From: YANJUNA@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu
Subject: Re: Cheap animation
Organization: Yale University
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 16:24:16 EST

In article <lin2knINNlfq@priddy.cs.utexas.edu>
andrean@cs.utexas.edu (Andre A. Nurwono) writes:
 
>
>In article <1g0cu1INNk3b@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> lerouxm@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Markie Mark) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec5.071617.10790@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> gavigan@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ryan P. Gavigan) writes:
>>
>>>Disney knows all about running the same thing over and over and over
>>
>>Yes, but the Japanese have MASTERED it.  They rehash the same stuff just
>>as badly if not worse.
>
>Disney is ONLY ONE company that only produces ONE type of animation -->
>for the 'family' i.e. for kids.
>HAHAHAHAHA!!! And you think most Disney classics are ORIGINAL stories ?
>Most Disney classics (which are up to movie quality productions) are
>based on OLD CHILDREN BED TIME STORIES which has gone on for CENTURIES,
>which is not innovation, BTW. And many original stories were butchered
>to make a typical Disney 'happy ending' *sniff happy happy joy joy* (blech!)
>(sic)
>
 
   I'm getting sick and tired of seeing this argument whether it is made by
intellectuals or the people who really should know much better, namely
animation fans.  Disney makes FAMILY animation as the previous writer has
pointed out.  We can argue whether family animation should be the only
animation existing out there (I disagree with this premise), but Disney
has the perfect right to concentrate only on family animation if it wants
to.  After all, it is what Disney does best, and they are not holding
a gun over our heads to force us to see their work.
    Given that they can concentrate on family animation, they have two
choices on getting the stories:  Make their own, or adopt an existing story.
Given that the majority of Hollywood films are based on novels, short stories,
or ideas which have been around a long long time, I really don't see any
problems with Disney adopting existing stories.
   Now, the BIG problem is that Disney changes the stories substantially
to make the stories cuter or with an happy ending.  There are two ways to
rebute this charge:  The first, we examine the original stories themselves:
Let's take the case of Hans Christian Anderson's "The Little Mermaid."
In the original story, the witch took the voice of the mermaid by ripping
her tongue out.  Then, she failed to get the prince, and she had the choice
of living by killing the prince, or dying.  She chose to die.  Now, can you
see the sea witch cutting the tongue out of little Ariel?  Can you see
the kids and parents going to see the movie?  Or even you?
   I suggest that the liberties taken with "The Little Mermaid" or a lot of
other Disney films is no worse than the liberties taken with "Camelot"
(the movie) with the original King Arthurs' Tales; (or even T. H. White's
book "Once and Future King" with the original King Arthur's Tale), or to
give the people on the dark side something to ponder, no worse than
the movie "Blade Runner" to the original Dick novel "Do Androids Dream of
Electric Sheep"
   Now, there are some people who claim Disney overshadows the original
works, and the originals are buried completely.  This is a somewhat more
valid claim, but still not an overwhelmingly strong one.  Does anyone
suggest that Disney's "Alice in Wonderland" has buried Lewis Carroll's
version?  "Snow White" does bring substantial changes and additional
details to Grimm's version, but how many Grimm's fairy tales (in their
original versions) do you remember?  I suggest that the Disney movies
in this case served to keep at least a part of those tales alive, otherwise
they would have been almost completely forgotten.
   There are, of course, some original works which were buried completely
(IMO); I remember reading "101 Dalmations" or "Rescuers" and "Basil of Baker
Street" (to become "The Great Mouse Detectivve") in their original
written form.  (By my recollection, there wasn't that many substantial
changes in 101 D from the original book, but Rescuers and Basil was rewritten
completely.)  However, sadly enough, I don't see any proof that the originals
of these works would be more popular, or even as popular, if the Disney
versions were never made.
 
   Now, we get to the more technical side:  Disney re-doing its cute kids
cartoons with animals over and over again.  Other than the argument that
Disney has the perfect right to do so if it wants, I recall that Don
Bluth left Disney in large part due to this reason.  However, he after he
started his own studio, (I think I have all his feature-length output
other than "NIHM"), most of the stuff seems like the same thing Disney
is doing anyway.  (With all due respect to Bluth.  I think he does a good
job; it's just that I don't think it's substantially different than
what Disny is doing.)
 
 
 
>>
>>The Japs have really improved their animation techniques but you would
>>think they would put a little bit of the budget into hiring a writer for
>>their shows.  Most of the animation I've seen from them (The ones that I
>>would consider good) are visually astounding but lack even a remotely
>>interesting story.  This can only last for about 5 minutes.  After that
>>the movie is just moving pictures with all style, no substance.
>>
>HOLY COW ?!?!? YOU DON'T REALLY MEAN THAT DON'T YOU !?!??!?!?
>By golly, I always thought it was always the other way around nowadays.
>It would seem that you only understand simple stories w/o complex
>plots.
>
>>
>>>  The difference you fail to see is that american animation
>>>is what resides in the doldrums of similiarity, in story and style, while
>>>anime delves into every single form of style and format used in film, live-
>>>action or otherwise.
>>
>>It would be a *REAL* stretch to prove this to me.  I see only FOUR
>>Anime genres.
>>
>
>Yes, It seems it would. The only way is to not stop watching anime,
>and try to get around your own preconceived notion of Japanese=Godzilla
>thingies. That was in the past. Now is the 90's.
>
>>
>>1)  Monsters/Aliens/superhuman/superweapon has come to destroy Tokyo AGAIN!!!
>>    examples:
>>	Akira, Baoh, MAdox-01
>>
>Well, at least MARVEL COMICS - TYPE ARE ANIMATED, and THEY'RE NOT JUST FOR
>KIDS !! Most marvel categories are Monsters/Aliens/superhuman/superweapon
>has come to save the Earth AGAIN!!!!
>
>>
>>2)  Girls with Guns/Magic with lots of T and A.
>>    examples:
>>	Project Ako, Gunbuster, Iczer-1
>>
>
>Look at Ako as an equivalent of a TTA ridicule. Whasis Ako as 'girl-with-gun'
>?? Hardly qualifies. It has a lot of in-jokes you wouldn't understand
>unless you watch more of it.
>Gunbuster -- exactly how much of it have you seen ?
>BTW, there are LOTS more that fit in this category, but they also fit
>in OTHER categories as well. Don't forget The Dirty Pair!
>
>>
>>3)  The Shoguns have returned to rule Japan or the world or non-descript
>>     fantasyland.
>>    examples:
>>	Lodoss War, Fist of the North Star
>
>Lodoss Wars = Shoguns ??? Its more western than you think. Whoever got
>the concept of Dungeons & Dragons at the first place ?
>I hereby declare all American 'toon producers are dumb Jackasses who can't
>see the overwhelming D&D market out there -- Lodoss was an example
>of WHAT COULD SELL MORE THAN DISNEY'S MERMAID ETC AND YOU CALL IT
>NON-DESCRIPT ??? Hey, at least its not 'just for kids'. I'm just shocked
>to see something like Lodoss NOT COME FROM DUMB-A** AMERICAN COMPANIES!!!
>As for Fist of the North Star -- it is as old as your opinion of anime.
>Start living in the 90's!
>
>>
>>4)  Twisted teenage sex-epic dealing with characters that have unusual
>>     sexual identity which works as a catalist for humorous situations.
>>    examples:
>>	Ramna-1/2, Lum
>>
>
>Someone quoted me not having watched American animation enough to criticize
>it. I've been watching Sat-Am cartoons since I was a little kid & LIKED
>them. How much anime have YOU watched ??
>BTW, Lum's series is called URUSEI YATSURA, and I like this type of humour
>much better than REN & STIMPY. I'd rather have sexual insinuations
>rather than real depicted FILTH.
>
>>
>>>I dare someone to show me a Disney animated product that does NOT have any
>>>anthropomorphic animals or musical numbers.
>>
>>I haven't seen 'The Black Cauldron'.  I think that might qualify.
>>What about the NAZI animated propaganda film from "The Rocketeer"?
>>What about the Creature from the ID in "Forbidden Planet"?
>>
>Ha! You haven't seen it !! Have you even seen the COMICS or any screen-
>pictures of it ?!?! Gurgi was definitely anthropomorphic.
>Forbidden Planet !?? 'Ugh!!!' That was a 50's movie, man! Get real!!
>Live on !
>
   Correction: Disney's animation department drew the id monster featured
in the "Forbidden Planet."  See the flick.  The creature is a cartoon.
(Though using that example as Disney cartoon without animals is admittedly
a bad idea.)
 
   While I've seen only about a dozen feature-length anime, I did have a
long discussion with a friend who lived in Japan for six years, and who has a
thorough knowledge of anime.  I've also stayed in Japan for six months
and have seen my share of weekly half-hour animes.
   ALMOST ALL JAPANESE ANIMATORS AGREE THAT AMERICAN ANIMATION, NOTABLY
DISNEY, IS TECHNICALLY SUPERIOR TO WHAT THE JAPANESE PRODUCE.
   What does makes the difference is that the Japanese are willing to try
more varieties of ideas on their animation; e.g. cyberpunkish SF, mystical
kungfu stuff, sex comedies, so on.  So give credit to the Japanese in trying
some new spins,    but most of their technical achievements are overrated.
 
               Junsok Yang