Frank Thomas’ animation remained rougher than hell, but brilliant as always. His stuff was still a bitch to follow up. I know from first hand experience and I got my ass chewed out because of it. Still, I have only the highest respect for these guys even though “Illusion of Life” spends much too much time on the later years at Disney doing stuff that was not always their best.

(how much of the animation did they actually do with all those assistants doing the cleanup and inbetweeners doing the majority of the drawings.”

Well, how about I call you out on your B.S. ?

Look, I was was an assistant animator for years, so believe me, I’m all for giving due credit to the great assistant animators from the Golden Age films for their role in the success of the films (which Thomas and Johnston briefly acknowledge — though only two directly by name , Dale Oliver and Walt Stanchfield — on page 228- 229 , and the aforementioned comment from page 39 about “… the men who made a duck or a dog out of smudges and scratches had to have a very special type of knowledge.”) , however I think your statement reveals that you know very little about the work of these great animators or indeed how ‘Hollywood’ animation in general was made (at other studios, too, not just Disney) if you think that merely because the inbetweener does a larger percentage (sometimes, not always) of the drawings in the finished scene that means you can then seriously question how much of the animation did the credited animator actually contribute to the scene. (Really ?) If you really think that you have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s a collaborative effort for sure , no one who has worked in the business denies that , and in the “Golden Age” there’s no doubt that screen credits were doled out rather too sparingly, but if you’re going to try to pin that on Disney or the ‘Nine Old Men’ (as part of “their b.s.” ) then you’ve got to lay it on the directors and animators at all the other studios who did not give screen credit to the assistants , the inbetweeners, the inkers, the painters and the dozens/hundreds of other people who contribute to making mainstream studio animated films.

That isn’t accurate , if you’re talking about the Disney studio in general, especially during the period of rapid expansion from 1932 – 1941 . By all accounts , the studio’s creative staff screened a steady stream of live-action films from various studios (including foreign films). And of course there were the detailed Action Analysis classes studying the work of Chaplin, Keaton, and other great pantomime performers.

On the other hand, if what you meant by that statement is that Thomas and Johnston make almost no reference to other animated films outside of Disney and don’t seem willing to admit that any worthwhile animation technique was developed at other animation studios outside of Disney’s , then that is true. In that sense it does seem as if they lived in a bit of a bubble.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4fT8vY-yjg

Above are the links to the videos. I hope you can make them functional so everyone can enjoy them!

If I’m reading that right, you’re saying your work suffered by not using the production methods developed by Disney and the 9 old men. I think your not giving yourself enough credit. You did what your instincts told you to do. You animated.

According to Bakshi, Jim Tyer did the most footage at TerryToons per week, straight ahead, by himself, no roughs. To me you were working in the best traditions of Iwerks, Tyer and Richard Williams. They animated.

It’s high time to call Disney and 9 old men out on some of their b.s. They were brilliant, but can they have it both ways? They crow about the animation production methods they developed that decreased the amounts of completed drawings the lead animators had to do, but they don’t want to lose any credit for the completed animation. (how much of the animation did they actually do with all those assistants doing the cleanup and inbetweeners doing the majority of the drawings? Were they animators that animated? Or were they directors that could draw really good?

What strikes me, personally, reading “Illusion of Life” (did this occur to you?) is that the animators lived under a rock. You see quotes like “Undoubtebly the character animation is the thing that attracts the audience to see the film,” revealing how they didn’t care about what the audience was thinking. At no point are they inspired by a bit of camerawork or music or personality from ANOTHER film – and the constant insinuation that the Disney films are the only worthwhile films of all time, and that no one else actually achieved personality animation, and that no one could do good work outside of Disney, etc. get wearying fast.

Remember, when Thomas and Johnston left the studio (1978) to write the book, women still weren’t even permitted to wear PANTS at the studio. It was a relic of a bygone age by then … the masculine infinitive object in English was so widely used at the time that I’m sure they give no thought to it!

Mike, if you truly reflexively draw so clean, that’d actually explain some of the atmosphere of the films – it certainly fits your graphic sense. (“Whitewash” and “The Dancing Frog” were really successful in this – it looks as if your graphic sense determines the form, and not just the volition. It preserves that “handmade” aesthetic you champion so well, and you shouldn’t worry that it made the films bad. Whether they would have been better or not with looser rendering, though, you would know better than anyone else. (Incidentally, with these ‘clean’ lines, did you draw from the wrist, finger, elbow, or shoulder? It’d certainly have an impact, and your work leaves one curious.)