Animation

Disney.

I have some disdain whenever I say that name. I don't like it, I don't like what its become, or really, I don't like what it was when I was a child to what it is now. This article then, would surely be something that I would like? I disagree.

This article seems to have some pretentious notion that by calling out Disney as some mass market industry, instead of being some art seeking painter, gives it a blow to its credibility. Its as if Wells is trying to give one back to Disney for not doing it his way. Its bollocks.

Take a single frame from something like Sleeping Beauty, at the time it was the most expensive animation ever created, the detail in those pictures, the time it took for them to make on bush shake, was ridiculous. To claim that so much care and attention put into a movie and not have it called art is ridiculous. Its as if Wells thinks that even 'regular' movies are better than animated ones, since they at least aren't pretend characters. Hoe does he expect an old Disney movie to have mass zoom's and crane shots? When the audience are for small children, who do not care for such things. They want bright colours and a basic story, not something that tantalizes the adult mind with weird colours and dimensions.

A simple film for a simple mind, is what I say.