Well, if the alternative is the creepy 3-D stuff on MM Clubhouse, I say copy away. A lot of heart went into those sequences, and they were created by people with a certain Vaudeville aesthetic, which carries over well in animation. Copying those shots means incorporating previous expertise into later pieces.

I'd disagree that "a lot of heart" went into directly copying old work. I'd additionally disagree that "a lot of heart" went into those not-so-great films of Disney's dark period. Sure, people worked hard, but it's easy to see that the quality is vastly lower.

I think she's talking about the amount of heart that went into the original sequences.

And thus copying shows some heart, transplanted.

Ok, sure...not sure how that vindicates this. I can't exactly get on board with redefining cheap and lazy imitations as "incorporating previous expertise".

I don't think she was saying it vindicates it, exactly. I think she was saying, given the option of hollow, unfunny CGI (as on the Disney Channel cartoons of Mickey, which utilize zero slapstick or visual comedy) even a copied sequence is better. Seriously, watch the crap that passes for a Mickey cartoon these days and see if you don't prefer Lady Cluck. I certainly do.

And honestly, until a few years ago, I didn't realize any of the dance sequence was a direct copy - and until I saw the video in question, I didn't realize how much of the physicality was copied.

I'm not upset at "lazy" animators - it's not their fault that, say, their budgets were cut, or that they were flopping around without a guide like Walt. The "dark years" happened for a reason - it's really the leadership of a creative company that guides its filmmakers to innovation (or to retreading what once was innovation.) A real, true creative visionary is a rare gift indeed, and what happens when they're gone? Struggle, until animators like the Mermaid team pull themselves up by their collective bootstraps. But even then, they couldn't have done it without the support of a strong creative leader - which, as much as all of you hate Eisner, he really was (in tandem with Wells, at least.)

TV shows have never had the quality of movies. Original Mickey cartoons were made for the theater.

All I'm saying - the methods and the quality are crappy. I know this has to do with a myriad of factors. I do not blame one specific group. It's not going out on a limb to say that these movies are badly made.

As a person who understands the frustrations of the creative process (and empathizes with those that have to work within financial and business constraints) I'm not here to point fingers, I'm just saying, the end product sucks.

I thought that goes without saying.

Dark period or not, Jungle Book, Robin Hood, Aristocats et al were the movies that introduced me to Disney.

While I intellectually understand why these are sloppy and unfocused, I really want to imagine that these are superior cartoons. When I see the evidence in front of me, a little part of my childhood dies.

Which is why I'm not going to watch the link above. Jungle Book is THE Disney film for me. I loved it from the first time I saw it in the theaters when it opened. It is also strongly connected to my favorite imagineers - Frank and Olie - and they don't DO shoddy work.

Aristocats was also a childhood favorite of mine and I love it still - especially the music!