Isn’t Maximus similar to Mulan’s war companions in the senses that they are confrontational at the start (more so in Maximus’ case) but turn into sidekicks at the end?
Interesting video! Reading the book "The Illusion of Life: Disney Animation" really put into context why Disney animated films used sidekicks so often: I think the Disney artists really emphasized the interplay between caricature, exaggeration, realism, and believability. Treating animated characters as thinking beings rather than merely moving drawings, that was one of their focuses as an animation studio. And they wanted to draw more inspiration from realism to generate greater audience involvement while also utilizing the strengths of animation. Whereas other animation studios steered away from realism entirely or had very different approaches to their craft. Disney artists saw "human" and "down-to-earth characters as the sincere heart of their films, but they were also a lot harder to draw, generally less expressive, or more subtle with their emotions. So cartoony characters (like sidekicks) were often more expressive in contrast and easily communicated with the audience. They gave opportunities for the characters to have relationships that fleshed each other out. Funnily enough, a lot of the animators preferred animating the cartoony characters and hated doing the realistic ones (roles which got saddled with Milt Kahl or Marc Davis). I like how you drew the distinction between sidekick and supporting character. Whereas some sidekicks are more like satellite characters that are clearly tied to a specific character, supporting characters feel more fleshed out and independent. Relevant quotes from the book: -"Tell your story through the broad cartoon characters rather than the “straight” ones. There is no way to animate strong-enough attitudes, feelings, or expressions on realistic characters to get the communication you should have. The more real, the less latitude for clear communication. This is more easily done with the cartoon characters who can carry the story with more interest and spirit anyway. Snow White was told through the animals, the dwarfs, and the witch-not through the prince or the queen or the huntsman. They had vital roles, but their scenes were essentially situation. The girl herself was a real problem, but she was helped by always working to a sympathetic animal or a broad character. This is the old vaudeville trick of playing the pretty girl against the buffoon; it helps both characters." -"Of course, there is always a big problem in making the “real” or “straight” characters in our pictures have enough personality to carry their part of the story…The point of this is misinterpreted by many to mean that characters who have to be represented as real should be left out of feature films, that the stories should be told with broad characters who can be handled more easily. This would be a mistake, for spectators need to have someone or something they can believe in, or the picture falls apart." -"Early in the story development, these questions will be asked: “Does this character have to be straight?” “What is the role we need here?” If it is a prince or a hero or a sympathetic person who needs acceptance from the audience to make the story work, then the character must be drawn realistically."
Isn’t Maximus similar to Mulan’s war companions in the senses that they are confrontational at the start (more so in Maximus’ case) but turn into sidekicks at the end?
uuuuuh yeah that is pretty similar. kinda embarrased I never thought of that before the vid went up XD
Interesting video!
Reading the book "The Illusion of Life: Disney Animation" really put into context why Disney animated films used sidekicks so often:
I think the Disney artists really emphasized the interplay between caricature, exaggeration, realism, and believability. Treating animated characters as thinking beings rather than merely moving drawings, that was one of their focuses as an animation studio. And they wanted to draw more inspiration from realism to generate greater audience involvement while also utilizing the strengths of animation. Whereas other animation studios steered away from realism entirely or had very different approaches to their craft.
Disney artists saw "human" and "down-to-earth characters as the sincere heart of their films, but they were also a lot harder to draw, generally less expressive, or more subtle with their emotions. So cartoony characters (like sidekicks) were often more expressive in contrast and easily communicated with the audience. They gave opportunities for the characters to have relationships that fleshed each other out. Funnily enough, a lot of the animators preferred animating the cartoony characters and hated doing the realistic ones (roles which got saddled with Milt Kahl or Marc Davis).
I like how you drew the distinction between sidekick and supporting character. Whereas some sidekicks are more like satellite characters that are clearly tied to a specific character, supporting characters feel more fleshed out and independent.
Relevant quotes from the book:
-"Tell your story through the broad cartoon characters rather than the “straight” ones. There is no way to animate strong-enough attitudes, feelings, or expressions on realistic characters to get the communication you should have. The more real, the less latitude for clear communication. This is more easily done with the cartoon characters who can carry the story with more interest and spirit anyway. Snow White was told through the animals, the dwarfs, and the witch-not through the prince or the queen or the huntsman. They had vital roles, but their scenes were essentially situation. The girl herself was a real problem, but she was helped by always working to a sympathetic animal or a broad character. This is the old vaudeville trick of playing the pretty girl against the buffoon; it helps both characters."
-"Of course, there is always a big problem in making the “real” or “straight” characters in our pictures have enough personality to carry their part of the story…The point of this is misinterpreted by many to mean that characters who have to be represented as real should be left out of feature films, that the stories should be told with broad characters who can be handled more easily. This would be a mistake, for spectators need to have someone or something they can believe in, or the picture falls apart."
-"Early in the story development, these questions will be asked: “Does this character have to be straight?” “What is the role we need here?” If it is a prince or a hero or a sympathetic person who needs acceptance from the audience to make the story work, then the character must be drawn realistically."
*Looks over at the Chrithy, and other Dream Eaters in Kingdom Hearts.*
Hhhmmmmm
Good analysis!
I didn’t even know the house in Enchanto was sentient until watching this video lol.
What about Cinderella’s dog Bruno?
I thought you were going to talk about Ursula’s pet eels Flotsam and Jetsam.
What about Sultan The dog under a spell as a footstool?
But I thought we don’t talk about Bruno.