Mickey's Once Upon a Christmas

[askmike1]

Those still shots really do not capture the film. There was not one part of the film that they looked like the pictures. I don't know why those still shots are so bad though.

[GeorgeC]

Uh,

There's a difference between GOOD CHANGE and BAD CHANGE.

CGI Mickey is BAD CHANGE in my opinion. The character was never designed for 3D and the animators always had problems with the ears because they NEVER looked right when they were shaded for 3D effect in the original theatrical shorts!

I've seen the trailers and commercial promos for this film. It looks like a mediocre videogame and frankly lacks the snap, squash and stretch that the best hand-drawn Mickey/Disney shorts had. It's very artificial, inorganic and just doesn't have a look that appeals to me.

The scene I saw with Donald having problems with the fold-up chair just didn't animate well and looked oddly stiff. Had the animators BEEN ABLE to draw that scene, the gag would probably have worked better. As it turned out, it wasn't as funny as it could have been.

Sorry, but if I don't even like the look from the previews of the product, why should I bother even renting the product let alone buying it?

If it looks like an Edsel, you're saying I should go ahead and buy the lemon? Uh-uh. This video looks fugly.

[Phil]

I watched this last night with my kids and we enjoyed it.

The thing to remember is that CGI animation is not Hand Drawn animation. The characters don't look the same in CGI and they don't move the same in CGI. It's not better or worse, its just different. It's alright if you don't like it, but that doesn't necessarily make it bad.

Mickey and Friends have taken a step into the 3-D world. Whether that's good or bad is a matter of opinion, not fact. And I enjoy reading everyone's opinion.

On the other hand, whether the quality of animation is good or bad can be stated as fact. I would say that the quality of animation in this movie is... average. Compared to Pixar, it's bad; compared to what I've seen on TV, it's good. My three daughters have all but the latest Barbie videos, and I'd say the animation is comparable. Some scenes were a little stiff, and others were very animated.

There were numerous times while watching it that I was strongly reminded of the look of the Rankin-Bass holiday specials. The textures, the lighting, the backgrounds, the occasional stiffness of movement. The resemblance was so strong (to me at least) that I wonder if it was done intentionally.

So there's my review. If you can accept the movie for what it is, direct-to-video quality CGI, it's a good movie. Whether it should have been done that way is another debate altogether.

[askmike1]

I agree with Phil about the animation quality. It is average, but why shouldn't it be. This wasn't a feature length animated theatrical realease. Like it or not, it is a Direct to DVD movie, hence the budget is going to be significantly lower. Sure the non character animation isn't realistic, but it isn't supposed to be. Disney was trying to bring a toon-feel into a CG film, something no one else could accomplish. I think Disney accomplished this perfectly.

As for whether or not to see it, just like you don't judge a book from it's cover, you can't judge a movie by it's preview. For example, if I judged "Cars" by it's trailer (no pun intended), I would never go see because frankly I think the trailer is funny or animated great at all. In fact the cars look like they belong in Jay Jay the Jet Plane or Thomas the Tank Engine. However, since I don't judge by the preview, I will go see the movie when it comes out and judge it after that.

[Uli]

...

[Stego]

I have to whole-heartedly agree with George on this one. Personally, i've always loved the older look for Mickey, and the majority of the enjoyment i get from watching the old shorts is just watching this visually appealing character react to his surroundings in amusing ways. (Particularly, i really enjoy it when there's a small bit of acting between Mickey and Minnie in regards to their cutsey flirting/giggling...but don't tell my friends or they'll think i'm a sissy! ) I can't relate to the "hip" new Mickey in that image of Mickey through the years...where each Mickey draws the next.

I really think that the first minute or so of 'Camping Out' (1934) -- showing a harmonica-playing/dancing Mickey -- is a good example of Mickey the way he was meant to be seen...fun-loving and well animated.

Three Musketeers is a PERFECT example of how Mickey should be handled: with care and passion for a great story/characters. His time alone in the prison was surprisingly emotional, i thought. I hope i'm not over-glorifying this for anyone, but i really think if a company with as many resources as Disney would focus a good portion of that into a well-crafted film (basically, treat it like it's gonna be the next Lion King) well then you'd have a REASON for people to want Mickey around again. Not to mention, he's gotten so much iconic treatment, and i think it's about time he's lived up to it a bit more.

Pardon my frustration, but if they would stop making sequels (even if they were the best thing since sliced bread) and put that energy into something that would take TIME to produce; quality might be once again associated with the Disney name.

[Steve Carras]

For me the odd coincidence (and I do not blame ANYONE for not ntoicng..I am a DIE HARD animation and nostalgia buff ) was hearing yet again the 1,000,million zillion use of Hanna-barbera classic sound effects in the Disney store (Montebello, Southern CA) preview (and CGI DOES look odd for them) tha t sounbds like Warner Tiny Toons using FLintstone sounds YET DISNEY THEMSELVES back the old "Two Jacks'; (Hannah, Kinney) shorts ORIGINATED those (watch,say, MOTOR MANIA and HOLD THAT POSE both from 1950 with the Goof or the Donald cartoons like FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH from the 50s!) (MGM originated many of these beloved effects too.)

(Some of thsoe sounded speeded up SFX,btw.)