Best Animated Short - 1982

Well, we have finally reached the 30 year mark. Sure it's taken us almost six months, and part of that time was spent at a rate of two reviews a week, but we're making our way slowly but surely. At this rate we'll probably be looking at finishing less than a year from now! Huzzah!

So it's kind of hard to believe that 1982 is thirty years ago. I mean, it was before I was born, but not much earlier. There are people that I went to high school with born in 1982. Sure, they were juniors or seniors when I was a freshman, but that still doesn't change the fact that, well, I'm getting old. And yet I'm still watching animated shorts and reading comics like "Amelia Rules." But you know what? There's no shame in that! Especially since all of these has much better storytelling and entertainment value than some of the more "adult" things out there!

Read more »

The Dark Age? (Part 2)

In part one of "The Dark Age?", I took a look at the two films that Disney’s feature animation wing produced following the death of Walt Disney: The Aristocats (1970) and Robin Hood (1973). Both films showed just how misguided the studio was after Uncle Walt’s passing. Executives wanted to play it safe, and the animators didn’t seem to have much freedom, sticking to a formula that was only successful in The Jungle Book. Meanwhile, several animated films from other studios tried new things: George Dunning’s Yellow Submarine, Ralph Bakshi’s Fritz the Cat and Heavy Traffic, and several foreign animated films.

One man was certainly not happy with the situation, it was none other than Don Bluth, who felt that Robin Hood had none of the charm that distinguished Walt Disney’s greatest films, mainly the first five Golden Age gems: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Dumbo and Bambi. Bluth balked at the messy storytelling and penny pinching that plagued Robin Hood, and the newly-recruited young animators most likely objected to these problems as well. They were hoping to tackle a project of Snow White’s caliber, not something safe, formulaic and dated. With the next film in production, these animators were ready. In fact, early on, they worked with Don Bluth in his garage on side project called Banjo the Woodpile Cat. This short would be closer to the classic Disney style than what was put out at the time. It was a project that executive Ron Miller, future President of Walt Disney Productions, rejected. A film based on Margery Sharp’s The Rescuers books was a go in the mid-1970s, and it’s one that Don Bluth would be heavily involved it, moving up to the Directing Animator position.

As Disney was working on The Rescuers, more experimental and decidedly adult-oriented animated films came and went. Limited releases of foreign films like Rene Laloux’s Fantastic Planet and several Japanese animated films were common, as they were in the 1960s. Risky endeavors like Richard Williams’ lavish Raggedy Ann and Andy: A Musical Adventure didn’t make a mark at the box office. Television animation studios like Filmation and Hanna Barbera entered the ring with passable efforts like Journey Back to Oz and Charlotte's Web, respectively. The “adult-oriented” animation boom continued as Ralph Bakshi made more films, like the very controversial Coonskin. Other studios tried to ride the wave, with efforts like Once Upon a Girl and Down and Dirty Duck. After Coonskin, Bakshi took a trip into the fantasy genre for his future animated films and dropped the gritty, personal stories. This all began with 1977’s Wizards, which was a rotoscoped film that still got good reviews and did well at the box office as it was certainly more accessible.

The animation scene hadn’t changed much since The Aristocats had come out, Disney’s output was going up against all these kinds of films. In order to really compete, even though Disney’s films won at the box office each time out, they needed to make a film that was worthy of what Walt produced. The Rescuers was most likely conceived as another Jungle Book/Aristocats/Robin Hood-style comedy with the same old routine. Early drafts even had Cruella de Vil as the villain! Don Bluth and the animators wanted something better. The improved Xerography process removed the rough look of the earlier films. Immensely disdainful of the look that Xerography had delivered in One Hundred and One Dalmatians, Walt would’ve been pleased with this since the animators were able to go back to the classic designs while the studio could still cut costs. Colored outlines could now be utilized, making things look noticeably softer than what was seen in everything from Dalmatians to Winnie the Pooh and Tigger Too! (1974).

The Rescuers’ story involved a young orphan girl named Penny (voiced by Michelle Stacy), who is held captive on a riverboat in the Southern bayous by an unscrupulous woman named Madam Medusa (voiced by Geraldine Page) and her bumbling, inept partner, Mr. Snoops (voiced by Joe Flynn). They use the poor girl to search a pirate’s cave for an elusive diamond called the Devil’s Eye. The Rescue Aid Society, a brigade of noble mice from all around the world get her message in a bottle and send the timid janitor Bernard (voiced by Bob Newhart) and the adventurous Miss Bianca (voiced by Eva Gabor) on a mission to save her and bring her back to Morningside Orphanage in New York. Without anyone like Don Bluth around, this could’ve easily been another unmitigated disaster on the order of Robin Hood. Bluth made sure that the story would be told the way Walt would’ve told it, with drama, depth and darkness while also having enough comic relief to take the edge off when appropriate. The Devil’s Bayou, the swamp where most of the film takes place, is very gloomy and dark. The scene where Penny, with the help of Bernard and Bianca, tries to get the diamond out of a skull inside the pirate’s cave before it floods is wonderfully tense. Madam Medusa is also one of Disney’s most unfairly overlooked villains, a mean-spirited character who actually goes out of her way to really hurt Penny’s feelings (“What makes you think anyone would want a homely little girl like you?” she says to her after Penny tells her why she wants to go back to the orphanage after she finds the diamond). Animated with such flamboyance by Milt Kahl, she is actually a much better antagonist than a good number of Disney’s most well-known and loved villains. She manipulates the girl while treating her terribly, all to get ahead and get something she wants. This is a much better conflict than what we saw in the previous couple of films, as we really root for Penny’s escape and for the two mice to succeed in their mission.

Going against the darkness and the unusually strong conflict is yet again more silliness in the form of a gang of swamp critters who are of help to the two mice. They have a point in the story, but their antics mimic the comedy we saw in Robin Hood (not to mention some of the cast is straight out of that film). This isn’t a bad thing, but at times it tends to clash with the overall mood of the narrative. Slapstick is there, too, sometimes going against the dark tone of the story, such as Medusa’s gun being clogged with a stick of dynamite that backs up like it was its own character. In a more successful slapstick moment, a scene where Bernard and Bianca try to get away from Brutus and Nero (Medusa’s alligators) in a pipe organ is absolutely hilarious. Orville, the albatross who flies Bernard and Bianca from New York to down South, is a hoot. Voiced by Fibber McGee himself, Jim Jordan, the funniest bits are the scenes where he avoids Medusa’s fireworks on the way to the bayou.

The only other problems with The Rescuers are in the animation itself. While the character animation is fantastic, the film still has a lot of roughness. Animation from past films is recycled once again, especially on an important sequence like “Someone’s Waiting for You”. Rotoscoping is also used, from special effects (which are either subtle or jarring) to human characters we only see for mere seconds. Some backgrounds are also borrowed, such as a shot of the Devil’s Bayou which takes the same set of trees from The Jungle Book. That is actually followed by a scene where Penny runs away, it’s the same animation of Mowgli running away from Baloo when he tells the boy that he has to go back to the man village. Again, laziness. The entire opening credits is told through paintings by Mel Shaw, which are beautiful, and make up for the opening credits of The Aristocats and Robin Hood, which basically recycled scenes from the film itself.

The songs are good for the most part. All but one of them are sung offscreen, much like Dumbo and Bambi, and written by Carol Connors, Sammy Fain (who wrote songs for Alice in Wonderland and Peter Pan) and Ayn Robbins. “Someone’s Waiting for You” is a tearjerker, but it is only undermined by the use of recycled animation (Bambi’s mother, for instance), but that wouldn’t be much of a nuisance to a non-animation fan. “Tomorrow is Another Day” is pretty, but it has a dated 1970s pop twang to it. “The Journey” is absolutely beautiful, and the artwork its set to makes it all the more better. The only song that I could do without is “Rescue Aid Society”, a silly, forgettable tune that’s the only number that the characters sing.

The Rescuers, despite some setbacks, was a return to form. Gone was the slapdash storytelling seen in The Aristocats and Robin Hood. The film did its best to cater to adults and everyone else, rather than the younger set, much like the classics did. Its mix of action, inspired art direction, very good writing and a strong story made for an entertaining event that no one should’ve missed. This film would solidify why Disney animated films were worth seeing on the big screen, and with the quality of the story behind it, it could compete with the heavies at the box office.

The Rescuers opened in the summer of 1977 to rave reviews all across the board, with many critics praising it as a sort of “second coming”. This is all thanks to the ambitions of Don Bluth and the enthusiastic young crew working on the film, as many animators such as Milt Kahl made this film their swan song. The Rescuers was also a huge hit at the box office, becoming the highest grossing animated on initial release. The record wouldn’t broken for another nine years. All seemed well in the world of animation, Disney had finally gotten back to their roots and soared critically and commercially at the same time. Disney immediately fired up production on the next film, The Fox and the Hound and also sought to jumpstart a film based on Lloyd Alexander’s The Chronicles of Prydain, as the project based on the five-book series had been in pre-production earlier that decade. Meanwhile, Don Bluth and the animators were finishing up on Pete's Dragon and working on a short subject called The Small One. Another upcoming project was Mickey's Christmas Carol, based on Charles Dickens’ classic featuring Scrooge McDuck as Ebenezer Scrooge.

Problems began to rise during production of The Fox and the Hound. Bluth and several of the other animators objected to Disney’s cost-cutting methods and their adherence to a formula. Story changes were made that compromised this adaptation of Daniel P. Mannix’s downer novel, which was being tooled into a story that was about prejudice. That was one of many problems that ultimately lead to Don Bluth resigning on September 14, 1979 with fourteen of the young animators. This was a harsh blow to Disney, and it even made the news, which was rare in the world of animation at the time. With that, Disney immediately delayed the release of the film from a Christmas 1980 date to the summer of 1981. The company did what they could to blacklist Bluth and the former animators, who had completed Banjo the Woodpile Cat and were joining forces with Aurora Productions (formed by former Disney executives) to produce a full-length feature film to compete with Disney’s films.

With the rest of the veteran animators retiring, Disney started recruiting more animators and improved the training program. Production moved forward once again, but the story had already been compromised from the get-go. Due to these problems, The Fox and the Hound was a step backwards from The Rescuers. The story centered around a fox kit named Tod (young Tod is voiced by Keith Coogan, and adult Tod is voiced by Mickey Rooney) and a hound puppy named Copper (Corey Feldman provides the voice of young Copper, while Kurt Russell provides his adult voice), who become inseparable friends. Unfortunately, Copper is supposed to grow up to become a hunting dog and Tod’s adoptive owner, Widow Tweed (voiced by Jeanette Nolan), will have to release him in the wild one day. Copper’s trigger-happy owner, Amos Slade (voiced by Jack Albertson), already doesn’t take a liking to the mischievous fox cub. Meanwhile, an owl named Big Mama (voiced by Pearl Bailey) attempts to help Tod understand that Copper may have to hunt him down one day.

Fortunately, the story isn’t episodic like Robin Hood’s lazy excuse for a narrative and the writing for the most part is passable. The characters are appealing, and there’s an unusually melancholic tone that permeates the entire film. Punches are pulled, hurting the story in many ways. When director Art Stevens demanded that Chief should’ve survived after getting hit by the train, he not only watered down the story but he also went against logic. Chief not dying after that accident was terribly unrealistic, and Copper’s revenge is pointless now that Chief just wobbles around with a broken leg. Despite the holes, the film’s second half is surprisingly intense compared to the rather innocent first act.

Another problem is the excessive cutesiness in the first act, which is blown over the top thanks to the inclusion of two comic relief birds that add nothing to the story. They only exist to provide laughs for the children, once again reminding one of the goofiness of The Aristocats and Robin Hood. Like Robin Hood and The Rescuers, Disney was also perfectly content with casting celebrities who were known for their comedy TV shows. The cast certainly gives it their all, especially Pearl Bailey, who provides the voice of Big Mama, an owl who helps Todd understand things. This sort of thing had become by the early 1980s, however.

The Fox and the Hound's central theme is one of its greatest strengths, as the story of Tod and Copper’s friendship was meant to mirror the lives of children who are raised with racial prejudice in the 1970s. This theme was so prominent that it actually caught the attention of the public upon release. Politics in a Disney film? There were other deep themes in the Disney films of the past, but The Fox and the Hound’s message caught on in the media, and a few critics praised that element of the story. Combine that with its somber mood (a byproduct of Don Bluth’s career at the studio) and some incredible animation, The Fox and the Hound isn’t an outright failure. It’s a film that wants to be right in line with The Rescuers, but it’s held back by executives and misguided minds trying to play it safe. What made The Rescuers work was that it didn’t play it safe, it tried to be like a Walt film with its moody visuals, great heart and solid story. With everything that works against this film, you can see why Don Bluth and the animators left during production. Take this story for example: Wolfgang Reitherman, who already liked the idea of recycling animation from past Disney films, wanted a sequence where Tod and Vixey (voiced by Sandy Duncan) meet two cranes voiced by Phil Harris and Charo. The two were to provide a disco number. Everyone hated the idea, and rightfully so. It would’ve been a painfully pathetic way to make the film relevant, but also, disco wasn’t topping the charts by 1981. As if Art Stevens’ forcing the story team to scrap Chief’s death wasn’t enough... The Fox and the Hound’s second act is riddled with the contrived revenge (again, due to Chief’s death being nixed), a love story that seems like an eleventh hour inclusion and scenes where Tod meets various critters in the forest such as a grumpy old Badger (voiced by John McIntire) and a kindly porcupine (voiced by John Fiedler). The story ultimately plods until its intense third act climax, where Tod and Copper fight to the death. The fight leads up to an encounter with a massive grizzly bear. Glen Keane turned this sequence into a powerhouse of vicious, wild animation and jaw-dropping staging.

Originally, he had planned to animate it in charcoal, but it would prove to be too costly. At the time, this was the most expensive animated film ever made with a budget of $12 million. Yet it doesn’t suggest the quality. While most of the character animation soars, the art direction feels like a milder version of what we saw in older Disney films set in beautiful forests. It’s still nice to look at, but nothing special. It’s got a very soft look that’s closer to the 1950s Disney films than anything, but nothing elaborate or even innovative. The music is forgettable, with awkward songs like “Lack of Education”, where Big Mama and the two comic relief birds attempt to tell Tod about what might happen to him. “Goodbye May Seem Forever” almost reaches tearjerker level, but it’s minimal and ultimately without much of an effect since it goes by too quickly with a weird arrangement and half-baked harmonies. “A Huntin’ Man” only lasts mere seconds. “Best of Friends” is passable at best, if not for Pearl Bailey’s vocals. “Appreciate the Lady”, also sung by Bailey, is also awkward and too short to be a suitable love song. The score’s odd mix of a cheesy 1980s tone and the overuse of the wailing country harmonica is a bit droning, and it affects a lot of these songs.

The Fox and the Hound should not have had musical numbers, because for the first time, it feels as if the crew added songs for the sake of having them in the film. The story didn’t need to be a musical, instead they could’ve opted for just a few songs that were sung offscreen much like the ones in Dumbo, Bambi and The Rescuers. Given the tone of the original novel, this probably wasn’t a suitable story to tackle at Disney at the time. Walt certainly wouldn’t approach the story this way, he would’ve done it in a similar manner to Bambi with less comic relief, enough innocence so it wouldn’t be cloying, and more drama. The film’s climactic bear fight scene is excellent, and it makes the rest of the film seem so pedestrian in comparison. Had the rest of the film been more like that, and no silly humor, contrived songs or annoying comic relief characters, The Fox and the Hound would essentially be the continuation of the ambition seen in The Rescuers.

For the most part, it has great intentions. If not for the misguided nature of the studio at the time, and if not for Don Bluth’s departure, it could’ve been a great and profound film that would get the widespread critical acclaim its predecessor got and perhaps convinced audiences that animation was an art form for adults. It would be Bambi, but for the 1980s. Sadly, it wasn’t meant to be, though a good chunk of the brilliance is kept. This makes The Fox and the Hound an average effort at best, one that’s severely held back from being something truly special. When released in the summer of 1981, it received mixed reviews. Some critics praised the prejudice themes, the animation and a few other things. Others found fault with the cutesiness and how watered down it was. Nevertheless, it was very successful at the box office, outgrossing The Rescuers. With that, Disney fired up production on The Black Cauldron, the long in development project based on the Lloyd Alexander novels. Meanwhile, Don Bluth Productions was hard at work on an ambitious, dazzling animated feature: The Secret of NIMH...

The Rescuers, like the success of Yellow Submarine and Fantasia in the late 1960s, was almost the start of a new renaissance for the art form. Again, it did not happen. Disney went backwards, as competitors continued to move forward. The late 1970s was also a time when Disney started making very interesting creative decisions, but, we’ll save that part three...

The Dark Age? (Part 1)

The 1970s and 1980s are often regarded as the Disney “Dark Age” and a tough time for animated films in general, but were they really?

Both decades brought ups and downs for the medium, but people tend to focus on the negative aspects more than anything. Some of Disney's weaker films happened to be made during these times, but this isn't exclusive to the 1970s or the 1980s. Disney had their ups and downs during the much-heralded Renaissance, and had several hard times after that faithful period. I want to focus on a particular period, starting after the release of Walt Disney's posthumous The Jungle Book in 1967 and ending in 1986 with the release of Don Bluth's blockbuster animated smash, An American Tail.

While Disney was plugging along, other studios decided to take advantage of the medium like Walt himself did. Animated films were on the brink of losing the adult and teenage audience, and only had to rely on the family audiences to stay alive. While Walt made family films, he never made "children's films". His films appealed to adults as much as children, which is why they were so successful and still are to this day. With Saturday morning cartoons polluting the world of animation, more and more people turned their back on the art form and assumed that it was for children only. The films the studio released contrasted heavily with Disney's output at the time, which was shockingly bland and rote. Let's take a look into what the Mouse House was up to during the late 1960s and early 1970s, what else was around during that time...

~

Disney proved that they were without a clear direction after the death of Walt Disney in 1966 with their next feature. The runaway critical and commercial success of The Jungle Book convinced the studio that animated films could still be profitable and popular in an era of cheap child-oriented Saturday morning cartoons, so the crew began work on a film Walt gave the go-head to, The Aristocats. When the film was released in 1970, it underwhelmed the critics while family audiences flocked to see it. It was another financial success for Disney, and that’s what the suits wanted. The Aristocats essentially takes after The Sword in the Stone and The Jungle Book. It’s a carefree comedy with fun songs, silly situations and wacky characters. The Jungle Book used this tone to its advantage, and the result was an enjoyable film that was full of character. It had no problem in taking liberties with Rudyard Kipling’s books, but it was never tasteless or condescending towards the audience. The Sword in the Stone failed to make this style work, and instead fell flat on its face with an episodic story that had barely any structure, no real conflict or any form of strong drama. It was enough to get Walt to be more involved with The Jungle Book and more critical of story man Bill Peet, who ended up leaving during pre-production of that film.

The Aristocats is an awkward, uneven mix of both films. The conflict is there, but the idea of Madame Adelaide having her cats inherit her fortunes after she passes away is contrived and quite frankly, idiotic. The antagonist, Adelaide's sly butler Edgar, is not much to write home about. After all, it would be silly to not inherit anything while a bunch of cats will, and most likely outlive you. The love story feels like a reheated version of Lady and the Tramp, as the relationship lacks any real chemistry. Duchess (voiced by Eva Gabor) and Thomas O'Malley (voiced by Phil Harris) aren't as appealing as they should be, seeming like stock characters more than anything. The idea of the cats having to get home rings too similar to One Hundred and One Dalmatians. The Aristocats feels like it's on autopilot, trying to use what made those past films work, plus excessive cutesy cliches, and hoping they make for an acceptable diversion. It’s definitely more kid-friendly than what Disney had put out before. It was always one of my favorites growing up, and to this day, I have a sentimental affection for it.

One of the more successful things in The Aristocats are the songs, particularly the big number “Ev’rybody Wants to Be a Cat”, written by Floyd Huddleston and Al Rinkler. This sequence is a real treat, done with such verve, giving the often dull-looking film a splash of much-needed energy. The Aristocats’ visuals leave a lot to be desired, with such a mundane palette and a style that seems to be a regurgitated One Hundred and One Dalmatians, but without the edge or flair that distinguished that film from the other Disney classics. Everything about the visuals are by-the-numbers, passable but nothing spectacular. The Sherman brothers contribute three songs, the opening credits number sung by Maurice Chevalier, the childish and unnecessary "Scales and Arpeggios" and an unused song, "She Never Felt Alone". Why they cut it, I don't know... In the film, it would've worked and established how the cats meant the world to the lonely old widow. Terry Gilkyson's "Thomas O'Malley" is nice and upbeat, and it fits the character as much as "The Bare Necessities" fit Baloo.

Everything else crumbles: The non-existent story, the romance between Duchess and Thomas O’Malley, and the conflict. Even more shocking are its glaring inconsistencies and anachronisms. First of all, Scat Cat’s gang. The film takes place in Paris in 1910, yet one of his friends is a hippie cat with beads and glasses. From there, you can simply tell that the film is not trying to take itself seriously at all. Another friend of his is a Siamese cat, and one that’s a rather unflattering stereotype (“Fortune cookie always wrong!”). A Russian cat and an Italian cat make up the rest of the gang, and they all have great personalities, more so than Duchess and everyone else. Their scene is a highlight, but it’s possibly the only great scene that can be salvaged from the mess. Also, how do they know what jazz is? Jazz wasn't around in France in 1910, instead starting up in New Orleans (unless Scat Cat happened to be in New Orleans first and then somehow got to Paris). It just feels like a cheap excuse to have jazz music in the film, because swing music worked so well in The Jungle Book and certainly payed off. The rest of the narrative is padded out with comic relief and slapstick. Scenes with two geese and their drunken uncle have no point, only taking the cats back to Paris while trying to provide the laughs. When Edgar attempts to dump the cats off in the countryside, he is pursued by two goofy dogs with Southern accents. He loses his hat and umbrella to them, thus we get a lengthy scene where he goes back to their farm and gets back his belongings. These scenes are funny and well-timed, but amidst the sloppy narrative, they are inconsequential.

The Aristocats is ultimately too self-conscious, making for a romp that essentially plunders the last few Disney films in an attempt to lure in the family audiences, and it worked. The Aristocats would not be approved by Walt Disney himself, considering how he felt about The Sword in the Stone. Nonetheless, it was a big success that taught Disney one thing: "Keep making more films, but keep the budget low and don't try anything crazy. Audiences will love it just the same."

When The Aristocats was in production, two animated features made for a potential renaissance. George Dunning’s Yellow Submarine and a re-release of Walt Disney’s Fantasia...

Yellow Submarine, in addition to having a Beatles soundtrack, was a wildly experimental endeavor that mixed different forms of animation to elevate a surrealistic dream-like story where The Beatles travel to the magical land of Pepperland to outwit the music and peace-hating Blue Meanies. The plot was more than just a linking device for the numerous sequences set to the Beatles’ songs. Unlike The Aristocats and Robin Hood, Yellow Submarine’s narrative never felt half-hearted. It’s a tad episodic, but never aimless. At 90 minutes, it was certainly a bit longer than most of the Disney animated films given the song sequences, over fifteen Beatles recordings made the cut and some of them tend to divert from the story itself. Directed and animated with panache and creativity, they combine unpredictable psychedelic flair with an ethereal aura.

“Eleanor Rigby” serves as a tour of a dreary Liverpool full of rotoscoped humans and black-and-white photography that look sorrow and lifeless. George Harrison’s introduction combines filtered live-action footage and several colors while “Love You To”’s prominent sitar captures an Indian background, as Harrison was diving into the world of raga music during production. “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds” is a purely wild psychedelic dance, while “Only a Northern Song” blends the pop art of Peter Max in a sea of confusion. Other sequences such as “All You Need is Love” advance the plot more so, as John Lennon sings it to the Dreadful Flying Glove and defeats it. Others, such as the wickedly wacky and madcap “Hey Bulldog” sequence tend to meander, but the film doesn't need to reach its climax in such a hurry.

Yellow Submarine is not thinking of plot. Delightful characters, abstract art, sharp satire and music are the name of the game. Yellow Submarine feels more in line with one of the Golden Age films, particularly Fantasia. The use of music and artwork to tell a story might not have been new in 1968, but Yellow Submarine reintroduced this concept to general audiences.

The success of the film carried over onto the 1969 re-release of Fantasia, where it was accepted as an art film. Disney marketed it as a head trip film for its 1969 re-release, knowing that it was surefire way to appeal to contemporary audiences. With that, the film finally turned a profit, something Walt unfortunately did not live to see. The success of Yellow Submarine and the re-release of Fantasia kicked off a new era for animation, as the 1970s were dominated with equally interesting and surreal efforts: Bruno Bozzetto’s Allegro non Troppo, Richard Williams’ Raggedy Ann and Andy: A Musical Adventure, Sanrio’s Metamorphoses and several others.

Yellow Submarine showed what heights animation could go to on a visual level, but two films showed what kind of content an animated film could try on: Ralph Bakshi's first two films, Fritz the Cat and Heavy Traffic. Both films used an animation style that was decidedly ugly and gritty, with dashes of unrestrained surrealism. Instead of telling universal stories fit for general audiences, they opted for more modern stories that reflected society. With its gore, sexual content and language, Fritz the Cat became the first animated film to garner an X rating from the MPAA. Its shock value imagery got people talking, but Fritz the Cat was praised for its social commentary and ambitions. Fitting in with the auteur movement of the 1970s, Bakshi's film was a very personal story in a modern setting. It was far removed from the fairy tales and classic stories that dominated the medium for the last few decades. Fritz the Cat wasn't the first "adult-oriented" animated film, but it was unlike anything audiences had ever seen before. In turn, it was an unexpected smash hit, especially for an independent release. His following film, Heavy Traffic, released in 1973, was another critical and commercial success. Both films would start a boom of sorts, of animation with shock value and content only suitable for mature audiences: Down and Dirty Duck, Heavy Metal, King Dick, Rock & Rule in addition to Bakshi's next few films. However, some of these films failed since they only relied on content rather than the story or the brains that made Fritz the Cat and Heavy Traffic successful.

Meanwhile, Disney was content with staying within the boundaries with their next feature, Robin Hood. Going a rather unoriginal route, the entire story was retold with animal characters. Like The Jungle Book, the characters would be heavily modeled after the celebrities who provided the voices, and the film had a rather eclectic cast for a story set in Merry Old England. A good portion of it is American, particularly of the country variety: Roger Miller, Pat Buttram, Andy Devine... Phil Harris portrays Little John, who is a dead ringer for Baloo, the corner-cutting only gets worse from there. The Disney studios were apparently so low on money, that Robin Hood was literally made on a shoestring budget of $1 million. Several scenes recycle animation from previous Disney features and short subjects, I even noticed this when I was young. Disney had been doing this for quite some time before Robin Hood, but the laziness is so rampant here that animator Milt Kahl called the animators “garbagemen”. A scene where King Richard returns to the kingdom was almost finished, but cut at last minute, leaving a huge void in the film’s final act. Sherwood Forest echoes the look of the Hundred Acre Wood more than anything, making for a rather bland-looking presentation of what should be a beautiful, dazzling forest. It’s devoid of any visual pizzazz or sparkle.

Instead of telling the story of Robin Hood in an epic manner, the film instead decides to yet again give us another Jungle Book-style comedy romp. Like The Aristocats, it’s definitely a winner with younger audiences, with its Saturday morning cartoon conventions. At times, it’s very witty and even entertaining as all hell. Like The Sword in the Stone, it’s just a bunch of episodes strung together by a non-existent story that goes nowhere. Then out of the blue, things start to get interesting. There’s an incredible amount of build-up during the film’s third act, as Robin Hood comes up with a clever way to steal all of the gold from Prince John’s bedroom without waking him while Little John frees the imprisoned citizens of Nottingham and saves Friar Truck from being hung. It gets very good, then a big chase occurs, things get exciting. All of it culminates with Robin Hood jumping off the castle and into the moat, surviving some arrows and then Prince John flipping out on his snake assistant, Sir Hiss. What happens next? Surely Prince John, Sir Hiss and the Sheriff all get what’s coming to them, right? No. Instead, Allan-a-Dale, the film’s narrator, tells us that King Richard returned and “straightened everything out”. This conclusion is a gigantic middle finger to the audience, and one can only imagine how it would’ve been had the animators actually completed the sequence where King Richard shows up right after the final battle.

Robin Hood contained the weakest story in a Disney animated film, one that had no direction and had an unsuitable finale. The conflict between Robin Hood and the authorities seemed to be muted in favor of pointless scenes, including those of a young bunny named Skippy and his friends. The archery tournament sequence is a highlight, but again, it feels like a mere episode. The banter between Prince John and Sir Hiss is quite hilarious, as Peter Ustinov turns the tyrant into an absolutely hilarious coward that would make Captain Hook blush. Sir Hiss, voiced by Terry-Thomas, only adds to the fun. The musical numbers are quite catchy, provided by Roger Miller, George Bruns, Floyd Huddleston and Johnny Mercer. The choice of artists certainly was more modern than any other Disney film, obviously to help the film appeal to contemporary family audiences instead of opting for something timeless. Their songs are certainly good, but most of them feel dated. Roger Miller’s “Whistle Stop” is all whistling like the title implies, and his sorrow “Not in Nottingham” feels like a 1960s country song. “The Phony King of England” resembles the bouncy zest and carefree flow of “I Wan’na Be Like You” and “Ev’rybody Wants to Be a Cat”, while also blatantly stealing animation from both scenes. “Love” has no punch, however, with its simple title and generic early 1970s MOR sound. When you think of Disney films, you may think of legendary love ballads like “Bella Note”, “Tale as Old as Time”, “A Whole New World”... “Love” is not one of those.

Don Bluth

New animators were brought into the studio during production of the film, enthusiastic young individuals who would become the next generation of classic Disney animators. One of them, however, wasn’t one of the young animators: Don Bluth. He had worked at Disney during the late 1950s and mid 1960s, only to return in 1971. Excited to be working alongside the Nine Old Men, the giants, Bluth was not impressed with what he was seeing in Robin Hood. He felt that the Disney animated features no longer had any of the charm that defined the classics. Despite what critics, animators or anyone at Disney thought of it, Robin Hood broke records once again and became the highest grossing animated film on initial release and one of Disney’s biggest hits at the time. This proved to Don Bluth that Disney no longer cared about what Walt would’ve wanted, it was all about profits. Plain and simple, Disney had went from the tree of fine family entertainment to an assembly line, just getting by.

Something had to be done at this point...

Part 2...

"The Dark Knight Rises", An Epic Finale

QUICK FLICK REVIEW

The Dark Knight Rises

Directed by Christopher Nolan

Written by Christopher Nolan and Jonathan Nolan

Produced by Emma Thomas, Christopher Nolan and Charles Roven

Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures

Studio: Legendary Pictures / DC Comics / Syncopy Films

HUGE SPOILERS AHEAD
If you haven't seen the film, read no further.

The Dark Knight Rises... The finale to Christopher Nolan's game-changing Batman film trilogy, another huge moment we've all been waiting for...

Nolan already broke new ground with the first film of the trilogy, Batman Begins. A psychological look into the character of Bruce Wayne that mixed darkness, a rooted in reality tone and a story that had no camp, Batman Begins was a new take on what a superhero film could be. The Dark Knight was not only a fantastic sequel, but it functioned as its own film, a tense crime drama with multiple subplots that was held together by Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker. What can be said that hasn't been said about Ledger's performance? Aside from the Joker, character development was everywhere, the story tapped into some post-9/11 themes, and also gave us some incredible action sequences.

Batman Begins was part character study, part origins story. The Dark Knight was an escalating and sometimes chaotic crime drama. What is The Dark Knight Rises? It's an apocalyptic film, one that starts out modest and quiet. Eight years have gone by since Bruce Wayne took the blame for Harvey Dent's actions. Commissioner Gordon continues to keep Dent's actions a secret, as Gotham is in a better state than it ever was under the Dent Act. Wayne lays low, and hasn't gone back to the cape and cowl.

As all this is going on, a new threat to Gotham slowly creeps in while the city is in peace. Bane, played by Tom Hardy (Inception), is an intimidating terrorist who seeks to fulfill the dreams of Ra's al Ghul: Destroy Gotham and restore balance to the world through means of genocide. Bane is a good villain, but he's ultimately Ra's al Ghul Mach II, but he becomes even weaker when we realize that he's a mere pawn for Ra's al Ghul's daughter, Talia al Ghul (played by Marion Cotillard). Still, he's interesting because, physically, he's a huge threat to Batman. He is so powerful that Gotham collapses under his watch, in more ways than it did under The Joker's.

Despite the fact that Batman can't return, he must. Lucius Fox helps convince Wayne that the Batman must come back ("But let me show you some stuff"). Wayne also gets entangled with the sly cat burglar Selina Kyle (played by Anne Hathaway), as the film doesn't refer to her as Catwoman. Sometimes Hathaway's lines can be a bit corny ("Cat got your tongue?"), but the character holds the first act together while also delivering a lighter side to the brooding story.

However, The Dark Knight Rises' first act is not unique. In fact it feels rather derivative of Batman Begins. What made The Dark Knight work so well was that it looked and felt like a different film, it felt like it was its own entity. The story was different, the presence of the Joker and the powerful Hans Zimmer/James Newton Howard score, everything in it distinguished it from Batman Begins. The first act of this film (and it's lengthy at times) has no special vibe to it. It doesn't hurt the film as much, as everything in the first act is well-written. The story takes some time to really chug, which helps and hurts the film. Importantly, we get to know more about Selina Kyle and John Blake (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a cop whose enthusiasm adds more to an unusually lighthearted side of the story.

The Dark Knight Rises makes a complete 180-degree turn when Batman encounters Bane for the first time, a fight which lands Batman in a pit somewhere far away with a broken back. Of course, Bane was famous for breaking the Bat in the comics (the Knightfall story arc), so this scene was certainly one thing most viewers were looking forward to seeing. From there, The Dark Knight Rises takes on an apocalyptic and grim tone that completely blows the first act away. All the lightheartedness brought by Selina and John Blake is drowned in blackness. From there, Bane goes through with his plans and Gotham becomes a bleak nightmare.

Bane really does a number on Gotham, from having multiple buildings and bridges blown up to revealing the truth about Harvey Dent to the people. Criminals run the city, and the police are trapped underground. Batman's return is glorious and epic, from his climb out of the pit to the moment he shows up when Gordon is forced to walk the thin ice of the river surrounding the city. From there, all out chaos ensues. It's a final battle that goes to ridiculous heights (ones I wouldn't expect in a Christopher Nolan film!) yet they are pulled off with great restraint. Batman zooming around the city in a gigantic flying machine (appropriately called "The Bat") while heat-seeking missiles pursue him sounds like something you'd see in a big, mindless summer blockbuster, but here, it works. You feel the excitement, as each missile fails to hit his plane. In terms of action, The Dark Knight Rises thrills without ever going too far. The third act is just action scene after action scene that are both fun and intense.

With all of these great strengths, The Dark Knight Rises still has its faults. Aside from a rather ho-hum first act that's a little too familiar, there are a few problems with the villains. Bane of course, while intimidating and verbally frightening, still isn't as interesting as The Joker or any of the previous villains in the series. Talia al Ghul's reveal is rushed, it almost sucks the brilliance out of the film's climax. Again, everything felt like "the revenge of Ra's al Ghul" more than anything. The Joker was unique, Harvey Dent/Two Face was unique, the Scarecrow was unique. Bane on the other hand, despite having the brains and the brutes, isn't as compelling. What's his real beef with Bruce? Not much. In the comics (from what I understand), Batman represents the demonic bats he had nightmares about. Here, he's just a former League of Shadows extremist who was raised differently with not much to have against Bruce.

Another small problem is his voice. At times, it's genuinely intimidating. When he's raising his voice, it's a little on the hammy side. There was always an issue over his voice. When the film's 6-minute prologue was shown in 70mm IMAX theaters in front of Brad Bird's excellent Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, people complained about his voice being too muffled. People complained they couldn't understand him. Now that the film is out, some people are complaining and prefer the prologue voice. Having only heard the prologue voice, I don't have a problem with either. The voice in the film is good at times, other times it isn't. Had they kept the original voice, there probably would've been times where it sounded awful while at other times, it would sound fine.

What else doesn't work? The pacing is off in the first act, as the film tends to bide its time until the scene where Batman encounters Bane. Other characters such as Wayne Enterprises rival John Daggett and a friend of Selina's named Jenn often feel like they have been shoehorned into the film. Another weakness is the ending, which is now the subject of hot debate. The Dark Knight Rises gives us an ambiguous conclusion. Did Bruce actually survive the explosion? Or was Alfred simply dreaming it? Who knows. This kind of ending worked in Inception, here, it just feels a bit forced. If Nolan wanted to kill off Bruce, he should've just done it. If Nolan wanted Bruce to survive, okay then, let him live.

Flaws and faults aside, The Dark Knight Rises is another addition to the hall of fame for "third films". It's a bit weaker than its predecessors, but it's no doubt a fantastic film with everything that made the first two films work. It was unusual at moments, but it's still enthralling, well-shot and the score by Hans Zimmer does not disappoint. (when does he ever?) It ends Nolan's vision of the caped crusader on a satisfying note.
A-

~

Trailer Recap
This review is a bit late, since I saw this four days ago in "Lie-MAX". (in case you don't know what that is, that's basically the nickname for IMAX Digital, which is still great but it's not the real deal) We got five trailers.

Skyfall - This was a newer trailer, one that was less chaotic. It also opened with "IMAX presents..." Overall, a very good trailer. Looking forward to seeing 007 return. (Opens November 9th)

Resident Evil: Retribution - Like I said in my review of The Amazing Spider-Man, this film looks stupid. Not familiar with the games, but this film just looks like your typical CGI fest. Actually, in 3D, this trailer was somewhat better since this was shot in 3D. Doesn't change the fact that the movie doesn't look good. (Opens September 14th)

Oz: The Great and Powerful - This looks really good. The visuals are very nice and have an Alice in Wonderland vibe to them. Overall, it looks like it'll be worth seeing in theaters. (Opens March 8th)

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Same trailer that I've seen for the past few months. (Opens December 14th)

Man of Steel - This trailer has gotten a lot of mixed reception. I for one didn't really mind it, I actually really liked the final scene in the trailer. Otherwise, it was an alright trailer. I'd be interested to see how Zach Snyder and Christopher Nolan pull it off. (Opens June 14th)

~

Minion Mania

Illumination Entertainment... It's only been two years since they've released their first film in theaters. The three films they've produced all cost much less than what most animated films cost these days, they do very well at the box office and they're backed by incredibly aggressive marketing that pushes cutesy and candy-coated visuals down your throat. Kids love them, big time. Adults and teenagers found joy in Despicable Me, but Hop was for kids and Dr. Seuss' The Lorax was no different than Despicable Me with its paint-by-numbers writing and again, zany antics and visuals. Despicable Me 2 comes out next summer. That will probably be no different as well. What's next?

A Despicable Me spin-off film about the minions...

Slated for release in 2014, this is yet again another safe bet for Illumination. With Despicable Me 2 locked to do extremely well overseas and domestically, it's obvious that the little yellow creatures will be another money pot for the studio. Sure, the minions are cute and they certainly made Despicable Me a lot of fun, but having a whole film about them? That probably won't work well, but Universal and Illumination don't care. The kids will eat it up. Illumination is clearly the candy factory of the feature animation world, pumping out cheap, silly entertainment that aims at children first unlike the Pixar, Disney and DreamWorks films. Even Blue Sky and Sony to some extent.

That said, this will do it's job. Illumination is the most business-oriented studio of all the big guns, and boy do they reel in the dough each time out. The fact that their upcoming films are based on things we grew up with (minus the adaptation of Osamu Tezuka's Pluto, who knows what they'll do with that) or pre-existing source material for children proves this. All three of their films are no different from each other, despite the fact that Despicable Me was at least fresh and fun when it first came out.

Anyways, are you looking forward to a Minions spin-off? Or do you think it's a pointless cash grab?

"Monsters, Inc." 3D Moved Up, "Peabody" Pushed Back

Disney has moved the 3D re-release of Pixar's Monsters, Inc. up a month. Originally slated to open on January 14, 2013, the re-release is now opening on December 19, 2012.

This move is certainly interesting. While it's nice to have the film re-released in time for the holidays, it'll also have to compete with Rise of the Guardians and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Perhaps it could've had more room to breathe in January, but I'm glad we're getting it sooner. It's also coincidental how the film first opened in late 2001, around the same time The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring came out. How time flies...

Yesterday, DreamWorks Animation moved the release date for Mr. Peabody & Sherman back a month. It is set to debut on Christmas Day 2013, which was an incredibly smart decision on DreamWorks' part. The previous date, November 8th, would've been a mistake. The film would be in a whirlpool with Thor: The Dark World, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and Disney's Frozen. It would've had to put up a good fight, so with a Christmas Day release, it has more room to breathe plus it can do well.

What do you think of these release date changes?

Best Animated Short - 1983

In recent entries we have moved into the era where I've had infantile amnesia, and now we're all the way out to the years preceding my birth. That's why these introductions have been less my anecdotes and more an overview of what happened that year. Normally I can come up with a few items off the top of my head, but 1983 is such a non-descript year for me (other than the fact that a couple of my good friends were born this year) that I just can't think of anything. So it's off to Wikipedia I go. Hmm. Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie is arrested in South America. Bjorn Borg retires from tennis. The last episode of M*A*S*H airs to great ratings. The EPA evacuates Times Beach, MO for dioxin contamination. Nintendo's Famicom (short for Family Computer) launches in Japan. Those are interesting news items, I suppose.

Maybe I should stick with the things I know without having to look stuff up: baseball and the Oscars.

Read more »

First Look: "Me and My Shadow"

Looks nice, doesn't it?

Ever since DreamWorks announced this hand-drawn/computer animation hybrid in 2010, I was looking forward to seeing how it would be pulled off. The poster doesn't really show much, but it gives you a good idea of how the shadows will be animated. I'm getting a Paperman vibe from this already, though unlike that short film, it's not a combination of the two mediums. Still, the use of hand-drawn for the shadows will give it a surreal effect in this computer animated setting.

The film opens on March 14, 2014. The first trailer should show up sometime around summer or fall 2013. Out of all the upcoming DreamWorks films, I'm looking forward to this one the most, though the fact that scribes Tom J. Astle and Matt Ember (Failure to Launch, Get Smart) are writing this makes me worry, as I've said before. Having only written two comedy films (one that was a critical dud and one that got mixed reviews), should they've been picked for an animated film like this? They could turn out gold, but I remain skeptical at this point. A potentially bad screenplay could throw everything off.

In other news, DreamWorks acquired Classic Media yesterday for $155 million. Now we'll see what their upcoming slate will look like months from now.

Logo Plastering

When you watch a Disney film released between 1953 and 1984, you are most likely going to see something like this at the beginning of the film:

This would happen to be the logo that was created for Disney's self-distribution company, Buena Vista. It's common because a lot of the classic Disney animated features had this logo before the credits, live action favorites like Mary Poppins do as well. Most home video releases of the Disney films in the 1990s preserved these logos. Some, however, did not.

Before Buena Vista, who distributed Disney's feature-length films? That would be none other than RKO Radio Pictures, with the exception of Victory Through Air Power, which was released by United Artists. Walt Disney had a falling out with RKO over the documentary feature film, The Living Desert. With that, Disney basically started their own distribution company and that was it (though a handful of post-1953 films were distributed by RKO). All re-issues of the pre-Living Desert Disney films would replace the RKO card with the Buena Vista card. This is usually what you saw on the home video releases in the 1980s and 1990s, or you wouldn't see anything at all. In the 1990s, Disney did a good job at restoring most of the logos. When DVD came around, most of the pre-1953 Disney films had the RKO logo restored.

Now that we've moved onto Blu-ray disc, the Disney films have been restored quite well for the most part. There are some exceptions, mostly in the live action department, but most of the Blu-ray releases of the animated classics have been spectacular. However, there are some problems:

Bambi came to Blu-ray for the first time in March 2011 as the fourth "Diamond Edition", the successor to the Platinum Edition series. The restoration was beautiful, but the opening credits of the film were a disappointment. Of course, as Disney fans know, when Bambi was first released in 1942, it originally opened with this:

The original 1989 VHS, Betamax tape and LaserDisc didn't have the logo, just the opening fanfare playing over a black screen. The 1997 LaserDisc has the logo, but the VHS didn't have it, just the black screen with the music. The 2005 Platinum Edition DVD replaced it with a cut-short version of the Walt Disney Pictures castle logo with the theme playing over it. So you'd think the Blu-ray would open with this logo since Disney was restoring the RKO logos for their pre-1953 films since the mid 1990s. It didn't, instead, it opened with a short version of the 2006 Walt Disney Pictures logo in all its modern, CGI glory! How fitting!

Now why would something like this irritate me and several others? Well, as a Disney fanatic, I'd like to see the film presented as close to the original theatrical release version as possible. No, that doesn't mean I'm against digital correction to errors such as the disappearing raccoon (a production mistake for those of you who don't know), it's just that the crisp, clean and modern Disney logo does not mix well with the opening credits or the era the film was released. This is a 1942 film, having it open with this isn't right... Where was the RKO logo? They restored it for the 1997 LaserDisc, why did they leave it off the Blu-ray? Or better yet, the first DVD? No way it's lost. There's got to be a reason.

Aside from that big screw-up, Disney did keep the RKO logo for the Pinocchio Platinum Edition Blu-ray and DVD, the intermission card with the RKO logo for Fantasia, and the RKO logo for the final shot of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Dumbo's Blu-ray keeps the RKO logo as well, since the 2001 and 2006 DVDs had it. That raises a good question though: Will the Blu-ray release of Cinderella (coming October 2nd) restore the RKO logo? Like Bambi, the original LaserDisc and videocassette (VHS and Beta) lacked it. The 1995 LaserDisc had it, while the VHS had the Buena Vista logo instead (used on the film's 1957 theatrical re-issue and onwards). The 2005 DVD, like Bambi's 2005 DVD release, used the abridged Walt Disney Pictures logo instead. Will they use the 2006 Walt Disney Pictures castle for the Blu-ray release instead of the RKO logo? Probably, but we'll know when someone gets their hands on the disc.

However, these screws up aren't limited to the opening title cards on the older Disney films. The newer films have been losing their original logos, too...

When Toy Story and Toy Story 2 were re-released as a double feature in October 2009, both films opened with the current Walt Disney Pictures logo and not the CGI one used for Pixar films up until WALL-E. First of all, I miss the original music from the original logo. Also, the first Toy Story opens up with the Walt Disney Pictures logo fading into Andy's wallpaper. The Pixar logo fading into it just doesn't work. It is presented this way on all the Blu-ray and DVD versions released after this re-release. Will the 3D re-releases of Finding Nemo and Monsters, Inc. open this way? They can't replace the logos for Monsters, Inc. because not only does the film use cut-short versions of the Disney and Pixar logos, but the intro to the jazzy opening song plays over them.

Then came the restored version of Beauty and the Beast for the Diamond Edition Blu-ray in 2010. It opened with the current Walt Disney Pictures logo and the Walt Disney Animation Studios logo. The film originally opened with the 1990 Walt Disney Pictures logo, so why replace it?

Then came the 3D theatrical re-release of The Lion King in September 2011. It opened the same way. Now this was even more jarring, because the original version of The Lion King opened with the 1990 Walt Disney Pictures logo with the sounds of the African savanna used instead of the Walt Disney Pictures fanfare. We only hear a little bit of it for the current version that's on Blu-ray, then onto "Nants Ingonyama!" Seriously, I find that annoying. I loved how the original opened. All nice and quiet when we see the Disney logo, the Frank Wells tribute and "Walt Disney Pictures presents". Why shorten that?

Some other examples of this include Pocahontas and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. On Pocahontas, we heard the drumroll leading up to "Virginia Company", the film's opening song. On Hunchback, we heard the eerie cathedral-esque choir leading up to "The Bells of Notre Dame". Would Disney replace that on the restored versions when they hit Blu-ray? That would just ruin it. Other films like Tarzan have their own custom version of the logo, so they shouldn't replace those either.

Now with all this about logo plastering, let's consider what Walt Disney himself did once Buena Vista was set up. The RKO logo would be replaced with the Buena Vista logo, but they would at least keep the original opening credits music since the logo would only last for mere seconds like the RKO logo did. Now if he were alive today, what would he do about the opening credits? Would he modernize things with using a new logo in place of the Buena Vista/RKO logo? Or would he just leave the film as is?

I'd say leaving the film as is works best. These are timeless films, but I think using the original logos is the best way of presenting these films today on Blu-ray because using a new logo that clashes with the style of the opening credits and music just doesn't look right to me. A lot of folks would agree, too. This is an issue that's often nit-picked, and I myself will admit that Disney changing logos on their films does irk me. Does it irk you? Or do you think it's a non-issue?

That said, for those who are interested, a YouTuber who goes by 8to16to35 has uploaded nearly every RKO and Buena Vista title card, plus custom made variations and other things. They give you a good picture of what logos Disney used over time. These two videos do just that...





Wow, all those different versions of two logos...

Anyways, what do you think? Do you think that Disney should leave these films the way they are and not remove any logos or replace them? Or do you believe that it doesn't matter? I am all ears, this is something that's often talked about among Disney fans and aficionados. It may seem like something minor, but it's actually a big thing among some Disney fanatics.

Max Fleischer's Superman in HD.

Great news for all fans of classic animation! On October 9th, Vivendi is bringing out a the collection of Max Fleischer's classic Superman cartoons on Blu-ray. It'll be the first time these cartoons are presented at the highest quality possible in HD, after all shorts had already received a beautiful digital restoration, made available by Warner (who owns the original movie prints) in 2009 on their 2-disc 'Max Fleischer's Superman' DVD set.

The 17 Superman theatrical cartoons, created by the Fleischer studio were originally released between September 26, 1941 and July 30, 1943. Founded by the brothers Max and Dave Fleischer, their studio was famous for the animated 'Betty Boop' and 'Popeye' cartoons. At the time they started producing the Superman shorts, they had just released their first full length, full-color animated feature, the classic 'Gulliver's Travels'.

Above: the Fleischer studio in 1929 in New York, before the move to their new studio in Miami, that would eventually lead them into financial troubles. Max Fleischer (wearing glasses, hands in his pockets) is standing prominently in the front row. To his right (our left) is his son-in-law and animator Seymour Kneitel, who worked as a storyman on the series and also directed one episode ('Japoteurs'). For more on his life and work check out his daughter's blog.

The first short, titled 'The Mad Scientist' was nominated for an Academy Award in the category 'Best animated short film', along with 'The Night Before Christmas', and 'The Rookie Bear' from MGM, 'Hiawatha's Rabbit Run', and 'Rhapsody in Rivets' (two Merrie Melodies cartoons produced by Leon Schlesinger) and two Disney shorts, 'Truant Officer Donald' and the Pluto cartoon 'Lend a Paw', which won the award. During production of the series,the animated shorts turned Superman into a flying superhero, where he would merely jump from one building to the next in the first episodes and in the orginal comic books, created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster for National Allied Publications (now DC Comics).

After producing nine shorts, while working on their second feature film 'Mr. Bug goes to town' (also known as 'Hoppity goes to town'), the studio got into financial trouble and depended on loans from their distributor Paramount. The unsuccesful release of 'Mr. Bug' on December 9, 1941, (two days before the attack on Pearl Harbor), gave Paramount the opportunity to acquire full ownership of  the Fleischer studio and reorganized it into the 'Famous Studios'.  Max and Dave, who were constantly fighting at that time, were both fired. The last eight Superman shorts were therefore produced under a new lable.

Check out the difference. The first titlecard is from 'The mad scientist', the first Superman short created, the second is from 'Japoteurs' the tenth short from September 16, 1942, created after Paramount had taken control and reorganized the studio under a new name, run by Seymour Kneitel, Izzy Sparber and Sam Buchwald.

Below: last year, Koch entertainment released a fully restored 'Gulliver's travels' in High definition  on Blu-ray (restoration done by Cartoon Crazys), while Disney and Studio Ghibli released 'Mr. Bug Goes to town' on DVD in Japan in 2010, check here for the official site.

The artists working on the Superman series were among the best of the golden age of animation. The team included: Steve Mufatti, Frank Endres, George Germanetti, Myron Waldman, Willard Bowsky, Reuben Grossman, Orestes Calpini, Graham Place, Tom Moore, Arnold Gillespie, Jim Davis, Nicholas Tafuri, William Henning, H.C. Elliston and of course Dave Tendlar and Otto Feuer.

The stories were written Seymour Kneitel and Izzy Sparber, Bill Turner and Ted Pierce, Carl Meyer and Dan Gordon, Jay Morton and Robert Little.

Below (click to enlage): Model sheets from January 1941 from the Fleisher studios. To create realistic body movements and keep all figures anatomically correct, the animators used rotoscoping, a process were live actors would be filmed, and their movements traced afterwards onto paper.

Below is some of the amazing artwork for different titlecards from the various episodes (taken from the restored edition DVD release from 2009, I'll update this asap when I've received the Blu-ray).

Buried Treasures

After the end of the Disney Renaissance, the then-troubled animation studio released two animated features that are similar in many ways: Atlantis: The Lost Empire and Treasure Planet...

Both films were a break away from the Disney formula that had dominated the films the studio released in the 1990s during the much-heralded "Renaissance". However, both of them didn't turn out to be as successful as the studio had hoped. Audiences were tired of the formula, yet one would think these kinds of films would introduce audiences to a different side of Disney, a different direction. The perception is that both of these films bombed at the box office. Critical reception on the other hand was different. Atlantis: The Lost Empire received mixed reviews, whereas Treasure Planet got more positive reception while still not getting unanimous praise. Ask your friends if they have seen them, chances are they’ll just say no or... They’ve never heard of them or don't remember...

There are plenty of Disney animated films that you could call overlooked or underrated. Some say the films released in the 1970s and early 1980s need more attention. Others point to post-Lion King films like The Hunchback of Notre Dame, given hogwash generalizations like "Disney hasn't made a great film since The Lion King..." Atlantis and Treasure Planet, however, are two films that show us the ambitious core of Disney, the story team and animators who wanted to make something that only the animation medium could do...

~

Atlantis: The Lost Empire is a film that’s riddled with story problems and it ultimately shows that the executives had their way with this, as they had had their way with the animated films prior to this. An excellent cast of characters keeps everything afloat, despite the muddled story. The lead is instantly likable, the passionate Milo J. Thatch, who is voiced perfectly by an exuberant Michael J. Fox. A worker in the Smithsonian’s boiler room, he dreams of finding the lost civilization of Atlantis, but everyone he knows writes it off as a myth. His boss, Fenton Q. Harcourt, tries to convince him not to throw away his job chasing silly dreams.

All of a sudden, he’s whisked into a team of explorers from around the world thanks to the eccentric millionaire, Preston B. Whitmore. Whitmore was close friends with Milo’s father Thaddeus, who was also searching for Atlantis. Whitmore gives Thatch the Shepherd’s Journal, the book which could help him. He gets to meet the explorers on the voyage to Atlantis, all of which is told very briskly without ever plodding. It gets off to an incredibly quick start, even the animation and the editing more than show that.

The different explorers accompanying Milo on the journey are all very unique and most of them are hilarious, such as the fast-talking Dr. Joshua Sweet and the absent-minded former wagon train chef, Jebidiah A. Farnsworth, whose nicknamed “Cookie”. There’s also the feisty Puerto Rican mechanic, Audrey Ramirez, who is one of the few that vocally doesn’t take a liking to Milo at first. One of the funniest characters in the group is explosives the Italian expert Vincenzo “Vinny” Santorini, but then there’s the French geologist, Gaeten “Mole” Moliere. He comes off as this very weird character who is obsessed with dirt and fears being clean. However, the writers restrict the character to toilet jokes and they don’t do much with him, thus he pops in and out like an annoying comic relief character. Commander Lyle T. Rourke leads the expedition alongside his second-in-command Helga Sinclair, who is the first of the crew which Milo meets early on in the film.

Their journey to find Atlantis pits them against several perils, the first of which is an encounter with a seemingly mechanic lobster-like monster called the Leviathan. Atlantis: The Lost Empire immediately begins to take off after we are quickly introduced to the characters, as the film doesn’t want to make audiences wait. Well-edited, exciting as all hell and loud, it’s proof that Disney animation can definitely pull off explosive spectacle and rival action-packed summer blockbusters. That’s the only big action set-piece we get until the film’s climactic battle, and once the team gets to the city, the story begins to fall apart.

With these great characters and a strong first act, you’d think the story would only get better. Once they get to Atlantis, we are introduced to the Atlanteans and Princess Kida. Unfortunately, the Atlanteans aren’t very interesting characters and there isn’t much chemistry between Milo and Kida, though the writers try with their might since this film isn’t attempting to be a love story. Then why have a relationship like this in the first place? All it does is waste time, and it never pays off at the end. In fact, the film doesn’t really tells us enough about the Atlantean’s culture and why their misuse of technology sealed their fate, only the first two minutes imply this. Also, why do the Atlanteans not know how to use the power crystals? They’ve been there for how long, and yet someone from above figures it out for all of them?

Some of the writing is very contrived in the second act of the film, which ultimately feels like a setup for the second and final action set-piece, the film’s climactic aerial battle inside a volcano. Rourke and Helga turn out to be mercenaries who are just after riches, and sadly enough, Rourke is not a very convincing antagonist. James Garner’s voice work is excellent, but the character is your typical greedy head honcho who is going for the gold no matter what. It was already unsuccessfully done in Pocahontas, so here it doesn’t work. The villain has undefined motivations, he’s just a greedy man. That’s all.

Give most of the flamboyant and rather generic villains from the 1990s films credit, they at least had some form of motivation. Rourke on the other hand, not so much. He’s a stock antagonist, just looking for riches. The final battle is certainly exciting and intense, but with all of the meatless bones of the second act that came before it, the action scene is ultimately half-hearted. We root for the crew, but the Atlanteans, they just seem like extra help but without any defined personalities. Fortunately, the action scene doesn’t pull any punches. The body count is high, there’s explosions everywhere and Rourke dies a pretty painful death, though we don't see what happens to Helga, we are only told that. Nice move, Disney. They're okay with clearly showing a crystallized man getting chopped up, but they can't show debris falling on someone? Come on...

Atlantis: The Lost Empire really can’t find a direction to go. Early on, its a character-driven film with an action-packed plot. Later on, it’s all about a culture that we don’t really get to know much of, along with a forced romance story. The third act is just pulse-pounding action and a conclusion that feels like an afterthought. The screenplay on the other hand is a bit better, holding everything together like glue as much as it can given the great characters. Early on in production, the film was going to be different. While the writers didn't have a third act before this story was retooled, executives balked at the lengthy project. The second act was loaded with monster battles, but the entire trip to Atlantis is condensed to a few montage scenes of the convoy and the campfire scene. Perhaps if the crew had more time to solve the problems, Atlantis could've had a much stronger story. Disney films had to be completed by a specific release date. If you missed that date, you were in trouble. (See Kingdom of the Sun)

What makes Atlantis: The Lost Empire stick out from most of the Disney films is not that it is an action film as opposed to being a fairy tale or love story, but it also looks much different. The animators and artists were heavily influenced by the artwork of Mike Mignola, and thus the film has a very comic book-like look to with its heavily stylized explosions, art direction and character designs. It certainly didn’t look like a Disney animated film at the time. At the same time, it doesn’t feel like a Disney, not because of the look or the feel. It’s because the film truly lacks heart, or some form of pull. There is some to be found in the film’s first act, particularly with Milo hoping to fulfill his dream. It’s all overshadowed by the second and third acts. When a film can’t decide on what it’s going to be, then you have a big problem.

That said, Atlantis: The Lost Empire is not a big mishap. To its credit, it is very risky. It is a lot more violent than most Disney animated films (it earned a PG), there’s some edgy humor in it that works for the most part, and the film does boast some pretty epic visuals. The characters are wonderful for the most part, but the very flimsy story takes everything into a nose-dive.

Ron Clements and John Musker's Treasure Planet, much like Altantis, is Disney attempting to do something more action-oriented. It has a sci-fi flavored story, lots of action, it aims for the PG rating and it has some incredible visuals. By contrast, it has a much more consistent and defined story, and a believable emotional core. Young Jim Hawkins, despite being a mopey delinquent, is a rather torn character who has daddy issues. Jim Hawkins bonds with John Silver, the rather sketchy cook of the ship that is going to find the much sought-after planet, the RLS Legacy (named after the author of Treasure Island, Robert Louis Stevenson).

At the same time, John Silver is built up as the film’s antagonist, but he has his own battle as he really takes a liking to Jim. Jim is interested in getting to Treasure Planet because he ultimately wants to help his mother, finally trying to make things right by actually putting his life at risk. Joining him is Dr. Delbert Doppler, one of the film’s best characters and one that carefully weaves comic relief into the action epic with fun one liners. Captain Amelia serves as the sly, in control commander of the ship but she’s a rather distant character.

The rest of the cast just isn’t all that much to write home about. Some of John Silver’s baddies (with the exception of the creepy and menacing Scroop) are visually interesting, but there’s not much else to them. B.E.N. is introduced in the later half of the film, a rather loopy robot who is missing his memory piece. This sounds like a potentially interesting character, but everything’s wasted on forced comic relief, as if Doppler wasn’t enough to provide some. Again, the executives are making sure the film panders to children. Another comic relief character, the gelatinous Morph, is also shoe-horned into the story though his playfully mischievous personality does make for some interesting mix ups halfway through the film. Everyone else is just decoration, it’s really the two leads that shine here.

Treasure Planet’s dialogue is either well-written or annoying, with a lot of comic relief that backfires. Most of the time it's just downright awkward. Some of the more “adult” jokes are particularly funny, though there are moments where a simple dialogue scene is just pulled off in such a strange way. It’s a bit of a mess. Unlike Atlantis, there is heart to most of the story and screenplay. The “I’m Still Here” scene is close to being a tearjerker, as it does a fine job establishing why Jim is so angst-ridden.

With its fairly engaging story, Treasure Planet mostly succeeds in the visual department. The look of this film screams “creative”. Taking the story of Treasure Island and setting it in outer space may seem imaginative on paper, but in the film, it’s amazing. The designs of the different planets, the look of the creatures and how everything is done in a steampunk way is just fascinating. Visually, this is one of Disney’s best animated films. It takes an old world look and keeps true to the era Treasure Island was written while making it appear futuristic. It’s an appropriate mix, and one that is loaded with visual imagination at every pore. While some the use of computer animation doesn’t mesh well in some sequence (the floating space whales, for example), the film is still a feast for the eyes.

In the end, Treasure Planet is ultimately superior to Atlantis: The Lost Empire. Both films go against the 1990s Disney grain by trying on the action belt and ditching the musical/big epic story/romance routine. Treasure Planet tries on a much more emotional, character-driven story despite the fact that some of the characters may not be the strongest. Atlantis: The Lost Empire has great ideas early on, but it doesn’t know where to go once it reaches the title city, throwing us around with a bunch of ideas that never reaches a satisfying conclusion. Atlantis on the other hand doesn’t look like a Disney film all that much, whereas Treasure Planet sticks more to the classic Disney character route while taking liberties with it.

Both films proved that the folks at Walt Disney Feature Animation were willing to take risks, even if it meant trouble for the suits. Both films try their might to be fresh and new, with one partially succeeding while the other one is shackled with enormous setbacks. Box office grosses aside (why box office grosses spell bad reputations for a good film is beyond me), these two films shouldn't be forgotten. Sure they have problems and aren't anything near masterpiece-status, but they deserve more.

Atlantis: The Lost Empire - C+
Treasure Planet - B-