Animation similarities
 

Peachykeen found this great video. It shows how the animators used some of the same shots in different Disney films:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4ia5TBmY78

Interesting, but not exactly fair. All it proves is that Robin Hood is pure hackwork ... and that's been obvious for decades since it first appeared as one of the craptackiest Disney animated films ever foisted.

I can't help myself... I love it. What that film is lacking in animation, it more than makes up for in charm.

Ditto that. It was the Disney film that perhaps I loved the most as a child. Hackwork, stolen from prior rotoscope? Totally. Beloved? Absolutely.

Ah, kids'll watch anything, and I was a kid then too, just as guilty as the rest. Too bad we were born in the 70's.

Anyone who's seen Robin Hood and Aristocats after age 15 doesn't need more proof that they are shoddily made, but it is fun to watch this comparison and shake your head in amazement that this is Disney.

The finale involving two waltzes is dumb though. They're both waltzing. That's what waltzing looks like. No way that counts as a rip off.

Neat!
The video makes a good point. Films in that era, like Robin Hood stole from other films and gave to the poor audiences mediocre entertainment.
:D

The piece itself is well edited. The poor editor spent a lot of time on it.
:)

Well, and the thing is, if a shot works, it works. Leonardo daVinci doesn't own the waist-up portrait, and his "unoriginal" framing takes nothing away from the mastery of the final piece. Not that I'm calling Robin Hood a masterpiece, but good framing and sequencing is good framing and sequencing. I'm sure if we tried we could find many similar sequences in boom-crash blockbuster movies.

Eh, I don't care if it's shoddily made. Robin Hood is still the only anthropomorphic fox that rings my bell-el-el. Rings my bell. (My bell. Dingalingaling) my beeeeell. Rings my bell.

I was a little depressed to see that the Mowgli handoff chase in Jungle Book was so completely copied from the deed-chasing scene in Mr. Toad. And I'm surprised I never noticed it before. It's completely blatant.

Yeah, Robin Hood kinda bites. Some charming voice characterizations, a handful of okay gags, but on the whole, overlong and slooooow.

Ok, couldn't help myself - you got quoted. :D

I think this chase grab stuff is directly copied from Mickey/Donald cartoons from way back.

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!