Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   May 31, 2013 - 3:03 PM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

His redesign reminds me of crappy "clip-art". Looks like Flash animation as well. The most mind blowing stupid statements from the author of the article, "Finally, a mouse you’ll be pleased to welcome into your home!" and " It’ll be animated in old-fashioned, purposefully retro 2-D". WTF??? So I guess anything 2D is now old fashion and retro. roll eyes

http://family-room.ew.com/2013/03/12/mickey-mouse-cartoon-shorts-disney/

 
 
 Posted:   May 31, 2013 - 3:19 PM   
 By:   manderley   (Member)

......and the trademark on Mickey starts again....this time from 2013. smile

 
 Posted:   May 31, 2013 - 3:20 PM   
 By:   DavidinBerkeley   (Member)

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 - 3:41 PM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

As much as I dislike it, they are only following the trend of tacky, ugly, souless, cold, empty of intellectual thought entertainment. Yes, they are devolving.

 
 
 Posted:   May 31, 2013 - 4:21 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). smile

 
 Posted:   May 31, 2013 - 6:00 PM   
 By:   Dyfrynt   (Member)

His redesign reminds me of crappy "clip-art". Looks like Flash animation as well. The most mind blowing stupid statements from the author of the article, "Finally, a mouse you’ll be pleased to welcome into your home!"

You mean, a mouse you wouldn't mind having a beer with?????

 
 Posted:   May 31, 2013 - 7:00 PM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

@ MusicMaker- I do believe it succeeds in being the kind of emotionless, non challenging, robotic disposable entertainment it is meant to be. A sign of our times.

I find it sad and short sighted however. Mickey Mouse (and all the others) are timeless beloved characters because Disney pushed the envelope in bringing his creations to life.

If this was Mickey Mouse of 70 years ago and had he not evolved into the classic Mickey we know today, he would have been long forgotten. A disposable diversion of its time.

Personally I can't stand Flash animation or the tacky art style here. Flash animation is the equivalent of MS Paint. It's to limited, cheap and mechanical looking. No one looks at an MS Paint drawing and thinks what a work of art. Nor do I think anyone looks at Flash animation and becomes awestruck. (and yes, its Flash animation because its cheap as dirt to produce)

Edit: Disney was once asked why he stopped producing animated shorts. He said because it was becoming to expensive to produce, and he didn't want to lower the quality.

 
 Posted:   May 31, 2013 - 10:41 PM   
 By:   The Mutant   (Member)

You know what's even worse?

The new Mickey Rourke.

 
 Posted:   Jun 1, 2013 - 6:38 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

Anyone know the email address for commenting on Disney shows? I know they read comments because they have pulled things because of occasional complaints regarding their content.

All I can find is this "support@ disneyonlinedotcom". Or do they only rely on Facebook feedback like everyone else nowadays? (Which I don't have an account for)

 
 Posted:   Jun 1, 2013 - 1:16 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 1, 2013 - 2:20 PM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

There's no denying the popularity of MLP. The new Mickey will probably be a hit in today's day and age. But I don't see them or Power Puff Girls, MLP, or any other Flash animation series having ever lasting appeal. They certainly won't have a 85 year run like Mickey.

Traditional Mickey, Little Mermaid, Lion King, etc, those characters will be adored for ages and continue to bring in revenue for Disney.

Even something as current as Kim Possible is passe and forgotten already. Though I think that was animated the traditional way, but the shallowness of the characters and stories guarantees it's fad status. Fish Hooks and Gravity Falls? Junk food for the kiddies.

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. confused

 
 Posted:   Jun 18, 2013 - 10:33 PM   
 By:   Senn555   (Member)

It has come to my attention that the director and executive producer of these 19 new cartoon shorts is none other than Paul Rudish - an animator who worked on such shows that I previously mentioned as Powerpuff Girls, Dexter's Laboratory, Samurai Jack, as well as Star Wars: The Clone Wars. He also did some design work for MLP:FiM for Lauren Faust, and she personally vouches for Paul:

https://twitter.com/Fyre_flye/status/346707642976182272
http://www.ponychan.net/chan/arch/res/2519770.html#i2520789

http://blogs.indiewire.com/animationscoop/new-mickey-mouse-shorts


This fact makes me all the more enthusiastic that these shorts will be quite enjoyable, regardless of the negativity/pessimistic disease that seems to have plagued FSM lately. At least reactions elsewhere on the internet are positive, for the most part:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=523011

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Rudish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Mouse_%282013_TV_series%29

 
 Posted:   Jun 19, 2013 - 3:48 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

Based on the "talent" involved I'm even more convinced this will be senseless crap. But I did also say it will probably be a hit. Ugly art design and mindless action is "kool".

 
 
 Posted:   Jun 19, 2013 - 3:52 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. confused


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 - 4:07 AM   
 By:   solium   (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.

 
 Posted:   Jun 19, 2013 - 1:02 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 19, 2013 - 1:37 PM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

Well we are talking semantics then. Of course productions over lap. Warner, Disney, etc. There's script writing, story boarding, layout, animation, music, etc. At the end of the day if they produce 26 episodes in 12 months that would be believable.

 
 Posted:   Jun 28, 2013 - 6:26 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?

 
 Posted:   Jun 29, 2013 - 3:39 PM   
 By:   Justin Boggan   (Member)

Naked and trying to hide places? They did this in "tiny Toons":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPlR9PnJ7L0

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.