this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2025
727 points (93.5% liked)

aww

26102 readers
61 users here now

A place with minimal rules for stuff that makes you go awww! Feel free to post pics, gifs, or videos of cats, dogs, babies, or anything cute and remember to be kind to others.

AI posts must be labeled [AI] in the title and are limited to one per week.

While posting and commenting in this community, you must abide by instance-wide rules: https://mastodon.world/about

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] smiletolerantly@awful.systems 129 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They are still being being painted by hand. On a graphics tablet, for example.

[–] SharkAttak@kbin.melroy.org 86 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Exactly, it's not the medium. It's like saying movies like Up aren't beautiful because of CG.

[–] smiletolerantly@awful.systems 50 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yep.

Those older movies are beautiful achievements for sure. But it's disingenuous to say that there isn't a plethora of movies and shows today that rival and surpass those older examples visually. Not to speak of just how much more fluent animation has become.

Many of the people who worked on those older masterpieces are still in animation today, and have only become better at their art.

[–] Ron@zegheteens.nl 31 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The older movies are more atractive because of the flaws, you see the pencil strokes changing between frames. Today IMO they are too flawless.

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's actually a really good point. The flaws make the beauty more human the same way music recorded reel to reel back in the 70s was very human because of the limitations of the day. And it is beautiful.

Not that a flawless thing can't be beautiful. I just have a bias towards the humanness (pencil strokes, tape flutter) of the older stuff because that's what I grew up with.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

I don't think it actually looks very good. The computer generated look is pretty fugly. Story is a different matte

[–] ChexMax@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Yeah, Up was a weird example for me, too, but as someone who has watched Moana two dozen times, it's always beautiful. The people are aged, with deep lines, the sand and the water and the straw, all the textures, all beautiful, and the setting is of course gorgeous.

Lilo and Stitch is a similar background, also so so beautiful, but it doesn't make Moana ugly or useless in comparison.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sundray@lemmus.org 93 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Interestingly enough, 101 Dalmatians was the first Disney film to adopt the process of Xeroxing the animators' drawings directly to cels, rather than hand-tracing them. It's still a beautiful movie of course, but it's also an advance in animation technology that often gets over-looked!

[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 72 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

My kid got into Lady and the Tramp, so I watched it about a dozen times in a row, and Holeee shiiit is that thing beautifully animated. The backgrounds are needlessly lavish, and look at this...

I'm in awe of the work done on Tramp's ears. The expressiveness, and the subtle balance of flexibility and internal structure is exquisite. You can find other examples of masterfully-done materials all throughout the movie.

Other movies might get more attention, but Lady and the Tramp is worth looking at for some peak Disney animation.

[–] LadyButterfly@reddthat.com 14 points 3 months ago

It's one of my favourites!

[–] primal_buddhist@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

So how many frames is this, do we think, just for this clip...

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CalmChaos72@lemmy.world 39 points 3 months ago (11 children)

I totally agree, Disney’s Robin Hood from 1973 is peak hand-drawn cartoon

[–] teslasaur@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Eeeeeeh... Maybe not. It's pretty good, but there is so much recycled animation that you might aswell call the Jungle book the best aswell.

Forgot about Fantasia?

Lion king?

Don bluth cartoons?

Anything made by Miyazaki.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 34 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

They used a lot of rotoscoping back in the day. Basically they filmed a scene normally with real people, then traced over every frame to give us those fantastic moments of fluid movement in things like Snow White, Mary Poppins, and Beauty and the Beast (which also used 3D by the way).

[–] arcayne@lemmy.today 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Fun fact, some of the more impressive examples from that era (like Mary Poppins) primarily used the sodium vapor process to get perfect mattes directly in-camera, no rotoscoping needed. It's a fascinating and impressive bit of tech: https://www.historicmysteries.com/science/disney-prism/39484/

[–] quid_pro_joe@infosec.pub 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That is indeed a fun fact! I am somewhat obsessed with sodium vapor lights and the bandwidth of light they produce. I would love to have seen the original camera rig and their special prisms, but apparently they only made three and they've been lost.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 7 points 3 months ago

Rotoscoping is quite old, too. I think it even predates ww1.

[–] Nangijala@feddit.dk 23 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Fun fact: 101 Dalmatians was the first Disney movie to be produced with the help of xerox. This was as a result of the financial flop that was Sleeping Beauty, that almost bankrupted the company and cut their budgets for future movies all the way from the 60s to the financial success of the little mermaid in 1989. This is why Disney movies within that time period has a rougher look when it comes to the characters' lineart and the more simple backgrounds compared to the very detailed, painted backgrounds and colored lineart of all Disney movies up until 101 Dalmatians.

The xerox was a cost cutting method to save time and money and while it absolutely killed Walt Disney to have to compromise on the art, it also paved the way for a new look and feel that, especially in the case of 101 Dalmatians, created a timeless look that still looks as fresh and modern today as the day it was made.

Without the invention and utilization of the xerox, there most likely would have been no Disney company today.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The Disney corporation is a better person when it's poor.

[–] Nangijala@feddit.dk 5 points 2 months ago

Not arguing with you there xD I have basically boycotted Disney. Last straw for me was their Mulan remake.

Didn't watch it. Heard it was trash like all the other remakes, but the thing that did it for me was when I learned they had used actual concentration camp prisoners for free labor on the movie. That was it for me.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (8 children)

Actual, handmade art and films are why so many of us look back on the 80's nostalgically, whether it's the Muppets, or Freddy's handmade makeup and practical effects, or the Goonies' crew building a whole-ass pirate ship on a soundstage. Practical effects will always be 100% better than CGI or some crap spat out by an LLM.

[–] Microw@piefed.zip 22 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The reason why so many people look on the 80s nostalgically is because they were children or teens during the 80s.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JimVanDeventer@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

This was 1961 which is definitely not the ‘80s. However, I get your point; practical effects may have been — and were often — jank, but it was real and tangible and I loved it, warts and all.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] 4grams@awful.systems 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

My theory is that since practical effects ultimately rely on physics of the world we occupy, that despite their unpolished look, they feel more real. The hyper realistic, but completely reality breaking effects of today just hit the same way cartoons do.

Speaking of cartoons, I love finding the shortcuts that animators would take, there’s something so artistic about how they did it.

I am just so much more engaged when I can watch a movie while also trying to figure out how they pulled off an effect.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] otacon239@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I just recently rewatched 101 Dalmatians and actually cried multiple times just from really soaking it in. Just the way so much of it comes to life. The imperfections genuinely make it feel so much more alive.

Modern Hollywood animation is incredibly sterile and perfected. A major studio now would never imagine releasing something with visible sketch lines.

[–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Sure it wasn't nostalgia? Sounds like the same symptoms

[–] otacon239@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago

I don’t think so. I’ve been watching a lot of classics from my childhood lately and most of them weren’t hitting me that hard. Maybe it’s that the actual story and the horror of it sunk in properly for the first time as an adult. Hadn’t seen it since I was young. The voice acting from the pups is just incredible. That probably didn’t help.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago

TBF it was also a time before the corporate entity realized maximum short term profit doesn't come from perfected products.

[–] BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

A lot are still "painted by hand", the use of vector graphics isn't as prevalent in other cartoon producing countries as it is in the US

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 13 points 2 months ago
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

Same with the OG Lilo and Stitch:

https://youtu.be/uGVZFLukUZI

IIRC last film to use honest to god water colors. And it shows.

[–] greedytacothief@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 2 months ago

I think animation, when the animators care, has improved. Yes treasure planet looks better fight me. But I think the problem is that there is more shit animation now, and we have forgotten the shit animation of the past.

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

They were more interested in telling a memorable story than making a quick buck

[–] Hedup@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

The only counter argument would probably be something like Flow. But what Zilbalodis did was perhaps as handcrafted as 3D animation can get.

[–] miellaby@jlai.lu 6 points 2 months ago

Yeah I feel old too.

That behind said, I don't think a modern drawing tool is inherently less capable than an older one to produce magic. Digital painting used to have limitations in comparison with traditional technics, but a good 2d illustrator can do gorgeous drawings with a tablet nowadays.

When I see magic in animated movies, its when people do things by love and passions, and not for seeking additional profit. Flow and Arcane are examples of animation with such ingredients.

load more comments
view more: next ›