--- In baltosanctuary@yahoogroups.com, "baltoship <cawcawcaw@e...>"
<cawcawcaw@e...> wrote:

>    I bet the third one is going to be better.  Maybe they will
> start a number-omen thing where the odd ones will be better than
> the even ones.  They say that's the case with Land Before Time...
> Though I haven't researched that in any depth...

Well, I found that this is the case with the Star Trek movie
series.  The odd ones were always better as far as I'm concerned
(I:Motion Picture III:Search For Spock, VII:Generations).  Although
I didn't particularly like the fifth movie.  The ending lacked depth.

So, there you have it.  Here's two cents from a member who's never
posted here before.

*ignores the stares from other members*

"It's worse than that, he's dead, Jim, dead Jim, dead Jim!  It's
worse than that he's dead, Jim, he's dead, Jim, he's DEAD!"

-Trash80

im leaving alot of my groups again guys, and sadly, this one is one
of them *Hugs everyone* sorry guys, but with my time being well, not
there as of late, and I never really wanna post here anyways.. sorry
again, perhaps ill see you guys again someday! ^_^

NightTracker,
DarkWolf of your Nightmares

*Vanishes*

> I don't have a Balto site, because I don't think I could put
anything
> up on a Balto website that hasn't already been put up on all of the
> ones that already exist.

**This is true... Part of the reason I haven't made one, either.
There are a lot of great ones.  Someday I would like to get good
enough at drawing Balto to try animating him -- that's what I would
put up at a site (only to have it stolen, I'm sure.  :o(  )   I'm too
busy working on other stuff right now-- I don't even have time to do
fanart!


>
> I have no Balto fanart, because I havn't drawn any.

    **It's not easy.  Jenna is really hard to draw because she is
so "perfect" and angular (especially the muzzle- Oy !) and Balto is
so.... Mmm.   I say Balto is "slippery" because he is drawn rather
loosely in the movie and so it's hard to capture the Balto-ness of
him in fanart.  I MUST win those Xeroxes at ebay one of these days--
They sold for around $50 (!!!) last time, and I think that is just
too much to pay for Xerox copies !  I mean, the seller can make as
many as he wants, and they're going for $50??  Then there is Steele,
whose face changes drastically throughout the film.  Good luck
drawing *him* !

>
> I do have a little gallery for my "art", if you can call it that:
> http://www.charlo.com/art ... beware, it sucks.

    **It's cute !   So you like Pokemon, huh?  I do, too.  People
laugh at me because I'm 25 and actually like the show  (Ahem.  And
have several dozen battle figures...)  One time my brother (27) was
asking me what attacks Chikorita has, and he was really horrified
that I could actually answer.
     I think I am supposed to be embarrassed about that, but... jeez,
Pokemon are just too cutesy-poo to dislike.  Especially the soft,
unevolved ones.
    How can anyone not love Togepi??   He's the best.

:o)
~Baltoship
>

> Ag, do you have a Balto site somewhere, or fanart posted somewhere
or
> a gallery of your art? (And if not, why not?)   I would love to see
> it!

I don't have a Balto site, because I don't think I could put anything
up on a Balto website that hasn't already been put up on all of the
ones that already exist... besides, a website doesn't quite do the
movie justice. ;)

I have no Balto fanart, because I havn't drawn any.

I do have a little gallery for my "art", if you can call it that:
http://www.charlo.com/art ... beware, it sucks.

-Ag

I saw it last weekend and was (kind of) pleasantly surprised.  John
Goodman is a good voice artist... Even if he doesn't fit the role, at
least he has a talent for putting some conviction into his lines.
   Animation was surprisingly good -- not quite as good as Return to
Neverland, but better than the trailer would suggest.   The music was
even sorta catchy.
    It only really floundered in story, because it doesn't do anything
that the original JB didn't do.  Ebert and Roper were saying that
there was no real "point" in making it, and I would tend to agree.
It is like JB mixed up and reheated.  Like cafeteria food, I suppose.
       There was one thing I didn't understand at all, though...
There's this part where you're led to believe a vulture gets killed.
(Serious.  Shere Khan gets him and it's quite obvious what's going to
happen to this vulture.)  but then later on... the vulture just
*appears* again and is perfectly ok, and they don't explain at all
how he survived.
    Phil Collins plays the vulture, but he's just not that good at
it.  Not like Muk and Luk, who were totally cute and also funny.
     JB 2 has a feeling of weirdness about it, generally-- There are
odd moments in it and a lot of things left hanging.  But it wasn't
too bad... just felt very repetitive of the first one, and a lot of
things just happen as though it's trying to say to you,
  "Look at this!  Remember this from the first one??"  and serve no
other purpose.

     Also I got a big sundae from Baskin Robbins and watched Balto
tonight.  It's just such a good movie !!   I was going to watch Balto
2 but...
    It just doesn't pull me in the way the first one does.  Whenever I
start thinking I should watch it again, I end up thinking about the
parts in it I don't like (The wolverine scene, Grand Design - which I
always fast-forward, all the annoying parts with the 3 sidekicks, and
really the whole last 20 minutes or so.)  and then I go grab
something else to watch.
    Balto 2 is like WORK.. you know?  There's too much in it I have to
take pains to avoid.
    Today I went to a big gallery of B2 screen grabs and ... OY.
It was downright painful.
      The scenes look *acceptable* when they're moving, but looking at
the still pictures is QUITE disturbing.

(Shudders.)

    I bet the third one is going to be better.  Maybe they will start
a number-omen thing where the odd ones will be better than the even
ones.  They say that's the case with Land Before Time... Though I
haven't researched that in any depth...

:o)
~Baltoship

Ag, do you have a Balto site somewhere, or fanart posted somewhere or
a gallery of your art? (And if not, why not?)   I would love to see
it!

:o)
~Baltoship

>
> http://www.lionking.org/~silver/balto/balto2/chapter04_04.jpg
>
> First off:
>
> Who are you, and WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH BALTO AND JENNA?!
>
> I both love and hate this screenshot, because it perfectly captures
a
> good 25% of what's wrong with Balto 2. I'll ignore the most
disgusting
> faults in this picture, those being the character designs, such as
> Balto's rugby-hooker neck...


    ***I tell you what.. More than the problems with any of the rest
of his body or face...?  It is that damned NECK that bothers me the
most !!
     You see, I was under the impression that Balto 2 would be like
the Land Before Time sequels... That is, the character would *LOOK*
the way they're supposed to, but their movements would just be
jerkier and not as well animated.
   But that is not at all the case with Balto 2.  The characters don't
look anything like they're supposed to... AND the animation is bad!
   Except for the coloration, the character design just isn't right at
all.
Did they even *study* the original Balto ?  I get the feeling they
watched it once and took note of the colors, and then just did their
own "thing" with the sequel.
>

>
> ...the lines in general.

   I have also noticed this with Balto's muzzle lines.  The worst
example is that scene where he's talking to Aleu about looking like a
wolf, and he goes,
   "And you do."
  And you get this front view of him with all his muzzle and mouth
outline showing, and it's just the most *awkward* looking picture !!
(I would get screengrabs of this, but I do not have B2 on DVD yet,
because I am not willing to pay more than $10 for it !)  I know they
showed muzzle lines in the first Balto (They had to with Jenna and
Steele, else their features would not show up against their white
faces.) but it was done *tastefully*.  That kind of thing has to be
done very carefully because the curvature of the muzzle lines will
inadvertently make the character look as though he is *smiling* when
he isn't.
    You would never find a pic of Balto like that in the first one.

It's especially dumb because it actually takes *more* work to put
those lines there, when the pic would look better without them.  It
takes away from what the actual *mouth* is doing, and that is what
will show the facial expression accurately.
>

>
> The bear, outside:
> http://www.lionking.org/~silver/balto/balto2/chapter12_02.jpg
>
> While I was complaining about the highlights on the bear while he
was
> in the cave, I'm afraid I must now take issue with the *lack* of
> highlights when he's outside.


   **Yes, be blends into the scene *way* too much.  This is a "good"
scene too for exposing the true cartoony look... Here, the characters
are drawn with sharp outlines, but the background is all blended and
soft-edged, painted in a different style.  You can tell the
background is totally just a flat painting, and the characters are
overlayed on it.  Aleu is even hanging over the *edge* and it still
looks like a flat painting.
    I suppose this is unavoidable in a low budget sequel, but it would
be of minimal concern if it were not among a list of serious
grievances !
     Also you can see the shadows in this picture just don't work.
They do not connect to the foot-contacts, and there is also a weird,
light colored aura around the bear's right foot... Who knows what's
going on there...

   And of course uh.. (heh)  A bear really has only 3 foot pads, and
Aleu's tail is really supposed to be almost as big as her entire
body..

  (Ahem.)  But I digress..



>
> Perhaps an alternative to the plainly visible, high-contrast bear
from
> Balto in this case would've been an almost invisible, well-
camouflaged
> bear that would add to the sense of confusion?

   **This would have been an idea worth pursuing.  Wouldn't it be cool
if some animated movie did a camoflauge thing with one of its
characters like you see in those funny paintings?  Have you seen
those with the pinto horses that blend into their background, which
is like snow and patches of brown rocks?
    It would be awesome if they could do something *similar* to that
with a brown and black bear.. where he would kind of disappear when
he wasn't moving.
     Then again, maybe it would be too weird and freaky, too.  Like
Predator.   I don't know, but it's an interesting idea, and would be
a lot more fun to watch than another bear scene like this one...

    I wonder if they are going to have a bear scene in #3..?



  the only possible means of escape would be
> jumping off of the cliff...

   ** I suppose they could have just run back into the cave...  I
mean, they weren't really *trapped* by the bear;  you get the feeling
they could have slipped past him... After all, it is an *edge* and
very wide, not a *ledge* that would allow one to be cornered.
    While this whole bear fight is going on, I found myself wondering
why they were fighting him at *all*.  Aleu could have just run into
the cave, and Balto would have followed her.
     In Balto 1, as you mentioned, it was cleverly staged so that
Balto could not run off and leave his friends, so the fight was a
forced situation... but here?
   After Aleu gets pulled up, why don't they just take off?

>

>

>
> First, a demonstration that the Balto 2 artists don't know how
light
> actually works:
>
> http://www.charlo.com/chapter07_06.jpg
>
> Assuming that the only significant light source is the moon, then
how,
> exactly is her upper thigh supposed to be lit? It is obviously
hidden
> from the moon from all angles. It's Photoshop Magic!


   ** I noticed this, too.  I knew you would comment on it!


>
> Second, a demonstration that the Balto 2 artists aren't quite sure
how
> to use the airbrush tool they love so dearly:
>
> http://www.charlo.com/chapter15_04.jpg
>
> Since when can you see through a supposedly opaque object?

    **I think they were going for the implication that snowflakes are
actually crystalline and so have tiny holes in their flake structure
that would allow some transparency... BUT... snowflakes falling in
real life are not clear like this, so what's the deal?
    Also, these just do not look like snowflakes to me...  They are
just like little moth balls or puff-balls or something...  Or maybe
mold starting?


  Also, note the poor drawing job on Niju's right forepaw.
> Is he standing in water or something?

    **Why is his other leg so short?

>
> http://www.charlo.com/chapter17_04.jpg
>
> There's just no excuse for this. The highlights are *spilling over*
> onto parts of the characters that *obviously* should not be lit.


    **There are lots of amateur artists that know better than this and
they are certainly not getting to work on animated films.. WHY?
    This is the kind of thing you would learn if you took art in *HIGH
SCHOOL*!

    "Okay, now this is how light shines on an object..."

This is another pic where Balto has a gigantic, long neck.
Oh wait... he has it throughout the entire movie, doesn't he...
    It is strange how Balto's eyes look almost yellow in this scene.

We never got an explanation for THAT, either, did we..?

XD
~Baltoship
>
>

>   At any rate, I have notice that sequel characters tend to look a
> lot more "compartmentalized" with all their different color areas
> outlined sharply, which makes them look a lot like *drawings* rather
> than real characters.
...
>    **Yes, definitely.  Poor Jenna, especially...

http://www.lionking.org/~silver/balto/balto2/chapter04_04.jpg

First off:

Who are you, and WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH BALTO AND JENNA?!

I both love and hate this screenshot, because it perfectly captures a
good 25% of what's wrong with Balto 2. I'll ignore the most disgusting
faults in this picture, those being the character designs, such as
Balto's rugby-hooker neck...

First, about the extra lines, notice the dark line separating
"Jenna"'s (it hurts to call *it* that, it really does) white chest and
face mask from her red coat. Notice how absent this line is in the
original:

http://www.lionking.org/~silver/balto/images/pict13.jpg

Second, note the lines in general. Perhaps I was too direct in my
previous post about contrast; Balto did have contrast, while Balto 2
did not, but Balto also used subtlety and ambiguity to great effect as
well, which Balto 2 did not. An example:

http://www.lionking.org/~silver/balto/images/pict29.jpg

This shot, besides showing what Jenna is *supposed* to look like
on-model, demonstrates much of the range of contrast in Balto. There
are both sharp lines (the characters) and subtle colors (the
background), and everything works together very well. The sharpness of
the characters doesn't make them look overly cartoony, because the
viewer knows exactly what the lines are for: they are to set them
apart from the rest of the scene. The subtle colors of the background
make it instantly clear that the trees and the mountains aren't the
important things in the scene. It's proper use of contrast and color
depth to naturally direct the viewer's eye to where it should be.

Then, go back and look at the picture of "Balto" and "Jenna" that I
pasted at the top. The subtle, somewhat blurred quality of the wooden
house siding does not help direct any attention to Balto and Jenna,
for two reasons: first, it's a very restricted scene with a boring
background, and those two are pretty much the only things you *can*
pay attention to, and second, the characters themselves are not sharp.
The lines on Balto, for example, have no clear purpose. What are they?
Are they just to set Balto apart from the rest of the scene, or are
they actually *part* of Balto's character design? The lines are soft
and low-contrast; you can't really tell either way, at least not
without thinking about it.

>    The bear is halfway interesting when he's inside the cave (though
> pretty cartoony ) but then he gets outside in daylight and it's
like,
> Where are we? Jellystone?

The bear, outside:
http://www.lionking.org/~silver/balto/balto2/chapter12_02.jpg

While I was complaining about the highlights on the bear while he was
in the cave, I'm afraid I must now take issue with the *lack* of
highlights when he's outside. Photoshop airbrush-lights are bad, but
so is this matte-brown blob we are now presented with. Real bears are
not matte-anything, even black bears. They have very nice, almost
shimmering coats, with all sorts of dark and light color variations.
Matte just doesn't cut it.

Perhaps an alternative to the plainly visible, high-contrast bear from
Balto in this case would've been an almost invisible, well-camouflaged
bear that would add to the sense of confusion? A real brown bear would
obviously blend quite nicely in the brown environment... but, then
again, maybe the animators wouldn't be able to find him themselves if
he were too well hidden. Oh, well.

>   The dialogue between them ruins any sense of danger the scene
might
> have had, because *nobody* sits there TALKING (and about personal
> ISSUES, no less) when they are in a serious crisis situation.

Balto: "Well, gee, Aleu, here we are at the top of this cliff. How do
you propose we get down?"
Aleu: "Maybe jumping? Onto that ledge? And something should be done
about that blasted bear."
Balto: "Oh, yes, the bear. Of course. What's this about a ledge?"

>    A nice bit for this scene would be Aleu seeing Balto for the
first
> time, and getting completely distracted.  Perhaps she would look at
> him and go, "Papa?"  and then the bear would knock her senseless
> while she's standing there not paying attention.

Danger is often very difficult to convey, in any medium. You can't
overdo it, or it just seems absurd, but if you underdo it, as in this
bear scene, then, well... you fail. A good danger scene requires that
the characters involved have some means of escape that is neither too
simple nor completely unbelievable.

Balto gets it right, because they're in the middle of the woods and
thus have an infinite number of possible escape routes. Balto can
surely run faster than any bear; the danger comes from the unfortunate
presence Muk, Luk, and Boris. You know that it's possible for Balto to
somehow get out of the situation with everybody intact, but it's tense
because you can't quite think of how.

Balto gets it wrong, because they're on the top of a cliff with a
supposedly rampaging bear. There is no sense of danger because there
is never any question about what will happen. First, you know they
need to escape, somehow or other. That's fine. In this specific case,
though, you also know that the only possible means of escape would be
jumping off of the cliff... but that's stupid, right? Oh wait! Whee,
there they go, over the edge. Have a nice trip.


> There is *some* clever lighting in the
> sequel, like that shot of Aleu against the moon, where she is almost
> black on her top half, and glowing blue on her lower half...

http://www.lionking.org/~silver/balto/balto2/chapter07_06.jpg

I agree that it's a nice scene, for what it is, but I still have two
complains with it.

First, the use of a light/darkness shot at this point doesn't really
serve any purpose. Aleu is supposed to be very emotionally confused,
so should there be something in the scene to convey that? This scene
properly shows a sense of loneliness, which is good, but it misses
pretty much everything else. I guess being half-right is better than
nothing, though. ;)

Second, the Photoshop highlights. New section! ;)

I obviously take great issue in Balto 2 with their obsession with
Photoshop. Now, if they used it *properly*, they could've gotten some
beautiful effects. Note the computer artwork of the artists at Elfwood
or VCL, who know how to use the program properly.

The artists for Balto 2 evidently do not know how to use the program
properly. I have here three "enhanced" screenshots, to make this
point.

First, a demonstration that the Balto 2 artists don't know how light
actually works:

http://www.charlo.com/chapter07_06.jpg

Assuming that the only significant light source is the moon, then how,
exactly is her upper thigh supposed to be lit? It is obviously hidden
from the moon from all angles. It's Photoshop Magic!

Second, a demonstration that the Balto 2 artists aren't quite sure how
to use the airbrush tool they love so dearly:

http://www.charlo.com/chapter15_04.jpg

Since when can you see through a supposedly opaque object? Since Balto
2, I guess. Also, note the poor drawing job on Niju's right forepaw.
Is he standing in water or something?

Third, a demonstration that the Balto 2 artists were either getting
very tired towards the end of production, or, more likely, they're
just careless in general:

http://www.charlo.com/chapter17_04.jpg

There's just no excuse for this. The highlights are *spilling over*
onto parts of the characters that *obviously* should not be lit.

The overall point, though, is the the airbrush-lights just look bad.
It makes the characters look like rubber statues, rather than furry
animals. Fur does not highlight in a single, solid color. It casts
thousands of tiny shadows on itself. I guess that would take skill to
animate, though.

-Ag

I watched Wolf Quest again tonight and noticed some new stuff..
Also I rented Fievel Goes West after not having seen it for ages...
It was worse than I remembered, very toddler-oriented, though it did
have a couple of poignant scenes here and there.   I realize that
they have now made *4* Fievel movies..?  Two are really shoddy
sequels, but Spielberg did do Fievel Goes West, and Jimmy Stewart is
in it, so it's worth seeing, I guess...

    I did not realize there were 4 of them, I suppose because they are
not numbered?  But they appear to have stopped with Fievel, as a new
one hasn't come out in some while.  Maybe it has to do with the age
of the original film... Land Before Time is a little bit newer and
had more story/sequel potential also.

>   At any rate, I have notice that sequel characters tend to look a
> lot more "compartmentalized" with all their different color areas
> outlined sharply, which makes them look a lot like *drawings*
rather
> than real characters.

    I noticed this with Aniu as well.  The original White wolf was
kind of amorphous, but here Aniu has all these lines all over her
face and muzzle.
>
>"There is WAY too much brown in Balto 2.  That is one of my big
> complaints about it."

   **I will continue to complain about this. The brown just never
stops in Balto 2.  Except when the ice floes take over, and then it's
nothing but ice floes for a really long time.


> Re: the bear scene in Balto 2...

    Unimpressive. I think that is the best way of putting it.  I still
don't understand why the bear falls over like that and looks dead for
a while.

>
>
> (notice how his eyes go from red to yellow
> > when he leaves the cave? Odd...

    **I think it would have been SO cool if they could have staged
this bear fight in the cave the entire time.  Then the bear could
have stayed all dark and scary.  They could have done the inner-
knowing ledge-thing inside the cave, too... down a precipice inside
that would lead to another tunnel, and then they could follow it to
the outside and find the ocean.  (Also the glowing eyes with Aleu and
the bear's inner-knowing might look cool in the darkness of the
cave.)  This would have been so much better because the cave scenes
are really the most interesting in the whole movie, what with the
sparkles and darkness and neat colors and stuff in there... And how
about if Balto and Aleu could be walking through a tunnel and find
more cave paintings, and that would spark the discussion of "I know
what I am, but not *who* I am,"  in a much smoother way.  Better than
tacking it on to that part where they are hopping down the BROWN
rocks, anyway.
   Anything to get them off that damn brown !!
>
>
> "  The dialogue between them ruins any sense of danger the scene
might
> have had, because *nobody* sits there TALKING (and about personal
> ISSUES, no less) when they are in a serious crisis situation."

**Ugh. That dialogue there is terrible.  It grates on my ears to no
end.

>

>
> "But it is like, too *overdone* to be artsy and tasteful.  I think
> they even have the entire full moon in the shot, which makes it
look
> unreal and gratuitous."
>
   **I was too hard on this scene.. It is actually quite pretty.
Earlier remarks withdrawn.
> >
> >


> No matter how deep or wide the shot was (the snow was
> > visible in several parts of the song, after all), there were
always
> > the same number of snowflakes on the screen, and they were always
> at
> > the same distance: right in front of you. That's not snow, that's
> > crap.
>

   **There were some very brief moments where the snow looked like
crystalline flakes, but they were too brief to make much difference.

   The whole section with the wolf pack leaves much to be desired.
They do not give Niju any real motivation for wanting to stay, and
they never explain what happens after that first part where he asks
the wolves who will follow him; about half a dozen wolves go with him
and "leave," but then in the next scenes, Niju is with the main pack
again and it is as though that earlier scene never happened.  Why did
they leave if they were just going to come back the next day?

    Also I do not understand why Balto changed his mind about helping
the wolves.  At first he was very against it with, "This isn't our
fight, Aleu," and "We both leave in the morning." (Yeah, what
happened to THAT plan?)  and then suddenly he shows up and says,
"I can't ignore my dreams any longer."  and he is all for helping the
wolves and facing down Niju. I don't get that at all.

     Aleu, too.  She spends maybe 10 minutes with these wolves and
then hops right up on that rock and practically dictates to them
something like, "I say Niju is WRONG!" and they all listen to her
like she's suddenly their leader!


"We strike the bear clan first !"

    When did everything become a CLAN all of a sudden?

And if the caribou crossed the ice bridge *last* winter, what have
the wolves been eating all year?

  I have heard people complain about how one wolf suddenly says
something like, "He was right about Balto." because he seemed to have
no way of knowing Balto's name.  But as I watched it again it seemed
like more than enough time elapsed between scenes-- The wolves could
have been introduced to Balto off-camera.

   Do you ever wonder why they live on these barren (brown) rocks by
the ocean instead of living in the forest where there might be
something to eat?  There is nothing even *growing* around those
(brown) rocks, so how can the wolves be surviving?

    More of my hopes for Balto 3 are:

1) That they completely cut out the "stupid sidekick" routine.  Why
is it that when there are three of them, one always has to be fat,
and the other two are skinny?  And one skinny one is an idiot and the
other is *slightly* more intelligent and "normal"... It's like the 3
stooges revisited, not to mention that it was just like that in the
original Balto.

and

2) Can they get those wolves looking LESS like cats..?


:o)

~Baltoship

>
> I agree that the skies looked good on their own, but I just don't
> think they belong in a cartoon.

      For me, they were the most attractive thing *visually* in Balto
2, so I have no problem with them.

If they had used their beloved
> Photoshop

XD   Hee hee.

  to sort of "cartoonize" them a little, soften the edges,
> make it look a little bit hand-painted, then I think they would've
> added much more to the film as a whole, though they may not have
> looked as good in an absolute sense.>
> Or, better yet, they could've painted actual skies themselves. It
> isn't that hard.

    True.  Probably digital creation would have been the way to go, as
hand painting would take further time and energy away from the
character drawings, which were shoddy enough already.
>

> I recently figured out what Balto 2 is missing that the first one
is
> overflowing with:
>
> Contrast.
> That's right. Good, old-fashioned color contrast. The lines are
sharp and crisp in the original, while they are soft and blurry in
the
> sequel;

    **I have noticed sort of the *opposite*, too...? that most
animated sequels tend to have a real "cartoony" look, and I'm not
sure why this is.  Original movies will tend to have dark and light
scenes with lots of tonal color and highlights, while sequels tend to
be all about giving everything "lines" all over the place.
    For example, in NIMH 1, you had the black crow Jeremy flying a
lot.  Often, when his wings would overlap the black of his body, they
would seem to "disappear".  Not completely, but the outline of them
would not be that distinct- especially from far away.  Then the
sequel comes along, and suddenly Jeremy's winglines are constantly
visible.  When his wing flaps down across his body, a light *grayish*
outline appears around his feathers so that you can tell exactly
where they are, even when you *shouldn't* be able to.  (That is, when
a black bird flaps, his wings should be indistinct when crossing the
dark backdrop of his body.)
    I think the sequel animators may do this because they are simply
not as good at animating, and have to use lots of extra lines
to "keep track" of what they're drawing.  Either that, or they do not
put in the time to take these lines out when the cels are being
colored digitally, so the resulting film has lots of lines over all
its characters.
   At any rate, I have notice that sequel characters tend to look a
lot more "compartmentalized" with all their different color areas
outlined sharply, which makes them look a lot like *drawings* rather
than real characters.



this one fact, in my opinion, kills Balto 2 more than anything
> else... except maybe for their complete butchering of the original
> characters.


    **Yes, definitely.  Poor Jenna, especially...

> The original bear looks mean. He looks completely driven to kill.
> That's because he has almost no features: he is totally black,
except
> for his claws, teeth, eyes, and a few sharp lines on his face for
> effect.

    **Yes, so true.   They didn't even give him really distinct teeth -
  just kind of jagged white, no borders where gums would be, or
distinctions between the teeth.  Also his featureless eyes and the
almost unearthly glow on his fur (The colored areas that indicated
surface) gave him such a neat, stylized look.   I have heard people
criticize the design and animation of this bear for it being too
featureless, but truly it's more a stylization that they created on
purpose.  They must have wanted him to look mindless (no pupils, just
pools of light) and perhaps demonic (matte black with odd, reflecting
highlights instead of normal looking fur.)  because there was no way
to make a bear look real without it having been seen before.  We have
all seen the "real" monster bear already, because it was in Fox and
the Hound.   The bear with the normal eyes and regular fur.. and
yeah, it's a scary bear... but it's not *disturbing* the way Balto's
bear is.  When you watch Balto, the bear is so eyecatching because
you get the sense that there is something wrong with it.  Even its
very existence seems incorrect.
   Not like Fox and the Hound, where the bear is just.. Ho hum,
another animal in the forest just trying to get by and eat things.

The highlight around the edge from the sun, besides adding
> realism, emphasize the major contrast in the bear itself:
everything
> else is *good* now, but the bear is *bad*. There is a sharp, crisp,
> visible line between the two.

     Yes, and the difference in style from the regular, earthy
features of the surrounding landscape to this strange looking bear
makes him all the more frightening.  He is so boldly different from
his surroundings.  And as you mentioned, his claws and teeth and eyes
draw your attention due to the contrast.


>
> The bear from Balto 2 looks like a wuss. Other than his overall
> cartoonish shape, he is just built wrong from the ground up. First,
> notice that his claws, the dangerous parts, are not highlighted;

    I think this is because the *rest* of the bear is also
highlighted.  They devote too many lines and details to non-important
areas, so your eye does not focus on the dangerous spots.  Instead of
being a formless black thing with eye-catching weapons, he is a furry
animal with ears and eyes and too many expressions, and too much else
going on around his for us to pay attention to any particular
feature.  It *is* a lack of contrast... Ironically enough, achieved
through the animators' devotion to making him more detailed, probably
a move they figured would pay off.

his
> teeth, however, which bears don't generally use to attack, are set
> apart.

    **Yes, it should have been all about the claws.   Especially since
this bear spends so much time *swinging* at Balto and Aleu.  The
teeth are of no concern at all, so why even bother ?


The worst part, however, is the airbrush highlight around his
> outline. The viewer doesn't know what's going on with this bear. Is
he
> good, or is he bad? You can't tell; he isn't high-contrast.

    **He does not contrast from his *environment* any more than he
contrasts in himself.  The Balto 2 bear is quite similar to the Fox
and Hound bear in that regard-- He looks like just another animal out
in the woods.  (Of course, needless to say, the Fox/Hound bear is way
better overall.)


  As we see
> later in the scene, he's actually a brown bear. What the hell? I
> didn't want to know that! This character isn't supposed to be
brown,
> because *THE REST OF THE SCENE IS ALSO BROWN*!

    **There is WAY too much brown in Balto 2.  That is one of my big
complaints about it.  This bear scene, followed by the next half hour
or so, is nothing but brown rocks and white snow.   And they don't do
anything with it to make it variable in appearance-- It looks like
the exact *same* rocks in every background scene.
    The bear is halfway interesting when he's inside the cave (though
pretty cartoony ) but then he gets outside in daylight and it's like,
Where are we? Jellystone?
    The bear is brown and has all these *facial features*... He looks
like a cartoon.  Like an evil version of one of those bears from the
Disney cartoons.  (You know those ones about that bear in the
national forest who always seems to end up on the floor in a cabin,
pretending to be a bearskin rug?)
     Then there is the bear's behavior, which is just too weird.  At
one point he just sort of trips and falls over..?  And stays there
for a while, but then comes back to life and attacks again ?   The
Balto bear is scary because he keeps coming, like a Terminator and
like a real bear.  He does very little hesitating for the sake of
plot.




(notice how his eyes go from red to yellow
> when he leaves the cave? Odd...


   **Yeah, what's the deal??



> is an *obstacle*, something *bad*. This bear wants to rip Aleu's
head
> off.

    **That's another problem with this bear, that he doesn't get
anything done.  The Balto bear actually gets a piece of Balto and
Jenna, too.  There is physical impact that resounds in a big way,
because he practically crushes Balto, and we can see the weight
pushing him down into the snow.  And both Balto and Jenna get
knocked to the ground, and it feels real.
    In Balto 2, the bear is just a big pushover.  He does hit Balto,
but not very far, and then he just messes around for what seems like
forever.  He sits there swinging at Balto and Jenna, missing them
again and again for no reason, even while they actually have a
*conversation* !!
   The dialogue between them ruins any sense of danger the scene might
have had, because *nobody* sits there TALKING (and about personal
ISSUES, no less) when they are in a serious crisis situation.

   "We'll be killed!"

    Yeah, right.  That they would even *say* this out loud conveys how
un-dangerous the situation is.   Even if the bear had been done well,
the behavior of Balto and Aleu is so bad for the realism aspect that
the whole scene would still be a joke.
    Perhaps they needed a more placid bear to help this part of the
story,  but it could have been done much better.
    A nice bit for this scene would be Aleu seeing Balto for the first
time, and getting completely distracted.  Perhaps she would look at
him and go, "Papa?"  and then the bear would knock her senseless
while she's standing there not paying attention.

    Balto 1 is so much more dramatic, generally.  When Balto gets
thrown against the rock by Steele, it's shocking and real, and he
stays down, at least for a while.  And the bear stomps him and leaves
him breathless for a time, too.
    In Balto 2, he gets knocked by the Bear, and seems to slide and
bounce way too many times for the distance covered, and he is up
again momentarily.  There is never the sense that Balto (Or anyone in
the movie) is truly mortal and could actually get hurt or killed.

>
>

>
... and
> you also have the most high-contrast shot in the entire movie.
>
>
   **This is a great scene and something you would never see in a
sequel, I guess because it takes some artistic ingenuity to think of
it in the first place.  There is *some* clever lighting in the
sequel, like that shot of Aleu against the moon, where she is almost
black on her top half, and glowing blue on her lower half...
But it is like, too *overdone* to be artsy and tasteful.  I think
they even have the entire full moon in the shot, which makes it look
unreal and gratuitous.
    When it comes to color, less is often more.  A simple black/light
contrast shot has much more impact than a very beautiful, colorful
shot that looks totally staged.

>
>
>
> The part of Balto 2 that sticks out as the biggest offender in this
> point is the part at the end, when Aleu is swimming back towards
the
> pack in between the ice floes. The water looks *so* digital, and
Aleu
> looks *so* obviously animated.


    ***Yes...  I have always disliked the look of it.  But then again,
the alternative would be having animators actually *draw* all the
waves and splashes, and that's just beyond the scope of an animated
sequel like this.  Or, they would do it and it would look even
*worse* than the digital water.  (Remember when cartoons used to fall
into water, and they actually came out with LIGHT BLUE sticking to
them as though the water were paint??)




.. but the worst part is, the water
> doesn't even look like water! It looks like some sort of crumpled
blue
> tin foil.

    **I get the feeling digital water is quite difficult to animate,
relatively speaking.  It tends to be slightly too thick and "gooey"
even in high budget films.  (All the more reason to praise Titanic,
where it looked incredibly real.)   Even in Ice Age, the water looked
SO real, but the splashes were like explosions of clear ball-bearings
or clear packing peanuts or something.
    The Balto 2 water looked quite bad, but I think it was a fairly
good thing to end up with, all other options considered.




The scene was supposed to take place at dawn or dusk (I
> could never figure out which... another failing of their attempted
use
> of light), so the water should've just been a barely visible dark
mass
> anyway... you know, the sort of thing that would take you two
seconds
> and two colors to do by hand.


    **YES, I had not thought about this!  They could have done it
almost entirely black with an occasional blue or gray digital swirl,
and it would have looked much better!
>


>
> In Balto 2, the only snow of any consequence came during the "Grand
> Design" song. These "snowflakes", to use the term loosely,
consisted
> of nothing more than what looked like dabs of gray from the
Photoshop
> airbrush tool.

  (Laughter.)  XD



No matter how deep or wide the shot was (the snow was
> visible in several parts of the song, after all), there were always
> the same number of snowflakes on the screen, and they were always
at
> the same distance: right in front of you. That's not snow, that's
> crap.

    **Yes... Pretty sad.  I mean, you'd think they could scan a
snowflake into the computer and shrink it down and use it with not
too much hassle.  They would only have to do *one*, right?  And just
use good old "Paste"  (or the computer animation equivalent.) to make
more and drop them with some kind of panache, instead of just, "
identical white blobs falling, equidistant from the camera at all
times."
>
:oD

~Baltoship

>    **I liked the "real" looking skies... I guess because so much of
> the movie either looks like bad animation or bad computer effects.
> It was cool to have *something* that looked "pretty" in a genuine,
> natural sort of way.

I agree that the skies looked good on their own, but I just don't
think they belong in a cartoon. If they had used their beloved
Photoshop to sort of "cartoonize" them a little, soften the edges,
make it look a little bit hand-painted, then I think they would've
added much more to the film as a whole, though they may not have
looked as good in an absolute sense.

Or, better yet, they could've painted actual skies themselves. It
isn't that hard.

> If there was a computerized
> scene, they didn't exaggerate the details of the object so that it
> would stand out from the rest of the animation.

I recently figured out what Balto 2 is missing that the first one is
overflowing with:

Contrast.

That's right. Good, old-fashioned color contrast. The lines are sharp
and crisp in the original, while they are soft and blurry in the
sequel; this one fact, in my opinion, kills Balto 2 more than anything
else... except maybe for their complete butchering of the original
characters.

Case study: the bear scenes.

Balto:
http://www.lionking.org/~silver/balto/images/baltobig16.jpg

Balto2:
http://www.lionking.org/~silver/balto/balto2/chapter12_01.jpg

The original bear looks mean. He looks completely driven to kill.
That's because he has almost no features: he is totally black, except
for his claws, teeth, eyes, and a few sharp lines on his face for
effect. The highlight around the edge from the sun, besides adding
realism, emphasize the major contrast in the bear itself: everything
else is *good* now, but the bear is *bad*. There is a sharp, crisp,
visible line between the two.

The bear from Balto 2 looks like a wuss. Other than his overall
cartoonish shape, he is just built wrong from the ground up. First,
notice that his claws, the dangerous parts, are not highlighted; his
teeth, however, which bears don't generally use to attack, are set
apart. The worst part, however, is the airbrush highlight around his
outline. The viewer doesn't know what's going on with this bear. Is he
good, or is he bad? You can't tell; he isn't high-contrast. As we see
later in the scene, he's actually a brown bear. What the hell? I
didn't want to know that! This character isn't supposed to be brown,
because *THE REST OF THE SCENE IS ALSO BROWN*! The bear didn't have to
be so ambiguous in order to fulfill his dubious "inner knowing" role.
He still could've been a high-contrast devil, and a well-animated one,
too; all they would need to change to sneak in some inner knowing
goodness would be his eyes (notice how his eyes go from red to yellow
when he leaves the cave? Odd...). His body should have stood out. He
is an *obstacle*, something *bad*. This bear wants to rip Aleu's head
off. I know that when I watched the movie, this is when I first
started to think that maybe Aleu losing her head wouldn't be so bad...
maybe if the bear scene had been done more professionally, those
feelings could've been delayed. Shine him against the sun, use lots of
quick motion, *anything* to make this bear special... anything but
using airbrush highlights and giving him the same color as the rest of
the landscape.

Further example:

There is one bit in Balto that has always stuck out at me, and that is
the single shot when Balto is wrenching himself out of the snow after
his fall, in front of the sun. I think that that is the most powerful
visual in the entire movie.

The sun is bright. Balto is nearly black in comparison. The snow in
front of the bright sun and sky also look nearly black. Add a little
highlighting and some lens flares to let you know just *how* bright
the sun is, and, by implication, how dark everything else is... and
you also have the most high-contrast shot in the entire movie.

Coincidence?

>     If they can't incorporate computer effects smoothly, I wish they
> wouldn't use them at all.

The part of Balto 2 that sticks out as the biggest offender in this
point is the part at the end, when Aleu is swimming back towards the
pack in between the ice floes. The water looks *so* digital, and Aleu
looks *so* obviously animated... but the worst part is, the water
doesn't even look like water! It looks like some sort of crumpled blue
tin foil. The scene was supposed to take place at dawn or dusk (I
could never figure out which... another failing of their attempted use
of light), so the water should've just been a barely visible dark mass
anyway... you know, the sort of thing that would take you two seconds
and two colors to do by hand.

>    Balto 2 did so little with the snowscapes, generally.  The
paradox
> is that they actually had so much more variable types of weather
> conditions to work with in the story (What with the seasons
> changing.) but the results are less impressive than the original
> Balto, which had nothing but snow, Snow, SNOW.

In Balto, when Balto is looking up towards the top of the cliff in the
white wolf scene, you get a real sense for the tremendous distance
involved. Part of this effect is from the snowflakes, which you see
falling... and falling... from all the way up towards the top of the
cliff! There are probably thousands of snowflakes visible in that one
shot, and they vary in size with distance, and they're all moving in
just the right way to create the perfect effect.

In Balto 2, the only snow of any consequence came during the "Grand
Design" song. These "snowflakes", to use the term loosely, consisted
of nothing more than what looked like dabs of gray from the Photoshop
airbrush tool. No matter how deep or wide the shot was (the snow was
visible in several parts of the song, after all), there were always
the same number of snowflakes on the screen, and they were always at
the same distance: right in front of you. That's not snow, that's
crap.

>    Balto actually *feels* cold, too.  I love that about it.  You can
> watch it and really feel like you're in Alaska.

I noticed a while ago that their use of darker, thicker colors
(especially apparent in Jenna's red) really goes a long way towards
establishing that it's cold, it's winter, and it's far north. They're
cloudy day colors. Winter isn't about being bright; it's about being
dark, and the animators of Balto got it down perfectly.

Balto 2, on the other hand, messed everything up. It's supposed to
start during the summer, which would mean bright, vibrant colors,
emphasized by the sun, especially in Alaska, where the summer is so
short and the plants and animals need to make the best of what little
time they have in the warmth. Alaskan summers can be some of the most
colorful in the world. But no... in Balto 2, everything is washed out.
It doesn't look like anything you would ever see in reality, it just
looks like a movie with bad lighting... which it is. Even the bright
greens of the grasses look bland, largely because of all the computer
blurring. The only things that actually look like summer, in fact, are
the skies... but those don't really fit anyway, for the reason I said
before.

-Ag

>
> I also hope they ditch Photoshop... and the photographic skies.

    **I liked the "real" looking skies... I guess because so much of
the movie either looks like bad animation or bad computer effects.
It was cool to have *something* that looked "pretty" in a genuine,
natural sort of way.


  The
> only obvious computer effects in the original were the one or two
lens flares and the snowflakes...

   **I loved how they used the computer effects in the first Balto..
The sled scenes, the ice cave, the snow falling and those couple
little scenes sprinkled around in it.  If there was a computerized
scene, they didn't exaggerate the details of the object so that it
would stand out from the rest of the animation.  So many movies do
that and I don't get why..!  It looks awful and makes the animated
parts look way "cartoony"..  Like in Balto 2, you have this cartoon
look, and then this totally "real" totem pole just glaring in the
middle of it.   So often I hear about how expensive and time-consuming
it is to do computer effects like that... and why??   I mean, I would
much rather have that time and energy put toward better character
drawings (How about Balto and Jenna on model..?) instead of an "ooh
wow" Totem Pole.
     If they can't incorporate computer effects smoothly, I wish they
wouldn't use them at all.

even the snowflakes were sharp and
> defined, not blurry like they were in the sequel.

    Balto 2 did so little with the snowscapes, generally.  The paradox
is that they actually had so much more variable types of weather
conditions to work with in the story (What with the seasons
changing.) but the results are less impressive than the original
Balto, which had nothing but snow, Snow, SNOW.   Like in the first
Balto, they did a really far away shot, a top shot with the
snowflakes falling, and they gave the snow variety in scenes like the
actual snowstorm, and the sled dog scene where
Steele is badgering Balto-- the snow is all lit up in orange and
yellow and it looks so *cool* !
But Balto 2 doesn't do much except:

1) Springtime.  Green grass and trees.  So Pretty.

2) Sea shore.  So pretty.

3) Brown rocks, boring white snow, and icebergs.

4) MORE brown rocks, boring white snow and icebergs.

5) Lather, rinse and repeat.  Indefinitely.


    Balto actually *feels* cold, too.  I love that about it.  You can
watch it and really feel like you're in Alaska.

:o)
~Baltoship
>

I think it's exactly the opposite of how you put it. There are
similarities between STargate and Atlantis, but they don't follow
scene for scene.   The closest thing in it is Milo Thatch.

  **There are shocking similarities, actually.  Even down to the
details.  Of course there is the main plot of discovering a strange
new world, and the exploration party including a geeky Linguist and a
gruff military guy who engages in *some* form of double
cross/betrayal.  In Atlantis it is outright betrayal followed by
turnback, while in Stargate it is minor betrayal (Gruff Military Guy
brings a bomb and it causes all kinds of trouble.)  followed by... Oh
wait.  Turnback, as they all decide to help the Egyptians fight
against Ra.    Then there are  the beginning scenes (the beginnings
are exactly the same)... You start out with an explanation of what
happened to the Egyptian/Atlantian society, complete with big special
effects and booms and whooshes.    Then you fast forward to "Present
Day," which is essentially the same time period in both movies...
Though, mercifully, Stargate fast-forwards a little more.    And that
brings us to Milo.. Aka Geeky Linguist who is losing all his
credibility and being ridiculed by his academic contemporaries in
some fashion or another, and both movies include a scene where he is
either chasing a car with them in it, or he is invited into a car, or
driven somewhere by a stranger, which leads to him meeting the (You
guessed it.)  Philanthropist who is going to fund/instigate his
expedition.      And of course there is a beautiful foreign girl from
the new society who falls for the linguist and teaches him the
language, but ignores everybody else.   And you have the older,
father figure in the foreign world who is like a chief who wants to
stick to the Old Ways, and regrets ever having made contact with
the "strangers,"  while the young people want to fight and change.
And then the importance of necklaces....  Not to mention that each
movie ends exactly the same way !!  You have the Geeky Linguist who
decides to stay in the foreign society and (You guessed it.) He sends
a necklace and a NOTE back to the philanthropist who funded his
expedition, explaining that he is going to stay with the
foreigners...  Oy.   (Sorry, but that necklace/note thing is just WAY
too similar !!)  It would not be so bad except that the similar
scenes appear in the same locations in the different films, too.  The
start and finish is all but identical as far as I'm concerned.   I
don't know if Disney did this on purpose or what... I suspect not,
but the similarities seem too close for chance-comfort.  Also,
considering what happened with Kimba (see below.)  It would not
surprise me a bit if Disney decided to just "borrow" some major
elements of Stargate.

Kimba the White
Lion, however, the principal accusation that The Lion King was
ripped off from it comes from character design and the NAME.

    Actually, No.   They ring true on way too many counts to be
coincidence, from names to story to character and scenes....Here is
an interesting link which explores many of them:
http://www.kimbawlion.com/rant2.htm

It links to an essay which (if you can get past the annoying F words)
describes the nuances in detail.  The download clip of Tezuka's
beginning is also eerily similar to the opening sequence of TLK.
Not that I am bashing TLK (It is one of my favorite films.)  But even
I can acknowledge that it's pretty much a knock off (albeit a
beautiful one.)  of this much earlier work..

:o)
~Baltoship---


In baltosanctuary@yahoogroups.com, "sparf1

I think it's exactly the opposite of how you put it. There are
similarities between STargate and Atlantis, but they don't follow
scene for scene. The closest thing in it is Milo Thatch. Stargate is
one of my all time favorite scifi movies, and the series SG-1 isn't
bad either. But, on the other hand, one of my favorite plays is
Hamlet, and it's remarkably close to Hamlet. Excepting the ignorance
of the queen to what's going on. Sarabi probably knew, at least
subconsciously, that Scar was responsible for what had happened, but
without proof and another male heir, there was no opposing Scar.
Let's see, Both Simba and Hamlet have their fathers murdered by
their evil uncle, and at one point both are exiled from their
kingdoms, both are told what to do by their fathers' ghosts. The
Lion king is not exactly a copy of hamlet of course, but it is
heavily inspired by it. Also, I have never seen Kimba the White
Lion, however, the principal accusation that The Lion King was
ripped off from it comes from character design and the NAME.
WEll...let's see, since they used African names in The Lion King,
and Simba means LION....gee............I wonder who is grasping at
air? Could it be the Kimba people? yes, I think so.

Heheehe

>    My only concrete hope for Balto 3 is that there is no more
singing
> from the characters.

I also hope they ditch Photoshop... and the photographic skies. The
only obvious computer effects in the original were the one or two lens
flares and the snowflakes... and even the snowflakes were sharp and
defined, not blurry like they were in the sequel.

Sharp is good. Blurry is bad.

Does anyone have any information on Balto 3?  Do we have a planned
release date or any plot info?  I have looked everywhere online and
haven't seen anything about it... In fact there seems to be some kind
of secret conspiracy around it (Ooooh...) and people intentionally
avoid talking about it.
    Wouldn't it be cool if they made some toys this time around?  I am
trying to remember when they really started banking on merchandise
for the Land Before Time movies, and shouldn't they start doing that
with Balto?
    Personally, I'm glad they're making a Balto 3, and even a Balto 4
and more would be ok with me.  They have already made a sequel that
is not as good, so what damage can a couple more do?
    For example, now we have 9 Lands Before Time (Land Before Times?)
and does it make any difference whether there were 4, 5, or 9 of
them?  For me, after the first 2 or 3 of mediocre quality, the
Damnation That is The Sequel has already been inflicted on the
original.
    My only concrete hope for Balto 3 is that there is no more singing
from the characters.  It seems like animated movies are going that
way distinctly, as the most recent ones (Treasure Planet, Tarzan,
Spirit, Atlantis, etc.) have not had singing characters.  I have read
that the last abode for the cinematic musical has been the animated
film, but I would say that is coming to an end, and soon.
    Sequels seem to be slower to follow trends, though, so maybe it
will be another year or so before the singing dies down in them.
(But I believe it will eventually.)
    Even now, as I watch the "older" animated movies like Mulan, Lion
King, Hercules, and others, they seem to scream "1990s animated
film !"
    Though it is paradoxical that audiences seem to "want" non-musical
animated films, but The Lion King is still everybody's favorite.. And
Shrek of course, but it seems like the CGI movies are held to a
different kind of formula altogether.

    Apropos of nothing, I was reading at Imdb and came across one of
the user comments for Atlantis.  Maybe you have read that
one, "Stargate, anyone?"
    I had read it a few times before and not given it much thought...
But a couple months ago I rented Stargate.  I had seen it in the
theater and not since then, so it had been quite a few years.  I
didn't remember much of it.
    Well, whoever wrote that is absolutely right.  Atlantis is totally
an underwater version of Stargate;  it does not just follow it in
plot, either.  It follows it *scene for scene* in some areas !!
   With all this talk of Kimba and Hamlet around the upcoming DVD
release of The Lion King, I am surprised that Atlantis has not gotten
more attention for how it would appear to be "based" on Stargate.
    I would say Atlantis has WAY more in common with Stargate than
Lion King does with Hamlet.  Eerie similarities.

  :o/
~Baltoship

So you have not been watching the recent ones?  I find it somewhat
painful to pay the New Release price for them.  I usually wait until
I have a Blockbuster free rental to use up and then it doesn't *seem*
like as much of a waste as it really is.
   I thought Little Mermaid 2 was *ok*.. I actually *liked* Lady and
the Tramp 2, and Pocahontas 2 was not bad either.
    I am surprised by the variety in quality on these things, as some
really *are* utter crap (Hunchback 2) while others appear to have had
some care put into them.
   Like in Tramp 2, they used some of the same backgrounds as the
original, and they took care to make Lady and Tramp look the same as
they did before.  The animation was pretty nice, too, and there was
even some *relatively* deep dialogue and character development with
the whole Scamp/Angel thing.   The plot does not turn around nearly
as smoothly as it should, but at least they *tried* to give Scamp
some rationale for going back to his family.
    I have always thought that the original Lady and the Tramp did a
total no-job on the plot turn at the end.  And this is one of those
touchy things where people might get offended if you criticize the
original, but...
    Honestly, did they explain at ALL why Tramp decided to go back to
Lady and be a "house dog"?  It seemed the opposite to me, as they
showed Lady choosing not to live the stray life, despite how Tramp
enjoyed it and wanted them to, together.  Then they got into the
chicken fiasco, and Lady was angry at Tramp and basically told him to
get out of her life.
    But then, (poof!) Tramp is happy to be a house dog and everything
works out.

    If they did that in a modern movie, I think people would criticize
the lack of explanation.  But it's an old Disney classic, so people
just look at it with fond nostalgia and don't analyze it.  (At least
ehh.. *normal* people don't.  I do.)

     Another thing I have noticed in watching Disney sequels is that
they seem really crappy when I first watch them (I suppose because I
compare them to the originals then.) but then I rent them again 6
months later and they seem much better.
   I rented Pocahontas 2 again after a couple-year break and it was
better than I remembered... Though I could have done without the
songs (except for the ending love song-- that is a good one!)
   and the lame character they gave John Smith.  Maybe they had to
because they had to make John Rolfe seem like the Better Dude, but
they turned John Smith into a sort of shallow parody of his former
self.  Basically all he did was spew a lot of bad puns throughout the
thing, and then be perfectly comfortable with giving up The Poke to
John Rolfe.  They could have done a little love triangle thing
between The Poke and the two dudes, and it would have given everybody
more character depth.

    Still, it wasn't a bad movie- the plot was totally new, and it's
cool to see more than one Good Guy in a movie.  Have you noticed
that, in Disney movies, they almost always go with one Good Guy and
one Good Girl, so there is no doubt who will end up together?  It is
only in special movies like Hunchback and Rescuers 2 and I suppose
Poke 2 that they give the lady options.

:o)
~Baltoship

> > > I have no further desire to see disney sequels until they stop
> > being
> > > utter crap. TLK II was good, to me. Little Mermaid 2 was
cruddy.
> >

I recently sold a Balto plushie on eBay for $20.
Yes, just $20.  I found this one at goodwill and saw that he had been
through the dryer (I guess)and his tail and shoulder and earfur were
all frazzled.  (BTW I just want to say that I love the term "earfur"
and I would like to praise whoever came up with it.  Does anyone
know?  The earliest mention of it I can find is Epesi_Cheetah's
comment that Balto's earfur in the sequel is a different color than
it was in the original.)
    Sohh, I ironed out the Balto's tail and earfur and shoulder tuft
as well as possible, and improved it somewhat, but it was still not
perfect.  His tail did not hang right, either, I guess from being
soaked.
   But this was a perfect Balto in every other way- No legs broken,
and he was all clean and nice, and no eye scratches or anything.  A
very nice Balto.
    And nobody wanted him.
   I got a bidder at the last minute who put in the $20 starter.

   Now is that sad or what??  Here you see Baltos selling for $50 and
$60 (!!!)  and my gimpy-tailed one goes for $20, and even that was
charitable.

    Also I have finally started getting Balto screengrabs, and have
you ever noticed how Steele's muzzle changes length dramatically
between scenes?  In the beginning it is really long, but then it gets
really short and then it goes medium...  Balto's changes a bit, too,
but not as drastically.
    I must get photos of this, as I think it must prove how difficult
it is to animate a long-muzzled dog.

:o)
~Baltoship

Re: Multiple Roles...

   Another thing to consider about this is that we are somewhat biased
and blinded by the genre of animation and so we don't see the issue
from the objective "film perspective."

   Pretend for a moment that Live Action films were as rare as
Animated Films are today.  Suppose there were only 4 or 5 Live action
films made every year. (Or 4 or 5 of every genre, if you prefer.)

   THEN wouldn't we protest if John Goodman were the star of 2 or 3 of
them?   Even if they put him in disguise - Beards, weight loss,
costume, makeup, etc. (to mimic the mask of an animated character.)
so that he would not be "recognizable,"  You would still recognize
his voice and get maybe get tired of his... I don't know.  His AURA.
And we would *definitely* weary of the same "sidekick" voices-- Jim
Cummings always being the gruff bully and the annoying next door
neighbor... And even if people didn't *realize* these were the same
actors while they were watching the movies, they would certainly
protest when they would see the same names on the movie posters again
and again in the same "type" of movie.
    This would very likely have people wishing these film studios
would tap the giant reservoir of acting talent and cast some
*variety.*
    I DO see the situation like this, with animation as a very select
and limited genre as it is, and it becomes even narrower and hurts
its own potential when the same people are recast again and again.
    How would it be if we had 5 romantic comedies in a year, and Julia
Roberts was in two of them and Hugh Grant was in two?   Suddenly the
genre becomes colored to particular actors, and limited to their
skills.
    But for some reason, Mr. Average does not like to apply this
theology to animated films, and tolerates hearing people like David
Ogden Stiers and Jim Cummings in major animated roles over and over.
And why?  Because the standards are lower, or what?  Maybe it's
because the voice actors' names are not publicized like they are in
live action movies.   But why should that make a difference?  It is
conceptually the same thing, and animation fans are well aware of
who's voicing whom.  For them, it is already as *though* the VA names
are in big letters on the posters.

Especially now that animation has earned recognition in Hollywood as
never before, I think the time has come to treat it with the same
care and philosophy we apply to other types of movies.

:o)
~Baltoship

>
>  In baltosanctuary@yahoogroups.com, "sparf1 <sparf1@y...>"
> <sparf1@y...> wrote:
> > I have yet to understand why it's wrong for one person to be cast
> in
> > more than a handful of roles. But I digress.
> >
> > I have no further desire to see disney sequels until they stop
> being
> > utter crap. TLK II was good, to me. Little Mermaid 2 was cruddy.
> Eh.
> > I had a point when I started this. Oh yeah.
> >
> > Can anyone tell me what disney's FIRST animated sequel ever was?

Yep, you hit the nail on the head, Baltoship. I hoped SOMEONE would
get the REscuers reference. WOOOOOOT

HEhe. That's all for now.

I suppose there is nothing "wrong" with it; it just annoys me,
personally.  More than that, it limits the use of new and unheard
talent in major roles.   In the case of Jodi Benson, too, her
repeated use has not been in a "new" capacity in the sequels.  She
has done the "mother canine role" twice now, being Jenna in Balto 2,
and Lady in Lady and the Tramp 2, and even these movies had similar
themes, Namely: "One puppy is different from all the others and has
to resolve his/her heritage and find place in the world, with the
help of DAD."   And she basically played the same character in them:
The doting mother who helps in a really minimal way and gets
sidelined.
     As far as Dalmatians 2 goes: I did not like her in it simply
because I didn't she was a good choice for the role.  Because she is
*not* English!  And the original Anita of course was.   So she got
used *again*, and for a role that could have been better filled by
someone else.   (Just like John Goodman being "Baloo" - they don't
pick the person who would fit the bill, they pick somebody
who's "popular.")
    With Dalmatians it is kind of a shame because the whole setting
of "London" is integral to the story, and the international "feel"
was part of what made the original film so charming.  The original
cast had more "real" (and some quite unknown) English and Australian
people in the major roles, while this sequel has more Americans
pretending to be English.
    That might be just the effect of their putting less effort into
the sequel, but overall...  I think Jodi Benson from Illinois should
not have been Anita.

    It was terrific that they cast an actual English boy to provide
the voice for Patch.  That added so much to the story, and was way
more enjoyable than say, Haley Joel Osment would have been.---

Phil Harris I could forgive because, even though he got used a lot,
he tended to fit the roles he was in.  He really *did* sound like a
rough-edged, carefree kind of guy (O'Malley) and a "jungle bum,"
(Baloo) and like a big bear in Robin Hood. (Basically just a rehash
of Baloo, I think.)
      I think it is a different thing with Phil Harris and John
Goodman, too, because even though Phil was a well known comedian, the
public was not intimately familiar with him.  It's not like the case
with John Goodman, where we've been watching him for years and years
on Roseanne.


   I guess Disney's first sequel would be The Rescuers Down Under ?
I really liked that movie.  I thought it was better than the first
one (I never got into the original Rescuers.  I know people who
totally love that movie, but I thought it dragged.) and really
excellent compared to the newer stuff the Mouse has been putting
out.  It was very imaginative (and some parts very unrealistic) but
what nice animation, color and backgrounds !  Also the eagle was
animated so beautifully, and the love-triangle/competition thing
between Jake and Bernard added so much.

:o)
~Baltoship

  In baltosanctuary@yahoogroups.com, "sparf1 <sparf1@y...>"
<sparf1@y...> wrote:
> I have yet to understand why it's wrong for one person to be cast
in
> more than a handful of roles. But I digress.
>
> I have no further desire to see disney sequels until they stop
being
> utter crap. TLK II was good, to me. Little Mermaid 2 was cruddy.
Eh.
> I had a point when I started this. Oh yeah.
>
> Can anyone tell me what disney's FIRST animated sequel ever was?

I have yet to understand why it's wrong for one person to be cast in
more than a handful of roles. But I digress.

I have no further desire to see disney sequels until they stop being
utter crap. TLK II was good, to me. Little Mermaid 2 was cruddy. Eh.
I had a point when I started this. Oh yeah.

Can anyone tell me what disney's FIRST animated sequel ever was?

Caution:  Does contain SPOILERS!   Stay back unless you dare risk
spoiling!

    Mayonnaise in the sun!  Lettuce in the veggie drawer for
*months*!  Milk left on the counter ALL DAY !!

    Ok.  You all get the idea.


I rented 101 Dalmatians 2 the day it got released.  It was ok and not
half as bad as some of the other sequels.  The animation was *decent*
and I praise their attempts at staying true to the style of the
original movie in terms of color and backgrounds.
    The story is pretty good, too (It's something new, at least.) but
I think they could have made Thunderbolt more likeable and less
obnoxious.   Also, the whole involvement of Cruella DeVil seemed sort
of tacked on and unnecessary: especially the parts where she was
getting Martin Short to paint Dalmatian spots over and over.  Those
are some very long scenes, and the whole time it's happening, you're
sitting there like,
"Where's this going??"
    All they needed was someone to kidnap the puppies, so why not a
new villain instead of the Same Old Stuff?
    Also, I don't know why this is, but the sequels are always so
HAMMY and over-acted..?  Even the characters like Roger and Anita are
suddenly all bouncy and energetic instead of being calm and "real"
like they were in the first one.  Thunderbolt would have been a much
better character if they had just let Barry Bostwick *relax* a little.

  Then again, I guess I should just be happy that they did not cast
John Goodman as Thunderbolt.


Have you ever noticed that female Disney villains are often really
skinny or really fat?  Or they have something wrong with their figure
and don't look all curvy and nice?  Just once I would like to see a
female Disney villain, solid-evil, be a total knockout like Belle.
    Also I think they need to give Jodi Benson a rest... 3 sequels is
enough already for me.

    Still, this is not too bad a sequel.  I think my sequel rankings
would be in this order so far:

   Toy Story 2
   Lion King 2
   Lady and the Tramp 2
   Pocahontas 2 ?
   Dalmatians 2/ Little Mermaid 2

    Ok, I'm sketchy on those, but it's an ok movie.  The first one was
so cute, though, it's hard to compare them.  I love those scenes
where Pongo is trying to get a "mate" for Roger...  And even though
you can often tell that it's the same puppy running by over and over,
those puppies are just so cute!!


:o)
~Baltoship



"Dalmation":  The process or condition of dalmating.

So, did we all gain at least 10 pounds ??  I read somewhere that the
average person gains 6 pounds over the holiday season- that's almost
"half a stone" for all the British dudes, and 20,000 calories in
addition to your normal caloric needs.  A few pieces of pie here and
there, cookies, candy, smashed potaters, gravy...
    I don't think I gained any weight, though, because my year-round
diet mainly consists of candy anyway (I'm like, way ahead of the
game.)  It's a good thing I take vitamins or all my hair and teeth
would have fallen out long ago.  Which would make me hairless and
toothless... Like a goldfish!
    Did we all get what we wanted for Christmas or Hanukah or Kwanzaa
or whathaveyou?   (I'm sure Sparf got nothing but coal!  :oD ) I
don't have family, so I had to buy all my own presents for myself.
    I finally got Rollerblades!
Are there any rollerbladers here?  Can you give me any tips?  I have
only gone out on them twice so far because I'm such a wimp and I keep
falling.  (People, Rollerblading is a LOT harder than it looks!)
Fortunately I have elbow and knee pads and wrist guards (all the poky
and bendy places.) because I'm a total Safety Lame-O Geek, but
somehow I manage to fall and hit all the places that don't have
protection.  So far I have only gone skating at night; it makes it
harder to see where I'm going, but it's worth it because no one can
see me flailing around awkwardly and falling over and over.
    Actually somebody did see me fall one time and that was
embarrassing, but fortunately he didn't say anything.  (Don't you
hate it when people TALK to you after you've done something
embarrassing?  Seriously, have they no compassion??)

     But I will NOT give up!  I bought brand new stuff because I knew
if I went cheap on it, I'd be more likely to quit when things got
tough.

:o)
~Baltoship  (Ahem.  Baltoship, The Rollerblader.)

Maybe they would only need flying cars if the human population grew
so much that they need more places to put backed-up lines of
traffic..?
    Then again, maybe flying is inefficient, and they will have
everybody driving tiny little, bubbly electric cars instead.

   And I bet if they ever make robots, it'll be like Star Trek.  There
will be artificial intelligence that is totally self-aware, but
everybody will be arguing about what constitutes "life," and we'll
have tons of special interest groups like PETA, only for the ethical
treatment of Androids, and the first androids will end up in court
testifying as to their sentience, and they'll have to win their
equality like African Americans did...  I bet prejudiced people will
even think up derogatory names for androids and be all mean to them
like in AI.
    The more things change, the more they stay the same, huh? (Though
hopefully it will not be as long or boring as AI...)

    And the question that's burning most vividly in everyone's minds..?

   When we finally have Androids walking among us, how many Land
Before Time movies will there be??

:o)
~Baltoship


>
> > Maybe all that spacey stuff is never going to happen after all?
> Have
> > movies and cartoons steered us wrong?
>
> Oh, it'll happen.  But it won't happen like it did in the Jetsons.
> We won't need flying cars, since
> pollution didn't escalate that far.  As for robots, they're getting
> there.
>
> But don't take my word for it.  There's other people who are
actually
> in the scientific community who
> could tell you better than me.
> -CW

Tis a post by CW! Hehe

Well, when I thought of 2001, I always...well....pictured something
like Robocop. You know.

"They say 20 seeconds in the California sunshine...is too much these
days...ever since we lost the Ozone layer. But that was before
Sunblock 5000! Just...apply a pint...to your body...and you're good
for hours (covers self in blue goop). See you by the pool!
(warning:Frequent use may cause skin cancer)"



--- In baltosanctuary@yahoogroups.com, "CW Tyger <cwtyger@l...>"
<cwtyger@l...> wrote:
> --- In baltosanctuary@yahoogroups.com, baltoship wrote:
> >   Can you believe it's actually 2003?  How does this keep
happening?
> > Honestly though, is this really how you thought the new
millennium
> > would be?  Didn't you think we'd be riding around in flying cars
and
> > stuff by now?  There was a time when we said "2001" and it
conjured
> > up all these mental images of robot maids, hovering, futuristic
> > houses, jet packs we could use to fly to school or work, and
> > artificial intelligence...
>
> *Grin*  When I thought of 2001, I thought of "Open the pod bay
> doors"  "I'm sorry, Dave, I can't do
> that".
>
> > Maybe all that spacey stuff is never going to happen after all?
> Have
> > movies and cartoons steered us wrong?
>
> Oh, it'll happen.  But it won't happen like it did in the
Jetsons.
> We won't need flying cars, since
> pollution didn't escalate that far.  As for robots, they're
getting
> there.
>
> But don't take my word for it.  There's other people who are
actually
> in the scientific community who
> could tell you better than me.
> -CW

--- In baltosanctuary@yahoogroups.com, baltoship wrote:
>   Can you believe it's actually 2003?  How does this keep happening?
> Honestly though, is this really how you thought the new millennium
> would be?  Didn't you think we'd be riding around in flying cars and
> stuff by now?  There was a time when we said "2001" and it conjured
> up all these mental images of robot maids, hovering, futuristic
> houses, jet packs we could use to fly to school or work, and
> artificial intelligence...

*Grin*  When I thought of 2001, I thought of "Open the pod bay
doors"  "I'm sorry, Dave, I can't do
that".

> Maybe all that spacey stuff is never going to happen after all?
Have
> movies and cartoons steered us wrong?

Oh, it'll happen.  But it won't happen like it did in the Jetsons.
We won't need flying cars, since
pollution didn't escalate that far.  As for robots, they're getting
there.

But don't take my word for it.  There's other people who are actually
in the scientific community who
could tell you better than me.
-CW

> Maybe all that spacey stuff is never going to happen after all?
Have
> movies and cartoons steered us wrong?

That's why I like Balto. As long as you don't believe in talking dogs,
it's a movie that will not mislead. ;P

Another year come and gone... Is it just me or does this new year
thing seem to come up faster and faster every time?  Serious, I go
through several Christmases every year it feels like.
    I didn't do anything for new years except lay around and watch
movies (Awakenings and Finding Forrester, in case you're
interested... And I'm sure you are, being that my life is so
fascinating.)  But I started getting really sleepy at around 11:45,
so I went to bed and missed the new year.  But I guess it's all
subjective anyway, because it's already tomorrow in Australia, so
even when we celebrate the new year, we're totally living in the
past.

   Can you believe it's actually 2003?  How does this keep happening?
Honestly though, is this really how you thought the new millennium
would be?  Didn't you think we'd be riding around in flying cars and
stuff by now?  There was a time when we said "2001" and it conjured
up all these mental images of robot maids, hovering, futuristic
houses, jet packs we could use to fly to school or work, and
artificial intelligence...
     I thought we'd have androids and stuff by now.   At least Android
Butlers.
     But no... It looks a lot like 1998 did...

Maybe all that spacey stuff is never going to happen after all?  Have
movies and cartoons steered us wrong?

:o)
~Baltoship



  --- In baltosanctuary@yahoogroups.com, "sparf1 <sparf1@y...>"
<sparf1@y...> wrote:
> Well, another year...gone...as Dumbledore said. Thanks for the help
> in making this club stick around! You guys are all great! I really
> appreciate all the patronage and support. I'll try to keep the
> posting going around here!
>
> Furry New Year everybody!!!

Late, but Happy New Year!  Hope everyone had a good one! :)

~Silver Huskey