:: AniWorld.Ru :: Форум: Мир анимации - Disney/Pixar >> Оливер и Компания

aniworld.ru >> Мир анимации >> Disney/Pixar

Оливер и Компания

(Тема перемещена)

Страницы: << Пpeдыдущaя 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cлeдующaя>>

Ответить

Автор

Сообщение

Волчок

Зарегистрирован:
14.05.13
Сообщений: 156

Добавлено: 1 мая 2016, 23:33

Anti olivercoco моё отношение к зверополису аналогично твоему к Оливеру и Ко)

Anti olivercoco

Удаленный
пользователь

Добавлено: 1 мая 2016, 23:37

Волчок писал(а):

В "Зоотопии"хоть дизайн более менее. В "Оливер И Компания" он просто убог.

Волчок

Зарегистрирован:
14.05.13
Сообщений: 156

Добавлено: 1 мая 2016, 23:55

Anti olivercoco не знаю,баян на баяне.Причём наивнее Оливера.

Anti olivercoco

Удаленный
пользователь

Добавлено: 1 мая 2016, 23:56

Волчок писал(а):

Что вы подразумеваете? Ляпы?

Волчок

Зарегистрирован:
14.05.13
Сообщений: 156

Добавлено: 2 мая 2016, 00:01

Anti olivercoco давай в личку,а то забанят меня за такое мнение)

Anti olivercoco

Удаленный
пользователь

Добавлено: 2 мая 2016, 00:02

Волчок писал(а):

Хорошо.

Colette

Зарегистрирована:
13.10.10
Сообщений: 140
Откуда: Москва

Добавлено: 2 мая 2016, 12:10

Цитата:

Неинтересные, содранные персонажи (С достаточно уродливым дизайном), ужасная анимация (Как этот мультфильм воспринимали после Кролика Роджера, понять не могу), мерзкий юмор, непроработанный сюжет, фоны и схематичный вид персонажей просто не сочетаются и так далее. Светлое пятно: Актерский состав. Не покидает ощущение, что этот с вашего позволения сказать мультфильм, делался второпях, что-бы хоть как-то конкурировать, с божившим в тот период Доном Блатом.

Это как же так нужно было напиться чтобы написать подобное?
Честно говоря автору поста нужно вообще перестать смотреть анимацию и уж тем более заниматься критикой ибо подобной чущи о столь милом мультике я в жизни не слышал.
Ну и плюс остались детские впечатления с просмотра на кассете когда похождения кавайного бездомного котенка выглядели до жути трогательными. А ост там вообще шикарный, так что не надо бочку катить.

Anti olivercoco

Удаленный
пользователь

Добавлено: 2 мая 2016, 16:58 (Изменено: , 2 мая 2016, 18:44)

Colette писал(а):

Все что вы говорите пожалуй можно отнести к Блатовской "Земле До Начала Времен" того же года, но ни как ни к "Оливер И Ко". "Оливера" так сильно пиарили на родине (Диснеевская пиар-компания была гораздо серьезней чем у Блата), а итог? В Америке из этого мультфильма, только помнят одну песню (звучавшую во всех рекламах).... И все... Назовите мне любой другой, Диснеевский или Блатовский мультфильм, который бы помнили по одной песне? То-то. И спасибо за совет, но я как-нибудь сам разберусь, как и в каком объеме мне смотреть анимацию.
(Добавлено: 2 мая 2016, 14:21)
Кстати я недавно снова встретил своего знакомого, который яростно доказывал мне, что Стил плагиат Роско.

Sola Una

Зарегистрирована:
31.12.13
Сообщений: 289
Откуда: Москва

Добавлено: 2 мая 2016, 19:05 (Изменено: Sola Una , 2 мая 2016, 19:08)

Anti olivercoco писал(а):

Кстати я недавно снова встретил своего знакомого, который яростно доказывал мне, что Стил плагиат Роско.

А что разве нет? Персонаж-то сам по себе вообще шаблонный и невыразительный. Тем не менее, лично я вижу в этом стиле влияние Блатовских мультиков, а не диснеевских (тот же Стар на Кролика Роджера похож; а Стил на Дженнера из НИМХ и антагониста из "Короля льва"). Многие аниматоры из Блатовской команды работали над дизайном.

Anti olivercoco

Удаленный
пользователь

Добавлено: 2 мая 2016, 19:10

Sola Una писал(а):

Он таже сказал что Роско показал гораздо больше характера, несмотря на то что пробыл в "Оливере" от силы минут четыре, имеет лучшую озвучку и мол в бою он Стила вобще убьет (Причем он говорил все это.... В весьма оскорбительном ключе).

Sola Una

Зарегистрирована:
31.12.13
Сообщений: 289
Откуда: Москва

Добавлено: 2 мая 2016, 19:13 (Изменено: Sola Una , 2 мая 2016, 19:16)

Anti olivercoco сейчас я не затрагивала ничего об этих доберманах. Я сказала конкретно про персонажа. Да в самом мульте ничего, кроме потрясной музыки, шикарных видов зимней природы, необычного гуся и просто шедевральной и захватывающей сцены с белым волком-иллюзией -- оригинального нет вообще. Историю, основанную на реальных событиях, мощную драму, превратили в типичное "из изгоя в герои" с любовной линией (персонажи просто обязаны и все). И ладно добавили линию (пусть и слабую -- я хотела больше волков) с волками, но внутренний конфликт, дружбу и взаимовыручку, сплоченность и отпущение всех конфликтов прошлого можно было изобразить. И без злодея и лов-стори!

Anti olivercoco

Удаленный
пользователь

Добавлено: 2 мая 2016, 19:21

Sola Una писал(а):

Ну я думал, многих явно позлят фразы в стиле, что никому неизвестный Торин Блак, озвучивает лучше чем Джим Каммингс....

Sola Una

Зарегистрирована:
31.12.13
Сообщений: 289
Откуда: Москва

Добавлено: 2 мая 2016, 19:38

Anti olivercoco Джим Каммингс всегда крут. Особенно когда озвучивает отрицательных персонажей. Например антагонист в Sonic SATAM. Каммингс просто хамелеон среди голосов. И я его уважаю.

Anti olivercoco

Удаленный
пользователь

Добавлено: 2 мая 2016, 22:08

Было бы хорошо, если бы кто-то еще, добавил бы настоящую рецензию на этот мультфильм. Открыл бы всем глаза.

Anti olivercoco

Удаленный
пользователь

Добавлено: 6 мая 2016, 14:28 (Изменено: , 6 мая 2016, 14:31)

Сча скину статьи.
(Добавлено: 6 мая 2016, 11:31)
№1
Soon after the 1984 takeover of Walt Disney Productions, when the future of the company's feature animation division was still in considerable doubt, Roy E. Disney and Jeffrey Katzenberg nevertheless had enough faith that they would be able to pull things out that they concocted a truly extraordinary plan for the studio's future success: a plan involving the creation of a new animated feature every calendar year. That was ambition on a rather terrifying scale: back in the early 1940s, when Walt's animation crew was at the peak of their powers, such a frantic pace was possible, but the working conditions of the animation studio in the 1980s was a very different thing altogether. Broadly speaking, it took about three years for a project to reach completion: a bit less than one year for story development and character design, a bit more than two years to animate it all - and it took the studio's entire staff to get the films made.

The first issue that had to be addressed was the employment pool: 160 people were simply not enough to produce movies at that kind of pace, and so the company hired more than 400 new employees to swell its ranks, returning the studio to an army of artists not seen since the purge following Sleeping Beauty, more than 25 years earlier. This permitted three projects to be in production at once, in different forms of completion.

The second issue was finding someone that Katzenberg, Disney and Michael Eisner trust to run the animation wing of the company while they attended to the broader issues involved in running a huge entertainment corporation. They man they chose was Peter Schneider, who like Katzenberg and Eisner had no practical knowledge of animation whatsoever, coming from a background in theater; but he was a bright executive who knew something about what audiences wanted to see, and his tenure as President of Feature Animation directly coincides with the studio's most artistically and financially fruitful era since Walt's death. It is ultimately to Schneider that most of the credit must finally go for turning around the pokey culture of mediocrity plaguing the company, and providing a clear and direct vision for what the future of Disney animation ought to look like. The three film idea was a good one, but we can never know if it would have held up without Schneider's guidance.

The first feature released under Schneider's supervision was 1986's The Great Mouse Detective, although he had very little to do with its creation. I also don't know how great was his involvement with the multi-company Who Framed Roger Rabbit, an enormously successful live-action/animation hybrid that is customarily given credit for re-igniting the American interest in animation.. Rather, his first feature project, initiated in 1985, was an adaptation of Charles Dickens's Oliver Twist, given a rather drastic face-life in the latest attempt to prove that Disney animation could be popular and hip. Popular it certainly was: at $53 million, it set a very short-lived record for the highest-grossing animated film in U.S. box office history. Hip... well, hipness is such a transient thing. What was hip in 1988, who can say if it still would seem hip today? I was still a month away from my seventh birthday when I first saw Oliver & Company, so I surely couldn't tell you if it was hip or not. What I can tell you a month away from my 28th birthday is that it is very far from hip now: it is in fact quite insipid and wretchedly unengaging. Without knowledge of the back-stage wrangling going on, it would be easy enough to write it off as just one more in a long line of Disney misfires in the '70s and '80s, badly shamed by former Disney animator Don Bluth's The Land Before Time, which opened on the same date - and even that isn't a particularly swell movie, by Disney's standards or Bluth's. But taken with the knowledge that this was meant to be the first in a brand new way of doing things at the studio, it is a most inauspicious beginning, indeed. I know it made lots of money, and that was the only thing Katzenberg or Eisner worried about, but if I were Schneider, and the first thing I had to show for my snazzy new job was Oliver & Company, I'd be profoundly grateful that they let me come back for a second effort.

As the first Disney film adapted from an honest-to-God classic piece of literature written for an adult audience, Oliver & Company faced a peculiar and unique set of difficult choices for the writing team; a large number of men (and I do mean men: it was less of a boys' club than during Walt's life, but still a boys' club) that reads like a who's who of future people of great importance: Kirk Wise, Gary Trousdale, Roger Allers, Kevin Lima, and the great, dearly missed Joe Ranft all helped to sculpt the narrative, most of them making their first appearance in the credits of a Disney feature. This was also the first Disney film with an actual screenplay, the kind that the animation-unsavvy bosses could actually read and understand the story: this was put together by Timothy J. Disney, James Mangold (yes, the future live-action director) and Jim Cox, the only one of the three who stayed with the company for another project.

What all these fine folk put together was not so much an "adaptation" of the Dickens novel as a very vague improvisation on its themes. Gone altogether were the novels themes of social justic and class struggle; in their place were a bunch of goofy jokes and talking dogs and a plot that wears its '80s-ness like a badge of honor, all of it transposed from London to New York (which is, at any rate, a good decision, assuming that the story absolutely had to be modernised). In this version, Oliver (Joey Lawrence) is a small orange kitten, abandoned on the mean streets - in a stroke of cynicism that even I can't quite stomach, Oliver & Company tries to sell us on the idea that New Yorkers are so callous that a pet shop literally can't give away a kitten for free - where he encounters a sassy mutt named Dodger (Billy Joel). Dodger brings the kitten, yet unnamed, to meet the other dogs in the employ of a miserable homeless man named Fagin (Dom DeLuise), who uses them as pickpockets; and right now, Fagin is in dire need of money, to pay off the thuggish gangster Sykes (Robert Loggia). The kitten ends up, through misadventure, in the company of a little girl named Jenny (Natalie Gregory), whose wealthy parents have left her in their huge 5th Avenue house alone but for the butler (William Glover). These strands all come together when the dogs "rescue" Oliver, Fagin decides to ransom him, and Sykes decides, in turn, to ransom Jenny, when she comes to save her kitty.

No, it doesn't have much to do with Dickens, although that's not really a problem: Pinocchio didn't have much to do with Collodi, and that turned out pretty well. But Oliver & Company doesn't ultimately have much to do with anything else, either. As near as I can tell, the idea was, "let's make a comedy with a lot of famous voice actors, and some really contemporary musical numbers", and the story was built to function only as a vehicle for that end. Certainly, as a character-driven narrative, it is the shallowest of all Disney features, for it hardly seems to possess characters at all. There are certainly figures in the movie to whom events happen, but we never really get any sort of bearing on who they are or what they want, except for perhaps Jenny; even Oliver is just sort of shuttled from scene to scene, expressing dismay when he is taken out of his loving home, but otherwise given no chance to show personality. Nor is the film at all effective as a drama: until Jenny is snatched near the end, the only real conflict is between Fagin and Sykes, two secondary characters at best.

The problem, maybe, is that the film is too slight to let any kind of meaningful content develop. With a running time of 74 minutes, there's just not that much space left over for plot once the marketing business has been taken care of. I wouldn't mind that, if the allegedly "hip" elements of the film worked; but of course they do not. Celebrity casting is always a dangerous trick to play, for a start, and Oliver & Company has one of the most famous casts in Disney - besides the people I named, Cheech Marin and Bette Midler also drop in. Sometimes this works, as Pixar has demonstrated a number of times. Sometimes it doesn't. Is there, really, any value to having Billy Joel voice a dog in a cartoon, other than the subsequent ability to have Billy Joel sing? Certainly none that I can name, and Joel is, bless his heart, not much of an actor. He's easily the weakest link in the cast, mind you, but I still don't know having Marin, for example, do his standard "fast talking Chicano" bit in the form of a chihuahua makes Oliver & Company a better bang for my entertainment dollar.

The music, though, now that's a wasted opportunity. This was the first pure musical, with characters singing and dancing on-screen, that the studio had released since Robin Hood, 15 years earlier( we could even argue that Robin Hood doesn't count, and we have to set the bar back another three years, to The Aristocat) a self-conscious attempt to return Disney animation to its feature roots. Unfortunately, the music is not very good; I would go so far as to say that two of its songs are quite atrocious, these being "Streets of Gold", a "hey, isn't New York life sassy" number written by Tom Snow and Dean Pitchford, and the queasy-cute little girl ballad "Good Company", which at least has an excuse: it's writers, Rob Minkoff and Ron Rocha, were an animator and a production manager, respectively. Bette Midler's "Perfect Isn't Easy", by Barry Manilow, Jack Feldman, and Bruce Sussman, is dimly amusing, but you're not going to find yourself humming it; and the big number that is probably the film's most famous, for a given definition of "fame", Billy Joel's "Why Should I Worry?", by Dan Hartman and Charlie Midnight, pops along well enough that it would be one of the lesser moments in a great soundtrack. Only "Once Upon a Time in New York City" the opening number that narrates Oliver's early travails, comes close to really working: it is surely not any coincidence that the lyricist was a certain Howard Ashman (music was by Barry Mann), a Broadway veteran who would in short order prove to be the most important human being who ever set foot on Disney property after Walt died. Event this song, though, has a couple banal lines, and refers to the cat by name almost half a movie before he is thus christened. It's real flaw, though, is that it was sung by Huey Lewis, an artist of such era-specificity that I imagine he already sounded dated in 1988. Taken all together, this is a pretty crappy slate for a musical: none of the songs have much of anything to do with plot, excepting that for two of them, it's the closest we're ever going to get to character development. I'd say that they also bring the film's narrative momentum to a halt, except that Oliver & Company never has any momentum.

The animation and design are fairly sub-par, as well: the backgrounds are especially hideous, using the same xerography pencil sketch style last seen in One Hundred and One Dalmatians, apparently on the sense that since this was also a comedy with a modern setting and attitude, it made sense to copy the look of the last film in that mode. Except that in Dalmatians, the backgrounds matched perfectly to the sketchy look of the characters, whereas in Oliver & Company, the characters have been drawn according to a completely different set of rules: so the effect is merely jarring and ugly.

Boy, those characters: there's not really a single one of them who leaps out as a particular triumph of design, with Jenny standing out as one of the least appealing human protagonists in a Disney film (she ain't got no pupils in her eyes! Not cool!). Fagin is a gangly, unattractive caricature like nothing else in the film, and so just comes across as grotesque; Sykes, meanwhile, is one of the most failed villains in the Disney canon. His supervising animator, Glen Keane, admitted as much, declaring afterwards that Sykes needed to be powerful and mysterious, a dark shape in the shadows, but too much of his movement and design just makes him seem like a big lumbering guy. He is never threatening, though his dobermans kind of are, I suppose; he also gets an excessively gruesome (though G-rated!) death.

The animals are pretty much just animals: Lady and the Tramp this is not, where the animal animation is so well-observed, fluid, and physical that it counts as an art form all to itself. These animals aren't as blandly cartoony as Tod and Copper in The Fox and the Hound, perhaps, but they have no depth to their design or style, no heft, and no personality that comes out of their facial expressions. All they are good for is the presentation of slapstick gags that were old years before the movie was ever released.

If the animation ever has much of a point, it's this: the film provided a good test for computer generated objects, for nearly every inanimate object we see: cars and trains and construction sites and buildings and a piano. These objects accordingly have a sleekness to their straight lines that doesn't gel all that well with the characters, but the technology does permit the use of some extremely ambitious "camera moves" like nothing else we've seen in Disney - and this is a truly important turning point, not worth dismissing. Still, if the best you can say about a film's animation is, "the point when the camera pans around a piano and out the window is exquisitely done", you have found yourself a movie with shoddy animation.

The one thing that I find truly bizarre about Oliver & Company is that by any sensible ordering of things, it's not really part of the stretch of misery that began in 1966. It is in so many important ways other than the most important - it's not very good - much more closely aligned to the subsequent films of the Disney Renaissance in the 1990s. I've been trying throughout this Disney retrospective to avoid looking forward, but I think I need to, in order to properly contextualise the many things that Oliver & Company kicked off, and if I might, I'd like to restate them all in one place: the first film with a screenplay, the first film to use CGI in a manner that allows for more ambitious shots, the first film of the one-per-year plan, the first film with McDonald's tie-in marketing, the first film since The Jungle Book to extensively use celebrity casting as a short-cut to creating character personality (though Ratigan in The Great Mouse Detective counts, I hardly think Vincent Price was cast from a marketing standpoint, as was often the the case going forward), and most importantly, the first Broadway-style musical in a long while. Not that the music is Broadway-style at all; but the way that the music is utilised is; and this would be arguably the chief difference between the '90s films and the decades on either side.

It's a pity, then, that Oliver & Company sucks, because it does rather deserve some place in history, and it's nicest to reserve those places for good films. But still, we can't quite say that the Renaissance really "ought" to have started here, because the most important piece was still missing: compelling characters in an interesting, entertaining story. Ah, but they were close, were the Disney people. It was just one short year until their tradition of excellence came roaring back in a way that hadn't been seen since World War II.

Immortal Roscoe

Удаленный
пользователь

Добавлено: 6 мая 2016, 14:33

Я его наверное уже более 20 раз смотрел. Ещё скоро продолжение снимут...
В общем красота да и только!

Anti olivercoco

Удаленный
пользователь

Добавлено: 6 мая 2016, 14:37

Immortal Roscoe писал(а):

Только этого не хватало...

№2
Hello ladies and gentlemen and welcome back to a Disney special review of another well... Disney movie.

You already know who I am so I wont waste time introducing myself.

This next movie is a Disney movie but not a Disney classic but it may be entertaining a bit but this movie contrasted with other projects Disney has done, it just doesn't match up. This story is just way too fragmented even though it kinda resembles "Lady and the Tramp" and despite the fact it is a movie that's loosely based on the Charles Dickens classic "Oliver Twist". This movie is about a cat named Oliver who alone on the streets of New York looking for a owner but encounters a dog named Dodger, also based on the "Oliver Twist" character Jack Dawkins AKA "The Artful Dodger".

Dodger sings about how street smart he is in New York City in this video with Bill Joel's voice.

That is not a very good song, it may be catchy a bit but compared to other Disney classics, it's not good.
This film's story alone turns out to be anything but simple, it wonders from the original story into which turns out to be Oliver and the gang of dogs trying to help out their friendly boss named Fagin voiced by the wonderful Dom Deluise, to pay money he owes to a big dangerous mobster. However Oliver gets sidetracked in the film that to me I think it's too calculated and too cognate in it's attempts to show this movie to different age groups. To me, like Gene Siskel said: "a simpler story would have been better."

I also have another problem with this movie same with all other animated movies nowadays: Celebrities. Yes that's right celebrities.

They sort of take the magic away from movies, for example, at the beginning of some animated movies they put the credits at the front, and they named who is voicing this or who's voicing that, I don't want to know the voices of the these characters, it kind of ruins the whole magic of the movie. One great example of this is Blue Sky Studio's latest film "Epic", this movie has fine animation but it's story is too unoriginal, and it relies too much on celebrity casting for appeal. The TV spots revealing all the celebrities who are voicing the characters kind of spoils the movie.

I mean, I don't mind celebrities acting cartoon characters but I don't like how people think that they need big names in order to make it work.Celebrities don't make movies better you guys, they really don't, their acting can, but their acting has to be based on a good script. That plus the storyboards is what counts. Live action movies are different than animated movies, but even then you don't need big names to make big money, "Star Wars" and "Alien" are proof of that.

I like it back in the old days like "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" when i didn't know who the actors were but that's what made it worked. However this Disney movie it's okay but it's not that good. Even as a kid I didn't like it that much so don't go giving me that "I bet you liked it as a kid" bullshit.

Immortal Roscoe

Удаленный
пользователь

Добавлено: 6 мая 2016, 14:39

Anti olivercoco писал(а):

Ты че так не любишь этот мультик?

Anti olivercoco

Удаленный
пользователь

Добавлено: 6 мая 2016, 14:41

Immortal Roscoe писал(а):

Я должен в трехсот тысячный раз объяснять?

Immortal Roscoe

Удаленный
пользователь

Добавлено: 6 мая 2016, 15:32

Сча прочитал твою писанину...
Неинтересные персонажи говоришь?
Доджер – денди собачьего мира. Самоуверенный и самовлюбленный стиляга. Но при этом - он верный и преданный друг, которого каждый хотел бы иметь.
Тито-просто эпичный чувак. Реально помесь Моськи и Рэмбо.
Роско и Десото- два чернокожих, живых оружия. Характеризуют собой чернокожих рабов (Два одинаковых на вид,различающихся только голосами и цветом ошейников,беспрекословно подчиняющиеся, каждому приказу богатого,белого человека и готовые убить с его движением пальцев. Чем не негры?). Попутно с этим они являются настоящими машинами для убийств (Неудивительно. Их наверняка выращивали как послушных убийц).
Сайкс- ну просто олицетворяет собой закон улицы. Выживи или умри. Верни долг или пострадай.
Жоржет- светская львица.... Которой разбивает сердце, Рэмбо из низших слоев общества.
Рита- прекрасная комсомолка. Ну разве можно ее не любить?
Фейджин- этот бомж из тех, у кого хитрая и непривлекательная рожа, но, как правило, добрых в душе.
Оливер-просто красавчик. Этим все сказано.
Дженни-тоже привлекательная девочка.
Ну и еще много товарищей.
Кстати образы Бастера и Стила, содраны с Роско, а образ Саши Ля Флер с Риты. Вот теперь думайте.

Страницы: << Пpeдыдущaя 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cлeдующaя>>