#there should be more animation/live action hybrid films | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

lasercrusader · 2 years

Text

Titan A.E., an impromptu, short, and slightly agitated review

Sometimes I imagine “yo what if I did movie reviews on Youtube and incorporated a character doing the talking like those other Youtubers” but then I usually remember that I’m lazy and that sort of thing would be a lot of work, so...

ANYWAY, most people probably haven’t heard of this movie. Titan A.E. was an animated film made by Fox Animation that flopped so hard that it singlehandedly killed the entire studio. Well, that’s not the entire story, but it’s close enuff. XP

Just a warning, I don’t care for spoilers for this almost 22-year-old film and it’s a very long-winded review that may not be the most coherent or organized. Keep reading at yer own risk I suppose.

For the record, movies don’t always flop because they’re bad. Some movies made during the same-ish time period like Treasure Planet, Iron Giant, and Cats Don’t Dance were really good IMO and deserved to succeed, only flopping because their companies more-or-less purposely screwed them over.

Is Titan A.E. one of those films?? Well, no, but it’s not terrible either. Here’s the shtick. It’s got a lot of going for it, and honestly it’s interesting enough that I’d want to watch it again sometime. But it’s flaws kinda prevent it from being an actually good film.

The film is, in short, an early 2000s 2D-3D hybrid animated sci-fi film, with Don Bluth and some other guy directing (with Don Bluth being known for a fair number of notable films, with Secret of NIMH and Land Before Time as some of my favorites). It involves humans and aliens and the entire earth being blown up by genocidal aliens, and an adventure through space. Honestly, with my love of sci-fi, animation, and nostalgia for the early 2000s, this film sounds just like the kind of thing I’d like.

So what’s it got going for it? Production value for one. The visuals are honestly impressive for the time (the CG hasn’t aged well but again, impressive for its time). Also potential. They really had a lot of good ideas in this film. There’s some interesting alien designs and settings, some pretty good action at times, etc. Also they apparently made a bunch of those early 2000s alt rock songs just for the movie, and that’s great.

But where did it fail? Story and pacing, big time. At times they literally had all the right ideas but just couldn’t put them together in a way that was well-paced or even cohesive. Other times it felt like the plot and character developments were only done to fill some sort of checkmark like “and the plot/character development has to do this”, without actually doing the work to get from point A to point B in a way that’s cohesive and makes sense.

Like literally, this is exactly how the character development is in this film. The characters are hardly established in any meaningful way and end up changing their tune without us actually seeing them go through some sort of change. Plenty of moments in the film just feel kinda forced while others awkward.

---

The awkward pacing also applies to the animation. There’s a fair amount of jank that just makes the characters and interactions come off as awkward. It’s either in the way they move or the timing of the way they move. Sometimes characters even come off as over-animated, like they shouldn’t be moving as much as they should be for their particular line or action.

This may come in part from the difference between the aliens and the human characters. The aliens tend to be animated a bit more... lively, like they have a bit more freedom to animate the aliens with more exaggeration. This would likely look just fine on its own, but the humans don’t really have that same degree of exaggeration, so you have this juxtaposition of aliens with exaggerated movement and expression, and the humans being more subdued in terms of movement and expression. This is probably because they used live-action reference for a ton of the humans’ actions and possibly stuck too close to it.

If it was either one or the other in terms of how they animated their characters, there would probably be less awkwardness. But because they had both, very frequently in the same scenes as one another, it just came off as awkward. The humans either seemed too subtle in expression or the aliens too exaggerated.

---

Speaking of which, alien designs were pretty good, though a bit hit or miss in some places. I feel like there was an overemphasis on just, grungy, ugly aliens with no color. These kinds of aliens are fine, but when ALL of your aliens are like this, it almost makes them seem all the same despite their design variety. They’ve all got the same sort of “ugly” going on.

Also, one of the main characters, Stith, has incredibly disproportionate legs that are always bent in an awkward position and its... awkward. I thought she was crouch-walking when she first showed up due to being like really tall or something, but no, that’s her normal default state at all times. I think they kinda sacrificed some appeal for the sake of uniqueness, when perhaps a better balance could have been struck. In either case, with legs like those you’d think you’d have her use them in combat to show that they serve some sort of purpose other than looking weird. Honestly, it might’ve worked out better if they gave her a torso more proportionate to her legs, and maybe not quite-so-humanlike because she literally has boobs so it resembles a human-torso even more so. NOTHING meshes together.

(This be the broad in question. Honestly as a character she was alright, but suffered from the usual problem of literally none of these characters being given a lot of depth. This is especially true for her and Gune, as they’re both supporting characters and thus given even LESS attention).

------

Speaking of alien designs, the Drej, the main antagonists, are horrible. They’re basically these weird robotic-looking 3D models that are ENTIRELY BLUE and GLOWING. This is BAD because I can barely tell what they look like, and not in the cool “oh no its some eldritch horror” kind of way, more in the “wow I literally can’t tell what’s going on” kind of way.

(This is a still image. Most of these times the guys are moving around or there are quick scene cuts. That’s not to even mention that I watched this on VHS, where the details likely got even more smudged).

Speaking of the Drej, as a threat...? They’re pretty poorly established in the sense of... what exactly their place is in the universe. Are they an empire? Are they some eldritch beings who destroy other species that get too advanced? What are their relations with the other species that aren’t humans?? Literally none of these questions are answered in any remote way because they never ever decide to establish ANYTHING.

------

On that note, the plot as a whole is barely coherent. Like, when you REALLY think critically about it and its various twists and turns, it makes no sense. Nothing that should be explained is ever explained. Nothing that should be established is ever established. Nothing that should be foreshadowed is ever foreshadowed. Things like that.

Basically, it seems that they’ve put all of their time, energy and focus into making the film look amazing and being different and edgy, without giving a hoot about the story. The story itself is kinda standard in terms of overall structure, being a hero’s journey with the protagonist having fatherly abandonment angst (though with no mention of his mother anywhere, like not even once). This kind of thing isn’t new, but that isn’t a problem. What is the problem is that they didn’t put the story together in a way that’s actually good.

-------

And on yet another note, the worldbuilding is almost non-existent in terms of the larger context surrounding the setting. Like it’s still got smaller details, like the main character working a crappy scrap-collecting job with a bunch of other aliens... but anything detailing the larger, surrounding context that actually grounds the smaller things to some sort of foundation is completely absent. Like oh hey, the Drej exist, but in what relation to everyone else? Oh hey, humans and aliens coexist, but how and under what circumstances, and what were things like before vs after Earth went boom? Oh hey, there’s a slave trade, but how legal is that crap?? Oh hey, are there any governments or authorities at all??? Etc., etc., these things are completely absent. The setting is vague and thus there is no larger context in which to frame our characters’ actions, or anybody’s actions for that matter. It doesn’t matter if your characters are saving the world or just chilling, not having an actual context for their actions and activities takes away a lot of the weight from their actions.

Like the first Star Wars did a much better job of actually establishing its overall larger setting, both through the things that it showed and the things it established through character dialogue (quite naturally I might add). All the smaller details have a larger overarching foundation that ties it all together. With Titan A.E. you get literally NOTHING that establishes what the overall larger setting is like, AT ALL.

And you don’t even need to reveal everything at once, or even everything. As long as you reveal some things in ways that are natural, in ways that build and flesh out your world, in ways that establish context and establish stakes, then yer doing something right and doing a lot more than Titan A.E.

-------

Okay but, overall, the film isn’t terrible. Like this is something I could feasibly watch again. The films I consider really bad are the ones I can’t stand watching again and hate the fact that I ever watched in the first place.

As for more detail on what I liked about the film... aside from the overall spectacle being great, there were a few sci-fi moments that were cool. For example, when two of the characters needed to break out of an escape pod to enter the vacuum of space in order to reach the ship, one of the characters told the other to exhale, which is an often overlooked detail in the vacuum of space that holding your breath is actually a bad thing to do due to pressure differences between your lungs and the vacuum. They also used a fire extinguisher for course correction and propulsion, which is cool.

(Unfortunately, it’s very obvious that the characters were animated taking a deep inhale and holding it in. The lip-sync for the second “exhale” even seems to match “inhale” better. It seems likely that they animated the scene first and then discovered that holding your breath in space is bad, then changed up the dialogue and altered some of the lip-sync in an attempt to fix it but didn’t have the time to reanimate the part and just hoped people wouldn’t catch it).

Some of the characters had fun moments. Stith had her violent tendencies, Gune his... gooniness, and Preed just overall charisma and wit. The main cast wasn’t that bad, they just weren’t fleshed out enough. With the exception of the human captain Joseph Korso, who goes from decent guy to dirty traitor out of nowhere with no foreshadowing, and is a heartless bastard by the end of the film but gets a predictable self-sacrifice redemption that also kinda just comes out of nowhere because just earlier he literally expressed the desire to kill Gune and Stith off and just randomly became remorseful when he was about to fall off a cliff and protagonist boi still wanted to save his arse because they had some bonding time even though his true self seems really nasty and just... THEY WROTE THIS GUY LIKE A FREAKING LIGHT SWITCH, OKAY?!?!

Oh yeah, the film has the tendency to just sorta... forget characters for a hot second at times. One glaring example being captain jerknugget sacrificing himself to help save the human race, and afterwards is never shown nor mentioned again, like the characters don’t even reflect on him at all at the ending.

Goodness freaking gravy, I can’t talk about the good points without mentioning where they went wrong. That’s kind of the case with the entire film. For every good thing there’s something else holding it back.

Honestly, something tells me this film’s production wasn’t exactly a piece of cake lol. Just skimming over the Wikipedia article on it is enough to tell me that they didn’t exactly have the best conditions for making this film any better than they did. A lot of its faults are likely due to development troubles rather than sloppiness, but faults are faults and honestly, I think part of it was prioritizing the film’s visual appeal over its story as if the former would compensate for the latter. Though they did apparently do a lot of outsourcing so maybe they just didn’t have the time? I mean, the entire film was literally just dropped on the animation studio like “here, we wanted to make a sci-fi movie but it didn’t work out so you guys give it a shot”. Honestly that plus whatever time constraints they had probably did it.

In some paradoxical way, I still like the film despite slamming my head over the terrible writing and pacing. Is it the good parts of it? The potential? Or maybe my biases towards the genre, medium and time-period of the movie as a whole?

In any case, if you want a good animated sci-fi flick from the early 2000s with an actually well-written story about an angsty guy with father abandonment issues and a journey through space with some assorted alien characters, watch Treasure Planet. XP

BUT IF YOU WANT A TOTAL TRAINWRECK OF A FILM WHO’S EXISTENCE IS A RATHER CURIOUS THING BUT STILL PERHAPS INTERESTING TO WATCH, try Titan A.E. lol.

#titan ae #movie review #i'm at my limit

9 notes · View notes

letterboxd · 3 years

Photo

Blurring the Line.

As a new Space Jam film beams down to Earth, Kambole Campbell argues that a commitment to silliness and a sincere love for the medium is what it takes to make a great live-action/animation hybrid.

The live-action and animation hybrid movie is something of a dicey prospect. It’s tricky to create believable interaction between what’s real and what’s drawn, puppeteered or rendered—and blending the live and the animated has so far resulted in wild swings in quality. It is a highly specific and technically demanding niche, one with only a select few major hits, though plenty of cult oddities. So what makes a good live-action/animation hybrid?

To borrow words from Hayao Miyazaki, “live action is becoming part of that whole soup called animation”. Characters distinct from the humans they interact with, but rendered as though they were real creatures (or ghosts), are everywhere lately; in Paddington, in Scooby Doo, in David Lowery’s (wonderful) update of Pete’s Dragon.

The original ‘Pete’s Dragon’ (1977) alongside the 2016 remake.

Lowery’s dragon is realized with highly realistic lighting and visual-effects work. By comparison, the cartoon-like characters in the 1977 Pete’s Dragon—along with other films listed in Louise’s handy compendium of Disney’s live-action animation—are far more exaggerated. That said, there’s still the occasional holdout for the classical version of these crossovers: this year’s Tom and Jerry replicating the look of 2D through 3D/CGI animation, specifically harkens back to the shorts of the 1940s and ’50s.

One type of live-action/animation hybrid focuses on seamless immersion, the other is interested in exploring the seams themselves. Elf (2003) uses the aberration of stop-motion animals to represent the eponymous character as a fish out of water. Ninjababy, a Letterboxd favorite from this year’s SXSW Festival, employs an animated doodle as a representation of the protagonist’s state of mind while she processes her unplanned pregnancy.

Meanwhile, every Muppets film ever literally tears at the seams until we’re in stitches, but, for the sake of simplicity, puppets are not invited to this particular party. What we are concerned with here is the overlap between hand-drawn animation and live-action scenes (with honorable mentions of equally valid stop-motion work), and the ways in which these hybrids have moved from whimsical confections to nod-and-wink blockbusters across a century of cinema.

Betty Boop and Koko the clown in a 1938 instalment of the Fleischer brothers’ ‘Out of the Inkwell’ series.

Early crossovers often involve animators playing with their characters, in scenarios such as the inventive Out of the Inkwell series of shorts from Rotoscope inventor Max Fleischer and his director brother Dave. Things get even more interactive mid-century, when Gene Kelly holds hands with Jerry Mouse in Anchors Aweigh.

The 1960s and ’70s deliver ever more delightful family fare involving human actors entering cartoon worlds, notably in the Robert Stevenson-directed Mary Poppins and Bedknobs and Broomsticks, and Chuck Jones’ puntastic The Phantom Tollbooth.

Jerry and Gene dance off their worries in ‘Anchors Aweigh’ (1945).

Mary Poppins is one of the highest-rated live-action/animation hybrids on Letterboxd for good reason. Its sense of control in how it engages with its animated creations makes it—still!—an incredibly engaging watch. It is simply far less evil than the singin’, dancin’ glorification of slavery in Disney’s Song of the South (1946), and far more engaging than Victory Through Air Power (1943), a war-propaganda film about the benefits of long-range bombing in the fight against Hitler. The studio’s The Reluctant Dragon (1941) also serves a propagandistic function, as a behind-the-scenes studio tour made when the studio’s animators were striking.

By comparison, Mary Poppins’ excursions into the painted world—replicated in Rob Marshall’s belated, underrated 2018 sequel, Mary Poppins Returns—are full of magical whimsicality. “Films have added the gimmick of making animation and live characters interact countless times, but paradoxically none as pristine-looking as this creation,” writes Edgar in this review. “This is a visual landmark, a watershed… the effect of making everything float magically, to the detail of when a drawing should appear in front or the back of [Dick] Van Dyke is a creation beyond my comprehension.” (For Van Dyke, who played dual roles as Bert and Mr Dawes Senior, the experience sparked a lifelong love of animation and visual effects.)

Julie Andrews, Dick Van Dyke and penguins, in ‘Mary Poppins’ (1964).

Generally speaking, and the Mary Poppins sequel aside, more contemporary efforts seek to subvert this feeling of harmony and control, instead embracing the chaos of two worlds colliding, the cartoons there to shock rather than sing. Henry Selick’s frequently nightmarish James and the Giant Peach (1996) leans into this crossover as something uncanny and macabre by combining live action with stop motion, as its young protagonist eats his way into another world, meeting mechanical sharks and man-eating rhinos. Sally Jane Black describes it as “riding the Burton-esque wave of mid-’90s mall goth trends and blending with the differently demonic Dahl story”.

Science-classroom staple Osmosis Jones (2001) finds that within the human body, the internal organs serve as cities full of drawn white-blood-cell cops. The late Stephen Hillenburg’s The Spongebob Squarepants Movie (2004) turns its real-life humans into living cartoons themselves, particularly in a bonkers sequence featuring David Hasselhoff basically turning into a speedboat.

David Hasselhoff picks up speed in ‘The Spongebob Squarepants Movie’ (2004).

The absurdity behind the collision of the drawn and the real is never better embodied than in another of our highest-rated live/animated hybrids. Released in 1988, Robert Zemeckis’ Who Framed Roger Rabbit shows off a deep understanding—narratively and aesthetically—of the material that it’s parodying, seeking out the impeccable craftsmanship of legends such as director of animation Richard Williams (1993’s The Thief and the Cobbler), and his close collaborator Roy Naisbitt. The forced perspectives of Naisbitt’s mind-bending layouts provide much of the rocket fuel driving the film’s madcap cartoon opening.

Distributed by Walt Disney Pictures, Roger Rabbit utilizes the Disney stable of characters as well as the Looney Tunes cast to harken back to America’s golden age of animation. It continues a familiar scenario where the ’toons themselves are autonomous actors (as also seen in Friz Freleng’s 1940 short You Ought to Be in Pictures, in which Daffy Duck convinces Porky Pig to try his acting luck in the big studios).

Daffy Duck plots his rise up the acting ranks in ‘You Ought to Be in Pictures’ (1940).

Through this conceit, Zemeckis is able to celebrate the craft of animation, while pastiching both Chinatown, the noir genre, and the mercenary nature of the film industry (“the best part is… they work for peanuts!” a studio exec says of the cast of Fantasia). As Eddie Valiant, Bob Hoskins’ skepticism and disdain towards “toons” is a giant parody of Disney’s more traditional approach to matching humans and drawings.

Adult audiences are catered for with plenty of euphemistic humor and in-jokes about the history of the medium. It’s both hilarious (“they… dropped a piano on him,” one character solemnly notes of his son) and just the beginning of Hollywood toying with feature-length stories in which people co-exist with cartoons, rather than dipping in and out of fantasy sequences. It’s not just about how the cartoons appear on the screen, but how the human world reacts to them, and Zemeckis gets a lot of mileage out of applying ’toon lunacy to our world.

Bob Hoskins in ‘Who Framed Roger Rabbit?’ (1988).

The groundbreaking optical effects and compositing are excellent (and Hoskins’ amazing performance should also be credited for holding all of it together), but what makes Roger Rabbit such a hit is that sense of controlled chaos and a clever tonal weaving of violence and noirish seediness (“I’m not bad… I’m just drawn that way”) through the cartoony feel. And it is simply very, very funny.

It could be said that, with Roger Rabbit, Zemeckis unlocked the formula for how to modernize the live-action and animation hybrid, by leaning into a winking parody of what came before. It worked so perfectly well that it helped kickstart the ‘Disney renaissance' era of animation. Roger Rabbit has influenced every well-known live-action/animation hybrid produced since, proving that there is success and fun to be had by completely upending Mary Poppins-esque quirks. Even Disney’s delightful 2007 rom-com Enchanted makes comedy out of the idea of cartoons crossing that boundary.

When a cartoon character meets real-world obstacles.

Even when done well, though, hybrids are not an automatic hit. Sitting at a 2.8-star average, Joe Dante’s stealthily great Looney Tunes: Back in Action (2003) is considered by the righteous to be the superior live-action/animated Looney Tunes hybrid, harkening back to the world of Chuck Jones and Frank Tashlin. SilentDawn states that the film deserves the nostalgic reverence reserved for Space Jam: “From gag to gag, set piece to set piece, Back in Action is utterly bonkers in its logic-free plotting and the constant manipulation of busy frames.”

With its Tinseltown parody, Back in Action pulls from the same bag of tricks as Roger Rabbit; here, the Looney Tunes characters are famous, self-entitled actors. Dante cranks the meta comedy up to eleven, opening the film with Matthew Lillard being accosted by Shaggy for his performance in the aforementioned Scooby Doo movie (and early on throwing in backhanded jokes about the practice of films like itself as one character yells, “I was brought in to leverage your synergy!”).

Daffy Duck with more non-stop banter in ‘Looney Tunes: Back in Action’ (2003).

Back in Action is even more technically complex than Roger Rabbit, seamlessly bringing Looney Tunes physics and visual language into the real world. Don’t forget that Dante had been here before, when he had Anthony banish Ethel into a cartoon-populated television show in his segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie. Another key to this seamlessness is star Brendan Fraser, at the height of his powers here as “Brendan Fraser’s stunt double”.

Like Hoskins before him, Fraser brings a wholehearted commitment to playing the fed-up straight man amidst cartoon zaniness. Fraser also brought that dedication to Henry Selick's Monkeybone (2001), a Roger Rabbit-inspired sex comedy that deploys a combo of stop-motion animation and live acting in a premise amusingly close to that of 1992’s Cool World (but more on that cult anomaly shortly). A commercial flop, Back in Action was the last cinematic outing for the Looney Tunes for some time.

Nowadays, when we think of live-action animation, it’s hard not to jump straight to an image of Michael Jordan’s arm stretching to do a half-court dunk to save the Looney Tunes from slavery. There’s not a lot that can be fully rationalized about the 1996 box-office smash, Space Jam. It is a bewildering cartoon advert for Michael Jordan’s baseball career, dreamed up off the back of his basketball retirement, while also mashing together different American icons. Never forget that the soundtrack—one that, according to Benjamin, “makes you have to throw ass”—includes a song with B-Real, Coolio, Method Man and LL Cool J.

Michael Jordan and teammates in ‘Space Jam’ (1996).

Space Jam is a film inherently born to sell something, predicated on the existing success of a Nike commercial rather than any obvious passion for experimentation. But its pure strangeness, a growing nostalgia for the nineties, and meticulous compositing work from visual-effects supervisor Ed Jones and the film’s animation team (a number of whom also worked on both Roger Rabbit and Back in Action), have all kept it in the cultural memory.

The films is backwards, writes Jesse, in that it wants to distance itself from the very cartoons it leverages: “This really almost feels like a follow-up to Looney Tunes: Back in Action, rather than a predecessor, because it feels like someone watched the later movie, decided these Looney Tunes characters were a problem, and asked someone to make sure they were as secondary as possible.” That attempt to place all the agency in Jordan’s hands was a point of contention for Chuck Jones, the legendary Warner Bros cartoonist. He hated the film, stating that Bugs would never ask for help and would have dealt with the aliens in seven minutes.

Space Jam has its moments, however. Guy proclaims “there is nothing that Deadpool as a character will ever have to offer that isn’t done infinitely better by a good Bugs Bunny bit”. For some, its problems are a bit more straightforward, for others it’s a matter of safety in sport. But the overriding sentiments surrounding the film point to a sort of morbid fascination with the brazenness of its concept.

Holli Would (voiced by Kim Basinger) and Frank Harris (Brad Pitt) blur the lines in ‘Cool World’ (1992).

Existing in the same demented… space… as Space Jam, Paramount Pictures bought the idea for Cool World from Ralph Bakshi as it sought to have its own Roger Rabbit. While Brad Pitt described it as “Roger Rabbit on acid” ahead of release, Cool World itself looks like a nightmare version of Toontown. The film was universally panned at the time, caught awkwardly between being far too adult for children but too lacking in any real substance for adults (there’s something of a connective thread between Jessica Rabbit, Lola Bunny and Holli Would).

Ralph Bakshi’s risqué and calamitously horny formal experiment builds on the animator’s fascination with the relationship between the medium and the human body. Of course, he would go from the immensely detailed rotoscoping of Fire and Ice (1983) to clashing hand-drawn characters with real ones, something he had already touched upon in the seventies with Heavy Traffic and Coonskin, whose animated characters were drawn into real locations. But no one besides Bakshi quite knew what to do with the perverse concept of Brad Pitt as a noir detective trying to stop Gabriel Byrne’s cartoonist from having sex with a character that he drew—an animated Kim Basinger.

Jack Deebs (Gabriel Byrne) attempts to cross over to Hollie Would in ‘Cool World’ (1992).

Cool World’s awkwardness can be attributed to stilted interactions between Byrne, Pitt and the animated world, as well as studio meddling. Producer Frank Mancuso Jr (who was on the film due to his father running Paramount) demanded that the film be reworked into something PG-rated, against Bakshi’s wishes (he envisioned an R-rated horror), and the script was rewritten in secret. It went badly, so much so that Bakshi eventually punched Mancuso Jr in the face.

While Cool World averages two stars on Letterboxd, there are some enthusiastic holdouts. There are the people impressed by the insanity of it all, those who just love them a horny toon, and then there is Andrew, a five-star Cool World fan: “On the surface, it’s a Lovecraftian horror with Betty Boop as the villain, featuring a more impressive cityscape than Blade Runner and Dick Tracy combined, and multidimensional effects that make In the Mouth of Madness look like trash. The true star, however, proves to be the condensed surplus of unrelated gags clogging the arteries of the screen—in every corner is some of the silliest cel animation that will likely ever be created.”

There are even those who enjoy its “clear response to Who Framed Roger Rabbit”, with David writing that “the film presents a similar concept through the lens of the darkly comic, perverted world of the underground cartoonists”, though also noting that without Bakshi’s original script, the film is “a series of half steps and never really commits like it could”. Cool World feels both completely deranged and strangely low-energy, caught between different ideas as to how best to mix the two mediums. But it did give us a David Bowie jam.

‘Space Jam: A New Legacy’ is in cinemas and on HBO Max now.

Craft is of course important, but generally speaking, maybe nowadays a commitment to silliness and a sincere love for the medium’s history is the thing that makes successful live-action/animation hybrids click. It’s an idea that doesn’t lend itself to being too cool, or even entirely palatable. The trick is to be as fully dotty as Mary Poppins, or steer into the gaucheness of the concept, à la Roger Rabbit and Looney Tunes: Back in Action.

It’s quite a tightrope to walk between good meta-comedy and a parade of references to intellectual property. The winningest strategy is to weave the characters into the tapestry of the plot and let the gags grow from there, rather than hoping their very inclusion is its own reward. Wait, you said what is coming out this week?

Related content

Rootfish Jones’s list of cartoons people are horny for

The 100 Sequences that Shaped Animation: the companion list to the Vulture story

Jose Moreno’s list of every animated film made from 1888 to the present

Follow Kambole on Letterboxd

25 notes · View notes

dweemeister · 3 years

Photo

Melody Time (1948)

Disengaged and disinterested, Walt Disney was adrift at his own studio in the late 1940s. The studio’s modestly-budgeted package animated features were designed to save it from financial ruin. Yet, they required artistic and storytelling compromises that Disney was loathe to make. In this period, Disney shuffled personnel around the various departments – whether due to personal conflicts or dissatisfaction with their artistic approach on a certain film. Melody Time’s segments are of varying quality and limited experimentation, reflecting the organizational tumult within the studio. No standout moment exists in Melody Time, even though it is more energetic and looser than the preceding Fun and Fancy Free (1947).

The modern Walt Disney Company has advertised Melody Time as a film, “in the grand tradition of Disney’s greatest musical classics, such as Fantasia.” Audacious comparison to make, but functionally inaccurate. Fantasia, as imagined by Walt Disney, Deems Taylor, Leopold Stokowski, and the studio’s animators, was crafted so that its animation would empower the music (in cinema, the reverse – where music serves the action on-screen – is almost always a filmmaker’s approach). The reverse of that relationships holds here. Melody Time contains these seven segments, or “mini-musicals”: “Once Upon a Wintertime”, “Bumble Boogie”, “The Legend of Johnny Appleseed”, “Little Toot”, “Trees”, “Blame It on the Samba”, and “Pecos Bill”. Some of these mini-musicals are more watchable and more artistically interesting than others – although that standard is relatively low in Melody Time.

“Once Upon a Wintertime” is based on an overused Disney narrative template that never ceases to be a bore. A young couple are out and about, flirting and flitting, all while the woodland animals scurrying back and forth mirror human courtship. The segment, however, is partially redeemed by Frances Langford singing the segment’s title song (composed by Bobby Worth and Ray Gilbert) and the unmistakable influence of Mary Blair (1950’s Cinderella, the “It’s a Small World” attraction at Disneyland in Anaheim) in its aesthetic. With any piece of animation involving Mary Blair, one can expect an eye-catching use of color and her modernist art style. “Once Upon a Wintertime” is like a holiday card brought to animated life. Unlike a picturesque and meaningful holiday card, though, it overstays its welcome. But the stereotypical treatment of the young women appearing in “Once Upon a Wintertime” is, to put it mildly, clichéd writing at best. Hackneyed, too, is the fact that the woodland animals come to the human’s rescue.

Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov’s Flight of the Bumblebee is one of the most recognizable (and overplayed) pieces of Western classical music, even to those folks who go out of their way to announce their distaste for classical music. Given a jazz rendition by the Freddy Martin Orchestra, “Bumble Boogie” is a thankfully brief three-minute foray. Here, an insect (that does not seem anything like a bee) flies through a series of surreal images – mostly parts of musical instruments (piano keys in particular) – that it must avoid. The segment is visually entertaining to watch, even if it must have been the easiest to prepare, design, and animated for in all of Melody Time. If placed in either Fantasia or Fantasia 2000, it would easily be the weakest Fantasia segment ever produced.

Third in the film is a segment that feels most like a classic Disney production. “The Legend of Johnny Appleseed” is Disney’s glorified and sanitized take on the eponymous American pioneer, nurseryman, conservationist, and missionary. Walt’s personal ideology and perspective on American history included the fulfillment of Manifest Destiny and the taming of the nation’s wilds as among humanity’s greatest achievements. These are notions that Walt – through his films, theme parks, television shows, and public and private remarks – never questioned. Narrated and with Johnny Appleseed voiced by Dennis Day, there is a sincerity to Johnny’s characterization not present anywhere else in the movie. Again, Mary Blair’s artwork – this time, her forested backgrounds – appears as if heaven-sent. The umbrella-like canopy of the apple trees and “untamed” forests are inviting, and attract one’s eyes upward – towards the apples, paradise.

The title song (sometimes referred to as “The Lord is Good to Me”) featured in the opening moments of “The Legend of Appleseed” is one of the earliest – and one of the few – mentions or depictions of religious faith in a Disney animated work. It reinforces the mythos that surrounds Johnny Appleseed (and, by extension, the belief that white men are divine heroes for civilizing the lands west of the original Thirteen Colonies) to the present day. I was not raised in any of the Abrahamic religions, but it difficult to deny the simple charm of the title song and this segment – even if it endorses a troublesome perspective on American history. “The Legend of Johnny Appleseed” is the best segment of Melody Time – from its unassuming storytelling and wondrous animation. It is the only Melody Time segment that I could possibly envision as a decent feature-length animated film.

Based on a 1939 children’s picture book of the same name Hardie Gramatky, “Little Toot” is a chore to sit through. The segment shares similar narrative and aesthetic tissue with Saludos Amigos’ (1942) “Pedro”, which concerned an anthropomorphic mail airplane that thinks it could. Along the Hudson River in New York City, Little Toot is a tiny tugboat who aspires to be like his father Big Toot. Just as in “Pedro”, this is a case of an anthropomorphized vehicle child who attempts to assume adult responsibility in order to prove that they can perform tasks as well as the adults can. Given that Little Toot is a meddling prankster playing tugboat games, it is difficult to feel much sympathy when he finally faces the consequences of his actions – which probably includes calamitous infrastructural damage and human casualties. Of course, Little Toot is eventually redeemed through some heroic deeds. All of the tugboats will love him, as they belt out with glee that Little Toot will go down in history. The segment is grating, including the novelty title song sung by The Andrews Sisters. Aside from some fascinating water effects, there is not much that “Little Toot” offers in the way of animated interest. Otherwise, it is least interesting segment of the film.

The palate-cleanser is “Trees”, a four-minute segment based on Joyce Kilmer’s poem of the same name (music composed by Oscar Rasbach and performed by Fred Waring and the Pennsylvanians). Its aesthetic harkens back to a few seconds near the end of the “Ave Maria” in Fantasia, but otherwise “Trees” is distinct from anything else that has appeared in the Disney animated canon. When setting to work on “Trees”, layout artist Ken O’Connor (1941’s Dumbo, 1987’s The Brave Little Toaster) found himself enamored by the concept art, and endeavored to be a faithful to the style set by the concept art as possible. To do this, O’Connor frosted cels before drawing pastel images onto the cel. Before being photographed by the studio’s multiplane camera, each cel was laminated in clear lacquer to prevent the pastel from smudging. Thanks to O’Connor’s experimentation, “Trees”, however fleeting, lays claim to some of the most beautiful animation among all of the package Disney animated features.

“Blame it on the Samba” sees a reunion of Donald Duck and Brazilian parrot José Carioca (Saludos Amigos, 1944’s The Three Caballeros) are walking about, depressed, directionless. Suddenly, they encounter the Aracuan Bird (who debuted in The Three Caballeros), who whisks them inside a cocktail that introduces them to the rhythmic pleasures of the samba. The segment’s title song is based on Ernesto Nazareth’s polka Apanhei-te, Cavaquinho, sung by The Dinning Sisters with adapted English lyrics, and accompanied by organist Ethel Smith (who appears as herself).

“Blame it on the Samba” feels like it should have been featured in either Saludos Amigos or The Three Caballeros – and that was the intention exactly. Intended to appear in Saludos Amigos, “Blame it on the Samba” was animated and completed in time for it to be incorporated in The Three Caballeros. Given Donald Duck’s lust for human women in the second half of the latter movie, “Blame it on the Samba” might have otherwise been a serviceable penultimate number in that film. The segment is an explosion of color, a kick in the rear for a movie that feels much longer than its seven-five-minute runtime might suggest. And yet in a segment for a music genre innovated in Brazil and popularized by Brazilians, the performers and the performance lack any discernible Brazilian influence or roots. This is not samba music. Instead, it is the culmination of what a white American might think samba music sounds like. This unfortunate development probably would have been avoided entirely if “Blame it on the Samba” appeared in those two aforementioned films instead.

“Pecos Bill”, based on the Texan folk hero of the same name, makes reference to American Indians in ghastly ways. Simultaneously, its absurd humor and lack of fidelity to sensible human behavior and physics make it a delight to watch. The segment also boasts the presence of Roy Rogers and the Pioneers (and Rogers’ horse, Trigger). Child actors Luana Patten and Bobby Driscoll, both of whom had just starred in Song of the South (1946), make brief appearances in the segment’s hybrid animation/live-action introduction. Rogers, then contracted to Republic Pictures, was one of the quintessential stars of the singing cowboy subgenre – singing cowboy movies were almost exclusively made by the “Poverty Row” studios including Republic, and they were extremely profitable against their barebones budgets). “Pecos Bill” all begins with the atmospheric, moody “Blue Shadows on the Trail”. “Blue Shadows on the Trail” describes and, through its spare instrumentation, reflects the emptiness and desolation of the American West. It is a beautiful ballad, and could easily be placed in any Western (singing cowboy movies or otherwise).

Once the hybrid animation/live-action introduction concludes, “Pecos Bill” steams forward with comic hyperbole followed by another comic hyperbole. The title song (music by Eliot Daniel, lyrics by Johnny Lange) doubles down on the exaggerations. Those exaggerations include the segment’s constant gunplay – escaping censorship from the Hays Code: a risqué gag that includes Pecos Bill’s guns going off because of love interest Slue Foot Sue. At least Melody Time ends brashly and riotously, but any impressionable children watching will require a discussion from a trusted adult. Its depictions of American Indians and men-women relations are deplorable, but after just over an hour of inconsistent quality, I found myself enjoying “Pecos Bill” more than I imagined.

Shortly after the release of Melody Time, Walt Disney embarked on a three-week cruise to Hawai’i. Walt rarely went vacationing, and he spent these weeks fully concentrating on his family and escaping from the minutiae of managing his studio. Even after returning from Hawai’i, Walt did not spend much time in Burbank. Walt invited animator and fellow train enthusiast Ward Kimball on a trip to the Midwest. Together, they attended the 1948 Chicago Railroad Fair, visited the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan, and stopped at other locations close to Walt’s childhood in the Midwest. Through the end of 1948, Walt spent more time constructing the train set in his backyard than paying attention to the animation and live-action movies his studio was producing. What seemed like idleness to many (including New York Times film critic Bosley Crowther, who believed that Disney was a cinematic genius wasting his time on quixotic projects) was a major inspiration for a draft sketch entitled “Mickey Mouse Park”, dated August 31, 1948.

The package era at Walt Disney Productions (now Walt Disney Animation Studios) was nearing its end. Every film during this run – Saludos Amigos (1942), The Three Caballeros (1944), Make Mine Music (1946), Fun and Fancy Free (1947), Melody Time, and The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949) – faced the same narrative of Walt Disney’s personal indifference to the projects, a lack of direction and motivation among the animators, and audience and critic dissatisfaction when compared to Disney’s Golden Age movies. A return to non-package animated features would be imminent, in spite of Melody Time’s mediocre performance at the box office. The Disney studios would attempt to begin a period of renewal with a tradition that inaugurated their animated canon – with a fairy tale.

My rating: 6/10

^ Based on my personal imdb rating. Half-points are always rounded down. My interpretation of that ratings system can be found in the “Ratings system” page on my blog (as of July 1, 2020, tumblr is not permitting certain posts with links to appear on tag pages, so I cannot provide the URL).

For more of my reviews tagged “My Movie Odyssey”, check out the tag of the same name on my blog.

#Melody Time #Walt Disney #Mary Blair #Jack Kinney #Clyde Geronimi #Hamilton Luske #Wilfred Jackson #Roy Rogers #Dennis Day #The Andrews Sisters #Donald Duck #Jose Carioca #My Movie Odyssey

29 notes · View notes

aneekapaneeka · 4 years

Text

big fic rec masterlist here!

📝 - ongoing series ✔ - finished series 🎯 - bulleted 🎀 - one shot

Anonymous Love by @mortaljin - Pairing: ??? x reader - Genre: fluff, high school au - 🎀 - Summary: One sticky note turns into two, two into four and then four into dozens. Who in their right mind would confess their love for you, anonymously, via sticky-note? Why do your seven best friends have shit-eating grins on their faces?

Anonymous - by @bloomsuga - Genre: smut, fluff, angst, social media au - ✔ - Summary: Searching for inspiration, a chart-topping rapper who keeps his identity hidden from the public, going by the stage name RM, stumbles upon you singing in a coffee shop and finds his new muse in your voice. He makes you an offer to collab with one catch: you can’t see his face.

The Rich Man’s Cortchet Club - by @kpopfanfictrash - Genre: smut, humor, college au - 🎀 - Summary: When they were freshmen in college, Namjoon began a club with his six closest friends. The one thing they all had in common? V i r g i n s as fuck. Obviously, they couldn’t call the club the Virgins Club and so, the Rich Man’s Crochet Club was born. Until time passes and Namjoon is the only one left. Now, the Club has one, final mission: to get Namjoon laid.

Reasons Wretched and Divine - by @hollyhomburg - Genre: fluff, hybrid au, angst, poly - 📝 - Summary: You live on an isolated but sprawling farm with your abusive husband, but things start to change for the better when your husband adopts a retired police dog hybrid named Namjoon

Beauty & The Bookworm - by @jungshookz - Genre: librarian namjoon🤩, bratty reader, reader is rlly dumb in this one, fluff, smUT, angst - �� - Summary: You discover that there are more things to check out at the library besides books.

far far away - by @lilac-park-jimin - Genre: fluff, college au - ✔ - Summary: when an accidental text from someone that apparently breaks everything, who’s name is namjoon ends up turning into something bigger than the both of you expected.

live & love - @lysjeon - Genre: fluff, angst, social media au - ✔ - Summary: namjoon always liked you but for some reason he never thought you would be interested in him. and you are too scared to tell him you like him too.

Life Is A Whisk - by @readyplayerhobi (you’ll be seeing this gal a lot here) - Genre: fluff, humor - 🎀 - Summary: You have no problem with Kim Seokjin most of the time, in fact you even consider him to be handsome and funny and he feels the same about you. Until you are both placed into a kitchen, and then it becomes the battlegrounds for World War Three, the Bake-off edition.

forever boy - by @lysjeon - Genre: fluff, angst, social media au - ✔ - Summary: how annoying can the handsome popular guy get? the answer is: really annoying, specially when you tell him he isn’t that handsome to you.

Ghosted - by @bloomsuga - Genre: social media au, angst, ghosts, smut, fluff, crack - ✔ - Summary: Your new roommate is everything you could ask for: quiet, never makes messes, a killer dry sense of humor… and oh yeah—he’s dead.

my kind. - by @hobios - Genre: soulmate au, fluff, angst, humor - 🎀 - Summary: “i promise i won’t get enough, think you’re one of my kind.” or, when you make a connection with the handsome guy at the laundromat late one night, you start to wonder if Fate ever makes a mistake when it comes to soulmates.

A Boy Like You - by @cinnaminsvga - Genre: FLUFF, coworker au - 🎀 - Summary: for whenever you are feeling low, always remember that there is a boy you know who would lift the sky for you. {or alternatively: Min Yoongi loves you, though he never says it. He’s always been a firm believer in that actions speak louder than any words ever could.}

Of Fire and Love - by @hollyhomburg - Genre: fantasy au, dragon yoongi, fluff, angst - 📝 - Summary: When Dragon Yoongi finds baby Jungkook in the wreckage of a house he burned down, he can’t bring himself to kill the child. Months after someone drops a baby at your door, you start to notice something- or someone, lurking at the edge of your farm. Why does the man you catch glimpses of have horns?

The Sugar Wars - by @hollyhomburg - Genre: soulmate au, idol au, fluff - 🎀 - Summary: Maybe tasting everything his soulmate eats wouldn’t be so bad if Yoongi’s soulmate didn’t have the largest sweet tooth Ever. Maybe you wouldn’t need to sweeten everything if he didn’t drink his coffee so bitter.

basketball captian!yoongi - by @jungshookz - Genre: fluff, smut - 🎀 - Summary: min yoongi - captain of the basketball team. y/n y/l/n - water girl.

chromatic - by @jintobean - Genre: fluff, comedy - 🎀 - Summary: “Fuck, he looks like a sparkly anime boy.”

never judge a cover - by @dulcaet - Genre: fluff, angst, humor - 🎀 - Summary: never had you thought you would find comfort in the character of min yoongi, resident bad boy.

slytherin to my heart - by @bangtan-insfired - Genre: fluff, enemies to lovers, hogwarts au - 🎀 - Summary: You hated Min Yoongi. He hated you. But the both of you were about to find out that hate was just a way to mask another passionate emotion.

Peppermint - @readyplayerhobi

- Genre: fluff, coworker au, angst - ✔ - Summary: Achieving your dream job is something that very people manage to do, which is why you’re all the more happier when you land a job on the film team at Poppin’ Culture; the biggest pop culture website, blog and YouTube channel around. What you don’t expect however, is to fall for the exceptionally shy and awkward colleague who is not even remotely your type. Or is he?

Night Stalker - by @readyplayerhobi - Genre: action, angst, smut, fluff, vampire hunter hobi is the hottest hobi, violence - 🎀 - Summary: Vampires are a thing of legend, and yet you find yourself being saved by a self-proclaimed vampire hunter. Only your saviour is half-vampire himself, and struggles with his base instincts. What happens when you get to know him more and feel an attraction you can’t help?

A Universe To You - @readyplayerhobi - Genre: fluff, angst, smut - 🎀 - Summary: Life for you has always been dull and grey; not only because you grew up on the most over-populated and polluted planet in the galaxy but because you’re colourblind. You’re convinced it’s because you have a soulmate out there, but soulmates are a forgotten concept now that humanity has spread across the stars. What happens then, when you finally escape Earth and discover colour with the touch of a man on a planet in which soulmates are just a tale of myth?

Wonder - by @smaubts

- Genre: crack, fluff - ✔ - Summary: In which jimin has a crush on y/n and decides to make it his task to make her fall in love with him, two crackhead personalities unite and make the funniest duo.

Part Of Your Own World - by @readyplayerhobi - Genre: fluff, angst, merman jiminie - ✔ - Summary: Jimin has always longed for the wide-open skies of the Above Sea. After saving the life of a beautiful human woman, he seeks to find her and finally live in his dream world. But young mermen should be careful what they wish for.

Insert Quippy Title Here!! - by @readyplayerhobi - Genre: CRACK, deadpool jimin, smut - 🎀 - Summary: There is no synopsis. It’s just you…me…and a real good time sweet cheeks.

Star Light, Star Bright - by @readyplayerhobi - Genre: fluff, angst, single dad jimin, tattoo artist reader, smut - 🎀 - Summary: Life has not gone exactly how Park Jimin imagined, and yet he can’t possibly imagine his life any different to what it is now. After six hard and stressful years, he’s now the happy owner of a degree along with being the proud dad of his little girl. But what happens when he meets you and his life is tipped upside down once more?

The Evolution Of You And I - by @readyplayerhobi - Genre: fluff, angst - 🎀 - Summary: For 15 years, Park Jimin has been in your life in some form. From childhood penpal’s to the closest of friends now, you can’t imagine your life without him even if you’ve never actually met him in person. It doesn’t help that you’ve fallen for him, even across the distance that separates you. But what happens when you finally meet up and you discover he’s been keeping something secret?

Beneath the Water - by @jungshookz (this one is so good, it’s funny asf!) - Genre: fluff, humor, merman jiminie - 🎀 - Summary: Moving to an apartment by the beach just got a whole lot more interesting

Under the Sea - by @bloomsuga - Genre: smut, fluff, humor, merman jimin - 🎀

sorting hat - by @bangtan-insfired - Genre: fluff, hogwarts au - 🎀 - Summary: You were nervous to delve into the unknown Wizard world, but luckily for you, Jimin was there to help.

expecto patronum - by @bangtan-insfired - Genre: fluff, hogwarts au - 🎀 - Summary: You were the first of your class to perfect the patronus charm & Jimin is curious about the memory you used.

the howler - by @bangtan-insfired - Genre: fluff, hogwarts au - 🎀 - Summary: Not being able to take any more of Jimin’s passionate rants about you, the boys decide to take matters in their own hands and send their dear friend a howler.

Papillion - by @readyplayerhobi - Genre: angst, fluff, pregnant reader, childhood friends - 🎀 - Summary: Kim Taehyung has been a constant presence in your life for the last 25 years. The bestest friend a girl could ever want; he’s been there for you through all the good times and the bad. What happens though when you find yourself pregnant and abandoned? What happens when your best friend steps up in ways you never imagined?

Seven Seas - by @readyplayerhobi - Genre: fluff, smut, atlantis au, angst - 🎀 - Summary: Atlantis is a myth; a hidden city, a sunken island, a missing continent. Only…it’s not a myth. Just hidden out of choice. As the daughter of an Atlantean and a human, you are a halfling that is unwanted by the underwater continent and misunderstood by the surface. But what happens when you finally go to Atlantis and meet an Atlantean who is oddly kind to you?

Sehebon - by @httpjeon - Genre: smut, fluff, angst - 🎀 - Summary: You find yourself on izo huen, home to the sehebon. luckily for you, you’ve arrived at an interesting time.

Apartment 512 - @moononthejoon - Genre: fluff, smut, humor - 🎀 - Summary: After finally finding a decent place to live, you couldn’t believe that you landed next to the loudest neighbour in existance.

Fish Are Friends - by @httpjeon - Genre: fluff, smut, hybrid tae - 🎀 - Summary: After moving to the seaside, there is a dreadful storm. when all is clear, a man washes up on shore…only he isn’t quite human.

Falling in Crayolove - by @jungshookz - Genre: fluff, tiny bit of angst, kindergarten teacher tae - 🎀🎯 - Summary: Y/n is a very single mom and taehyung is a very single kindergarten teacher. emma knows exactly what she needs to do.

Stuck With You - by @jungshookz (have you ever heard of the song stuck in love with ryan ross?) - Genre: fluff, smut, ENEMIES to LOVERS MATE, university au, fratboii tae - 🎀🎯 - Summary: Kim Taehyung becoming your new roommate is definitely up there on the list of the worst things that have ever happened to you.

Crinkle - by @worldwidebt7 - Genre: webtoon, hybrid au, fluff! - ✔ - Summary: You find yourself adopting a lonesome-looking bunny after hearing about him from a friend who recently adopted her own hybrid. The minute you looked at his big doe eyes, it was all over… - Beautifully done artwork, I definitely recommend checking all @worldwidebt7‘s work out!

Crush -by @jungxk - Genre: fluff, smut, amnesia au, husbang guk, comedy, angst - 🎀

Hopping Mad For You - by @readyplayerhobi - Genre: smut, fluff, flatmate jk, hybrid jk - 🎀 - Summary: For two years you’ve lived with your rabbit hybrid roommate, Jungkook. He’s been a model roommate and you’ve found yourself with little complaints. But his behaviour lately has been a little…unusual.

So You Wanna Be The Best - by @readyplayerhobi - Genre: crack, fluff - 🎀 - Summary: Every Pokemon trainer has a rival, and it’s just your luck that you got stuck with your hometown nemesis Jeon Jungkook. As any good rival, he’s determined to beat you to the title of Pokemon Master and he might have a chance at both that and you…if he wasn’t so dang inept.

neighbour!jungkook - by @jungshookz - Genre: fluff, smut - 🎀🎯 - Summary: Cute new apartment and cuter new neighbour.

gymrat!jungkook - by @jungshookz - Genre: fluff, smut - 🎀🎯 - Summary: The gym isn’t half-bad, you suppose.

badboy!jungkook -by @jungshookz - Genre: smut, fluff - 🎀 🎯 - Summary: It’s like he stepped straight out of a fanfiction.

drummer! jungkook - by @jungshookz - Genre: smut, fluff - 🎀 - Summary: ba dum tss

caramel macchiato - by @jungshookz - Genre: FLUFF, barista jk, smut - 🎀 - Summary: one caramel macchiato. one shot of espresso. six ice cubes. ¾ skim milk. ¼ whole milk. no whipped cream. a drizzle of caramel. a squirt of vanilla. and a sprinkle of cinnamon.

Love Letters - by @jennieluvclub - Genre: fluff, angst - 🎀 - Summary: You get a crush on a certain poet named Jungkook, while secret messages start appearing in your locker… you’d think that poetry and romance and mystery would go well together, think again…

felix felicis - by @bangtan-insfired - Genre: fluff, hogwarts au - 🎀 - Summary: Jungkook has a huge crush on you, but is too shy to confess. Luckily for him, his friends make him drink some liquid luck potion that may have been that extra push he needed.

#fic rec #fic recommendation #fanfiction #bts #masterlist #fic rec masterlist #min yoongi #suga #jung hoseok #jeon jungkook #recommendation #recommended #kim taehyung #park jimin #kim namjoon #kim seokjin

47 notes · View notes

aawesomepenguin · 4 years

Text

“[The Sonic Movie] was always one of my dreams”, Takashi Iizuka and Sonic Movie staff reveal new details

The Sonic Movie release in Japan is very close, and in order to celebrate, 4Gamer has done an interview with Takashi Iizuka (Head of Sonic Team), Nakahara Toru ( Senior Executive Officer of SEGA SAMMY, and also SEGA’s Lawyer), Jeff Fowler (director of the Sonic Movie) and Toby Ascher (Sonic Movie Producer), and in it, they gave us some details about the movie and what the experience was like.

Remember that the translation isn’t 1:1, but it gets the point across.

Q: What advice did Sega give to the movie staff in the making of the Sonic movie? Iizuka: Advices related to Sonic in various situations, such as how he looks and moves, and his character, as in "Sonic would never say that". Sega has some guidelines for giving advice to people who do not know Sonic, but it is not a comprehensive guide, so I commented a lot during production. Toby: Mr. Iizuka's advices on Sonic's personality and design were very helpful. I wanted to make Sonic the correct Sonic that fans know. Iizuka: Since this work is a hybrid movie that combines live-action and animation, there are many scenes where actual actors and Sonic are involved. The movie isn’t set in Sonic’s World, so I proceeded to think on how he would react to all of it. The biggest challenge for us this time was that we had to think about Sonic from a completely different perspective when compared to the games.

Q: What did you pay most attention to not betray your fans? Toby: I was under pressure because I knew that the expectations of fans were very high because we are from a generation that played Sonic games when we were kids. But at the same time, I also wanted to make a movie that a newcomer to the series could also enjoy. I was very concerned about that balance. I wanted to make it possible for people who don't know Sonic to enjoy the world of Sonic, while putting in a lot of material that fans can still enjoy. Nakahara: That was the mission behind this movie. To please our generation raised in Sonic and children who have little experience playing with Sonic. I hope this movie will create a new generation of fans.

Q: Are there any differences between the Sonic from the games and the one from the movie? Jeff: This is the first time we're introducing Sonic's backstory! Iizuka: Baby Sonic is a young Sonic that hasn't appeared in games. In the movie, it’s shown how his experiences as a baby changed him, and how his personality was formed. The games feature an already grown up Sonic, so it's good that the story up to that point wasn’t very clear [in the games, allowing the movie team to be creative with Sonic’s backstory].

Nakahara: Baby Sonic is being compared to Baby Yoda's in Star Wars. They’ve become big rivals. Jeff: Let me tell you, Baby Sonic is an idea that we came up with before Baby Yoda was revealed (laughs). It takes time to make characters and CG... Nakahara: Baby Sonic’s design was created under the supervision of Mr. Iizuka, but the actual CG animation was created by Marza Animation Planet Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of the SEGA SAMMY Group. Hollywood companies are included in the special visual effects of this movie, but Japanese companies such as Marza and Sega played a central role in the animation of Baby Sonic and Sonic. Toby: That's one of the great things about this film. As a fan of Japanese animation, a collaboration between Japan and the United States made me very happy.

Q: When you hear that it's a joint production movie between Hollywood and Japan, there are some movies that didn’t succeed, but this time it seems different. Nakahara: Most of the Japan-US collaboration in movies so far involved only the Japanese content holders signing IP licenses. So Japan doesn't get involved with the production, and they don't pay much for the production. As a lawyer, I've seen many contracts where you only get a license fee. That's not really the case. However, this time, we have invested in the production costs for Sonic, and we are on an equal footing with Original Film, the company that has produced the blockbuster movie series, Fast and the Furious, the director of "Deadpool," and Paramount Film Company. There was also a big discussion, "Can you do a movie with an equal partner with so many different creative visions?" That's a big risk. But in the end, including the terms of the deal, the decisive factor that brought all of us together was that Sonic needed to be a movie star. Sonic is a big star in America. Because of that background, we joined hands in conditions that everyone was satisfied with. As SEGA, they jumped over the license agreement and suddenly became an equal partner, and there was a mix of expectations and anxiety. As a lawyer, I've been involved in a variety of works, but I was able to establish a relationship of trust that surprised me, "How can we collaborate so well?". Of course, small issues have come up every day, but I feel that we have been able to overcome them comfortably throughout.

Q: Weren't you able to make a case against Hollywood because you Nakahara-san, are a certified American lawyer? Nakahara: I may not be the one to say it, but this all truly is Sonic. Everybody loves Sonic. Whenever some big development occurs, a lot of it can be attributed to Sonic. Sonic is like Tom Cruise in the way that he has this presence of greatness that makes him feel like a star from throughout the years. Q: Is there any reason for making it a hybrid movie? Jeff: I thought it would be more fun and more enjoyable for the audience to get into Sonic's sense of speed when it gets put into the live-action world. From Sonic's point of view, the world is always slow, but from a human perspective, he is always moving at super-fast speed. The important thing was to express the power and speed of Sonic in a fun way. The baseball scene in the trailer is my favorite, and he uses his speed to enjoy baseball alone. From a child's perspective, if you were to move at that speed, you would want to play all the positions yourself, right? Q: Sonic has established a star position in the West, but what do you think was the reason why Sonic is particularly popular with Westerners? Iizuka: Sonic is a character born in Japan, but from the beginning we were aware of the West. With a Californian image of the blue sky, blue sea, and palm trees, we added a sense of speed with a deep blue appearance. Sonic’s character of strongly sticking to his morals and to his justice without ever being affected by anything else was also a characteristic of Western characters. And also, Sonic’s World doesn’t take much elements from Japan, or Japanese culture. In fact, Sonic’s World is more Western, and the coolness of the Western people we always see around have been incorporated into Sonic's world, so it has been accepted by Westerners and supported so far. Sonic has always been western in nature, so our goal in a way has always been making Western-style games, create characters with Western-ness, and that eventually landed us a Hollywood movie... so I feel like I've finally arrived there in the 27th year.

Q: Please tell me about the character that Jim Carrey plays. Iizuka: Dr. Robotnik, the villain in the movie is called Dr. Eggman in the games, but in them, he has a round body and thin legs, and a figure that can’t be seen in a live-action human being. So if we wanted someone actually human, we had to create a new Doctor Robotnik look. Should Dr. Robotnik in the movie resemble Dr. Eggman from the games? Would they talk in a similar way? Jim Carrey splendidly created a new Doctor Robotnik! Dr. Robotnik always was a crazy scientist, but Jim Carrey's Dr. Robotnik is crazy, unlike anything we had imagined. That's very interesting. Did Jim Carrey bring half the fun for the movie? I think he played a really good Dr. Robotnik. Nakahara: Jim feels like a gentleman and a calm philosopher during the breaks. But once the camera turns, he becomes a different person and a lot of energy comes out.

Q: What are the highlights of this work? Jeff: Jim Carrey and James Marsden, of course, but the star of this film, Sonic, is definitely the highlight. Laughs, charming, confident and laid back. Fans will definitely enjoy it. There are many easter eggs. If you send me a list of how many you have found, I will tell you that there are still some that have not been found yet (laughs). Toby: It's a movie designed to be enjoyed over and over again, so every time you watch it, you'll discover something new. Also, Dr. Robotnik's dance! It's great!!

Q: Please tell us about your future plans for Sonic. Iizuka: This year, we finally made a movie about Sonic. That was one of my dreams, and since we are about to celebrate the 30th anniversary of Sonic next year, many people will have been brought in by the movie, and then they’ll have more opportunities to come into contact with the series through the [30th Anniversary] game. I hope we can get you a better game. Sonic is evolving with the evolution of game technology, so I hope we can continue to release surprising game titles.

SPECIAL thanks to @dizzydennis for helping in the translation in some parts.

Source

#Sonic News #Sonic the Hedgehog #Takashi Iizuka #Sonic Movie #Toby Ascher #Jeff Fowler

86 notes · View notes

aion-rsa · 3 years

Text

What Nicktoon Reboots We Want to See Next

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

When ViacomCBS recently announced the slate of programming that would be coming to Paramount+, the rebranded streaming service formerly known as CBS All Access, the media conglomerate touted a rebooted version of the beloved Nickelodeon classic Rugrats. Described as a “reimagining of the classic ‘90s hit,” the new Rugrats will feature the voice cast from the original 1991 animated series, but present the babies in a brand-new, three-dimensional CG style.

“Rugrats is one of the most iconic cartoons recognized by fans around the globe, and this original version is one we are taking great care and pride in creating for a brand-new audience,” said Ramsey Naito, President, Nickelodeon Animation. “Having the voice cast behind these special characters come together is one of the essential pieces to making the show recognizable and we can’t wait to watch this talented group bring them to life again.”

Rugrats is not the only Nickelodeon property getting an update from Paramount+ The service also announced Kamp Koral: SpongeBob’s Under Years, the first-ever spinoff of SpongeBob SquarePants, new spinoffs, shorts and features set in the wildly popular world of Avatar: The Last Airbender and The Legend of Korra, new live-action versions of both Dora the Explorer and The Fairly OddParents, and a continuation of hit kids sitcom iCarly.

One day the streaming wars will slow down, but until then, media conglomerates like ViacomCBS and WarnerMedia will lean on their wealth of existing intellectual property to entice buyers to sign up for a subscription to their respective streaming services. ViacomCBS is wise to tap into their Nickelodeon vault, as a whole generation of viewers weaned on Nickelodeon’s programming are now media buyers, many with families of their own. Driven by nostalgia and possibly fresh takes on old favorites, Nickelodeon IP could help Paramount+ catch up with its well-established competition.

With recent revivals like Invader Zim, Rocko’s Modern Life, and Hey Arnold! already delivered, here are some other potential Nickelodeon properties ripe for a reboot.

Danny Phantom

While Danny Phantom creator Butch Hartman may not be a favorite among the art community, Danny Phantom feels like the Nickelodeon property most fans are eager to see return. It’s easy to see why; the story of Danny Fenton, a teenager who’s transformed into half-human, half-ghost superhero Danny Phantom after an accident caused by his ghost hunting parents’ technology, had a unique comic book-influenced premise that lent itself well to interesting animation, colorful characters, and an excellent mix of action and comedy.

Superhero content has only further exploded since Danny Phantom’s cancellation in 2007, giving Paramount+ the chance to get in on the action with storytelling beats that are very familiar to Spider-Man fans. Hartman has already pitched Danny Phantom: The College Years on his YouTube channel and confirmed that a script for a live-action reboot exists. Whether the series returns in its classic style, a new CG rendering, or as a live-action property, Danny Phantom seems like a slam dunk just waiting to be thrown down.

My Life as a Teenage Robot

Speaking of superheroes, My Life As A Teenage Robot isn’t one of the most talked about of the old Nicktoons lineup, but it’s one of the series that’s held up the best. Credit that to Rob Renzetti’s art style, which used a classic sci-fi, Art Deco-inspired retro-futuristic look and a bold color palette. Centered on teenage robot XJ9 just trying to live her life as a normal, suburban teenager, the show got a lot of milage out of poking fun at the typical cliches about adolescence.

During MLAATR’s run, critics complained about the lack of complex storytelling, a problem that could easily be fixed by a new writing team focused on continuity and more epic action. Just like Danny Phantom, XJ9 would thrive whether she returns with a new look, in her classic style, or as a live-action interpretation. As long as there are teenagers, then stories about trying to fit in, feeling weird about your appearance, and achieving independence from your “creators” will always be around.

Aaahh!!! Real Monsters

Developed by Klasky Csupo, the same folks that brought you Rugrats, Rocket Power, The Wild Thornberrys, and As Told by Ginger, Aaahh!!! Real Monsters was garish, gross, and grimy in all of the best ways. Embracing gross-out humor and some lightly nightmarish imagery, Aaahh!!! Real Monsters took style inspiration from Soviet cartoons, film noir, and movies like Blade Runner and Brazil. The show followed young monsters Ickis, Oblina, and Krumm as they attend Monster School below a dump in New York City.

The show was cancelled in 1997 due to worries about its “disturbing” content, but the darker quality of the show paved the way for series like Invader Zim and Courage the Cowardly Dog. New York has changed a lot since the ‘90s, which could give Aaahh!!! Real Monsters plenty of material to play with. A new series could bring our original trio back or introduce us to a new class of monsters, giving us plenty of new, weird creature creations.

KaBlam!

Maybe the absolute coolest Nicktoon to ever air on Nickelodeon, KaBlam! was a spinoff of All That conceived to be an “animated sketch series” which served as a showcase for alternative forms of animation, like stop-motion, live-action hybrid, cutout photo, and more. Hosted by animated characters Henry and June, KaBlam! featured recurring cartoons like Sniz & Fondue, Life with Loopy, The Off-Beats, and fan-favorites Action League Now! and Prometheus and Bob, alongside one-off shorts and music videos from artists like They Might Be Giants.

While we would absolutely welcome more Prometheus and Bob shorts, the KaBlam! banner could be brought back to give new creators a chance to showcase their skills and creativity. Technology has come a long way since the last KaBlam! episode in 2000 and there are plenty of new animation techniques that could be put to use.

Hey Arnold!

While the show was recently brought back to life in the form of a 2017 TV movie titled Hey Arnold! The Jungle Movie, everyone’s favorite football head should be at the top of Paramount+’s list for a revival. Created by Craig Bartlet, Hey Arnold! ran from 1996 to 2004 and centered on fourth-grader Arnold as he navigated a facsimile of New York City while living in a tenement apartment with his grandparents and plethora of colorful characters.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

Set to a brilliantly jazzy soundtrack, Hey Arnold! taught audiences about respecting different cultures and portrayed inner-city life and non-nuclear families in a positive light. Hey Arnold! holds up incredibly well, and Bartlet and company could pick up right where they left off in their last feature. The world could certainly use more of Arnold’s optimism and positivity.

The post What Nicktoon Reboots We Want to See Next appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/2NJwlya

#aion-rsa #Den of Geek

8 notes · View notes

saijspellhart · 4 years

Text

Things I binged recently:

(Still coping with grief and depression, and one of the ways I tend to do that is just to distract myself from it all with Netflix. Here are some things I watched or tried watching. And my thoughts on them.)

The Office: Hated this show. Which was a shame because I really really enjoyed Parks and Rec, and these shows are supposed to be similar in style. Unfortunately this show is cynical, mean, and pessimistic. Characters get away with being outright racist, sexist, and antagonistic. Are unapologetic about their hurtful actions, and it sickens me. I was told season one was bad, and to watch season two, and I did. And even season two was awful. And I shouldn’t have to slog through three seasons of a show before it gets to a point where it’s like-able and good. If it takes you three seasons to figure it out, then no thanks. That’s a lot of show I have to suffer through before I MIGHT get to something I enjoy. I loved Parks and Rec because the characters loved and cared about each other, had genuine friendships, aspirations, and optimism. They strived to better the world around them, despite many mishaps and obstacles along the way. Parks and Rec was uplifting and sincere, where The Office is cynical and mean. 1/10.

A Whisker Away: Good, although I found the romance between the main character and her crush to be insincere and weak. I think the message of love would have been stronger if the best friend ended up being the one going to rescue her in the end. It never felt like the boy actually had feelings for her, just a begrudging respect and budding friendship. And it felt like his feelings were guilted and coerced by her actions to run away in the end. Like, “shit, I messed up and she ran away from home. Better tell her I love her, so she comes back home.” I understand that wasn’t what they were trying to do in this film, but it’s how the relationship came across. Manipulative. Especially since most of it was one sided, with her spying on his life as a cat. The love someone has for a pet does not equate romantic affection. Excellent movie for the heavy themes, Magic, and story, just think the overall message and relationships should have been overhauled, and worked around. I think the love the main character’s best friend had for her was more pure and powerful that the one-sided obsessive crush she had on the boy. 6/10.

Brand New Animal: Great show. Both my husband and I loved it. And were gushing about it even after we finished it. My only critique is all the heavy handed exposition. It felt clunky, ham-handed, and unnatural. I think with a few more episodes to the show they might have been able to parse out that exposition and find more natural ways to feed the audience that information, rather than huge unsolicited info dumps on the Main Character. Especially since half the time she didn’t earn that info, didn’t need it, didn’t ask, and just plain shouldn’t have been told some of it. Like why would you just spit classified secret information out to a character you know can’t keep secrets, or even follow directions?? Aside from that, solid characters, solid friendships, cute story, lots of interesting events, and just a blast from start to finish. Would highly recommend it to anyone. If you like Zootopia or Beastars, you’ll probably enjoy this too. 8/10.

Japan Sinks 2020: I. LOVED. THIS. SHOW. Omg, it had me on the edge of my seat the entire time. I just couldn’t stop watching. It’s in the disaster movie genre. Like Volcano, Dante’s Peak, or The Day After Tomorrow. That “what if this catastrophic natural disaster occurred,” and you follow this group of survivors as they work together to stay alive. And damnit if I wasn’t emotionally invested in every single one of them. I wanted to see them survive, and see how they made it through. I wasn’t sure if I was gonna be able to connect as strongly with their struggle given that it was animated rather than live action. But that didn’t matter at all. The tone is serious, and everything is given the weight and consideration it deserves. The animation style has a realistic tone to it, and the fact that it was an anime never got in the way of the journey and the emotions and the intensity for a second. I felt ALL of it. 10/10.

Unsolved Mysteries Netflix (documentary): I’m a slut for documentaries, all kinds of documentaries. So it’s no surprise I watched this. If you like unsatisfying true stories then this is it. A whole season of unsolved crimes. You get all the information wrapped up and handed to you in a neat little interesting package, and are left to just gnaw on it wondering who did it, and if they’ll ever solve it. One of the episodes isn’t a crime though, it’s a UFO story, which was a weird change of pace and tone from the rest of the season. Still creepy, but in a different way. I liked it, but it can be frustrating when you want answers. It gets an 7/10 because I wanted answers.

Kipo and the Age of the Wonderbeasts: I could watch this show over and over again. My husband and I were foaming at the mouth waiting for season 2, and when it finally released, we gobbled it up and then watched it again right after. Excellent show. Post-Apocalyptic story, where the surface of the earth is overrun with mutant animals, and humans are living underground in “burrows.” The main character Kipo gets separated from her people and stranded on the surface, and has to find a way home. Along the way she makes some human friends, and mutant friends, and connects with people through music. And even learns some deep dark secrets about her Mom and Dad, and even herself. It’s a beautiful story emotionally, but also an exciting adventure. I love it. 10/10.

Eurovision, the Story of Fire Saga: Good. Which is saying something because I’m not a fan of Will Ferrell and he plays one of the main characters in this movie. I enjoyed the movie, and it made me laugh. Which was another surprise because I’m a cold-hearted bitch when it comes to comedy, and most things don’t make me laugh. So when a comedy works for me it’s a surprise. And this comedy worked in places. Not ALL places, but it did get some chuckles and a laugh or two. And I did enjoy the story it told. The movie is about two friends who are musicians/singers that enter singing/performance contest, and the drama that ensues along the way. It’s a cute underdog story. 6/10.

Floor is Lava (game show): The name of the game says it all. Groups of three contestants must navigate rooms using only furniture, and chandeliers, and shit. They can’t touch the floor because the room is flooded with hot orange koolaid. And if they fall in they “die.” Prepare to watch grown ass adults hop, hobble, and flop over furniture, tables, and other obstacles, as they try to get from one side of a room to the other side without falling into the koolaid. It’s exciting, and fun, and although the commentary is awful, the struggle of the contestants more than makes up for it. 8/10.

Splice: Never seen this movie before. Thought I’d give it a try since it just showed up on Netflix. It’s... odd. I’m having a hard time deciding if I loved or hated it. It’s an interesting look into what could happen should we start experimenting with human DNA and other sentient life. And how that could go all kinds of wrong very quickly. I like horror, and this delivered on some of the horror elements, but mostly it just jabs you over and over again with moral dilemmas. And you end up feeling like all the characters in the movie majorly failed each other, and they were all the bad guys. I’ll give it a 5/10 because I’m conflicted whether I liked it or not. But it was worth seeing once.

Ju-on Origins: I’ve seen a couple of the Grudge movies, which is the Americanized version of this horror franchise. But I’ve never seen any of the Ju-on movies. So it was a new experience watching this. It’s non-linear storytelling can be challenging to follow, but the stories it’s telling are fascinating and unnerving. I had to watch it with the shitty English dub because my attention span is too short for subtitles. And this wasn’t just a single movie, it’s a show with an entire first season. Episode 4 was definitely where shit hit the fan, and things got really scary. But I like slow burn horror, so I enjoyed the build up of the previous three episodes, and how they just carefully built on the apprehension and dread until things really got scary in the fourth episode. After that the rest of the show is just a roller coaster of highs and lulls, that leave you wondering where the series is gonna go in season 2. Definitely my favorite installment in the Grudge/Ju-on franchise that I’ve seen so far. And it’s got me curious to check out the other Ju-on movies. 8/10.

The Girl with all the Gifts: I’m a sucker for zombie movies and this was a unique and refreshing take on them. The idea is that the zombie outbreak is caused by a strain of the Cordyceps fungus that ends up infecting humans. And the surviving humans are using children born from infected mothers to try and find a cure for the outbreak. The children are like this functioning hybrid of fungus and human, and not completely lost like the humans who were directly infected. The movie explores the moral dilemma of how the children are treated, and the further of humans. I enjoyed the movie, and the concepts. It was a great addition to the zombie franchise. Would recommend. 7/10.

Abducted in Plain Sight (documentary): another crime documentary. This one dealt with a kidnapper/pedophile who managed to kidnap the same girl twice, and the lasting trauma his actions had on that girl. It was sad, and heartbreaking, and horrifying. If you like crime documentaries and have a steely stomach, check this one out. I won’t give it a rating because it deals with real life stuff and children and it’s not a show.

Evil Genius (documentary): one last documentary on this list. I was on a crime documentary spree. Usually I like animal documentaries. This one was about a couple who masterminded a bank heist by attaching a collar bomb to a man and sending him on a wild goose chase scavenger hunt. There’s also a case about a corpse in a freezer, and how the two cases are connected. It’s absolutely bonkers. Just wow. It’s four episodes long, a mini-series, but just an interesting experience. I mostly watched/listened to this while slowly chipping away at a commission. If you like crime documentaries it’s worth a watch. I give this one a 6/10 because I won’t be watching it a second time, but also because I think the format and how they explained everything was kinda long winded.

#movie recommendation #movie recs #show recommendations #show recs #netflix #netflic recs #netflix recommendations #saijspellhart recommends #reviews #rates #movies #shows

30 notes · View notes

hotaruyy · 4 years

Text

Mulan (2020): A Scathing Review

Or, an extremely long rant by two extremely mad Chinese girls.

Before we (@hotaruyy and @meow3sensei) watched Mulan (2020), we didn’t expect too much, since the director and screenwriters aren’t Chinese (even though they claimed to want to be more culturally accurate). But holy shit, this film didn’t even fulfill our exceedingly low expectations (and we’re speaking as people who didn’t mind the loss of the musical aspect because look at the Beauty and the Beast live action). Our review will focus on our critiques of the presentation of different aspects of Chinese culture in Mulan (2020).

The Chinese Aspect of the film was especially infuriating to us as a Chinese audience. Disney emphasises that many of the changes made to the film in comparison to the animated film were to accommodate backlash regarding cultural and historical inaccuracies from Chinese audiences, but what we saw on the screen showed otherwise.

On Set Design (By a slightly irritated Architecture student)

Mix and match of architecture from multiple dynasties, which removes a lot of the sense of realism and authenticity from the film

Tang-style architecture is used (and if we’re being specific, Tang with hints of Song Dynasty) in the Imperial City’s set, which one would assume depicts the time period in which the movie is set in. Identified by the wooden balustrades, relatively simple and small dougong, vertical lattice windows, wooden piles for waterfront, organic shapes in landscape architecture etc. (fig. 1)

fig. 1 - Scene in film

Understandably, information on architecture before Tang (618-907AD) is scarce, so I do think there was an attempt at referencing the original poem that was written during the Southern and Northern Northern Wei Dynasty 南北朝北魏 (386-581AD). Taking creative liberty here makes sense.

That being said, the film didn’t care for retaining a consistent style of architecture, resulting in a wormhole of a set that somehow spans five different dynasties. Only two examples will be listed to avoid an entire essay :)

Exhibit A. Mulan’s home in Hakka Tulou 客家圍土樓 (fig. 2) (roughly translates to Hakka Mud Towers), which originated in the Song and Yuan dynasties (960-1368AD), and started maturing in the late Ming dynasty. (Why use something that didn’t even exist when the Ballad was written and by doing so, physically place Mulan in Fujian?? Just put her in an ambiguous village like how the animation did??). Somehow Tulou started existing before the Hakka clan migrated down south :) To put it simply the presence of Tulou is a locational and historical bug. The jump from the Hakka Tulou to the Tang-styled Imperial palace (fig. 3, which is strictly speaking a hybrid of different styles but I’d argue still mostly Tang) in the opening scenes is only a taste of the amount of inconsistencies later seen in the film.

fig. 2 Scene in film - Hakka Tulou

fig. 3 Scene in film - the Imperial Palace

Exhibit B. This scene (1:20:14) showing Qing Dynasty architecture in what is supposed to be a Tang Dynasty setting, identified by more elaborately decorated dougong 斗栱 (fig. 4 a key feature in the structural system in Chinese architecture, referring to the interlocking structure that sits on top of each column; at least three different kinds of dougong from three different dynasties have been spotted in the film).

fig. 4 Examples of different Dougong in Ancient Chinese architecture (top left being a good example of Tang-styled Dougong)

An insignificant building is not supposed to have more glamorous and larger dougong than the Imperial Palace, not to mention the lack of decorative dougong at all during the Tang Dynasty.

fig. 5 Scene in film that features a building with dougong

fig. 6 Shenyang Imperial Palace built in the Qing Dynasty

An actual Qing Dynasty Palace (fig. 6), for reference, and a random scene from the film (fig. 5). Note the larger dougong both fig. 5 and 6 (the ratio of dougong to column is significantly larger) with more layers of interlocking segments, as compared to the Tang-styled dougong that we pointed out earlier.

On Costume Design

Blue fabric on people who are NOT ROYALTY/NOBILITY. Soldiers guarding the imperial gate would not be wearing blue shirts under their armour. There wouldn’t be such a big supply of blue fabric in the first place; blue fabric would absolutely not be mass-produced for soldiers.

Ancient Chinese people made blue dye from crushed butterflies, did no one care enough to consider the sheer amount of wealth it takes to dye blue fabric organically? Soldiers would very simply not be wearing blue fabric because of how expensive these colours were at the time. Artistic liberty is fine but at least make it make sense in a clearly hierarchical society??

The painful inaccuracies in Mulan’s costume in the matchmaking scene (fig. 7). Ah, the scene that managed to translate breathtaking Hanfu (and there are plenty of resources to take inspiration from) into a Western caricature of a Chinese Halloween costume.

fig. 7 Scene in film featuring Mulan’s Hanfu from the matchmaking sequence

There’s nothing wrong with taking artistic liberties for costumes with a historical context. For instance, exaggerating certain characteristics of the era the story is in, or modernizing certain features so that they align with the character’s more modern way of thinking to contrast with the traditional setting. Good examples that come to mind are the costume designs in Marie Antoinette (2006), or Nirvana in Fire (2015), which also happens to be a Chinese period piece set in a fictional, historically ambiguous era. Inspiration for its costume design is taken from the Han Dynasty and the Southern and Northern Dynasties, so its costumes combine clothing silhouettes from the two periods, and use different characteristics such as colour to reflect class and status, and to represent characters’ personalities. It does a really good job of creating a new style while still giving subtle visual cues to the audience.

But Mulan’s dress can hardly be called an interpretation of traditional Chinese clothing. This is something the animated film did poorly on as well, and this probably contributed to the costume design in this film as an adaptation of the cartoon. The fabric had a shiny sheen that cheapened the costume. Coupled with the strange silhouette of the Hanfu (especially the bottom part of the skirt), this further detaches the audience from any hint of authenticity. The pictures below can speak for themselves. If they’re aiming for ambiguity in terms of the dynasties as seen in the set, then at least make something that is visually pleasing??

fig. 8 Evolution of Hanfu

fig. 9 Tang Hanfu recreated with references from Tang artifacts (top: early Tang; bottom: golden era of the Tang period)

For whatever reason it seems like the extras in the background have more accurate costumes than the main character

And as a girl from a farming village why is she being trained like a noble lady??? A question I’ve had since the animated film…

The film wasn’t consistent when taking artistic liberties. Audiences subconsciously make visual connections to historical periods when watching a historical fiction film. It would be visually more cohesive if artistic liberties were taken on elements from one dynasty or by combining elements from dynasties with similar aesthetics, instead of jumping across centuries of very different stylistic approaches.

Basing the set design on the Tang Dynasty, but then including random shots of Qing Dynasty architecture of no particular importance (two very contrasting architectural styles); extras having Tang-style Hanfu, but Mulan not having one that's remotely close to any style of the multiple dynasties the film has taken inspiration from; alluding to the time period in which the ballad was written by painting Mulan’s forehead yellow 黃額妝 (which was poorly done but I digress), a style of makeup used by women of the Six dynasties and the Southern and Northern Dynasties (六朝女子), but everything else alludes to Tang or later. And finally, basing many things off the Tang Dynasty, but the Tang wasn’t in risk of invasion from the Huns or the Rouran??? We’re fucking confused :)

Small details like the ones we’ve listed above are visually off-putting; as an audience member I’m immediately thrown out of whatever universe the film is building due to the contradicting visual cues. If this was Disney’s and the director’s attempt at cultural accuracy, then it’s plainly insulting to the intelligence of their Chinese audience. (Respecting cultural concerns should not be Disney’s scapegoat for producing a bad movie.)

Ultimately, the film is based on a ballad and we wouldn’t say the points we’ve mentioned are considered common knowledge. So let’s treat it as a fictional era and put less significance on historical consistencies and authenticity. Let’s narrow it down to the crude representations (and misrepresentations) of general Chinese culture and society.

On Stereotypes

“Chi”: Why are soldiers receiving chi-related martial arts training, which takes years and years of elite, specialised training and experience? Ordinary soldiers don’t train their chi, they are not Wuxia 武俠 (roughly translates to martial arts chivalry). These people aren’t training for Jianghu martial art contests (江湖俠道的比武), they are training to kill for war, which does not require finesse at all. Even disregarding the lack of logic in training ordinary soldiers in martial arts (especially them teaching Taichi in the film), logistically it is simply not worth the economic and time cost of training entire regiments in martial arts only for them to be mostly killed off in battle. (Sorry, it’s difficult to explain wuxia and jianghu in a few words, but they’re super cool so please search them up if you’re interested!)

Many others on tumblr have commented on how chi itself is not the weird masculine "power" the film made it out to be, which is also very true (it's also actually very interesting so search it up if you want to!)

On Language as a Limitation

Clumsy translations of Chinese idioms and phrases that are just tragic comedy, e.g. 四兩撥千斤 being translated into “four ounces can move a thousand pounds”, which neglects the subtlety and gentle vibe of the original word choice while twisting the concept into something related to brute force or physics (but we guess this specific example is not entirely the screenwriters’ fault, since some English Taichi classes also translate it as that).

Replacing Chinese concepts and mythology directly with Western concepts such as witches, phoenixes rising from the ashes etc.

The single clumsy reference to the original “Ballad of Mulan” 雄兔腳撲朔，雌兔眼迷離；雙兔傍地走，安能辨我是雄雌？(translates to: when being held by the ears off the ground, male rabbits would have fidgeting front legs, while female rabbits close their eyes; who’s to tell male and female apart when the two rabbits are running side by side?) This line is an acknowledgement and compliment to Mulan’s intelligence and capabilities. It also challenges patriarchal beliefs of gender and women.

On Traditional Virtues (or the oversimplification of them, and a continuation of Language as a Limitation)

The film’s traditional values of 忠勇真 (translated as loyal, brave, and true in the film by using the most direct translations possible) and 孝 (translated as "devotion to family" in the film) seem to be a reference to the core values of Confucianism. We assume that the film is referencing these Confucian core values: 仁 (to be humane)、恕 (to forgive)、誠 (to be honest and sincere)、孝 (filial piety) and 尊王道 (to be loyal to the emperor). If the screenwriters were going to use traditional values, it is curious for them to choose only those three specifically, and to grossly simplify the actual values in their choice of Chinese characters (instead of using the conventional characters), then to grossly simplify them again in their English translations, and then to put them together in that order. The film also just briefly goes over the values by plainly listing them out in the form of an oath, thereby erasing the complexities of the values...

In a hilarious weibo post by 十四皮一下特别开心, they point out that the three values of 忠勇真 used in the film actually directly translate and correspond to the FBI motto of “Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity” :)

Let’s talk about 孝, the fourth traditional virtue engraved in the sword gifted to Mulan by the emperor at the end of the film. Over everything else, this is the original ballad’s central moral, and what we believe the film is also trying to evoke, so the weak translation diminishes the story’s message. The animation was smart in not directly translating it and instead demonstrates what it entails through the progression of the plot. The film does the opposite and translates it as “devotion to family”, when they could have just referred to it as filial piety. Care, respect, thankfulness and giving back to one’s parents and elderly family members. While obedience and devotion are part of what the virtue teaches, it's not supposed to sound like an obligation, it’s not something ritualistic, it’s just something everyone does as a “good” human being.

(And if the director and screenwriters were trying to diminish the role and significance of filial piety in the film on purpose because they wanted Mulan to appear “stronger” and “individualistic”, then… I really have no words for how painfully insensitive that is in terms of how white feminism does not and should not apply to or be imposed on other cultures.)

And here’s our list of Things That Also Pissed Us Off that other people on tumblr have talked about already, which is why we’re mentioning them without much elaboration:

On Feminism

We get that Disney was trying to make a female empowerment movie but they really missed the mark? Even with a female director, somehow. Stepping back and ignoring the Chinese aspects of the film, as a female audience this film was equally, if not more, hurtful

Mulan is only seen as “strong” because of her extraordinarily powerful “gift” of chi that led to her being physically more powerful than the men, especially in that scene where she lugs the two buckets of water to the peak of the mountain (which is in sharp contrast to how Mulan in the animated film is strong because she’s intelligent and is able to utilise teamwork and her strengths properly, and doesn’t let her understandable disadvantage in terms of physical strength trip her up)

All female characters are one-dimensional as fuck and are mere caricatures (though to be fair, the male characters aren’t treated much better) BUT PEOPLE, MULAN IS THE MAIN CHARACTER!! Her name is literally the name of the film!!! Maybe give her some character??? And what happened to wanting to produce good Asian representation in Hollywood???

The character of the witch was slightly more complex than everyone else, which, good for her, but then the screenwriters had her killed when she could easily have not been written with that conclusion to her arc?? Seems to us like some bullshit where the witch had to be punished in a narrative sense because she “succumbed” to using her powers (which are again dubiously chi-related) for “evil”, when instead she was merely trying to achieve as much as she could for herself in a patriarchal system designed to punish her

Plus the implication of writing the sequence of the witch sacrificing herself for Mulan is that Mulan is inherently more worthy of protection because she’s more “noble”, which, again, we call bullshit. Mulan achieved (impossible) success and validation in a patriarchal system because she played by their rules of what it means to be a masculine “warrior” and excelled, while the witch is scorned and punished within the story and also in a narrative sense because she doesn’t. Is that really what it means to be noble and good???? Does that really make Mulan superior to the witch?? (Honestly this plot point might have worked if there was more complexity written into the script, but unfortunately there wasn't)

Can’t believe they just threw away what could have been a perfectly complex and compelling relationship between Mulan and the witch because of shitty writing

The way Mulan lets her hair down and dumps her armour as an indication of her female identity (which is irritating to us on so many levels, as explained by various tumblr users)

On Production

Plot and character arcs have no emotional tension; they’re super rushed and super shallow; emotional beats are not hit properly (e.g. Mulan’s loyalty and friendship towards the soldiers, built up with one line from Honghui “you can turn your back on me...but please don’t turn your back on them” kind of bullshit)

The screenwriters would not know character depth or development even if it were shoved in their face

Blatant symbolism and metaphors (e.g. the fucking phoenix, and thank fuck it doesn’t look like a western phoenix) that make the film feel very… low.

Cinematography and editing: some very beautiful and compositionally interesting shots, but the battle scenes lack tension. The jump cuts disrupt the rhythm and intensity of the fighting; in combination with the overuse of slow motion, they drag the pace of the choreography and further slow down the rhythm of the scene. Exaggerated colour toning make certain scenes more fantastical than others, resulting in a mix of realistic landscapes in some scenes and highly saturated unnatural colours in others, which draws the audience in and out of the film’s universe. This is a shame because they actually took the effort to film in real landscapes.

fig. 10 Scene in film

Special effects: lack of blood in battle scenes (which, fine, they want it to be family-friendly) and Mulan’s suddenly clean face after she returns to her female identity visually puts off the audience (and links back to the issues surrounding the visual representation of her femininity)

And here’s the extremely short list of Things That We Liked:

That first fight scene between the witch and mulan when the witch brushes mulan’s hair away from her face with her claw while restraining her because that was gay as fuck and I am but a weak bisexual!!!

Donnie Yen’s action sequences lmao (they’re not even among the better ones he’s done so everyone go watch Ip Man for actually good action sequences and choreography)

Just listening to the soundtrack itself was great, loved the Reflection variations but I was simply too distracted by the other shitty things in the film

All-asian cast (thank fuck) with impressive actors and actresses (who should not be blamed for a shitty script)

TL;DR: This film is not worth your time or money. Inferior to the animated film (which already has a few questionable aspects). If you’re somehow really interested in seeing how badly Disney butchered Chinese culture (and to a certain extent the animated film), then just pirate this film. If you want to know what happened but can’t be bothered to waste your time watching the film, read this amazing and hilarious twitter thread by @XiranJayZhao, which we found right before we posted this review, and pretty much sums up our viewing experience as well.

Disclaimer: At the end of the day we're two girls from a predominantly Chinese society who are used to Chinese period films and dramas, watching Mulan (2020), a film primarily meant for Chinese diaspora and audiences in the West, with the Chinese market in Asia being just a secondary economic opportunity for Disney. We do realise that we aren't this film's target audience, and that we're not at all experts in everything we've discussed in this review. A lot of this is just us nitpicking, and all of it is just our personal (and very emotive) opinions from watching this film. Mostly we're just disappointed that the film was advertised to be relatively realistic and culturally accurate, but… wasn't.

Sigh.

Btw please feel free to ask us for recs of actually good, actually Chinese films and shows lmao.

Finally, all the love to our beta @keekry, for her many suggestions and hilarious comments!!!

#mulan #mulan 2020 #mulan 1998 #mulan live action #chinese culture #chinese architecture #chinese clothes #chinese costumes #chinese fashion #hanfu #mulan spoilers #long post #film review #disney #as a side note i have no idea why everyone thinks it's pronounced xian lang when in fact it's xian niang

15 notes · View notes

liskantope · 4 years

Text

Some brief (and sometimes not-so-brief) reactions to major Disney films 1937-1967

Around a month ago I made a temporary switch from Netflix to Disney+ with the goal of watching all major Disney movies in order, roughly paced so that one year of Disney film-making equals one day of real life. I should clarify here that by “major Disney movies” I mean mostly just all the animated ones plus a few hybrid live-action/animated ones, and a few of the most popular live-action ones (at least the ones I remember having a song considered good enough to feature on one of the Disney Sing-Along videos, a staple of my video-watching as a kid growing up in the 90′s). I would have been interested to see Song of the South, which I’ve never seen in its entirety, but it’s not included on Disney+ for fairly obvious reasons. As I get further into modern Disney, I’ll probably skip over most of the sequels and other features I strongly expect not to like (with the exception of Belle’s Magical World, which is said to be so legendarily bad that I just have to see what the fuss is about).

This time range of three decades happens to include more or less exactly those Disney productions that Walt Disney himself took a major role in (he died shortly before the final version of Jungle Book was finished). I’d like to do this again in another month, when I will have gotten up through the late 90′s, but honestly this post wound up way longer than I was imagining and took several more hours than I expected (or could really afford), so I’m not promising myself or anyone else that.

Looking at Wikipedia’s list of Disney productions, I’m a little taken aback at what a low percentage of these are animated features, which to me form the backbone of that company’s legacy; visually scanning the list makes the line of animated films look shorter than I had always imagined, but really what this is showing is that Disney produced far more live-action movies than I ever knew about, including (and perhaps especially!) in its early days. Right now I’m continuing on through the 70′s films, but this set of mini-reviews represents the first month of watching and three decades of Disney magic.

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, 1937

This is the full-length feature that began them all and which had the burden of defying contemporary skepticism that a full-length animated feature could be taken seriously at all. We are already far beyond the earliest days of animation and have progressed lightyears beyond the quality of “Steamboat Willie”; throughout the film I marveled at the sophistication of the animation with a newfound appreciation of how groundbreaking a lot of the sequences must have been.

I know I watched this at least a couple of times in childhood and I think once when I was a bit older, but even that was long ago.

Snow White is based on one of the simpler classic fairy tales, and the writers had to come up with ways to flesh out this very short story enough to occupy well over an hour. This was done not by exploring the character of Snow White or the Queen or even filling in extra plot details (the fate of the hunter is never addressed) but by spending a lot of time on the dwarfs. The detail spent on individuating them took a lot of work from the animators, but I think their efforts paid off. I can’t say the same about the attention paid to Snow White or the Queen (pretty much the only remaining characters). Snow White has an almost entirely flat personality, with no sense of curiosity or concern whatsoever about the Queen’s designs to have her killed, just having literally only one goal in mind: to marry this Prince who she’d only seen for about two minutes and run away from out of shyness. (This is of course a trend we’ll see with Disney princesses for a long time.) The Queen similarly only has the goal of being “the fairest in the land”. Something about the particular harshness of her voice strikes me as The Quintessential 1930′s Female Villain Voice (“I’ll crush their bones!”), whatever that means -- maybe I got my idea of what this should be from the movie Snow White in the first place.

I still think “Heigh Ho” (which I’ve known well since early childhood) is an excellent song in its utter simplicity, especially when complimented with the “Dig Dig Dig” song (which I did not remember at all until a few years ago when a Tumblr mutual posted the excerpt containing it!). I’m not enormously fond of “One Day My Prince Will Come”, although I did enjoy playing it on the violin at a couple of gigs with one of my musician friends back during grad school -- I was convinced then, and up until watching Snow White just now, that it belonged to Cinderella.

Pinocchio, 1940

This was a favorite movie of mine in earlier childhood; we owned the VHS and I watched it a lot. As a child, I had no sense of one Disney movie coming from a much earlier time than another one; it was only much more recently in life that I understood that Pinocchio really comes from all the way back eight decades ago. Pinocchio taught me the meaning of “conscience” (both in the dictionary sense and in a deeper sense), and it shaped my notion of what fairies may look like -- for instance, my mental picture of the Tooth Fairy, back when I believed in her, was inspired by the Blue Fairy in Pinocchio.

It’s amazing just how much the quality of Disney animated features improved from the first one to this one, the second. It helps that both the story and the characters are far more complex than those of Snow White. The plot from the original book (which I’ve read in Italian and English) was more complex still, of course. There is one gaping hole where it’s never explained how Gepetto somehow found himself in the belly of a whale (I don’t remember whether or how this is explained in the book), but I’ll forgive that.

It’s interesting to see the 1940′s caricature of “bad (early teenage?) boy” shown in the animation and voice of Lampwick. Phantom Strider talks about the turning-into-donkeys scene as a notoriously dark scene for adults who didn’t find it as terrifying when they were children -- count me in as one of those adults! It’s especially terrifying to see the whole mass of boys-turned-donkeys being treated as slaves in the hellhole known as Pleasure Island and realizing that this is never going to be resolved in the movie -- it’s rather unusual in Disney stories for some great evil to be left unresolved with no recompense even for the chief villain. In fact, Pinocchio is pretty much the only Disney story I can think of where the worst villain doesn’t meet some kind of dire fate. Really, the range of Pinocchio’s view is much narrower: it’s just the coming-of-age story of one puppet in his quest for Real Boyhood. (And yes, I still giggle at how intricutely Jordan Peterson analyzes particular scenes from the movie to support his beliefs about neo-Marxism or whatever.)

Disney+ heads many of the descriptions of the older movies with “This program is presented as originally created. It may contain outdated cultural depictions.” I’m a little surprised they don’t do this with Pinocchio, given what appears to me a rather derogatory depiction of Gypsies.

“When You Wish Upon a Star” has become a timeless hit, for good reason. And I still find “Hi Diddle Dee Dee” extremely catchy.

Fantasia, 1940

I saw this one multiple times growing up (for earlier viewings, I was not allowed to see the final number “Night on Bald Mountain”). My mom, for her part, saw this in theaters at the age of around 4 (even though it originally came out long before she was born) and thought for years afterwards that there was no such film in real life and her memory of seeing it had been just a pleasant dream.

I have nothing much more to say about this one except that, representing a very different approach from most animated films, Disney or otherwise, 1940′s or otherwise, it succeeded exquisitely. The “Sorcerer’s Apprentice” number was particularly perfection; it was as though the composer originally had every motion of the story in mind when writing the music. At the same time, having the main character appear in the form of Mickey Mouse in some way seems to cheapen the effect.

The Reluctant Dragon, 1941

I watched this for the first time, not having known it existed. There isn’t really much to say. All that stuck in my mind was one of the shorts, “Baby Weem” (amusing in a disturbing way), and the longer segment which gives the movie its title (also amusing, in a different kind of disturbing way). It was especially interesting to see a 1940′s cartoon portrayal of a very effeminate man, or should I say, male dragon.

Dumbo, 1941

I saw this maybe two or three times growing up, and not in very early childhood. It was never one of my favorites. Later on, I learned that it was done very low-budget to make up for major financial losses in the Disney franchise. This definitely shows in the animation. However, if there’s one thing I can say in praise of Dumbo, it’s that it’s incredibly daring in its simplicity, not only to have such elegantly simple animation but in having a mute title character (instead the main “talker” in the film is the title character’s best friend, who had much more of a New York accent than I’d remembered).

In some ways I find this film incredibly cold and dark by Disney standards, for reasons I can’t entirely explain, and I remember feeling this way even on earlier watchings when I was much younger. The stark cruelty of the humans running the circus, as well as the elephants other than Dumbo and his mother, just really gets to me. (I vividly mis-remembered one of the lines I found most memorable in childhood as “From now on, Dumbo is no longer one of us.” The actual line is, “From now on, [Dumbo] is no longer an elephant”, which in a way, is even more chilling.) In this regard, there was no need to make a modern, woker remake of Dumbo containing an explicit anti-animal-exploitation message -- the 1941 version conveys this message loud and clear. Now that I’m writing this, I suppose it could be argued that this is another instance of what I described under “Pinocchio” of leaving a major evil unresolved in a Disney film. And apart from that, while the ending for Dumbo is meant to be a very happy one, as an adult I find it incredibly naive: Dumbo is now super internationally famous for his extraordinary gift and is entering the life of a child celebrity, and it’s just going to be smooth sailing from now on? I hate to say it, Dumbo, but your troubles are only just beginning. (I was glad to see Dumbo reunited with his mother in the last scene, however, which I hadn’t remembered happening at all.)

“Look Out For Mr. Stork” is a skillfully-written song I’d completely forgotten about for two decades or so but remember knowing well when I was young. I still think “When I See an Elephant Fly” is a fantastic song, especially with all its reprises at the end -- I’d had some bits of it confused in my memory but had kept the main chorus with me over all the years. Now it’s widely decried as racist, or at least the characters who sing it are decried as racist caricatures. For whatever my opinion is worth, I’m inclined to disagree with this, in particular on the grounds that the crows seem to be the most intelligent, witty, and self-possessed characters in the movie. I’m also pretty sure I heard critical things about it over the years which are false. For one thing, not all of the crows are played by white actors -- only the lead crow is, while the rest of the voices are members of a black musical group called the Hall Johnson Choir. Also, I’m not clear that the lead crow was actually named Jim Crow by the time the movie came out (no name is given in the movie itself). Now an earlier, much more forgettable song featuring black men singing about how they like to work all day and they throw their pay away... yeah that seems awfully racist.

Bambi, 1942

I have surprisingly little to say about this one -- it’s just very distinct from other Disney films of the time, in its story’s lack of magical elements, its characters all being animals and animated in to realistically model animals’ movements, its lack of musical numbers, and its plot reaching the same level of simplicity as that of Snow White. Not to mention actually having a benevolent character die, which I don’t think had been done up to that point. I remember watching this a couple of times as a kid; I was never terribly eager to watch it again and I feel the same way now, despite having majestic beauty that I can really appreciate.

The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad, 1949

This is the first of Disney’s animated features that I never had seen before. What a strange movie, or should I say, two smaller, unrelated movies rolled into one. I liked Mr. Toad’s half better than Ichabod’s half, or at least I found it more entertaining. I was brought up with the book The Wind in the Willows and recall seeing a non-Disney animated rendition of it (which was better and somewhat more thorough than this half-movie-length rendition). I was kind of excited when the “The Merrily Song” started because it unlocked a song from my early-childhood memory that I’d forgotten about for more than twenty years but knew from one of the Disney Sing-Along videos. I still think it’s a not half bad song, especially with the harmony.

The Ichabod story was not at all what I expected, not being familiar with the original book version (I had always assumed that Ichabod must be the name of a villain). I found it completely boring until the final horror sequence. As a child I would have found the courtship part even more boring (at least now I can muse on how man-woman courtship dynamics were shown in the late 40′s), and I would have found the horror part at the end very scary (in fact, maybe this is the reason my parents never showed the movie to me). It is a little shocking in being the only Disney story I’ve seen so far with a decidedly unhappy ending.

Cinderella, 1950

This one I only ever saw once or twice as a child. This is not counting a very vivid memory I have from around age 6 or 7 when I was watching a part of it over at another family’s house and their child, who was almost my age and nonverbal autistic, rewound and repeated the same 2-minute sequence involving the mice for probably about an hour (I was impressed because I at the time didn’t know how to work the controls of a video player).

I suppose this could be considered the second in the main trifecta of the most conservative fairy tale princess stories that Disney did in the earlier part of its history. I think one can argue that Cinderella has the strongest and most fleshed-out character out of those three princesses. I like the spirited internal strength she reveals in her very first scene. That said, like the other earlier princesses, she seems to have one singular goal in life, and that is to find her true love, not, say, to escape her abusive stepmother and stepsisters.

My reaction to this movie is overall positive. The mice were fun (I also like how their voices seemed a lot more like how mice “should” talk than in most other Disney cartoons); the dynamic between Cinderella and her evil relatives, and the dynamic between the stepmother and stepsisters themselves, was shown in a rounded way; and the fairy godmother is a great character despite having only one scene. The character of the king is pretty odd (very selfish yet his main dream is of getting to play with his future grandchildren) while not especially memorable or well fleshed out. There are certainly some great classic songs in this one -- not the most stellar that Disney has ever produced, but solid.

Alice in Wonderland, 1951

I was curious about what I would think of this one, since we owned the video of this at my home growing up and I watched it many times during childhood but as I got older I fell in love with the original Lewis Carroll books which, together, I often consider my favorite work of written fiction ever. I had not seen the Disney film Alice in Wonderland for around two decades, although I made the mistake of catching parts of more modern, live-action adaptations of the story more recently. I wondered what I would make of the old animated Disney adaptation after getting to know the books so well.

There is simply no way that any movie can recreate the true flavor of the books, but Disney’s Alice in Wonderland does a fine job of creating the general nonsensical, sometimes bewildering dream atmosphere, and, perhaps more importantly, capturing the essence of Alice’s personality. I give a lot of credit to Katherine Beaumont for this -- she has the major girl’s role in the next movie on this list as well, but she especially shines as Alice. Two other very distinctive voices, Ed Wynn as the Mad Hatter and Sterling Holloway as the Cheshire Cat, also add a lot to the cast of characters.

While mixing around some of the scenes of the original book Alice in Wonderland, with some scenes of Alice Through the Looking Glass inserted, the progression of the plot is a long, dreamlike sequence of strange situations with only a few common threads, true to the original first book (Looking Glass had a little, but only a little, more structure). In the movie, everything breaks down at the end with many of the previous scenes and characters swirling together and Alice frantically trying to wake herself up. One could object that this is not how the dream ends in the book Alice in Wonderland, but there is a similar sort of breakdown at the end of the dream in Looking Glass and it feels very real somehow, as in my experience this is sometimes how vivid dreams disintegrate.

Oh, and did you know that Alice in Wonderland has a greater number of songs in it than any other Disney film? There are nearly 25 that made it into the film, even if lasting just for seconds, with a around 10 more written for the film that didn’t make it.

So, does the Disney film do a good job of conveying one of my favorite books of all time, within the confines of being a children’s animated film? I would say yes. For reasons I described above, and from the fact that it manages to avoid working in a moral lesson for Alice, or depicting Alice as a young adult, or manufacturing an affair between Alice and the Hatter (ugh), like some film adaptations, I would say that this classic Disney version is the best Alice in Wonderland adaptation that I know of.

Peter Pan, 1953

Although I never knew this one super well, this movie has a special place in my heart from the way the flying sequence enchanted me in early childhood. I have to differ with the YouTuber Phantom Strider when he dismisses the 40′s/50′s-style song “You Can Fly” as just not doing it for him, because that song along with the animation of the characters’ journey to Neverland had a major hand in shaping my early-childhood sense of magic and wonder and yearning. I distinctly remembering a time, around age 6, when I just didn’t see much point in watching other Disney movies, or movies at all, which didn’t have flying in them, because what could possibly top the sheer joy and freedom of feeling able to swim through the air? I’ve had hardly any exposure to Superman, and so the kind of bodily flight I imagined in fantasy or performed in dreams was almost entirely shaped by Peter Pan. (At the same time, the crocodile in Peter Pan influenced my nightmares at the same age.)

I only ever saw this one a few times, but I distinctly remember the most recent of them being when I was a teenager, perhaps even an older teenager, and I remember thinking at the time that it was a pretty darn solid Disney movie. I still think the same now, while granting that some aspects of the movie seem a little antiquated and certain sequences with the Native Americans are quite cringe-worthy from the point of view of modern sensibilities. Only a couple years ago, when visiting my parents’ house, I finally took down the book Peter Pan from the shelf and decided to give it a read and found it a beautiful although slightly strange and offbeat story. In particular, I was shocked at how nasty and vengeful Tinker Bell was (particularly in trying to get Wendy killed), when I had remembered her as sweet and naive in the movie. It turns out I was wrong about the movie -- Tinker Bell tries to get Wendy killed there also! -- but somehow the tone is moderated well enough that in this version I never really feel horrified at her behavior, nor do I feel disturbed at the situation of the Lost Boys in the way the book made me view them. The song of the lone pirate who sings about how a pirate’s life is short, right before Captain Hook fires his gun and we hear a dropping sound followed by a splash, is one of the more masterful executions of dark humor that I’ve seen in Disney animation for children.

While most of the songs in Peter Pan, considered as songs on their own, are pretty good, I think the best one is the one whose lyrics didn’t make it into the film: “Never Smile at a Crocodile”.

Lady and the Tramp, 1955

Despite being more obscure than most of the old Disney animated classics, I used to know this one quite well since we had it in our home. I’ve always considered The Great Mouse Detective as the most underrated Disney film of all time, but I think it has serious competition here. Lady and the Tramp is an absolute gem. While not quite as Disney-fantasy-ish with its lack of magic and other fairy tale elements, in my opinion Lady and the Tramp is, in most ways, superior to everything else on this list save Mary Poppins. Beautiful animation which shows Lady and most of the other animals moving realistically in a way we haven’t seen since Bambi*. Everything visually and conceptually framed from the dogs’ points of view. Great voice acting. Consistently solid dialog without a single line too much or missing. A story evoking the dynamic between humans and pets, class inequality, and deep questions about the place of each of us in society and choices between a stable existence among loved ones and striking out to seize life by the horns. Our first female lead who stands on her own two four feet and whose sole goal isn’t to get kissed by her true love (one could argue that Alice was the earlier exception, but she is a little girl whereas Lady is actually a romantic female lead). When Lady is approached by her two best (male) friends in a very awkward (perhaps especially from a modern sensibility) but sweet scene where they offer to be her partner, Lady makes it clear that she doesn’t want or need a husband just for the sake of having a husband to make babies with -- her standing up for her own wants in this way doesn’t in the least turn into a Moral Stand that dominates the movie. Excellent music all the way through.

Oh, and this movie was my very first introduction, in early childhood, to the Italian language (”Bella Notte”), which some 25 years later sort became my second language of sorts.

Criticisms? Well, the baby was animated rather stiffly and unnaturally, but that was like half a minute of the movie at most. And there’s the whole segment with the Siamese cats, which produced a great song purely music-wise (fun fact: Peggy Lee provided the voices of the cats) but nowadays comes across as rather racist. I’m not entirely sure how I feel about it, but I will say that I’m sure in the minds of the creators this was no different than having animals of all other nationalities (Scottish, Russian, Mexican) appearing in the film with voices reflecting the respective accents.

*There may be a few exceptions, like Peggy, who seems to be modeled after the musician Peggy Lee and moves like a sexy human woman. The way that human sex appeal is conveyed through the animals’ movements in this movie is quite impressive: my mom confesses to having somewhat of a crush on Tramp growing up and not quite understanding how that could be possible when, well, he’s a dog.

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, 1954, and Old Yeller, 1957

I don’t want to say about these movies, as they don’t really fall under the category of animated classics. I just want to say that, while I saw each of them once growing up, on seeing them again I recognize each as a great movie in its own adult point of view way that is not necessarily very Disney-ish.

Sleeping Beauty, 1959

I think this was the movie I was watching at the time I decided it would be fun to write a bunch of mini-reviews for Tumblr, as my reactions were changing a lot as I was watching. I went into the movie very curious, because while I only remembered enough of the fairy tale story to know that it was another of the very simple ones, and I remembered the one song as a waltz by Tchaikovsky, and I knew I had seen the movie once (and probably only once) as a kid, I couldn’t remember anywhere near enough to possibly fill a full movie time. What was actually going to happen in this hour-and-a-quarter long film?

I wasn’t watching long before I came up with the description “spectacularly forgettable”, in part to justify why I’d managed to forget practically all of my one previous viewing. The story doesn’t have much substance and feels sillier than even the other fairy tale Disney plots, like even minor twinges of critical thought, even granting the magical rules of the universe, are liable to make the plot topple. There is some filler to flesh out the movie, but (unlike with Snow White’s dwarfs) none of it is as amusing as the creators seemed to think it was. The only characters with actual personality are rather boring -- the capers between the members of royalty and the jester are a bit on the annoying side in my opinion. Maleficent seems to have no motive whatsoever. She actually calls herself something like “the mistress of evil” later in the movie. This is pretty black-and-white even by Disney standards, where the bad guys usually at least want to think that they’re on the right side of things or justified in their aggressive behavior. Aurora (the title character) has the least personality of all the Disney princesses. Literally all I can say to describe her is that she has the Disney Princess Trifecta of characteristics: she has a good singing voice; she is friends with all the “nice” animals; and her only goal in life is to be reunited with her True Love who she met once for all of a few minutes. The reason why I couldn’t remember any songs other than the Tchaikovsky one is that there aren’t any.

The one thing I consciously really enjoyed while watching was the fact that the score throughout was Tchaikovsky; the idea of having one work of classical music as the entire score seems like a bold one for a Disney film. As I was digesting the movie afterwards (and watching the short documentaries supplied on Disney+ helped here!), I came to realize that this classical music backdrop was complimented in quite an interesting way by a fairly unique animation style. I had been disappointed by the animation early in my watching, disliking how a lot of the figures in the beginning castle scene (for instance, various people’s faces), looked very “flat” somehow. But I’ve come to see this as part of a style where everything looks almost like a series of cut-outs superimposed on each other, to incredibly beautiful effect in a lot of the outdoor scenes.

My conclusion? If you watch this the same way you watch most Disney animated movies -- focusing on plot, characterization, action, and meaning of the main story -- it will just be kind of forgettable at best. But if you watch it as more of a purely visual and musical piece of art without trying to make much “sense” out of it (so, more like I would watch a ballet), you may find it uniquely beautiful among Disney classics.

One Hundred and One Dalmations, 1961

Whew -- what a complete and utter contrast from its predecessor! I can hardly imagine a film that’s still distinctively Disney while being more different from Sleeping Beauty in every aspect.

I remember seeing One Hundred and One Dalmatians a handful of times in childhood (when I was around 5 and it had just come out on home video, my mom almost bought it for me but decided to go with Beauty and the Beast instead explaining that it had better music -- I grew up knowing the preview for Dalmatians that showed at the beginning of our Beauty and the Beast VHS than the dalmatians film itself). I remembered a number of scenes very distinctly, including a lot of the Horace and Jasper bickering and Cruella smashing one of their bottles of beer into the fire and knew Lucky’s line after getting stuck behind in the snow almost word for word, while I had entirely forgotten all of the country/farm characters and entire sequences involving them. I had forgotten, but soon remembered, the television scenes including the Kanine Krunchies jingle. (Some years later, I think as an older teenager, I read the original book with some interest.)

Although I wasn’t around in 1961, everything about this movie’s style strikes me as very contemporary -- the animation in particular seems like the current style for 60′s cartoons. Something about the dialog and humor feels that way as well, as though it closely represents a sort of 60′s young-people-in-London culture that I’ve never seen myself (I was struck for instance by Cruella being asked how she’s doing and cheerfully answering, “Miserable dahling as usual, perfectly wretched!”). It was a little strange and offputting to see television so prominently featured in Disney animation from so long ago, and to see such a decrepit bachelor pad (with the accompanying lifestyle and attitudes) as Horace and Jasper’s in a children’s movie. The crazy driving in snow at the end startled my adult sensibilities (as I now have some memorable experiences driving in snow) in a way that didn’t affect me as a child -- scenes like that just didn’t feel like Disney after having just watched all the previous films. All in all, these novel features made the whole movie a wild ride.

I’m bemused by the fact that, despite taking place in London (which I hadn’t remembered -- I thought it took place in America), the only accents which are fully British are those of the villains Cruella de Vil, Horace, and Jasper.

Main criticisms: I found all the stuff with Rolly being characterized by his body shape and only ever thinking about food to be in poor taste (although not surprising for the times). And while “Cruella de Vil” is a great jazz number, the movie has no other music to speak of -- my mom was quite right to choose Beauty and the Beast over it.

(I realized when finishing this review that this is the only one of all the movies in the list that I’d actually enjoy seeing again sometime soon. Not sure what to make of that. Something about it is more interesting than most of the others? Especially the human-centric parts?)

The Sword in the Stone, 1963

I never saw this movie until later childhood or maybe even early teenagerhood, when I quite liked it. On watching it again, I was overall pretty disappointed. This movie has some decent songs and some fun aspects to the story, but a lot of it is kind of weak and forgettable and it’s all just sloppily done.

The story has a clear moral message which is generally pro-education and about reaching one’s full potential, but in my eyes it comes out kind of muddled because the story shows Wart ending up as a legendary king only out of the arbitrary happenstance that that happens to be his divine destiny. Merlin’s motives seem kind of inconsistent as well, with him sometimes seeming to support Wart in his desire to become a squire, then flying off in a rage when Wart chooses squirehood over fulfilling a “greater” destiny, then joyfully returning after Wart pulls the sword from the stone and is now set on the fixed path to being king, even though this involved exactly zero change of attitude on Wart’s part. The message that actually comes across looks more like, “We have to just follow whatever fate has in store for us” than “We must strive to be the best we can be”. And, it arguably even comes across as subtly disrespectful to more mundane lifestyles and career paths.

The animation is not great by the high standard of full-length Disney features (I noted how I especially disliked how tears were shown). Wart’s voice seems to change a lot, sometimes broken and sometimes not yet broken. I found out after watching that this is because the character was played by three different actors, sometimes with more than one of those actors in the same scene! This was purportedly because the voice of the first actor cast for the role started to change, but then why does Wart sometimes sound like his voice has already changed anyway? Sloppiness all around.

Still, some parts of The Sword in the Stone are fun even if none of it is stellar, and it entertained me more when I was younger, so worth watching once, especially if you’re a kid, I guess?

Mary Poppins, 1964

I came into this one far more familiar with it than with most of the other Disney movies, including the ones I watched many times when I was young, so it feels a little strange to try to summarize a similar-length review of it. Mary Poppins is in my book without a doubt one of the top three Disney movies of all time, in some respects the very best, and certainly the masterpiece of Walt Disney himself, the culmination of literally decades of determination on his part to turn Pamela Travers’ children’s works into a movie. (I would feel sorrier for Travers about how strongly Disney twisted her arm to turn her books into a movie whose style was entirely antithetical to hers, if it weren’t for the fact that the Disney version of the story is just way better than her rather weak set of stories. I give Travers ample credit for having created an amazing character in the person of Mary Poppins, but for coming up with good stories, not so much.)

I didn’t see the full movie Mary Poppins until later childhood (although I knew many of the songs) and it quickly became a favorite of mine. I went a gap of a number of years without seeing it before I copied the soundtrack from someone when I was in college, which spurred me to go out and rent it (back when Blockbuster was a thing) and so I managed to reconnect with it at the age of 20. More recently I’ve become somewhat of a Mary Poppins enthusiast -- feeling pretty alone among my generation in this regard, with the possible exception of the theater subculture -- having seen probably most or all of the documentaries there are on its production and learned a ridiculous amount of trivia about it, not to mention knowing the whole soundtrack pretty much in my head.

Mary Poppins seems to be Disney’s longest children’s classic, at 2 hours and 19 minutes. All it lacks, really, is an animal-themed or classic fairy tale atmosphere and a proper villain. But what can you get out this movie? Stellar child acting (especially for that period) and excellent performances all around, apart from some awkward but endearing aspects of Dick Van Dyke’s acting (while his singing and physicality is superb). A complex and multi-layered story combining magic, comedy and a little tragedy, appreciable in equal measure from a child’s level and from an adult’s level. Revolutionary special effects which include the first extended hybrid live-action and animation sequence. Timeless words and phrases which have permanently entered the lexicon. One of my favorite extended musical sequence of all time in any movie (”Step In Time” takes up 8 minutes and change, and I’m glad they didn’t go with the “common sense” measure of cutting this “unnecessarily long” number). The Sherman brothers at their very best, in a musical soundtrack that easily scores in my top two out of all Disney movies (the other one being The Lion King). A beautiful message (among several big messages) about the little things being important (or at least, that’s a very crude summary), exquisitely encapsulated in the most beautiful song of the movie, “Feed the Birds” (this apparently became Walt Disney’s favorite song ever, and I’m pretty close to feeling the same way -- I’m determined that one day when I finally have a piano I’m going to learn to sing it along with the piano). I could go on and on here.

If I try really hard I can come up with the sole nitpick of feeling that maybe the parrot head on the umbrella’s handle shouldn’t only reveal itself as a talking parrot head in only one scene right at the very end -- this should have been shown at least once earlier. Even granting that, this film is still practically perfect in every way.

The Jungle Book, 1967

(Let’s get the Colonel Hath in the room out of the way first: “The Jungle Book” is a terrible title for a movie. You know, when you base a movie on a book you don’t have to give it the same title as the book...)

I saw The Jungle Book several times as a kid and, despite not considering it nearly as good as Mary Poppins, similarly reconnected with it in adulthood (particularly the soundtrack). Only several years ago I found myself thinking of getting hold of a double album of classic Disney songs that I thought I’d heard about but couldn’t seem to find online. It soon occurred to me that mostly what I really wanted was some of the songs of The Jungle Book, so I got that movie’s soundtrack instead. I soon learned for the first time that The Jungle Book’s songs were written by the Sherman Brothers*, precipitating an “Ah, that explains why I remember them as so good!” moment. (“I Wanna Be Like You” seems like the clear winner among the songs.) Of course hearing the soundtrack made me curious about the movie, which I did eventually get hold of several years ago; thus I had seen this film exactly once already since childhood.

It says a lot about the music and the overall technique behind this film that I still look back on it as one of the great classics, considering how weak the story is. In particular, I consider a story arc to be pretty flawed when characters that seem significant and/or memorable come in without really living up to their expected big role: the wolves who raised Mowgli play a crucial role in the beginning before more or less disappearing (and it doesn’t entirely make sense to me why Bagheera, rather than they, is guiding him to the man village), and King Louie (who is a well-formed character that I particularly enjoy watching) really ought to come back into the story later somehow (an alternate, and much more complex, ending had him make a reappearance). The villain Shere Khan is not especially well developed in terms of his character and motives, but I do enjoy his menacingly bass voice. Still, the voice acting, the action, the animation, and the overall setting are all very solid here.

I’ll end with some random observations about the song “That’s What Friends Are For”. I think the likeness of the vultures to the Beatles was mostly lost on me as a kid (along with the recognition that this movie came out in the Beatles’ heyday). More interestingly, even when I was old enough to understand how vultures eat, the fact that every single line of the song is a clever macabre double-entendre went completely over my head. I do think it was a very obvious mistake, by the Obvious Standards of Cinematography, to give Shere Khan the last line of the song and begin that line with the “camera” on him, rather than have his voice come in “off-camera” and Mowgli and the vultures looking thunderstruck before panning to him, but maybe I shouldn’t be pushing for overdone techniques here.

* An exception is “Bare Necessities”, which was written by Terry Gilkyson, the original songwriter Disney received submissions from, who wrote two hauntingly beautiful other numbers which were deemed not Disney-ish enough to be put in the film.

Some general stray observations:

These older Disney films love gags involving alcoholism and drunkenness, a bit of a questionable emphasis given that the audience is children. This trend continues into the 80′s at least, but I don’t think one sees it much in modern Disney movies.

Watching these animated films I often find myself flinching as characters’ heads smash into things or gigantic objects smash over their heads, feeling almost surprised when they come out of it pretty much fine. I guess this a staple element of cartoon action throughout the decades, but I can’t recall a more recent Disney animated film where we see this (guess I’ll soon find out!)

There is a certain style of vocal music, with unified rhythm and lyrics but complex harmony and a capella, which seems to have been immensely popular in the 40′s and 50′s and distinctively appears in practically every single one of the 40′s and 50′s films above (“You Can Fly” is a typical example). I recognize it also from some non-Disney-related old records my parents have that were passed down to them. I’m curious about whether this style has a name.

For years I thought the Sherman Brothers did only the soundtrack for Mary Poppins and Bedknobs and Broomsticks, only discovering they did The Jungle Book songs rather recently as I explained above. It turns out they were involved in most of the major Disney films around that period, including The Sword in the Stone and The Aristocats (although not its best-known number “Everybody Wants to Be a Cat”).

There is a particularly sad instrumental passage, played by the string section starting with a minor-key violin melody going downward and joined by lower string instruments, which I knew well from my Jungle Book soundtrack (partway through “Poor Bear”) but was surprised to hear in desperately sad moments of several of the other movies around that time (including One Hundred and One Dalmatians and Robin Hood, or at least a close variant of this passage with slightly different endings). I have no idea who wrote this or how it came to be reused so many times.

I knew the name Bruce Reitherman as the voice of Mowgli in The Jungle Book, but in watching all of these other features back to back I’ve noticed that there are some other Reithermans in the front credits of quite a few of them.

21 notes · View notes