One notch down, there is some testy back and forth about the animation in Enchanted. Is it good, is it bad? Is it lacklustre, is it inspired?
Here's why the argument is ultimately fruitless:
"De gustibus non est disputandum." In English that would come out: "In matters of taste, there is no argument." (More literally: "There is not to be discussion regarding tastes")
I liked Enchanted's animation fine. (You may disagree.)
Frank Thomas disliked Woolie Reitherman's broad animation of Captain Hook. (I was crazy about it.)
Ollie Johnston thought the best animation he did was in Robin Hood (I was in shock when he told me this.)
As related by Ken Anderson, Walt Disney was not enamored of the design and "look" of 101 Dalmations. (Many think it's spectacular ... and groundbreaking.).
Milt Kahl was disdainful of the animation in the early features, preferring the tighter, "subtler" animation of the fifties and sixties. (Others think the pioneering stuff is the cat's pajamas.)
Some commenters here believe that hand-drawn animation is the real deal, while cg animation is "digital puppetry." (I would argue with that on multiple levels, but in any event, audiences worldwide appear to be voting with their wallets in favor of the puppetry.)
"De gustibus non est disputandum."
Posts
3 comments:
Animation on "one's" is NOT necessarily better than animation on "two's," dispite what some might think. Even the great Milt Kahl said so!!
Don't tell that to Richard Williams....
Williams' obsessions more often than not get in the way of true character animation. Hell, even HE called Theif and the Cobbler "my mammoth ego trip."
Post a Comment