From: wbarnes@sura.net (Bill Barnes)
Subject: Re: Could Disney do a human-only animation?
Organization: SURAnet, College Park, MD, USA, NA, Earth, Milky Way
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 11:00:35 GMT

In article <11848@tamsun.tamu.edu> y0l8009@tamsun.tamu.edu (Yoshih Lee) writes:
>I don't know if this was ever brought up before (don't want to start a flame
>war or anything nasty), but I can't seem to recall a film by Disney Studios
>that doesn't have anthropomorphic characters.  Just about every one of their
>animated works seem to have sidekicks that are animals or inanimate objects
>but somehow were endowed with this magical quality to walk, talk, and do
>other human-like actions.

Well, looking over the list of Disney animated films someone posted a while
back, would the Legend of Sleepy Hollow count as a non-anthropomorphic
film.  I don't recall any, but it's been a while since I saw it.  The
Black Cauldron is iffy; it depends on what you think Gurgi was.  And I've
never seen Saludos Amigos, Make Mine Music, Fun and Fancy Free, or Melody
Time, so I can't comment on those.  Or on most of their shorts for that matter.

>Not to slam Disney, because I think that in terms
>of animating movement, they are arguably the best in the world.  However,
>the only subjects of animation they seem to tap are themes best described as
>"for children" (mostly fairy tales, or stories that might be deserving of
>that title).  Have they locked themselves into exploring only these kinds of
>stories (animated children's tales), or has society locked them into this
>kind of animation (fearful mindset from the original failure of Fantasia,
>perchance?)?

I've sort of wondered which is it: is Disney afraid of experimenting with
different story material because of society's potential reaction to it
or do they just stick to their formula because it's all they now and
they believe in doing the tried-and-true method?  I never really got the
impression that Walt Disney himself was afraid to experiment; what was
Fantasia, after all?  He still stuck to the "family fun" genre, but I don't
think he limited himself to the "children's fairy tale" though.

Ever since Who Framed Roger Rabbit? I've been hoping (in vain,
apparently) that Disney would eventually put out a mature animated
film under the Touchstone label.  Alas, it would seem such is not to
be.  Too bad, since I think if Disney did do a 2 hour long, mature
animated film (assuming it was well-written, since that seems to be
the biggest problem with Disney flicks IMHO), it'd redeem them in my
eyes for virtually every flub they've made in the past (not sure I'll
ever be able to forgive them for showing the New Kids on the Block on
the Disney Channel, though; some sins are unpardonable 8^) not to
mention really kick butt in the animation world.  I feel that anime is
currently about the only animation that ever succeeds in the "2 hr
long mature animated film" genre, but Disney could potentially regain its
domination in my eyes if it *tried* to.

>BTW, I'd love to see those WWII pieces Disney was contracted to do for the
>government during those years.  I've only see a clip to two, but the quality
>was quite incredible, even with respect to today's standards.  Can anyone
>help me get a start as to where to start looking?  Library?  Congressmen?
>Bush?  Smithsonian?

Is there any reason why they wouldn't release them?  I'm thinking in terms
of racist sentiments that were in various WB WWII cartoons.
-- 
Bill "I went thru 14 years of school for this?!" Barnes   wbarnes@sura.net
Disclaimer:  Don't assume anything I say is truthful, accurate, or worthwhile.
Datclaimer:  My employers wouldn't WANT to share some of my opinions.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.animation,alt.fan.furry