I just want to thank you for bringing this landmark occasion to my attention. I completely forgot that Mitch’s character was gay, and I never realized that he was the only character to be explicitly known as gay in an animated film. This is huge. I’m equally surprised that this didn’t have more traction in main stream media. It is definitely important and should be more widely known.
Thank you for making this connection since I’ve apparently never thought about this on my own. I believe that back in the 60s, 70s and 80s, our society had a much more optimistic view of advanced technology since we didn’t have much at the time. But more recent iterations of super technology showcases the downfalls of society’s overindulgence of technology because it better represents the current track that humanity is headed on.
I remember reading “Animal Farm” back in high school and it has really stuck with me. If I remember correctly, we also watched the cartoon when we finished reading the book (in typical high school fashion). I guess I forgot that the movie changed the ending. I think that they changed the ending because the book has a bit of a higher reading level, but still has a message relevant to younger students. The animation medium can bridge that gap and help everybody learn.
I’m not informed on Marvel’s comic book rights, but I know that Disney does not own the movie rights to all of Marvel’s heroes. Sony owns Spider-Man and any supporting character/villain specifically in his universe. Fox owns X-Men and The Fantastic Four. Disney owns the rest. There is actually an interesting split between the rights of the super heroes Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch (which both Fox and Disney own). Both characters are going to be appearing in pending super hero movies (Fox’s “X-Men: Days of Future’s Past” and Disney’s “The Avengers 2: Age of Ultron). However, Fox owns the rights to call Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch mutants, which they are, since they were fathered by famed X-Man, Magneto. Disney can use the characters but they have to create a new origin for the characters and specifically not call them mutants. But I digress. Yeah, Disney really has its hand in everything nowadays.
This post is spot on! Animation is VERY difficult and not to be taken lightly. Like many others, I cannot draw to save my life and I have very limited computer skills. I decided on stop-motion and had a blast. Like with all forms of animation, it required a lot of hard work and patience, but the end result was very rewarding.
There a lot of great points made in the post as well as the comments. The mass appeal of animation based on its simplicity transcends boundaries of age, intellect and literacy. Plus there are people like me who don’t enjoy and/or respond well to straight-up literal politics. We prefer entertainment media with subconscious messages.
Wow this is an extremely in-depth and informative look at the specific technology of live-action mixing with animation. “Space Jam” is one of my favorite films for this very reason. The complete immersion is incredible and provides entertainment for both kids as well as adults. It also provides some great visual humor that you wouldn’t find anywhere else.
I think that Disney is most definitely for kids. I respect the studio for putting the hard, harsh realities of life in their animated movies. It primes the kids for what’s ahead. It is admirable to not pander child audience members because as we all know, these movies stick with us for a long time and the lessons taught in a Disney movie last forever.
I don’t have any younger siblings so I was unaware to this trend. This is really heartbreaking. I wonder why this is happening? I’m guessing that live-action shows have more star appeal which is most important in our celebrity-obsessed culture. Live-action shows are probably cheaper as well, with less production time and more accessible input from studio executives.
I’ve seen all these movies and some do justice to the animation style while others fall short. My two favorite from this list are “Enchanted” and “Space Jam.” “Enchanted” did it in a very tongue-in-cheek manner which was hilarious. “Space Jam” manages to immerse Michael Jordan completely in to the animated world, which “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” does fine as well. The style is good for drawing in audiences of both young and old.
It is truly a travesty that Lotte Reiniger has fallen through the cracks of popular culture despite the fact that she is the foundation of some of the most beloved animations of our time. While I would agree that her work is exceptionally realized in Tim Burton’s “The Nightmare Before Christmas,” a more out-there example would be her influence in anime. While I’m no anime expert, from the few that I’ve watched you can just see Reiniger’s signature style evidenced in the lush backdrops that seem so alive but yet static at the same time.
I think cats move with a certain grace that is attractive for animators to strive for and attempt to recreate. Their tails often have a mind of their own and can sway back and forth hypnotically. Dogs are a much simpler animal to recreate. Their movements are more forceful and inevitably jerky. Compared to cats, dogs are just humans on all fours! Also cats have the stigma of being smart and cunning rather than being brutes, like dogs. Young viewers are more likely to be afraid of a dog’s large teeth and loud bark than a cat’s scratch.
I think its an interesting point to examine. While animation is primarily aimed at children, most mainstream animation is made with keeping adults in mind for box office gross considerations. I would argue that any kind of racism can’t be differentiated from other kinds of racism. Racism only varies in levels or degrees, not in kinds.
I don’t really see an argument or point being made in this post. What are you trying to say? Yes Hayao Miyazaki has said that he was thinking of retiring in the past. But it seems like this time he may actually do it. Of course, I think that he may be just talking about writing/directing. A producer’s role doesn’t seem that far out of the question.
I see anime exclusively as an animation style, as in Eastern animation but more specifically Japan. Now, it doesn’t help that I’m not really knowledgeable on anime or foreign animation works. But I do not believe that just because Japanese people refer to all animation as anime that we should too. In this mindset, Disney Princess animation would be considered American animation, Middle East animation would get its own name and Japanese animation should be called anime.
The characters in “Ghost in the Shell” were not, strictly speaking, robots. They are cyborgs, which are both part human and part machine. Motoko Kusanagi, the film’s protagonist, definitely exhibits character development throughout the film as she comes to accept who/what she is in this post-technological/apocalyptic society. And the Puppet Master, who is the most “robot” out of all the characters, portrays a wider range of emotions than the cyborgs and humans alike.
I guess that I understand the purpose behind revamping the series to skew younger, but I would argue that the original Teen Titans had a fairly young audience to begin with. While there are always going to be the occasional comic book-obsessed adults watching, the original had all the makings of a television show for a younger audience. It played on Cartoon Network, the opening theme song was youthful in musical style, and there were jokes abound with funny animation sequences to accompany the humor. I’m glad that the reboot has a clear objective with the themes they are trying to present for children, but I still argue that the original Teen Titans was not all about the action.
The entire movie is not in stop motion. While there is stop motion utilized in the animation of the movie, there is also a lot of computer graphics used. It is a prime example of what can be accomplished when blending the two animation styles of stop motion and computer graphics. Notable and recent movies that are entirely in stop motion animation include “Fantastic Mr. Fox”, “The Nightmare Before Christmas” and “ParaNorman.”
I’m not really sure what argument you are trying to present in your post. You provide a broad overview and summary of the film but offer no critical thoughts. You could talk about the movement of the animation being cat-like?
I could not agree more with your post! It is one of my personal favorite Disney shows, and I even enjoyed the television show on Disney. The simple animation was a nice, classic throwback look that acted as a form of catharsis with its simple storytelling and animation style after the flop of Atlantis and the other CGI-animated films that were becoming more financially viable and inherently more popular. The younger generations were moving towards CGI and the older generations that grew up on simple animation were moving towards adult films or taking their kids to the new CGI animated films. Shrek ruined everything.
This is basically just a summary review of the show, but I’m not sure what it has to do with animation. What does the animation style bring to the show? How does it compare to FX’s other major animated show: “Archer” or other crass animated shows like “Family Guy” or “South Park”? Are you saying that since the show is animated, it can get away with portraying a homosexual rapper and making rude jokes about his lifestyle easier than a live-action show could? Just some questions to think about.
This is quite an interesting topic! I attribute this to heavier moral censors from parents. When the Hays Code was in effect, it primarily focused on censoring images and adulterous themes. But when the MPAA Rating System was implemented, it has been run by a secret group of parents who actually watch the movies for what they mean, not just how they look. I think this has shifted the villainy away from death to implied negative consequences for actions.
As a child born in 1991, I feel as though I was caught in the transition between Saturday morning cartoons leaving and the developing networks of Nickelodeon, Disney Channel and Cartoon Network. I still caught some cartoons on Saturday mornings on the WB like Static Shock, but most of my cartoon watching was done right after school before homework and right after dinner (if my homework was done). I think the transition comes from both parents in the house starting to have jobs rather than everyone having a stay-at-home mom. Daycares/child services and baby sitters would need to provide children with something to do while the parents were on their commute home. Plus, Cartoon Network was starting to develop cartoons that older kids could watch as well so they would schedule them in the afternoon on week days.
I never realized that Betty was changed from a dog to a human! Was this done to increase her sex appeal? I did a paper on the Hays code for a different class but it never mentioned restricting animation. But I have a question. If she was only in one color animation and her hair was red, why is the color Betty Boop we see today have black hair? I think it would be interesting to analyze ways in which Betty Boop influenced Jessica Rabbit in “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?”