Disney Animators Are Hacks [Pic]

Submitted by: fancylad 8 years ago in

Maybe they have their poo together now, but back in the day, Disney animators didn"t even pretend to try.
There are 106 comments:
Male 4
Do you know how tedious it is to make new animated movements and backgrounds? I don`t blame them for using the same things, in fact it`s cost effective. It`s amazing that they added this kind of level of detail even if it`s used numerous times.
0
Reply
Male 51
Maybe this was some animator`s way of being clever/funny - i.e. reuse an element like this and see who notices (probably only other animators, or total film geeks).

The only thing reused is the outline of the tree and the shaping of the surface (including the knot). The bark texture, and everything else in the picture, is different. So, they didn`t save all that much work, relative to the total amount of work in drawing these.

Regardless of the motivation, reusing an element like this doesn`t make the old Dis animators "hacks". Their level of detail was much higher than in most (not all) hand-done animation done in the last 50 years.

0
Reply
Male 51
Maybe this was some animator`s way of being clever/funny - i.e. reuse an element like this and see who notices (probably only other animators, or total film geeks).

The only thing reused is the outline of the tree and the shaping of the surface (including the knot). The bark texture, and everything else in the picture, is different. So, they didn`t save all that much work, relative to the total amount of work in drawing these.

Regardless of the motivation, reusing an element like this doesn`t make the old Dis animators "hacks". Their level of detail was much higher than in most (not all) hand-done animation done in the last 50 years.

0
Reply
Male 51
Maybe this was some animator`s way of being clever/funny - i.e. reuse an element like this and see who notices (probably only other animators, or total film geeks).

The only thing reused is the outline of the tree and the shaping of the surface (including the knot). The bark texture, and everything else in the picture, is different. So, they didn`t save all that much work, relative to the total amount of work in drawing these.

Regardless of the motivation, reusing an element like this doesn`t make the old Dis animators "hacks". Their level of detail was much higher than in most (not all) hand-done animation done in the last 50 years.

0
Reply
Male 51
Maybe this was some animator`s way of being clever/funny - i.e. reuse an element like this and see who notices (probably only other animators, or total film geeks).

The only thing reused is the outline of the tree and the shaping of the surface (including the knot). The bark texture, and everything else in the picture, is different. So, they didn`t save all that much work, relative to the total amount of work in drawing these.

Regardless of the motivation, reusing an element like this doesn`t make the old Dis animators "hacks". Their level of detail was much higher than in most (not all) hand-done animation done in the last 50 years.

0
Reply
Female 3
Man, you had to draw those pics one by one, to create every little ovement.
Cut them some slack
0
Reply
Male 13
reminded me of the clouds and the bushes in SMB 3 :O

0
Reply
Male 1,666
well we knew that all along, didn`t we?
0
Reply
Male 325
so they saved themself time and money
all cartoons did this
0
Reply
Male 334
megann_exoh: how is that possibly racist? How are you suggesting that all members of a race have a certain characteristic when you say some animators changed a character`s color?

Why can`t we even bring up race without thinking we`re being racist?

0
Reply
Female 688
they just changed the colour of him.
that sounds awfully racist, but its the truth. even his hair is the same.
0
Reply
Male 442
there is a whole video of this stuff I think on funnyordie.com
0
Reply
Male 264
back in the good ole days. I miss old disney :`(
0
Reply
Male 633
jrodjarrod.... your comment makes me laugh. :P
0
Reply
Male 76
You Shut The F Up GothicQueen!!! You ass sucker! Wall-E was the SHIZ! Disney was, and always will be, a badass evil corporation that touches the hearts of ignorant little children the world over!!!
0
Reply
Female 572
Well back in the day, they had it doen by hand not computer. I am sure they just didn`t want to hire more peeps to make a whole other picture. Just sayin`
0
Reply
Female 127
They`ve done that with a bunch of movies.
0
Reply
Male 368
awww look a pooh
0
Reply
Female 4,376
I still love old disney better. All this new crap really isn`t even good. I think i`m one of the few people out there that didn`t even care for Wall-E.

eh..whatever. On a different note I loved the Jungle Book.

0
Reply
Male 1,193
mooshoo that wasn`t very funny
0
Reply
Male 1,485
repost
0
Reply
Male 2,552
Hahahahahahaha!
Never thought of that. Must investigate...
0
Reply
Female 5,222
DUH
0
Reply
Female 400
Yeah, I`m getting tired of seeing this re-posted again and again.

Anyway, as I`ve explained before, it has absolutely nothing to do with laziness (or "alluding" to another film).

Things like this occurred when either money or time was an issue. Robin Hood, for example, had a very tight budget and has a multitude of these occurrences.

0
Reply
Male 121
In all of the earlier disney movies, they used a method called rotoscoping. Have one source video, so they implement it when needed.
0
Reply
Male 315
Does anyone notice the sexual position that tree is?...god I spend to much time on the internet...
0
Reply
Male 62
Must these be re posted? I think if you haven`t seen it already then you`re probably not old enough to have seen the movies anyway.
0
Reply
Male 215
And I should know, I`m a whale biologist.
0
Reply
Male 215
@thevssranger - That`s an awesome comment dude. I was just reading this article on stupid commentators around the internet, and you hit the nail!
0
Reply
Male 89
wow. I never noticed, mostly cause I always hated disney.
0
Reply
Female 428
The video one linked below the pic is great. I don`t care that it`s laziness. It would have been much worse in the case of `Robin Hood` and `The Jungle Book` if they didn`t have the same guy voice both Baloo and Little John. That would have been awkward.
0
Reply
Female 256
Noggin.

Are you on a Disney site?

Did EBaum or IAB actually claim the picture as their own specific creation?

Do you enjoy trying to create arguments for the sake of it?

Please, be quiet, and let us all enjoy the laziness of the ancient Disney artists without ridiculous accusations of no real purpose.

Much appreciated ^^

0
Reply
Male 305
no, no, credit, where credit is due
0
Reply
Male 1,193
well since yours is more recent they`ll read yours anyways
0
Reply
Male 305
doh , beat me to the punch
0
Reply
Male 305
wouldn`t say they are hacks cause it all belongs to them, but they DO reuse it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOIrXGd51...
0
Reply
Male 1,193
link_id=39207Similar post
0
Reply
Male 72
You know what was reused?

That god damned IAB watermark. This is a DISNEY image, not an IAB image.

How many people on this board called E Baum a thief? Watermarking poo that wasn`t his?

0
Reply
Male 5,189
Seems like a lot of work to make it look so differently. Looks just like the used to same fallen tree.
0
Reply
Female 256
RdDan, you`re missing out on a whole world.

A WHOLE NEW WORLD...

0
Reply
Male 954
Walt Disney was a 33rd degree free mason yeah know... some people believe he influenced their productions with free mason ideals... I really don`t much more than that but you decide I guess...
0
Reply
Male 182
This isn`t "hacking" or "reusing." They`re alluding to previous films. If you`ve ever read a book or seen a film, you`ll know that most of them always allude to something previously done. (:
0
Reply
Female 310
well why not re use it? its not like every scene is re-used and reusing it saves time and money- their old stuff that was hand animated was really spectacular
0
Reply
Male 731
Scoff. Old news.

I still love Disney regardless.

0
Reply
Male 759
I`ve never seen a Disney movie....am i missing out on much?
0
Reply
Male 1
Ah cmon, how does this really make disney hacks? :P
Theres nothing wrong in reusing content in a production, and it hardly takes away from the artistry needed to realise these shots. have any of you tried animating a feature film? ...exactly..id stop being such a bunch of ignorant retards and hold back on calling them hacks... DISNEY F*CK YEAAAH!!
*ahem*
0
Reply
Male 8,302
Not to mention of course the fact that the plot and characters of every single Disney movie ever are basically the same.

>AlexTron
> Wasn`t there an entire video of these that was posted a while ago?

Gee, like the one ghostofme linked just 12 posts below yours? Like that?

0
Reply
Male 534
Wasn`t there an entire video of these that was posted a while ago? Hmm...
0
Reply
Male 1,629
haha if u didnt know that disney artists were hacks b4 now i am sorry :(
0
Reply
Male 1,718
lolol, still the best eva
0
Reply
Male 81
yeah we all know this stuff...it`s the youth sentimental that keeps disney in my heart:)
these new digital animated films suck donkeyballs
0
Reply
Male 68
Who cares we didn`t notice it until now :)
0
Reply
Male 2,591
so who cares kids watch that stuff they`ll never figure it out
0
Reply
Male 382
The hidden porn and phallic symbols in some Disney movies almost approach pop-art worthiness.
0
Reply
Female 519
Disney ALWAYS does that. I remember there was a video showing examples.
0
Reply
Male 254
Man, they just phoned that one in...
0
Reply
Male 8,302
ghostofme, thanks for posting that link, I totally missed that one originally.

PS that`s a great site, that one.

0
Reply
Male 8,302
1 of these trees is not like the others,
3 of these trees are kinda the same,
Can you guess which tree is not the the others...
0
Reply
Male 596
no, they just smoked the same stuff, quiet often apparently
0
Reply
Male 516
0
Reply
Male 906
lol poo
0
Reply
Male 814
Weak. Whoever only gave us one example, you can do way, way better...
0
Reply
Female 381
._.
0
Reply
Male 175
Bah, stop giving `em excuses, they were lazy, deal with it.
0
Reply
Male 1,853
Jesus I`d do that any chance I could. I`d say it`s an homage to a previous artist, or it could just so happen to be the same person drawing a similar scene a second time. I make my smiley faces the same way every time, why can`t he do trees the same?
0
Reply
Male 251
Disney wrote fanfics.
0
Reply
Male 928
Back when you had to hand animate everything you tried to find any short cut possible to save time and get things done. It`s genius really because you would never catch it in time for it to matter and there are enough differences between the two.

In pixar animations they reuse the same textures on all of the 3d models but since the textures are on different models you would never know that about half of every pixar movie is used in another of their films as well. The textures become a pooled resource they can grab things from when needed. Again just a time saver and not really something to criticize.

0
Reply
Male 14
I don`t know how many times i`ve seen this before.
0
Reply
Male 2,034
Lest we forget, there was no such thing as CGI animation "back in the day" so even though they used similar scenes and movements, everything was still hand-drawn.

And to the person who commented about live-action models: you can`t be serious about that.

0
Reply
Male 7
who finds these things?
0
Reply
Male 480
Disney always seems to amaze me. XD
0
Reply
Female 767
Oh wait... So The Flinstones was allowed to reuse like 2 background frames for a five-minute walk/drive, but Disney can`t reuse a background/outline?
0
Reply
Female 767
Who cares? Do you know how time-consuming and costly animating is?
0
Reply
Male 506
It`s common knowledge that Disney reused frames to keep costs down.
0
Reply
Male 9,305
Yep, templates.
0
Reply
Male 308
You people just realized Disney has been doing this now?!
0
Reply
Male 51
Maybe this was some animator`s way of being clever/funny - i.e. reuse an element like this and see who notices (probably only other animators, or total film geeks).

The only thing reused is the outline of the tree and the shaping of the surface (including the knot). The bark texture, and everything else in the picture, is different. So, they didn`t save all that much work, relative to the total amount of work in drawing these.

Regardless of the motivation, reusing an element like this doesn`t make the old Dis animators "hacks". Their level of detail was much higher than in most (not all) hand-done animation done in the last 50 years.

0
Reply
Male 1,918
they have their "pooh" together now. LOL well pooh is played by the same guy as the snake in junglebook.(just so you know)
0
Reply
Female 92
Are you kidding me? They drew entire movies by hand then... In great detail!
CGI has nothing on hand drawn animation.
0
Reply
Male 311
reminds me of "rock" today; its ALL THE SAME! actually.. rap is like that too.. and well, when u think about it so in country.. the moral of this story is listen to alternitave
0
Reply
Female 15
I cant stop staring at pooh bear.....so cute...and happy.... :D
0
Reply
Male 3,842
Yes, Ryan is correct - the animation was made from the same live-action models who did the movements
0
Reply
Male 2,344
I think we already proved this. There was a video a while back pointing out how they use the same exact motions and sets for a lot of their movies, just different drawings doing them.
0
Reply
Female 459
This wasn`t as entertaining as the fact as Pooh looks really happy and cute. I think I have issues.
0
Reply
Male 233
hahaha im just thinking how would anybody ever notice that
0
Reply
Male 1,148
thanks for ruining 2 of my childhood films! :(
0
Reply
Female 723
I still love disney :D
0
Reply
Female 85
what a con
0
Reply
Male 845
the video from youtube
0
Reply
Female 1,412
stupid disney :(
0
Reply
Female 25
disney is the balls.
f*ck the guys up the butt who take their time looking for things like these and make videos and collages about it and make it out to be such a terrible thing that the animators do this -__-
0
Reply
Male 1,254
Saw this quite a while ago. Never liked either film/show very much.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Ze secret iz awt!
0
Reply
Female 460
Disney recycles animation. This is a known fact.
0
Reply
Male 931
haha, theres a bunch of these somewhere as well :P
0
Reply
Female 15,763
I`ll stick to my Pixar, thank you very much.
0
Reply
Female 9,557
I used to to like Disney, but then they hired Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Brothers...
0
Reply
Male 1,375
and they made millions on both

by the way every aladdin movie is the same way

0
Reply
Female 155
have i not seen this like 3 times already on i am bored?
0
Reply
Male 566
only thing the same is the composition. The color, lighting, textures, background all redone, I see no problem with this
0
Reply
Male 189
Winnie the Pooh should be in every I am Bored picture. Except the disgusting ones.
0
Reply
Male 549
at least they changed the backgrounds...
theres a video somewhere that shows a ton of disney`s cell reuses.
0
Reply
Female 50
ahhhhhhh, pooh is sooooooooooooo cute.
it`s disney! they can reuse their own temps and animation if they want to.
0
Reply
Female 251
animating is difficult. especially back then when you couldn`t use digital animation and whatnot

can`t blame them

0
Reply
Male 287
Both films were made by Disney - I fail to see the problem. So they reused some animation cells, so what?
0
Reply
Male 20,816
Link: Disney Animators Are Hacks [Pic] [Rate Link] - Maybe they have their poo together now, but back in the day, Disney animators didn`t even pretend to try.
0
Reply