the Walrus said, > “That they could get it clear?” > “I doubt it,” said the Carpenter, > And shed a bitter tear. After that one mangled verse, the Disney version degenerates into a manic exchange with only the most tenuous connection to the poem. Don’t get me started on “Callooh! Callay! Come run away! We’re the cabbages and kings!” :rolleyes: Whoops, too late. Anyway, back on topic, it’s not that there’s anything wrong with Disney’s '50s animation tech – it’s that the script is _very, very_ poor stuff. They use a lot of fragments that, in the book, are set-ups for jokes, and then leave out the punchlines. Carroll’s witticisms are _refered_ to, but mangled to the point where the joke is lost. That “two spoons” bit you like is a prime example. It’s an elegant joke in the book. “Two days wrong. I told you butter wouldn’t suit the works!” “But it was the _best_ butter.” “Yes, but some crumbs must have gotten in as well. You shouldn’t have put it in with the bread knife.” Having the March Hare and the Hatter cramming everything on the table into the watch for five minutes while the White Rabbit (Argh! He doesn’t even belong at the table – it ruins an esoteric joke,) goes into hysterics about it, the joke (that it’s accepted that _quality_ butter is better for watchworks than the cheap stuff) is lost in the noise. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/todays-animation-vs-yesterdays-animation/295684/23 "2005-03-22T22:16:09Z")
> [@1010011010](#): > > Well, thanks for clearing that up. :smack: Timeline: November 1937: _The Old Mill_ is released. December 1937: _Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs_ is released. March 1938: Walt Disney Productions receives an Academy Award for the development of the [multi-plane camera](http://www.mouseplanet.com/fairytales/ft010622.htm). Note the two original release posters halfway down that page: “in the marvelous MULTIPLANE TECHNICOLOR”. August 1942: _Bambi_ is released. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/todays-animation-vs-yesterdays-animation/295684/24 "2005-03-22T22:50:11Z")
How could she possibly like Bambi? Does it have ninja assassins? Giant robots? I didn’t think so. Is there such thing as “real” (as in hand-drawn cell animation) anymore? Masamune Shirow’s Appleseed ([http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/appleseed.html](http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/appleseed.html)) uses some kind of motion-capture technique combined with CGI models with a “pen and ink” or “toon” shader to give the illusion of cell animation. Some scenes look really cool but others look too “rendered” and almost 3D for my tastes. Also the characters seem to lack the expressiveness of traditional anime. The new Keanu Reeves movie A Scanner Darkly ([http://www.apple.com/trailers/warner\_independent\_pictures/a\_scanner\_darkly.html](http://www.apple.com/trailers/warner_independent_pictures/a_scanner_darkly.html)) looks like they used some kind of rotoscoping technique. I’m still on the fence whether I think it looks cool or like they traced over the characters. Peter Chung (Aeon Flux, Reign) does some good work, but it’s a little too bizaare for little kids. I guess Hayao Miyazaki (Princess Mononoke) still does traditional cell animation. He uses CGI techniques but at least he’s subtle about it. ---
**Author:** ![mobo85](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@mobo85](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mobo85)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/todays-animation-vs-yesterdays-animation/295684/25 "2005-03-23T00:34:00Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > How could she possibly like Bambi? Does it have ninja assassins? Giant robots? I didn’t think so. Then who killed Bambi’s mom? ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/todays-animation-vs-yesterdays-animation/295684/26 "2005-03-23T01:28:11Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Timeline: > > November 1937: _The Old Mill_ is released. > December 1937: _Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs_ is released. > March 1938: Walt Disney Productions receives an Academy Award for the development of the [multi-plane camera](http://www.mouseplanet.com/fairytales/ft010622.htm). Note the two original release posters halfway down that page: “in the marvelous MULTIPLANE TECHNICOLOR”. > August 1942: _Bambi_ is released. Drat. I was going by the way they spoke about it on the _Bambi_ DVD as though it was all new. But of course, now I remember that it’s also referred to on the _Snow White_ DVD, so I should’ve checked first. ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/todays-animation-vs-yesterdays-animation/295684/27 "2005-03-23T02:26:17Z")
> [@mobo85](#): > > Then who killed Bambi’s mom? A giant robot ninja assassin! From off camera… ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/todays-animation-vs-yesterdays-animation/295684/28 "2005-03-23T03:14:07Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > [You’re kidding, right?](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0299172/) > Pixar, yes; Disney, no. Both make family movies. Disney makes movies for kids and their parents. Pixar makes movies for parents and their kids. Pixar makes movies that an adult could concievably go see on their own and not feel embarassed about. Disney will slip in a reference here or there that young children will totally miss, but the parents may catch. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/todays-animation-vs-yesterdays-animation/295684/29 "2005-03-23T03:45:21Z")
Hey, **Larry** , I didn’t say it was _faithful_. I said it put more of Carroll’s verse in, and it was a helluva lot more _entertaining_ han any other version. And I stand by that. I don’t care if Paramount had W.C. Fields as Humpty Dumpty. He shoulda been perfect, I agree. But he isn’t – he’s a bore. I agree that they ddn’t use a lot of Carroll’s jokes. A lot of Carroll’s jokes wouldn’t have worked today. Times change, and a lot of them don’t work if you don’t know the context. Jokes based on conditions at Dodgson’s college and the Liddell’s girl’s school and using 19th century advertising simply won’t play in he mid- 20th century (or early 21st). If I didn’t have my Martin Gardner’s **Complete Annotated Alice** I wouldn’t get most of those jokes, either. Poor joks? I’ll still take the ones I cited above. In the context of fast-moving performed comedy, I’ll take “two spoons” over “It was the _best_ butter.” Blasphemy, but the one makes me laugh when I watch it, and the other doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/todays-animation-vs-yesterdays-animation/295684/30 "2005-03-23T04:17:35Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > Poor joks? I’ll still take the ones I cited above. In the context of fast-moving performed comedy, I’ll take “two spoons” over “It was the _best_ butter.” Blasphemy, but the one makes me laugh when I watch it, and the other doesn’t. Well, I can’t argue with you there. _De gustibus non est dispudendum_, and all that. I suppose it’ll have to come down to a slapping contest. Let’s fight 'til six, and then have supper. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/todays-animation-vs-yesterdays-animation/295684/31 "2005-03-23T04:19:22Z")
> [@Larry Mudd](#): > > _Alice In Wonderland_ is based on some very dark humour. It’s not meant to be _scary_ – but adaptations that make Wonderland seem like a fun, silly place, where everybody is carefree and happy — miss the point, somewhat. In Wonderland, everyone is mad, and knows it. Everything that is intended to be uplifting and pure, when brought into it, is transmuted into something bestial and cruel. I can agree with that. It was more of the lumping of Roald Dahl and Lewis Carrol seming like a bit of “Whhaaaaaaa?” But I do think that it isn’t “dark humor” so much as presenting allegories for the adult world–turning the scary parts of adulthood into lunacy to make it funny, so that Alice Liddel (or any other child who is told the story) when encountering these things in real life the first time, instead of being scared will be able to laugh off those bits and not worry so much. But as for Disney messing with the specific lines from the book…I saw the movie first so I would imagine it is less disastrous to me. For me it was a reverse experience where the book was able to expand on the things I had already encountered and that was a nice experience after already having enjoyed the condensed version. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/todays-animation-vs-yesterdays-animation/295684.md?page=1)