The animation in this is horrendous - The AristoCats (1970) Discussion

[–] shadgirlchya 15 years ago

not at all. the black line around figures is a little thicker than usual, and the drawing is different from other movies, but I like it. the animal moving is extremely realistic - look at thomas o' malley or the geese, for example

reply

[–] preppy-3 15 years ago

Just compare the animation in this with "Snow White" or "Fantastia" or "Bambi". Now THEY had great animation. "The Aristocats" can't even come close. From the 1950s on Disney's animation slowly started to get worse and worse--"Sleeping Beauty" is another example. I realize it was probably done to cut costs but it hurt the finished product.

reply

[–] PreachCaleb 15 years ago

You're saying Sleeping Beauty is another example of bad animation?

For love denied blights the soul we owe to God.

reply

[–] preppy-3 15 years ago

Not as bad as this but yes! Comapare it to the earlier Disney classics.

reply

[–] PreachCaleb 15 years ago

The style might be different, but the animation is superb.

The faeries fixing up the house is a work of art. The battle between Phillip and Maleficent is epic. It has beautiful backgrounds and wonderful effects.

For love denied blights the soul we owe to God.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cjgalwey 15 years ago

Is that why you can see multiple black lines whizzing around the cats and humans all the time, and e.g. the wrinkles wobbling around on the faces of Madame and her lawyer as they dance to the Carmen record?

reply

[–] OlLineRebel 12 years ago

Absolutely agree, at least regarding the "extra lines" - which to me are as if they left it in the very rough storyboard phase and simply colored it.

I've noticed this early in my life (pre-"Sleeping Beauty" was all smooth and polished, not rough-penciled sketches, also showcased in "Jungle Book" and "Robin Hood") after I had seen some of the true Walt classics, so it's not just prejudice due to reviews on the Internet.

I don't mind too much as long as the story is clean and nice, but if I have to choose, yes, I'd choose Walt-era animation.

reply

[–] Bobby009 15 years ago

I very much prefer the animation in Aristocats to the one in Aladdin for example, simply because it has a much more gracile, poethic quality and doesn't look so comic booky.

I love the atmosphere in the movie, for example around the old mill or on the back streets, which is very much created by the style of drawing and colouring. And the Paris backdrop is just amazingly beautifully drawn.

As for the animation in Aristocats, it may not be very "modern", but it's oh so beautiful! It does stand out from other Disney movies, but I think it does so in a good, unique way.

-Cheerleaders are dancers who have gone retarded-

reply

[–] japanesehorrorshow 14 years ago

I love the animation. In fact, i agree 100% with Bobby, i couldnt have put it better myself.

reply

[–] misstee793 14 years ago

I've just started watching it again for the first time in a few years, and I can see why someone might think it's of less quality than others - they didn't seem to clean up the lines as much as in other movies. You can see a lot of the rough pencil lines. However, the movements of the characters are still wonderful and realistic - which in my opinion is the most important part. You'll notice in a lot of the lower budget sequels Disney made the lines are very clean, but the animation itself is very choppy, and the art definitely not top quality. Personally, I have nothing to complain about when it comes to AristoCats. I still think it's a beautiful movie.

"Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever."

reply

[–] pYrOIvIaniac 14 years ago

I agree, except in the case of Madame. Her hair just wobbles like crazy, and her face and proportions are totally inconsistent. Poetic or not, her animation was extremely poor, to the point of being distracting.

reply

[–] StartingAllOver14 14 years ago

I disagree. Her animation was actually great.

reply

[–] victorianowl 13 years ago

You're crazy, the animation is gorgeous! I love that wispy, penciled look.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nabo7 11 years ago

A full explanation can be found in the book "Disney Animation - The Illusion of Life", by Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston, two animators whose careers spanned the 1940s through the 1970s. The black and sometimes rough outlines are Xerox copies of the actual pencil drawings onto celluloid, rather than the hand tracing with colored ink that was used for Sleeping Beauty and all prior color pictures. It was an economy move that was adopted as the inking technique was very expensive and the studio had just lost a lot of money on Sleeping Beauty. The Xerox process at the time was capable only of an all-or-nothing copy, giving a heavy black line. The authors reported that Walt was unhappy with the appearance but accepted it as an economic necessity. The animators themselves liked the result of having their actual drawings precisely copied onto the cels, whereas in their opinion the ink tracings done by others often lost some of the vitality of the original drawings. In later years, long after Walt's death, continuing advances in photocopy technology enabled them to regain much of the softer, polished look of the old inking technique.

reply

[–] MetFanMac 11 years ago

Thanks for the input! You can definitely see the difference in quality in linework between, say, The Aristocats and The Great Mouse Detective, even though they both arise from the same "scratchy" style of animation.

Supermodels...spoiled stupid little stick figures mit poofy lips who sink only about zemselves.

reply

[–] monstermayhem32 10 years ago

I think the film might have used stop motion animation but the animation in Cinderella and Snow White holds up a lot better.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] andrewtuell1991 10 years ago

I agree and I have two theories as to why

1. This is the first film to be produced and finalized after Walt's death. Maybe the remaining didn't quite know how to handle the film without his guidance. Though personally, I believe the four films released between this and Lady and the Tramp to be garbage as well (Sleeping Beauty, 101 Dalmatians, The Sword in the Stone, and especially the Jungle Book), so this isn't likely.

2. This film was made in 1967, which takes place during 1957-1989, rightfully considered by many to be the Dark Age of Animation. Very few cartoons made during this period have aged well, and most were crap to begin with. This is the most likely explanation.

reply

[–] preppy-3 10 years ago

Thank you. Two very good points. I agree--the other four movies you listed aren't that good. "Sleeping Beauty" especially is terrible. The backgrounds in that are so unrealistic that it got distracting. Disney lost a bundle on that film but it's now regarded as a classic!

reply

[–] norman-dostal 10 years ago

Sleeping Beauty didnt lose anything-its just didnt make much money vs its cost upon its initial release. Sleeping Beauty is very stylized-again, if youre not educated about animation and its various techniques, you'll be inclined to dislike it. But rest assured, SB is regarded as one of the finest examples of animated film in film history by the educated. The dragon alone is perhaps the best depiction of evil in animation second only to Chernobog in Fantasia

reply

[–] sarahleigh81 (94) 3 years ago

Sleeping Beauty is a gorgeous film. The backgrounds weren't supposed to be realistic. It was supposed to look like a moving tapestry. It's a shame you didn't get the point.

reply

[–] norman-dostal 10 years ago

Youre completely ignorant aboty the art of animation. The animation is superb-youre just not educated enough about the style to appreciate it. Its ok-stick to the computer stuff