The Little Mermaid - a look into off-model Ariel

[Ernest Rister]

Disney animation in the 80's languished in a rebuilding period as the Nine Old Men retired to be replaced by the new crew brought up in the 70's. Considering that Eisner almost pulled the plug on feature animation at Disney, it should be no surprise that Mouse Detective, Oliver and Co., and Mermaid are very rough around the edges in almost every conceivable way. Mermaid is so bare-bones and rough and tumble in its animation due to the limited budget, faulting the lack of consistency seems unfair. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that many scenes in Mermaid were "straight-ahead" animation - meaning, the animators started with a frame and plowed straight through the scene, with minimal corrections or re-takes. In that light, faulting The Little Mermaid for the very loosey-goosey animation seems unfair, like criticizing a saturday morning cartoon for the same thing.

You're right to notice it and learn from it, though. Disney demonstrated with Roger Rabbit (1988) and The Rescuers Down Under (1990) that they were certainly capable of better than what we saw in Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast and even Aladdin. They rushed those films to mee the release date. In fact, Disney animation didn't return to a uniform level of quality until The Lion King and Pocahontas. As weak as some of the later features were in terms of narrative, they were all gorgeous. Treasure Planet and Brother Bear in particular has backgrounds that rivaled the best of the 1st Golden Age features.

[RazorFromHRSnet]

this one isn't even Ariel... it's Melody --- the Sea Witch Ursual in disguise as a pretty girl with Ariel's voice.

And you can't really study animation in still frames - it's all about what it adds up to in the end. I'd say this is a non issue.

[Mermen79]

Well, I think I made my point if you really think that is "Melody." There is no character named Melody by the way in the film.

Also, I've stated before that it wasn't about individual frames but the scene that it was pulled from.

Why are people getting so defensive? Of course the mainstream audience won't even notice, I'm just pointing out some small stuff about a classic film. I'm not demeaning the film.

I think it IS an issue, albeit a small one considering that you couldn't even tell that the image IS of Ariel.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by RazorFromHRSnet

this one isn't even Ariel... it's Melody --- the Sea Witch Ursual in disguise as a pretty girl with Ariel's voice.

And you can't really study animation in still frames - it's all about what it adds up to in the end. I'd say this is a non issue.

You're confusing two issues. The thread poster is talking about off-model animation, which occurs over a series of frames (see Belle go into the bookshop in Beauty and the Beast, or into her father's workshop later in the same film).

Exaggeration for a visual effect is a long-standing tradition in cinematic animation -- look at Mufasa turn into a giant sideways "U" when hit by the stampede in The Lion King, for example -- or look at Mickey's ears, which always float on his head defying anatomy, no matter which way he turns. That's not what "going off model" refers to. "Off Model" refers to an occurance when a secondary or terciary animator draws a character and (for whatever reason) the animator deviates from the design established in the film. Changes in line weight and poor detail are the usual culprits along these lines.

[Mermen79]

^ Thanks for the specific examples within B&TB. I'll keep an eye out for it whenever I can get my hands on the DVD.

[Lucy Diamond]

Originally Posted by David Mamet

"Suck me beautiful".

[I-C-Blue]

Didn't know where else to post this but the Disney Store facebook page wall photo'ed a scene from 'kiss the girl' (link). I think they captured it from its source. The pic itself is obviously higher than '1080p' quality. I wonder if they're on their way in finally giving this a Blu-Ray release ...



I really hope they give this a proper remaster with a not too-over-done-vibrant picture ...

[Moviefan2k4]

The fifth "off model" shot looks more like Vanessa (Ursula's alter-ego) than anything else. I was really surprised to learn that most "lead animators" only do rough sketches, and the cleanup crew is responsible for the majority of line work seen on-screen.

[avecha]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Having seen the trailer from Enchanted, I thought Disney is going for the Bratz look with the characters. They all have abnormally large breasts and bare mids showing.

What kind of world are we living in when Disney is starting to do this?

It's wrong. Teaching females they need to be stick thin and that they need boob jobs. Sad.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by avecha

It's wrong. Teaching females they need to be stick thin and that they need boob jobs. Sad.

Well, comic books haven't done much better the last few decades, either. The guys look like Hercules, and the girls resemble Jessica Rabbit. Not very healthy at all. As a man, I like curves, but please keep everything in proper proportions!

As for that pic from the movie though, I checked the Platinum DVD, and its actually a closeup from "Kiss the Girl"...so, I stand corrected on my previous post. The drawing style looks a little different, but it doesn't yank me out of the story.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

As for that pic from the movie though, I checked the Platinum DVD, and its actually a closeup from "Kiss the Girl"...so, I stand corrected on my previous post.

Well, the German subtitles of "Kuss sie (??)" did sort of clue me in..

(The "Melodie" refers to the lyrics.)

[J. J. Hunsecker]

The latter examples of Ariel are not off-model. Some are more crudely drawn, but the details and proportions are still correct. The close up of Ariel from "Kiss the Girl" actually looks cuter than the actual model of Ariel, though.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

You're right to notice it and learn from it, though. Disney demonstrated with Roger Rabbit (1988) and The Rescuers Down Under (1990) that they were certainly capable of better than what we saw in Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast and even Aladdin. They rushed those films to mee the release date. In fact, Disney animation didn't return to a uniform level of quality until The Lion King and Pocahontas. As weak as some of the later features were in terms of narrative, they were all gorgeous. Treasure Planet and Brother Bear in particular has backgrounds that rivaled the best of the 1st Golden Age features.

Well, Who Framed Roger Rabbit was animated by Richard Williams's studio in England. Some of the Toontown sequence was animated in L.A. by Baer Animation Studios. I read somewhere that Zemekis didn't like the animation coming from Disney at the time, and Williams was recommended to him by Chuck Jones. The later Roger Rabbit shorts were animated at Disney, I believe.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker

Well, Who Framed Roger Rabbit was animated by Richard Williams's studio in England. Some of the Toontown sequence was animated in L.A. by Baer Animation Studios. I read somewhere that Zemekis didn't like the animation coming from Disney at the time, and Williams was recommended to him by Chuck Jones. The later Roger Rabbit shorts were animated at Disney, I believe.

And yet, the film was made by Disney (under the Touchstone banner), and features many of the company's characters (Mickey, Donald, Goofy, Pinocchio, etc.).

[Caesar Will Rise]

If some of the animation seems a little inconsistent, all you have to do is think of the time and budget constraints The Little Mermaid was under. Disney animation would have probably died completely or been relegated forever to the bargain basement had Mermaid not succeeded. The documentary on the Platinum Edition DVD got quite candid about some of the pressures the production faced. New management at the studio, the animators got kicked out of their building and moved into mobile trailers in a parking lot, and Jeffrey Katzenberg (by his own admission too) butting heads with the animators on what could and could not be done in an animated movie. It's all fascinating to learn. And it really puts the overall beauty of the final film in a new light.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by aslan1985

If some of the animation seems a little inconsistent, all you have to do is think of the time and budget constraints The Little Mermaid was under. Disney animation would have probably died completely or been relegated forever to the bargain basement had Mermaid not succeeded. The documentary on the Platinum Edition DVD got quite candid about some of the pressures the production faced. New management at the studio, the animators got kicked out of their building and moved into mobile trailers in a parking lot, and Jeffrey Katzenberg (by his own admission too) butting heads with the animators on what could and could not be done in an animated movie. It's all fascinating to learn. And it really puts the overall beauty of the final film in a new light.

I just watched that documentary again yesterday, and what really shocked me was that Katzenberg wanted "Part of Your World" taken out of the movie! That song was the heart of the whole thing; sheesh.

[Caesar Will Rise]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

I just watched that documentary again yesterday, and what really shocked me was that Katzenberg wanted "Part of Your World" taken out of the movie! That song was the heart of the whole thing; sheesh.

And all because one kid in the screening room dropped his popcorn and started picking it up. Thank the Lord that Glen Keane fought so valiantly to keep it in. Victory achieved! Like I said, that documentary got quite candid.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by aslan1985

And all because one kid in the screening room dropped his popcorn and started picking it up. Thank the Lord that Glen Keane fought so valiantly to keep it in. Victory achieved! Like I said, that documentary got quite candid.

Yeah, and Katzenberg seemed like a pill to work with, but he also appeared a little more humble about it, in retrospect. "The Little Mermaid" was the first "modern" Disney film I recall seeing in a theater (I was 9 at the time), and I probably went back at least 3 more times during its original run. In my opinion, its by far among the best of the Renaissance period, and I'd probably place it in my top 10 of all Disney animated films. I was very disappointed that they didn't interview a lot of the voice cast, though.

[Caesar Will Rise]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

Yeah, and Katzenberg seemed like a pill to work with, but he also appeared a little more humble about it, in retrospect. "The Little Mermaid" was the first "modern" Disney film I recall seeing in a theater (I was 9 at the time), and I probably went back at least 3 more times during its original run. In my opinion, its by far among the best of the Renaissance period, and I'd probably place it in my top 10 of all Disney animated films. I was very disappointed that they didn't interview a lot of the voice cast, though.

He did seem pretty humble and actually self deprecating in that doc. Beauty and the Beast is my numero uno. When did Mermaid come out? 1989? I was 3 or 4 depending on if it came out before or after August 29th. I think it was in November so I was 4. Wow, that seems like eons ago. I don't even remember anything about that time in my life unless stuff surfaces in my sleep. And Katzenberg apparently tried to apply live action rules to animated films. He wanted them to edit The Black Cauldron because he thought it was too dark and scary. The animators must have looked at him as if he were a crazy person. I don't know if I saw Mermaid in the theater or not. I already said I was too young to remember it. I'll have to ask my mom and pop. I know we saw Beauty though, which I plan to see on the big screen again and fully appreciate it in January.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

And yet, the film was made by Disney (under the Touchstone banner), and features many of the company's characters (Mickey, Donald, Goofy, Pinocchio, etc.).

It was produced by both Walt Disney Pictures and Speilberg's Amblin Entertainment. Even though Disney Pictures helped produce and release the picture their animation department did not work on it. During filming production was moved to Elstree Studios in England to accommodate animator Richard Williams.

Yes, the Disney characters appear in the film, but so do the Looney Tunes characters, as well as those from the Fleischer, Lantz, and MGM Studios. (And I think I spotted a lion from a Terrytoon cartoon.) Felix the Cat's image can be seen on the Toontown tunnel, even though he doesn't appear in the film. The Disney characters appear in the film because they would have existed in the fictional 1947 Toontown, and the Disney studios didn't have to pay for the rights to use them, obviously. It must have been a real headache to get the rights to the other characters because several famous '40s cartoon characters are missing: Tom & Jerry, Heckle & Jeckle, and Popeye, most obviously.