Rant Alert: So disappointed to see the "new" Mickey in Mickey's Mix Magic

[Keetchino]

I like the *content* of the new shorts, I think they are funny, but I do NOT like the new animation style...... I think how Donald is drawn is the most tolerable out of them but Goofy just looks grotesque, I hate how he looks! I can't imagine getting my kid a stuffed Goofy to hold and hug that looks like *that*

 

[sherilaine]

It's not change itself I have an issue with, for me, it's the quality of change. I am glad some people like it. I don't, and I'm taking comfort in the fact that I'm not alone here. I don't think that means I'm not okay with change in general.

My comment was not directed to one person on this thread - it was just a take away in general. I notice often that a gut reaction here to something is often softened over time, as people get used to something such as the uproar when ToT became GOTG - and look at the lines for it or the whole Bugs Land being decommissioned and turned into some marvel attractions, which I am sure will be hugely popular and the whole Hyperspace Mountain change - so not just this one thing, often it seems Disney is sacred and that makes it different.

In the end it's just a drawing - and like any art form - it's boils down to the person.

 

[Kender]

That is what I meant - no one can know what a dead man would think about something.

I am honestly surprised as the issues so many are having - change can be a four letter word for people though...especially as we get older.

Agreed that no one can know for sure what he would have thought. We can all speculate, but no one will ever know who's correct.

What monorailrabbit said sums up my thoughts, thought: it's not about the change. It's the quality of the change. That's not to say there aren't some that might be upset at change because it's change, but that there are some of us (and I would venture a guess most if not all in this thread) that our dislike stems from not feeling the change offers a true evolution forward.

Or, put another way, change for change's sake. That's a big reason I stopped reading Expanded Universe books years ago. They started having big, traumatic events (some not even handled well) with the excuse that they had gotten too predictable and wanted to shake things up.

I think it's great some like it. I don't fault them at all. But I just find the style not my thing.

 

[Christin82]

My comment was not directed to one person on this thread - it was just a take away in general. I notice often that a gut reaction here to something is often softened over time, as people get used to something such as the uproar when ToT became GOTG - and look at the lines for it or the whole Bugs Land being decommissioned and turned into some marvel attractions, which I am sure will be hugely popular and the whole Hyperspace Mountain change - so not just this one thing, often it seems Disney is sacred and that makes it different.

In the end it's just a drawing - and like any art form - it's boils down to the person.

I understand what you meant. ToT and GotG is a great example. I am one of the people who didn’t like the idea of changing ToT because it was a favorite of mine, and I thought it fit better with the theming of the park overall. The thinking behind the change made sense, though, because the younger generation has much more of an affinity for Marvel than they ever could for The Twilight Zone, a show that’s only remembered by the older generations. I also didn’t like it when I heard that they were going to replace Peter Pan and Captain Hook with Pirates of the Caribbean in Fantasmic. I had so many positive childhood associations with Peter Pan! Having our childhood favorites replaced is sort of painful for some reason, because part of us wants to preserve the park in a way that fits with our childhood memories of the place. I don’t want to see Disney gradually phase out some of the classics in favor of Pixar, Star Wars, Marvel, and Disney Jr, but it may happen somewhat, for good reason, as time goes on. They have to showcase and reflect what the kids of today want in order to stay relevant. I think it’s a good thing that they’re doing the new, live-action versions of all the classic Disney films now so that they can introduce them to the kids and keep them relevant.

 

[katyringo]

Maybe I missed this but comments on fresh baked vlog of the show say that rumors say this show is going to be around for a year!! What?!! I think it’s a cute show but for something that could possibly we around for that long I wish it was longer, and better...

 

[ParkHoppers]

I see a big step back in quality from the new Mickey compared to past Mickey animation. The new animation looks much easier to create and pump out which IMO shouldn’t be the Disney way. Use the same quality as the animated feature films in your television series and then you have something. Feel free to go with more modern content but don’t turn Mickey cartoons into something like REN and STIMPY or other all content no quality animation shows. Disney should be better than that. They always took their animation very seriously as being the best in the past. Not sure what the new thinking is on this choice is......

 

[LilyJC]

This is an example why I will wait til I see it in person to make a judgement. I don't know if I will have time next rtip to do it, but in APril, we will try it.

Exactly this. To be perfectly honest I wasn't even interested in watching the previews/seeing pictures as only experiencing it in person will do it justice. We made it over last night and were pleasantly surprised! We thought it was so adorable and a ton of fun. Walt created Disneyland to be a place for enjoyment and creating memories with family. We loved it, and probably enjoyed seeing other guests' reactions even more! Just my .02 though!

Oh, and for those that are creeped out by the new Goofy...avoid walking by the former ESPN Zone building as there is a life-size mural (along with other characters).

 

[midnight star]

This is an example why I will wait til I see it in person to make a judgement. I don't know if I will have time next rtip to do it, but in APril, we will try it.

I saw bits of it last night. We didn't have the fireworks b/c I guess it was too windy. But I thought it was cute. I didn't look that hard at the details, but the music was pretty fun.

 

[Keyframer30]

View attachment 377376

I see a big step back in quality from the new Mickey compared to past Mickey animation. The new animation looks much easier to create and pump out which IMO shouldn’t be the Disney way. Use the same quality as the animated feature films in your television series and then you have something. Feel free to go with more modern content but don’t turn Mickey cartoons into something like REN and STIMPY or other all content no quality animation shows. Disney should be better than that. They always took their animation very seriously as being the best in the past. Not sure what the new thinking is on this choice is......

First off, I also do not like the new style...I agree it's very "Ren and Stimpy".

While the new style may look easier to create, it's not. It's simply done differently. 2D these days is not really 2D in the traditional sense. Back in the days up until the early 2000-ish 2D Animation was done traditionally (drawn on paper). Now, most 2D you see is done on the computer...usually on software called Harmony. Harmony likely is used on the new Mickey cartoons as well as stuff like The Lion Guard and Jake and The Neverland Pirates as it's all done at Mercury Filmworks in Ottawa (likely by Sheridan grads). It's still hand drawn...but now it's much easier to keep characters on model. But that doesn't mean it's easier to do shows. With it comes it's own set of challenges.

What I am trying to get at is that if you don't like the new animated shorts...it's not because they are poor quality/easier to make...the animation is actually quite good! It's all about the creative direction. The Creative Directors and Art Directors are the ones that made the call and green lit this look and style their teams developed. The snappy, pose-to-pose style with drawn smear frames, exaggerated movement and takes is a creative choice (and very simular in style to The Emporor's New Groove). The flattened character and environment design/inked with a thick marker look ala Ren and Stimpy is what I personally feel is not suited for Mickey and friends but Animators and BG Artists simply follow the storyboards/layout and direction given to them.

As for putting out TV animation that is the same quality as the feature films. That will never happen. Episodics are funded and driven by revenue streams from advertisers and need to fit into pre-set broadcast schedules. New shows need to get out so viewership/interest is maintained = commercials being seen = buy our products. Animators are given weekly quotas...for a show like this...I would say in the 30 sec/week range. So you have to get it to the expected aesthetic and quality on the first pass and only a little time to polish any given shot you are working on. While I wouldn't say this is rushed...you simply don't have the time for trial and error like on a Feature. When I was animating on a feature film, my weekly quota was 4 to 8 sec/week depending on complexity. They give you the time to polish in Feature. Not on TV.

Sorry if I sound defensive...as an Animator I wanted to explain why a show looks the way it looks...and in this case, it's not because it's rushed out the door.

 

[BrianL]

What I am trying to get at is that if you don't like the new animated shorts...it's not because they are poor quality/easier to make...the animation is actually quite good! It's all about the creative direction.

Thank you for saying this. It really wasn't done because it was cheap. Disney usually spends a good deal on their television animation, though certainly not as much as their theatrical stuff. People are certainly free to like it or not, but that doesn't mean it wasn't made with quality.

Personally, I can't stand the look of that new Spider-Man movie. I know though that they did not "cheap out" on it. It strikes the wrong chord for me, but some people worked very hard to deliver a movie that would have a unique look. I may think that they missed the mark, but that opinion seems to be in the vast minority.

 

[ParkHoppers]

First off, I also do not like the new style...I agree it's very "Ren and Stimpy".

While the new style may look easier to create, it's not. It's simply done differently. 2D these days is not really 2D in the traditional sense. Back in the days up until the early 2000-ish 2D Animation was done traditionally (drawn on paper). Now, most 2D you see is done on the computer...usually on software called Harmony. Harmony likely is used on the new Mickey cartoons as well as stuff like The Lion Guard and Jake and The Neverland Pirates as it's all done at Mercury Filmworks in Ottawa (likely by Sheridan grads). It's still hand drawn...but now it's much easier to keep characters on model. But that doesn't mean it's easier to do shows. With it comes it's own set of challenges.

What I am trying to get at is that if you don't like the new animated shorts...it's not because they are poor quality/easier to make...the animation is actually quite good! It's all about the creative direction. The Creative Directors and Art Directors are the ones that made the call and green lit this look and style their teams developed. The snappy, pose-to-pose style with drawn smear frames, exaggerated movement and takes is a creative choice (and very simular in style to The Emporor's New Groove). The flattened character and environment design/inked with a thick marker look ala Ren and Stimpy is what I personally feel is not suited for Mickey and friends but Animators and BG Artists simply follow the storyboards/layout and direction given to them.

As for putting out animation that is the same quality as the feature films. That will never happen. Episodics are funded and driven by revenue streams from advertisers and need to fit into pre-set broadcast schedules. New shows need to get out so viewership/interest is maintained = commercials being seen = buy our products. Animators are given weekly quotas...for a show like this...I would say in the 30 sec/week range. So you have to get it to the expected aesthetic and quality on the first pass and only a little time to polish any given shot you are working on. While I wouldn't say this is rushed...you simply don't have the time for trial and error like on a Feature. When I was animating on a feature film, my weekly quota was 4 to 8 sec/week depending on complexity. They give you the time to polish in Feature. Not on TV.

Sorry if I sound defensive...as an Animator I wanted to explain why a show looks the way it looks...and in this case, it's not because it's rushed out the door.

You don’t sound defensive but I am not blaming the animators. They are just doing what they are told to do. I blame Disney. I don’t have to be an animator to see the difference in quality. And there was a time where Disney’s shorts where the same quality as their feature films. And Disney did the shorts by themselves not outsourced to Ottawa or someplace. It matters IMO. Disney chooses to spend less on these cartoons. They don’t have to do this but it saves them money so they do. I understand that the way things work today the time to polish TV is not given but that is a choice that saves Disney money. There was a point when every animation Disney put out was polished. That was their belief. Just because they choose not to polish doesn’t means they shouldn’t polish all animation they put out. I mean they used to be that way so why is my complaint not valid?

 

[Keyframer30]

You don’t sound defensive but I am not blaming the animators. They are just doing what they are told to do. I blame Disney. I don’t have to be an animator to see the difference in quality. And there was a time where Disney’s shorts where the same quality as their feature films. And Disney did the shorts by themselves not outsourced to Ottawa or someplace. It matters IMO. Disney chooses to spend less on these cartoons. They don’t have to do this but it saves them money so they do. I understand that the way things work today the time to polish TV is not given but that is a choice that saves Disney money. There was a point when every animation Disney put out was polished. That was their belief. Just because they choose not to polish doesn’t means they shouldn’t polish all animation they put out. I mean they used to be that way so why is my complaint not valid?

Hey Parkhoppers,

I think your complaint is valid and I wholeheartedly agree that any animation put out should be polished...but I am not seeing what you are seeing in the work. I am looking at the Mickey shorts and the animation is pretty good IMO. It meets the atheistic (snappy squash and stretch) it's trying to achieve...the motion meets the 12 principles of animation...the timing and spacing looks good so I don't agree with the quality of animation not being that good. I am wondering if your dislike of the character design or the aesthetic look of the show is what you mean when you say the quality is poor? Because for me, that is what I dislike. I feel the characters look ragged and drugged out. There is no appeal to the design. Or perhaps you are not a fan of pose-to-pose snappy squash and stretch? I myself like snappy pose-to-pose squash and stretch but I feel it is more the domain of WB's characters...like Animaniacs. When applied to Mickey...they seem too hyper and out of character...even for Goofy.

Now, I apologize if it seems like I am zeroing in on semantics

 

[ParkHoppers]

Hey Parkhoppers,

I think your complaint it valid and I wholeheartedly agree that any animation put out should be polished...but I am not seeing what you are seeing in the work. I am looking at the Mickey shorts and the animation is pretty good. It meets the atheistic (snappy squash and stretch) it's trying to achieve...the motion meets the 12 principles of animation...so I don't agree with the quality of animation not being that good. I am wondering if your dislike of the character design or the aesthetic look of the show is what you mean when you say the quality is poor? Because for me, that is what I dislike. Or perhaps you are not a fan of snappy squash and stretch?

Now, I apologize if it seems like I am zeroing in on semantics

Something that is not polished can not be as good as something that is polished. Disney used to polish ALL of its animation. Now it doesn’t. No I am not a huge fan of snappy,squash and stretch. Since it is done faster than a fully polished animation it is obviously less quality IMO. I,m of the mind to take the time to polish. If you choose not to take the time to polish and more importantly save money in the process I just don’t know how you can say the quality is the same. It’s not. By choice. It is two things. I don’t like the aesthetic or the less polished look. Disney could have chosen a better aesthetic AND fully polished the end result like they used to do. There are excuses why things are the way they are and things are the way they are. I don’t care as much why all of Disney’s animation isn’t polished I just care that all it’s animation isn’t polished. And it used to be. So how is that not going backwards in the quality Disney is willing to release.

 

[Keyframer30]

Something that is not polished can not be as good as something that is polished. Disney used to polish ALL of its animation. Now it doesn’t. No I am not a huge fan of snappy,squash and stretch. Since it is done faster than a fully polished animation it is obviously less quality IMO. I,m of the mind to take the time to polish. If you choose not to take the time to polish and more importantly save money in the process I just don’t know how you can say the quality is the same. It’s not. By choice. It is two things. I don’t like the aesthetic or the less polished look. Disney could have chosen a better aesthetic AND fully polished the end result like they used to do. There are excuses why things are the way they are and things are the way they are. I don’t care as much why all of Disney’s animation isn’t polished I just care that all it’s animation isn’t polished. And it used to be. So how is that not going backwards in the quality Disney is willing to release.

Hey Parkhoppers,

Snappy Squash and Stretch is a style, not a cost effective way of creating animation...otherwise every TV cartoon would be doing that style. It takes just as much effort to do it as say the Glen Keane style of animation used in Little Mermaid or Tangled (gentle use of squash and stretch) or the heavy reference/realistic style that is used in Frozen. If you look at the Hotel Transylvania films that Sony puts out or the Madagascar films by DWA...that is snappy squash and stretch. It kinda takes more time for snappy squash and stretch as you have to key it all by hand as shooting reference can't be done cause the movements are so fast and exaggerated...

So while I agree, back in the Golden Age of Disney animation, all of it was polished, and now not all of it is...but there is a difference between the style of animation and quality. But specifically on the Mickey Mouse Show, it seems what you don't like is what the show is doing on purpose...but, is the animation as polished as it could be? No, it's a TV show afterall. Is it poor quality, well, I guess that is where we disagree

 

[ParkHoppers]

Hey Parkhoppers,

Snappy Squash and Stretch is a style, not a cost effective way of creating animation...otherwise every TV cartoon would be doing that style. It takes just as much effort to do it as say the Glen Keane style of animation used in Little Mermaid or Tangled (gentle use of squash and stretch) or the heavy reference/realistic style that is used in Frozen. If you look at the Hotel Transylvania films that Sony puts out or the Madagascar films by DWA...that is snappy squash and stretch. It kinda takes more time for snappy squash and stretch as you have to key it all by hand as shooting reference can't be done cause the movements are so fast and exaggerated...

So while I agree, back in the Golden Age of Disney animation, all of it was polished, and now not all of it is...but there is a difference between the style of animation and quality. But specifically on the Mickey Mouse Show, it seems what you don't like is what the show is doing on purpose...but, is the animation as polished as it could be? No, it's a TV show afterall. Is it poor quality, well, I guess that is where we disagree

The style of the new Mickey show I don’t like. Let’s take that out of the equation. On the new Mickey show I see less color palettes, less shading and less attention to backgrounds. Oh and it’s not polished. You using Frozen was not a good example IMO as the quality is A+. How can you say the new Mickey cartoon is the same quality as a Frozen when it is missing the things I mentioned above. Color palette,shading,backgrounds and polishing. You will say that is just the style choice but I see a lot of work left undone. Hence less work equals less quality to me. Even Transylvania and Madagascar have a lot more detail work than the new Mickey stuff. So you are trying to say that less detail and less time polishing can be equal in quality to something with high detail and polishing. Don’t think so.

 

[Keyframer30]

Parkhopper,

Ahhh...I see what you are saying and this is where the misunderstanding is. I am speaking only to character animation. Character animation is just the motion of the characters. Movement. Lipsync. Expressions. This is all that we Animators control. Color palettes, that is the domain of the Concept Artists and Look Development. Shading is the domain of Lighting Artists. Backgrounds is the domain of Environment Artists. How a character looks? Character modelers and Concept artists.

What I am talking specifically about is just the animation. The motion style used in the the show and motion only. How they move regardless of what color they are, what light they are in. You are referring to the look of the show overall...which I said in my original post is the control of the Creative Director and Art Directors. What I have been trying to say is that while I don't like the look/asthetic of the show, the animation itself is not bad quality.

 

[ParkHoppers]

The overall package is all that matters when you watch something. And it looks thrown together overall. Great character animation means very little if everything else is not up to par. The best total package used to be the Disney way.

 

[Keyframer30]

On that point I agree. It does look thrown together. While I know it wasn't...the final output of the show is unappealing to me.

 

[SOCALMouseMommy]

Parkhopper,

Ahhh...I see what you are saying and this is where the misunderstanding is. I am speaking only to character animation. Character animation is just the motion of the characters. Movement. Lipsync. Expressions. This is all that we Animators control. Color palettes, that is the domain of the Concept Artists and Look Development. Shading is the domain of Lighting Artists. Backgrounds is the domain of Environment Artists. How a character looks? Character modelers and Concept artists.

What I am talking specifically about is just the animation. The motion style used in the the show and motion only. How they move regardless of what color they are, what light they are in. You are referring to the look of the show overall...which I said in my original post is the control of the Creative Director and Art Directors. What I have been trying to say is that while I don't like the look/asthetic of the show, the animation itself is not bad quality.

Your perspective is so interesting to me as someone who knows nothing about animation. Thank you for sharing!

 

[ParkHoppers]

Your perspective is so interesting to me as someone who knows nothing about animation. Thank you for sharing!

Agreed. I learned a lot about the newer processes in animation