#1 By: Cory Doctorow, August 13th, 2013 23:00
#2 By: Tim, August 13th, 2013 23:06
Hey, there's nothing shameful about doing a little recycling now and then.
#3 By: Tim Quinn, August 13th, 2013 23:20
This seems like my experience with coding. And coding has evolved to accommodate it. The gesture, the figure, the personification, are all ancestors of this which have been inherited from to make that original drawing. The new one is using all those inheritances as well as inheriting from the old picture. It seems like that is the way folk art, especially, is supposed to work. familiarity with a soupcon of new.
#4 By: Mjfgates, August 13th, 2013 23:54
You could try doing this with porn, but it'd be way too easy.
#5 By: pilot, August 14th, 2013 00:11
The "Disney Dance," what I like to call it anyway, it present in several films (e.g. "Snow White" "The Aristocats" "The Jungle Book") and was all rotoscoped from one piece of reference film. I imagine most of the other "swaps" came from the same place, else the cells were traced over.
Remember, though, this was still done by hand. A far shake from painting over something in photoshop.
#6 By: Dean Putney, August 14th, 2013 00:13
Picasso stole that saying from me.
#7 By: Remus Shepherd, August 14th, 2013 00:18
As Wally Wood said, "Never draw anything you can copy, never copy anything you can trace, never trace anything you can cut out and paste up."
#8 By: John Whorfin, August 14th, 2013 01:30
Actually, it IS done with porn. There a few comic artists that are have achieved widespread infamy for their frequent tracing and recycling of other folks work, including tracing poses from porn. Just google Rob Liefeld or Greg Land
#9 By: Iced, August 14th, 2013 03:21
This is very well known. Disney old movies reused a ton of assets whenever possible, it wasnt a matter of the artists wanting to make the job easier, it was a matter of reusing assets that had already been built. Several of those were rotoscoped and thus it was easier to reuse the rotoscopy already used previously than getting funds to do it again. These rotoscoped dances and etc were gotten by the studio to be used in the way they were used.
This is not, artisticaly, the same as what Greg Land does, which is an artistical nightmare, Greg Land literally steals work from other artists repeatedly and traces both from photographs of actors and several other works of art. You can go through his pages and find the stock poses again and again. Compare it to Alex Ross, who also works based on photographs he takes of models but prepares them himself and you can see a brutal difference.
#10 By: chriscoreline, August 14th, 2013 03:23
I wonder is this whole thing one of the reasons why Disney has such a massive potential nostalgia cache to draw upon?
#11 By: Daemonworks, August 14th, 2013 03:33
Odder yet, even with all the help Liefeld's grasp on anatomy is rather precarious.
#12 By: Boundegar, August 14th, 2013 06:07
I've seen the same thing before, but it was duck-face selfies, not Mowgli.
#13 By: Felloslav, August 14th, 2013 08:18
#14 By: Christopher Waldrop, August 14th, 2013 09:19
While it's not a self-swipe, this did remind me of Professor Eric Fadden's "Fair(y) Use Tale":
#15 By: Captain Pedge, August 14th, 2013 21:56
This video has a HUGE collection, mainly from Robin Hood and the Jungle Book, butt heres a bunch of others in there too:
#16 By: jhml, August 15th, 2013 06:36
Most of the swipes seem to point towards the 60s and 70s Disney, the artistic lowpoint of their animation department.
#17 By: Donald Petersen, August 15th, 2013 18:20
No, that's a matter of making the job easier, and thus cheaper. Probably wasn't the artists coming up with the idea, as you say. I assume as animators they want to create new art. But if a line producer is given a tight budget, it would make sense (to that producer) to reuse whatever assets they could get away with.
I don't believe the original rotoscopes were acquired with an eye toward reuse in future cartoons. If they were rotoscopes at all, they were of actors performing specific scripted actions for a specific script. Later-period Disney movies were just made on the cheap, wherever they could economize like this and get away with it. That's all.
#18 By: Neville Ross, August 16th, 2013 04:11
And yet, people say that Disney films then are better than anything Disney puts out now (Cars, UP, The Incredibles, Wreck-It Ralph, Paperman, The Princess & The Frog) because of the hatred of CGI. At least, the people that make films at Disney now (CGI and cell) don't swipe.
#19 By: Iced, August 16th, 2013 05:38
If you read up the rest of the post you will see that I was commenting on the case of Greg Land, who actually traces work by his own choice and making a distinction. This never happened by accident the editors and directors picked up those scenes as filles and set them up to be recreated and reused.
I dont understand why you would doubt they were rotoscopes to begin with, considering the heavy usage of rotoscopes that disney had. They were known for bringing girls in to pose for the artists and recreate the scenes they were working and have actors setting up scenes to be drawn over.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUKaJ81qnyAThey were also known for reusing them to reduce costs as filler in later movies when needed.
#20 By: Tim, August 16th, 2013 12:27
Actually Pixar does re-purpose their digital models all the time. Sometimes it's for an in-joke (i.e. the Pizza Planet truck making cameos in most Pixar films) but often it's also just a way of saving time so they don't have to build every single background element from scratch. For example, Gazer Beam's skull from The Incredibles was the same one sitting among Charles Muntz's collection in Up.
next page →