 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They spend kabillions making him more baby-like over time, then turn him back into some 1920's proto-rat. Weird.
Disney is getting more in-bred, for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 31, 2013 - 5:21 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
MusicMaker
(Member)
|
Here are my thoughts/reactions, based on one viewing of the "Triomphe de Croissant" short.
1. I am fine with the retro look of Mickey and the other characters, as well as the art style of Paris (and vehicles, and citizens, etc.). It hearkens back to earlier stages of Mickey, and as this is airing on Disney Channel and on the internet and is NOT "definitive," I have no problem with kids seeing a more "retro" Mickey alongside all the other Mickey styles out there.
2. I agree that the animation seems very (entirely?) done on computer, and I'd even go so far as to agree that it indeed looks like Flash-based animation. Facial expressions, mouth/speech shapes and transitions, static bodies with moving parts (hands moving while bodies are statues, etc.), and so on. While I like the look of each/every individual frame of the cartoon, I am not a fan of the actual animation. Nothing organic or detailed here. I suspect that the computer(?) animation was chosen as it is much cheaper/faster than thousands of hand-drawn frames (which would bring more animation to life).
3. This is almost a Looney Toons or Tom & Jerry cartoon in terms of action and pacing. Lots of zany action, violent events (crashes, collisions, explosions, flying, chasing, etc.), and such. I miss the good ol' Disney cartoons like "Mickey's Polo Ground," or "Building a Building," or "Through the Looking Glass," or "Clock Cleaners," and so on. Those have plenty of humor too, but aren't quite so wild and "frying-pan-in-the-face" as this latest cartoon.
4. I liked that the cartoon was in French with no subtitles. Very cool, and for multiple reasons. I speak French (poorly), but I think people with no French exposure at all will still completely follow the storyline.
Overall: Good story (though I'd like a little less craziness/action), with good art styling and scene illustration, but very poor/cheap animation from frame to frame. Could have been wonderfully charming, but instead is just "OK." I suppose I should just be happy that at least they're making actual Mickey Mouse shorts again- I think it's been decades since the last ones.
So there you go. This "expert" opinion is probably worth what you paid for it (i.e. nothing). 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 1, 2013 - 2:16 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Senn555
(Member)
|
On the contrary, I think flash animation has served its purpose well in creating great TV shows such as My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, Littlest Pet Shop, Dan Vs., and Pound Puppies. Certainly the majority of the people I know who have watched these shows all agree that the animation is fantastic, and that it takes a tremendous amount of effort to produce. Doing one 22-minute flash animated episode takes about a year to make from start to finish, and when DHX Media is working on two (or even three) seasons of TV shows at a time, with every season having 26 episodes, it's a lot of work.
(and correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't a lot of Cartoon Network shows made using flash? Ed Edd n Eddy, Powerpuff Girls, Samurai Jack, Dexter's Laboratory, Foster's Home... all adored by animation fans)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 19, 2013 - 4:52 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Joe E.
(Member)
|
You must have "misspoken" regarding the time it takes to make a 22 minute Flash animation episode.
If it took a year, then it would take them 26 years to complete one season. 
No, I believe that's accurate. Of course, at any given time the production crew is working on numerous different episodes simultaneously, each in a slightly different stage of production. This can be true of live-action TV as well (one episode in story discussions, one in preproduction design, one in production, one in editing, etc.), but because of the long production times in animation, there tend to be far more episodes in progress at once than with live-action series.
_____________
I don't find anything inherently "soulless" about Flash animation. It's all still up to real human beings in the end; Flash and other such tools are just, well, tools - ones that enable actual human beings to get more done, more quickly, but the character movements are still ultimately the product of human toil.
And I think this is a great-looking version of Mickey, and no, it's not meant to be "the" new Mickey for all time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 19, 2013 - 2:02 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Senn555
(Member)
|
But keep in mind Warner Bros. animators could punch out a 10 minute short in three months in the 40's and 50's. That's fluid hand drawn animation. Hand inked and painted cels. Filmed one cel at a time. Including a real orchestra score. Dailies that had to go thru a printer before the pencil animation could even be checked. If it takes them that long with Flash or Toon Boom or what ever they are using, something is terribly wrong.
Is that three months if they're working solely on that one specific short, or three months if they're working on that short *and* maybe a dozen others all at the same time?
I can't speak for the new Mickey shorts, but I at least know the way DHX produces a full 26-episode season of animation, each episode 22 minutes each (for 572 minutes of animation, or roughly nine and a half hours), is that they can be working on at least a dozen episodes at once, all in different stages of production. Episode 1 could be in audio post-production while another episode at least halfway down the season is in the writing stage. And that's just for one series - DHX does work for two or three different shows all at once.
It takes roughly a full year (from conception to finished product) to produce one 22-minute animated episode at DHX, sure, but that's because their time and attention isn't focused solely on one episode, but on several dozen. How about Pixar, or 20th Century Fox animation, for taking two, three, or four years to produce one movie? Is something terribly wrong if they're investing that much time and effort into it, to ensure they're delivering a quality product as opposed to a sloppy rush job? I can bet they take that long because they work on more than one movie at once.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 28, 2013 - 7:26 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
Alright the new short premiered. To give it a fair chance I watched it.
Needless to say the characters are butt ugly. But that aside here is the story:
Mickey and Donald want to order lunch. But there's a "no pants, no shoes, no entry allowed sign. Donald has no pants and Mickey no shirt. After a squabble, Donald takes Mickeys shorts. This leaves Mickey "naked".
Seeing Minnie Mouse approaching, Mickey try's to hide, embarrassed he is "naked" in public. He runs off, with the word, "STREAK", superimposed over his smoke trail. He spent the rest of the short trying to hide behind things only to be foiled time and again. For example he tries to hide behind a fire hydrant, but a dog PEES on it! So Mickey runs off again. Of course Mickey eventually gets his pants back before Minnie sees him.
So this is not total garbage? Is this Disney or a Ralph Bakshi cartoon?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
