Hal Ashby’s Harold and Maude, a dark comedy with poignant underpinnings, was a film much misunderstood in its day. Reviled for its February-December love affair (much older woman, very young...
Man on a Ledge plummets onto Blu-ray this week with an edition that presents the picture and sound as well as possible, along with a minimum of special features. The movie itself is hard to...
The most infamously unsuccessful movie at the box-office thus far in 2012 (though Battleship and Dark Shadows may give it some competition), Andrew Stanton’s John Carter mixes elements of...
What can I say? I love 3D! From the moment I began watching 3D content in my home I quickly discovered that I needed more content. I suspect that those of you just purchasing...
Smokey and the Bandit drives onto Blu-ray in a nice edition that can really take the viewer back to 1977 for 90 minutes of sheer moviemaking fun. The Blu-ray comes with the same HD transfer...
SAN FRANCISCO — Everyone has their personal favorite Disney movie, and you can make an argument for most of the classics as being “the best.”
But the opinion of Diane Disney-Miller, the eldest daughter of Walt Disney, probably carries a bit more weight than others, and when asked where the 1940 Fantasia ranks, she didn’t hesitate: “It’s got to be tops.”
The Nov. 30 four-disc Blu-ray Disc combo pack ($45.99) includes both Fantasia and Fantasia 2000 on DVD ...
It is still just her opinion even if she does have Disney in her name. Frankly, her naming "Fantasia" as the number one classic Disney animation just seems like the typical knee-jerk reaction that occurs whenever that question is asked. I'd agree that, of all the classics, "Fantasia" was the pinnacle purely in terms of animation technique, but it is not entirely satisfying as a whole when it comes to combining animation, music and storytelling. I would consider "Pinocchio" to be number one because it masterfully combines animation technique, music and STORY into a seamless whole; although, personally, my favourite Disney film still continues to be "Bambi". I would hazard to guess that some of the techniques used in "Fantasia" were first experimented with in "Pinocchio". The water effects and cel-shading on Monstro the Whale are still amazing when it comes to 2D handdrawn animation; although, the rain shower sequence in "Bambi" comes a very close second in terms of being a study in the mechanics of water flow. The entire "Little April Showers" sequence in "Bambi" is a masterful combination of observation, animation, music and visual storytelling and, for me, still beats out anything that was done in "Fantasia".
I've been watching the Disney classics for over 45 years (yes, they were classics even in the 1960s) and Pinocchio still strikes me as the most sophisticated animated film, and the finest animated film as cinema, ever made. Which takes nothing away from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Bambi, Dumbo, and Fantasia, not to mention the Silly Symphonies which Walt used to try out and perfect approaches to the features. Fantasia is noteworthy, however, for being an experimental feature film. Experimental in marrying sound to image and in terms of visual storytelling. The classic animated features are more remarkable and impressive in the digital era than when they were new.
I may be the only one, but I consider Fantasia to be a magical place. And in each part of this world exists part of the "stories" being told in the film.
I may be the only one, but I consider Fantasia to be a magical place. And in each part of this world exists part of the "stories" being told in the film.
Hey, the film is art. And that's how I interpret it...and if it helps me to enjoy the film more to get lost in a "world" as opposed to just a series of musical interpretations, there is no harm in that!
Every time I've seen Fantasia in the theater, I've fallen asleep at least once. There is great stuff in the movie... And there is also bad stuff like Pastoral. It's certainly the most elaborate Disney movie, but I think Dumbo is the most perfect. It's concise, not over animated, and a lot of fun.
If the best parts of Three Caballeros and Saludos Amigos were combined with Blame it on the Samba, that would be the best Disney movie. There's one really good movie buried in amongst the crappy flying donkeys and chilly penguins.
Some would argue that it's too long and boring. I've always been a fan though, so I guess I'll pick up this Blu to add to all the other versions I have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard--W
I agree. The film is art. Moreover, Fantasia is a significant work of art. It's also entertaining. I don't see how it can be faulted or criticized.
As much as I like Pixar and it's films why do I wince when I see them listed alongside the old Disney classics? Am I that snooty?
Over the decades there have been three Disney animated movies I've listed as my top favourites, Fantasia, Pinocchio and Sleeping Beauty. If I had to pick one today. it'll probably be Fantasia. I can't wait for the Blu-ray.
Every time I've seen Fantasia in the theater, I've fallen asleep at least once. There is great stuff in the movie... And there is also bad stuff like Pastoral. It's certainly the most elaborate Disney movie, but I think Dumbo is the most perfect. It's concise, not over animated, and a lot of fun.
If the best parts of Three Caballeros and Saludos Amigos were combined with Blame it on the Samba, that would be the best Disney movie. There's one really good movie buried in amongst the crappy flying donkeys and chilly penguins.
A friend of mine always falls asleep at Fantasia. His theory is because there are so many vignettes filled with images of someone falling asleep: The Pastoral Symphony, The Dance of the Hours, Sorceror's Apprentice, etc.
I do the same thing Steve. I see Pixar as something separate from the Disney legacy. Different sensibilities, etc. So yeah, you're a snooty McSnooty pants! !
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Christou
As much as I like Pixar and it's films why do I wince when I see them listed alongside the old Disney classics? Am I that snooty?
The ending of Sleeping Beauty is great, but it drags in the middle. The sequence in the forest is much too long. Pinocchio doesn't have a single wasted moment. Modern animated features aren't at all the same. They are more focused on plot and dialogue than action. And by action I don't mean extended sequences of characters running and jumping and yelling and falling. Modern films have more than enough of that.
I think the modern Disney suffered too much from trying to be Broadway musicals where songs interupted the action, instead of serving the story. Then they tanked out with trying to compete with Dreamworks with too many pop culture references. They didn't follow Pixar and classic Disney, which was timeless story telling where the story came first and everything in the movie served it.
With the exception being CARS, that was just a terrible miss-step by Pixar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot
The ending of Sleeping Beauty is great, but it drags in the middle. The sequence in the forest is much too long. Pinocchio doesn't have a single wasted moment. Modern animated features aren't at all the same. They are more focused on plot and dialogue than action. And by action I don't mean extended sequences of characters running and jumping and yelling and falling. Modern films have more than enough of that.
The story in Pinocchio makes very little sense. It's just a bunch of different stuff happening. But the contrasts in mood makes it work. Disney films are about interesting situations and moods, not story. Modern Disney films are all about story. There's usually so much story that there's no time to just enjoy the characters.
I think the modern Disney suffered too much from trying to be Broadway musicals where songs interupted the action, instead of serving the story. Then they tanked out with trying to compete with Dreamworks with too many pop culture references. They didn't follow Pixar and classic Disney, which was timeless story telling where the story came first and everything in the movie served it.
With the exception being CARS, that was just a terrible miss-step by Pixar.
Which modern Disney films tried to compete with Dreamworks with pop culture references?
One man's "mis-step" is a lot of other men's beloved classic.
I think the modern Disney suffered too much from trying to be Broadway musicals where songs interupted the action, instead of serving the story. Then they tanked out with trying to compete with Dreamworks with too many pop culture references. They didn't follow Pixar and classic Disney, which was timeless story telling where the story came first and everything in the movie served it.
With the exception being CARS, that was just a terrible miss-step by Pixar.
I'm glad Pixar was stupid enough to make CARS, because that's the one I watch most often. Should I be ashamed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Christou
As much as I like Pixar and it's films why do I wince when I see them listed alongside the old Disney classics? Am I that snooty?
Over the decades there have been three Disney animated movies I've listed as my top favourites, Fantasia, Pinocchio and Sleeping Beauty. If I had to pick one today. it'll probably be Fantasia. I can't wait for the Blu-ray.
Not really. As much as I respect Pixar, I would not include machine-aided animated films along side Disney classic animated films. To me, the Disney hand animated and drawn films are just on a different level of artistic achievement than CGI films. Pixar's CGI films add textures and the illusion of depth, but, in terms of creating the illusion of life in characters, every technique used by Pixar now was perfected by the animators of the Disney "Golden Age".
It is still just her opinion even if she does have Disney in her name.
I agree. Reminds me of Puccini's daughter (or was it granddaughter?) who named Manon Lescaut as her favorite Puccini opera. I'd rank it maybe 5th among his works.
As for classic Disney, I think my ranking would be 1. Snow White, 2. Pinocchio, 3. Fantasia. I've been known to change that order around.
But Fantasia on Blu-ray is still no sale for me without Deems Taylor's voice. I don't mind the censored scene. It is pretty embarrassing; and I have never seen it in the film.
Not really. As much as I respect Pixar, I would not include machine-aided animated films along side Disney classic animated films. To me, the Disney hand animated and drawn films are just on a different level of artistic achievement than CGI films. Pixar's CGI films add textures and the illusion of depth, but, in terms of creating the illusion of life in characters, every technique used by Pixar now was perfected by the animators of the Disney "Golden Age".
First, I deeply appreciate the artistry and talent of 2d hand animators, who have provided masterful, artistic work.
But Disney would have been the first to leap at technology if it was available, and he invented far more then people remember. I'm reminded of this:
(Which outside of being great information, is one of the films I point to to remind people why a movie doesn't have to be in "3D!" in order to have the feel of reality, as Disney explains here)
It's hard to imagine a director or producer today, breaking down their own technology on standard over the airwaves with such great detail and explanation.
I use this because, while I understand why people want to divide out computer animated works, I have always seen Pixar as being more true to Disney's concept then almost anyone.. when they can't find what they need, they create it, invent it.. and it's still art. Fantasia used a ton of innovation beyond simple hand drawn images, including changes in camera focus, guides.
I'm not saying this to bust on those who make the distinction between the two. I guess I look at it a bit like "I like Monet" and "I Like Van Gogh" ... both great artistry within the same medium, just different ways to get there
Technically, CGI is a marvel. But Edwin is right. When it comes to the "illusion of life", CGI is where hand drawn animation was before Steamboat Willie. It needs to get beyond realistic fur textures and water fx and start focusing on unique and expressive movement and acting.
Aladdin has plenty of them. Even the title of Emporer's New Groove is a pop culture reference.
You're right -- I think I blocked out the details of Aladdin from my memory. I remember when I first saw it, I was very disappointed because I figured (correctly) that the references and Robin Williams ad-libs would eventually date it. As for the latter, well, I don't know about the title, but the film itself wasn't plagued with pop culture -- in fact, I really enjoyed it.
That said, I'd call Aladdin a mis-step, rather than a sign of a general Disney trend.
I'm a huge Lilo & Stitch fan, but since that took place in a (semi-)realistic modern-day milieu, the pop culture references were (as Stephen wrote) organic to the story, as opposed to tossed-in gags.
Technically, CGI is a marvel. But Edwin is right. When it comes to the "illusion of life", CGI is where hand drawn animation was before Steamboat Willie. It needs to get beyond realistic fur textures and water fx and start focusing on unique and expressive movement and acting.
You're comparing, say, Toothless to Steamboat Willie? I don't think so.
CGI and traditional hand-drawn animation are just different styles of art. There's plenty of room for both The Princess & The Frog and Toy Story 3.
