what would animation as a medium be like, had disney never entered the market?
>>150481799https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqKW4jA5ZZY&list=PLb2gIHXjhzJDupn61tCzdUwkNkdOXSoG1look at what the soviets were doing
The same. The people who preyed on disney were always going to prey on the biggest game. Someone else would become the animation behemoth.
>>150481799Nonexistent
Imagine a world where animation consists of newspaper comic adaptations and Terrytoons.
>>150481799Better.
>>150481799TOTAL SOVIET MEDIA EXPORTATION DOMINATION
>>150481799maybe people wouldnt view animation as kids shit, which in turn leads to cynical adult comedy cartoons like family guy
>>150482120I don't think it would've been the same, Disney enforced quality control and pushed character-focused animation at a time when the Bray cartoons were considered high-quality. I think it's more likely that Paul Terry and Max Fleischer probably would've had more of a foothold in the industry if the length of Aesop's Fables and Out of the Inkwellis is anything to go by. I also think animation wouldn't be seen as a "kiddie" thing, since the seeds of that movement started with Disney's Bible Belt upbringing.There also wouldn't be animated movies in the US for quite some time, because there's no proof that the financial risk is worth incurring. Most of the Golden Age majors were content making shorts, and the Fleischers only got into film after the roaring success of Snow White. The US didn't get another feature until Hansel and Gretel: An Opera Fantasy in the late 40s. I don't think animation in this situation will truly get its chance to boom until WWII, which is also what happened in reality.Other weird things that could happen as a result of Disney not existing:>The lack of Silly Symphonies means no Looney Tunes, Merrie Melodies, and similar derivatives.>No Bambi means no Tezuka, which may set back anime by several years.>No Snow White means no Gulliver's Travels, which sets back animation development in all countries that mimicked Gulliver (Spain, Denmark, and France, among others)>The "independent studio" model remains unestablished. (Disney was animation first, unowned by any of the studio majors.)>The Disney Animators' Strike- which resulted in the dissemination of skilled workers to competing studios- doesn't happen.And lastly, for the meme->Disney doesn't help guide the Chouinard Art Institute into its final state: the California Institute of the Arts.
>>150481799We wouldn't have Looney Tunes or Tezuka
>>150481799would walt be ok with the 3d shit?
>those titles>those thumbnailsI will (not) watch your videos
>>150481799>no Looney Tunes>no Superman>no Tom & Jerry>no Batman>no Peanuts>no Spiderman>no Flintstones>no Astro Boy>no Muppets>no Scooby Doo>no Star Wars>no Garfield>no DBZ>no Mario>no Wallace & Gromit>no Simpsons>no Sonic>no Beavis & Butthead>no Toy Story>no South Park>no Pokemon>no SpongeBob>no Family Guy>no Shreknothing, they will never exist
>>150482509>>150482522Blue films survive, all animation is porn now.
>>150483096Works for me
>>150482122argentina made the first cartoon
>>150483053>no Superman > Batman > Spider-Man>no Tom and Jerry > Flintstones > Scooby-Doo>no Peanuts > Garfield>no Astro Boy > DBZ > Pokemon>no Muppets > Star Wars>no Mario > Sonic>no Simpsons > Beavis and Butthead > South Park > Family Guy>no Toy Story > ShrekExplain why a world without Disney means none of these to me and any anons in this thread. I understand the reasoning behind most of these. I'll argue that Superman and Peanuts (and their derivatives) could exist independently of Disney's influence due to the longer life of the comics industry at that point. I don't get the (pre-buyout) connection between Disney, Muppets, and Star Wars.
There is no reasonable argument for the idea that animation would've always just existed. None at all. There is no guarantee or divine will to it. People have a very strange idea that progress always happens linearly, but this isn't necessarily true. The animation and special effects that existed in the late-1980's essentially has a very similar philosophy and methodology to what existed like 80 years earlier. But until the founding of ILM (during the 1970's, and especially after '77), there was not really a consolidated school of special effects (Thomas G. Smith has stated exactly what I'm saying). So, you would have certain films like King Kong and Snow White, which were not only excellent films, but they also had a level of technique and prowess that put it above the majority of derivative works for decades. It takes effort to maintain a level of 'consistency', and it takes even more effort to cultivate and develop the mediums further. The fact that the was a "golden age of animation" at all makes us extremely fortunate. Wit and innovation of the 1930's created something that should have realistically appeared several decades later. And even something so mythical as a "golden age" was extremely fragile and eventually faded away because it was not properly attended to. It's no doubt that there were geniuses in the silent era. Winsor McCay was almost unbelievably talented, and shorts like Felix the Cat served as the foundation for Disney. And in the realm of special effects there's people like Méliès. Disney deserves a huge amount of recognition for their innovation and influence. The Silly Symphony series is like watching evolution happen right before your eyes, it's insane how much they grew in a few years. Steamboat Willie was self-funded work made by like 10 guys, and it really worked. One of the craziest things about Disney is that they were always self-funded, and weren't on the dime of companies like Warner or MGM.
>>150481799WTF is this autism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Harman>He began his work with Walt Disney in 1922, working on Disney's early Laugh-O-Gram Cartoons.[2][3] Disney borrowed the Harman-Ising Ink and Paint unit for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and the studio also outsourced a number of cartoons for the Silly Symphonies serieshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Ising>Ising spent his teenage years working at a photographic studio before joining Walt Disney's Laugh-O-Gram Studio alongside other Kansas City youths.[1][2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Barbera>In 1929, he became interested in animation after watching a screening of Walt Disney's The Skeleton Dance.[15]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Clampett>Clampett was, in his words, so "enchanted" by the new medium of sound cartoons that he tried to join Disney as an animator.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McKimson>In mid-1929, Robert was offered a job at Walt Disney Studio as an assistant animator to Dick Lundy, while Tom apprenticed under Norm Ferguson.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Little_Pigs_(film)>Animator Chuck Jones observed: "That was the first time that anybody ever brought characters to life [in an animated cartoon]. They were three characters who looked alike and acted differently."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tortoise_and_the_Hare_(film)>This cartoon is also believed to be one of the inspirations for Bugs Bunny by Warner Bros., who first appeared in 1940.[2]Anti Disney people just blatantly have a humiliation fetish.
>>150483548I never considered that. Now with the Golden Age of intense growth and quality, do you think there's a possibility that animation in a Disney-less world would be of a lower-quality, but also much more stable since expectations are much lower for the medium?>>150483295No? The first animated shorts were made in the late 1800s in France. The first animated movie that we have box office evidence of was Argentinian, but even then there are claims that at least one or two animated features existed before that. Goofy VA presumably made an animated feature in 1915, but there's no proof of its existence. I'm sure that caught Disney's attention- he also spoke to Quirino Cristiani.
>>150482143mighty mouse?
>>150482210did labubus rip this off?
>>150484484Cheburashka definitely inspired Labubus, either consciously or subconsciously.
>>150483053>>no Star WarsMoebius and japanese films inspired George >>no SimpsonsWhy? Matt wasn't influenced by disney, he was influenced by underground comic artists of the 70s like crumb, and influenced by shitty sitcoms like Leave it to beaver.>no South ParkHow? The crappy christmas short got them attention.
>>150482972But that's the part of the segment where Super Dave almost cracks up
>>150483882Add The Country Cousin to that. Tom and Jerry were pretty shamelessly stolen from the cat and mouse from that cartoon.that and the maid character was stolen from Three Orphan Kittens. Mammy Two-Shoes is the name of Disney's maid character.
>>150484515Not saying it didn’t, probably in there, but the original art of the labubu monster looks more Maurice Sendak influenced
>>150484816Brad Bird came from a Disney background and really codified what the Simpsons is and should be.https://warburtonlabs.blogspot.com/2015/11/storyboarding-simpsons-way.html
>>150483464NTA>Tezuka was inspired by Disney to become an animator, and created manga as a stepping stone to making his own animated works. In turn, Toriyama was inspired by Tezuka, who never really hid his influences at all. Dr. Slump is effectively an Astro Boy parody, and without that success he wouldn't have the clout to get Dragon Ball greenlit. Hell, without Tezuka the Japanese media landscape would be so drastically different it would be impossible to tell if the anime would even still be alive by now. >Charles Schulz admitted he was a massive Disney fan as a kid, and took up cartooning because of it. He even applied for a job at Disney in 1940 and was rejected. By the 70s he was wearing a Mickey Mouse watch that he wanted since he was a kid. >Nintendo's connection to Disney is twofold. During and after WWII, Disney licenced their IPs out to Nintendo to make toys and playing cards with them. Shigeru Miyamoto grew up with Disney movies and has stated they've influenced his games.>Pixar was funded directly by Disney, to the point they were effectively a second party studio from the start. Disney owned the first six Pixar films long before they bought the studio because they were made directly under them.>Shrek, and Dreamworks in general, was made in response to Disney. Hell, it was literally founded by former Disney executive Jeffery Katzenberg.In general, people vastly underestimate just how interconnected the world truly is, let alone the world of media. Take away even one IP from existence and chances are you you wipe out an entire branch of media in a cascading butterfly effect. Take away one of the most influential media empires to ever exist, and well it's not much of a stretch to say it would be catastrophic.Though I agree that I can't seem to find any tangible connection to Disney when it comes to Star Wars and Muppets. Seems like those are the few IPs that could arguably walk away unscathed when it comes to wiping Disney from history.
>>150484816G. Lucas is a Disney fan.>Went to Disneyland on its opening week as a child and described it as a life changing moment>Was briefly an animation student in college, and has described animation as the purest form of cinema>Has openly supported comics and animation over the decades>Sold his company to Disney
>>150485353>George LucasTenuous, but fun trivia: Lucas was at Disneyland opening week as a child and left dissatisfied with Tomorrowland’s Adventure Into Inner Space, years later that site was where they put the Star Wars attraction.
>>150485055I'm sure he helped but he's not why it's on the air >>150485498I need more proof Star wars as a whole is inspired by Disney movies so much that it wouldn't exist without them, more than just that screenshot and Lucas liking disney as a kid. Star wars owes its whole aesthetic to Moebius
>>150485621SW is the sum of hundreds of different parts. I don't think any singular thing is 'responsible' for it, as such. But I do think Disney is -a- part of it. (not the original person who made the claim btw)
>>150483548The bitter pill that people need to swallow is that animation was always one foot in the grave. Even with Disney propping up a good chunk of it, up until the 90s they were always at risk of going bankrupt or suffering a hostile takeover that guts the animation studio and sells the IPs for scrap. Without Disney it would've just been seen as a cheap novelty that could've just faded away with time, along with decades of Hollywood film techniques in the process, due to animation and film evolving with each other.
I probably like Disney more than the average jaded asshole, but I feel like if they had never entered the market, someone else would've just done everything Disney ended up doing, just with a different name, different people, and a different structure.Like, if the first caveman who discovered fire didn't discover fire, some other caveman would've done it, just imagine that but in a grander scale with all of Disney's innovations and contributions to the medium.
>>150486950That's easy to say in retrospect. However I seriously doubt many people back then were willing to risk the farm on multiple occasions just to make their passion projects.
>>150481799literally dead
>>150483295So? That doesn't really mean a whole lot when it comes to arguing that animation would still be alive a century past that point.
>>150481799Disney is such a based company.
>>150485596It was Rocket to the Moon that was underwhelming for him on opening day, Inner Space opened like a decade into Disneyland's life.
>>150484816Groening cites 101 Dalmatians as the reason he got into animation.
