Mickey's Twice Upon a Christmas - Images

Got this link from CG Talk: http://www.animated-news.com/archives/00002073.html

Looks like Disney is going full CG with all their characters from now on.

Now, they look good, but I am a traditionalist when it comes to classic charactewrs like these guys. I think they should still be 2D and done the “old fashioned way”. CG has it’s place and I fully understand the trend towards using it as an animation medium, but this is getting out of hand.

What do you all think?


I wouldn’t mind if they could do better quality - I could make that stuff.

It definately wasn’t a good idea to ditch Pixar.

its just… wierd.
seeing a 2d character take some 3d form…wierd… :-?

Now I know a move I won’t be seeing.

Man, DisneyLand would really freak you out.

Man, DisneyLand would really freak you out.[/quote]

Yeah, it will. I have always been scared of people dressed up like that, and my previous scares were tiny compared to seeing Mickey.

a few years ago, i worked for Disney Interactive. one of the games that I worked on was a 3D Pooh adventure, and another was a 3D Mickey adventure.

One of the things we had to pay particular attention to was Mickey’s ears. No matter what angle Mickey is drawn in 2D, his ears always face the viewer, and have a certain amound of separation. I basically had to come up with a way to do this programatically in 3D, but the result was worth it, because there was something subtly “traditional” about the way Mickey looked in the game.

From the screenshots of this movie, it looks like they threw that convention completely out the window, so that there is something subtly “wrong” in the result.

Look at his ears: if you’re really familliar with Mickey, you’ll see what I mean.

Disney World has 3D characters going around the parks because you can’t fit someone into a 2D constume unless they were pitch flat. The disney characters I think do look better in their old fashioned 2D form.

And SevenString, you really worked for disney, neat.

And that may not be of pixar quality, but it’s conventional for CG movies.

I’m not going to pretend I didn’t already know that, it was a joke.

No it isn’t, it may have been conventional 5 years ago but it isn’t now. Not for Pixar, not for IL&M, only for quickie television shows or poorly funded movies. There is no texture and the materials just don’t look right. Besides, what would you call a conventional CG movie? Anything but Pixar? If so, why?

I wonder why they didn’t just try to achieve the traditional look with cell shading?

Micky in cartoon form didn’t have that much cartoon texture either, they probably did it to make it look very…toonish styled.

I just wish they would have made it cell-shaded or not bothered with 3d at all (unless they intended to do it with effort… which they didn’t).


Unfortunately studies has shown that unless the tv/movie-audience
is a bunch of CG-nerds (like us)…noone really cares.

It’s true…

We had a Danish full-feature CG movie over here in Denmark
that was so badly animated and …“low-budget” designed that
you’d probably go into permanent coma if you saw it.


It was funny - entertaining …and the average “Joe” loved it.
Heck…even I loved it, I actually forgot about the “bad CG”
after 10 minutes…simply because the movie itself was hilarious.


My guess is that Disney does this because they don’t have to
do better…meaning they can produce MORE movies and spend
LESS MONEY on each production…because the average “Joe”
don’t care anyway.

For us that loves CG-graphics…it’s bad news, but if it’s any
comfort…software will get easier to use and create works with
and the quality & speed will increase…as it is today…it’s
still somewhat cumbersome (especially rigging on complex characters)
so it won’t be like this all the time…

Just make sure you (and all you others) have Quality in mind
when you work with Blender and other software…that will
of course contribute to the future generation of CG’ers (YOU!)

well, I didn’t like it when they started using computers for the 2d… I liked the goold old stuff, where you could see the hand drawn lines… like Jungle book etc…

but who cares. these are for kids. and I know, my kids will not mind. they like it, as long as it’s good story, fun and fast action. they dont really understand the difference.
my younger kid was happily watching one video before I came in and asked “why there are no colors?” and he asked “what do you mean?” and I checked the vcr, and noticed they had flipped the switch from PAL to NTSC, that made the colors go away… and turned it back, and colors came, and I asked “so… better, eh?” and they were just “mm… I dont know… whatever”…




LOL! (ROTFL!) You made my day. Thanks.

The sad truth is that since Disney shut down some of their 2d animation houses, they have injured their animation capabilities so badly they can’t do a 2d Mickey cartoon. Disney used to keep certain animators that could draw their core charaters in a way that is visually consistant with their established style. Oops! Disney fired those people.

Last year the animation dept (what very little of it remains) was asked to produce a cell drawn Mickey animation for a bumper to air on Disney Channel. They couldn’t do it internally. Their quality had degraded so badly they decided to job the project out to an external animation shop.

Well, it’s not that bad. All in all it’s not worse than the quality of the drawing in the most recent Disney films. If you compare the classics to let’s say Lilo and Stitch, you know what I mean.

I like traditional drawing too, but they seem getting worse and worse…

How has even the 2D drawing got worse?!?!
Personally i’ve loved disneys micky mouse cartoons, even the new ones like in house of mouse. I’m not able to really see them anymore because they removed any Micky cartoons from ABC and don’t have extended cable. And though my grandma has cable basically the only way to see micky cartoons now days is to get a satillite connection.

I’m not sure if the idea of losing ‘traditionalism’ makes me cry or what. I miss the classics…but younger people always laugh when i say things like that. Children won’t know the difference. I like Mickey (with the weird exception of ‘Runaway Brain’ from a few years back), but i already think Disney is screwed. Quality went out the window eons ago.

Boy, as it sounds like you and the others say I have reason to believe of disney deteriorating. And if it’s true there may not be a disney in the future.

I couldn’t agree more. I think micheal eisner will be the end of disney.