That computer aided process was pioneered by Pixar proposed earlier by John Lasseter for a minor 80's film, The Brave Little Toaster, which got him fired. You can read about it here under 'career' https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lasseter
It's crazy to think how unrecognizable the world is today in terms of attitude towards money. Yes, money allows big companies to do great things. But the real valuable work is to do great things, not to make a lot of money. If we knew of a better way to accomplish that than using money, I would be all for it, because it would allow for more people to do great things without having to care about funding.
The most objective measure of "greatness" we have is money, which comes from people who think something is great and are willing to pay for it.
Sometimes this works well: for example, pretty much everybody thinks Toy Story is a great movie, and Lasseter and Pixar were rewarded handsomely for it. Sometimes it doesn't work so well: for example, Wall Street thinks money is great, so they spend a lot of time and energy figuring out ways to extract more money from people.
An awful lot of them spend their time figuring out how to extract less money than other people, but make sure they're the ones doing the extracting. That's competition for you.
As soon as money doesn’t only come from customers directly purchasing a thing you make, that is not a great metric. Money is more complicated than that.
I wouldn't say it is the most objective way. It is a remarkably simple way to accomplish a number of excellent things and with more success than other methods humanity tried so far.
I hope we can come up with something better in the next few hundred years. The main problem of money lies exactly in its simplicity, i.e. everything becomes fungible, which in reality many things just aren't. To work around this we needed to invent stuff like taxation and legal persons. A mind-boggingly huge part of government and thus man-power is set aside to work around the problems that the fungibility of money creates. I am pretty sure there are superior technological solutions, where the rules/laws don't have to work-around ever more clever ways that cooperations and rich people use to work-around the limits we try to set for the fungibility of money.
I don't think this is anywhere near as obvious as you make out. Film is an odd example, given that the films that lay claim to being great works of art (e.g, Koyaanisqatsi, Wild Strawberries, The Battle of Algiers) are rarely the most popular and highest-grossing films (e.g., Transformers, Avengers, Toy Story). We usually mean something by 'greatness' quite different from 'popular'.
Even if we just focus on popularity (i.e., first-order preference satisfaction), money is a very rough proxy for it:
1. Lots of profitable activities, once you price-in their externalised social costs, are net negative. Given the scale of the climate and ecological crisis, that is very far from a marginal phenomenon. Ecological economists like Herman Daly argue that once ecological costs are included in the national accounts, we are running a GDP loss.
2. Some commodities are instrumentally necessary but intrinsically negative. Many people acknowledge that social media is a net negative, but use it anyway because it helps build their profile and career. Market dynamics often transform intrinsically positive activities into merely instrumentally necessary activities, e.g., the marketisation of academia means researchers spend their whole career optimising for maximum articles and grants, not great work.
3. Market demand reflects the stratified incomes of people around the world. Markets are therefore heavily skewed in favour of the interests of the rich.
4. Market exchanges which are mutually beneficial for the transacting parties often have unintended effects in the aggregate, sometimes negative, e.g., no one wants Facebook to be a monopoly, and no individual makes it so, but it is the aggregate consequence of people joining Facebook.
Disney spend loads on developing new technology for their films, and developing the story in their weird, but apparently successful way, while other animation studios don't often don't bother and just want to rake in the cash.
There are two things that IMO Disney does far more than most other animation studios; First being sequel churn (the general pacing of MCU releases, the pacing on the last SW trilogy and sidecar movies,) But the bigger one being Toyetics. [0]
Neither of those things are particularly 'innovative', and the latter of the two is a semi-exploitative practice of child psychology.
Look up Disney Research and Disney Imagineering R&D. Check out their SIGGRAPH papers. I used to work for them (not representing them here), you'd be surprised at the scale+level of R&D activity.
An idea in this vein I've been toying with is implementing a P2P IOU bartering protocol. I do something for you, you cryptographically sign me an IOU (which is a plaintext IOU note - no monetary amount required) which I can either call in later or trade to someone else who needs your services more for something I want from them. Messages sign adjacent messages (probably using Secure Scuttlebutt), so when someone comes back to you with the IOU, you can have a strong guarantee that it's the original note and not a copy even though you don't necessarily have visibility of all the participants it transited through.
Even in theory, it only works in some contexts, though, namely in exchanges between individuals. Because there's a strong reliance that neighbors in the path trust each other and leaves them responsible for settling exchanges to mutual satisfaction. All this proposal adds to direct barter is long-distance authenticity guarantees.
IOU works well on small scales. It has often worked locally or within small communities[1]. LETS[2], babysitting vouchers, friends who value and track favours and keep the scales balanced.
Make the FOSS infrastructure as easily deployable as wordpress.
IOUs with a PGP signed chain of trust is brilliant and it could be a killer app for PGP adoption.
Who of us doesn't owe Stallman and Torvalds at least a favour ? But never got their key-signed ?
Widespread PGP adoption means lots of people would have their own crypto so privacy and trust could be run over any insecure transport medium.
Maybe there could be a FIDOnet type central glue and exchange protocols so money could travel further than local.
Local non-currency ledgers on a eco-friendly blockchain.
Money is human glue. It represents creativity and potential energy.
It is democratic to have lots of types of small monies so no-one has to be excluded. Small things often work well. National monies fail for a lot of people and cryptos current success model is to be worth something - and so are stuck being tied to national monies so the excluded are still excluded.
Make it easy to make an altcoin, so anyone can and the goal can be stimulating a local economy rather than being tied back into the main one.
The non-fungiblity is the point. Fungible value tends towards centralization, but non-fungible value necessarily remains distributed. Even with something like bitcoin, the "central authority" is the network consensus.
In this proposal, we don't even need consensus. The only thing that matters is human trust between individuals.
That said, it is definitely worse than money if you want to make an exchange with someone more than a degree or two distant from you.
Anyway, right now it's just a thought experiment. I think the critical feedback is sufficient motivation to just make the thing and see how it works or doesn't in practice.
I don’t think this claim makes sense. Fungible value is only “centralized” in that it creates a virtual fully connected node in the market graph. This is a strictly good thing, decreasing maximum market hop distance to a constant.
> Fungible value is only “centralized” in that it creates a virtual fully connected node in the market graph.
Yeah, I'd agree with this.
> This is a strictly good thing, decreasing maximum market hop distance to a constant.
I think I see your point here, but I disagree. I will agree it's more convenient than the alternative (and exponentially so at longer distances), but I'm not sure it's strictly better. The trouble I see is that authority then always accumulates to that node. With something like Offset, which is mechanically highly decentralized but measures value in USD despite actual USD never needing to change hands, the value of a unit there is still tied to American financial policy because that influences people's perception of the value of USD. But of course if we changed it to some other real currency like the Euro, that would just shift the authority to a different government. And if we shifted to a completely imaginary currency, then we'd need consensus on the value of that currency, and whatever form of consensus was used would then have authority over the whole network.
So I arrive at non-fungible value as the only way to avoid this situation.
That said, for most modern use cases where you're dealing with untrusted individuals (and thus this proposal doesn't work), money is better, yes. The intended use case for this proposal would be for "local" things like co-ops where there's already trust among the members and they can then benefit from cutting out transaction costs (and relative to Offset, which offers zero transaction costs between trusted members, also provides insulation from third-party financial policy by not measuring value in any fiat currency).
> The trouble I see is that authority then always accumulates to that node.
This is why you want the node to be purely abstract and outside of anyone’s control.
> the value of a unit there is still tied to American financial policy
Indeed. This is why you don’t want something backed by USD.
> And if we shifted to a completely imaginary currency, then we'd need consensus on the value of that currency, and whatever form of consensus was used would then have authority over the whole network.
I don’t think this claim makes sense. The consensus for a pure asset like bitcoin comes from marketwide supply and demand. This doesn’t create “authority” over the network any more than physics creates “authority” over the strength of gravity.
> The consensus for a pure asset like bitcoin comes from marketwide supply and demand.
That's where the trouble lies, though, as various entities are doing their best to manipulate marketwide supply and demand all the time (advertising/PR/tariffs/sanctions/etc), and generally the more powerful said entity already is, the easier time they have of it. The laws of physics, thankfully, are immune to human manipulation.
By contrast, a transaction backed by the trust between two individuals is harder to manipulate at scale. Laws still apply, but nobody's going to run global ad/PR campaigns about the value of your neighbor Bob's lawn mowing skills. That's between you and Bob.
The problem isn't money nor is it free enterprise nor is it markets. The problem is ehe capitalist structures of ownership that divorce production from ownership and commoditize all economic activity.
He would've probably be disappointed that most Academy Awards after his death have been awarded to only the Pixar animation department. That man loved his awards.
One thing about 2D animation is that it is amenable to an infinite variety of drawing styles. If you can draw it, you can animate it. It's why 2D animation is so appealing, whether in short film or feature film form.
In contrast, 3D animation (for feature films) feels stuck in an aesthetic rut - call it the "Pixar look".
The recent animated film Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse has a refreshing 3D/2D hybrid visual look. It's a satisfying break from the 'convential' look of 3D animated movies. I hope the success of Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse will inspire more visually varied computer animated films to follow.
There's many styles of 3d animation. Video-gamers can recognize them: Dragonball Fighter Z looks completely different from Cyberpunk 2077.
Lets take one genre dominated by Japan: fighting games. Look at Street Fighter V, Dragonball FighterZ, Guilty Gear Strive, Tekken, and Mortal Kombat (the only non-Japanese on this list).
None of these characters, or animation styles, are the same. In fact, Dragonball FighterZ clearly "bends" the rules of 3d animation the most (aka: squash and stretch animation), likely because the original source material (Dragonball Z / Dragonball Super) is traditional 2d animation.
-------
Street Fighter V was based off of Street Fighter IV's style, which was itself based off of Battle Fantasia. (Street Fighter Alpha, the game before IV, was traditional 2D animation, so they looked at other games for inspiration on how to make 3d look good).
I think GP's point may have been specific to feature films. Games do have a lot of variety in 3D rendering styles, but how many of those do you see make it to films, especially mainstream films?
Wreck-it-Ralph kind of cheated, but... how many different styles of 3D animation did you see in that film alone? (Wreck-it-Ralph is sort of the "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" of this generation, so it makes sense. No one will say that Betty Boop has a similar drawing style to Woody Woodpecker, even if both are characters in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit")
------
Thanos (Avengers: Endgame), Shrek, Davy Jones (Pirates of the Caribbean), the Na'vi (Avatar), Spiderman (Into the Spiderverse), and the recreation of Princess Leia (Rogue One) are all 3d animation. Would you argue that they're the same style?
Right, not just rendering but character design and motion. One recent stand-out in 3D was "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs". The snappy, fluid and elastic movement, and designs, were a nice departure from convention that seemed to draw from 2d influences. Generally the other big studios knock-off the Pixar fashion.
AAA games as of late are even more rigid as they aim for realistic-looking characters, save for monster-design. So you get the same brown-haired 6ft tall white guy hero in 90% of games.
> AAA games as of late are even more rigid as they aim for realistic-looking characters, save for monster-design. So you get the same brown-haired 6ft tall white guy hero in 90% of games.
I dunno if that even qualifies as a style for FPS games, let alone AAA games in general.
Overwatch, Gears of War, Halo, Team Fortress 2, Destiny, and Splatoon all have distinctive art styles.
Sure, some games take inspiration / style from other games (ex: Fortnite clearly is going for Overwatch's style). Call of Duty vs Battlefront both also take from each other pretty severely.
But there's more to AAA games than just Activision or EA Games.
The live-action sequel of the 101 Dalmatians live-action movie, (102 Dalmatians) also had a bizarre scene in the end where Cruella is baked into an enormous cake. She is mixed in a huge batter, baked alive (she survives, only the cake around here is baked) and blasted with frosting, all by the smart dogs working together. As a kid I remember it being pretty other-wordly.
Disney was on the ropes several times. Hand-drawn animation is a hugely expensive hits business, and at the beginning there wasn't a library providing huge ongoing royalties to tide them through the gaps.
Many companies have the 'bet the farm' style of management with movies. MGM 'bet the farm' many times with big production movies and then a plan B movie to hold them over if it failed. A good pairing of that would be Gone with the wind (bet the farm) and plan b Wizard of Oz. Get a few duds in a row and you get sold off to one of your competitors. Wonder where they will end up after Amazon.
It was actually Iger who restructured Disney with the double/homerun style movies. Why did Disney crank out junk movie after junk movie in the 90s? Because they were cheap and consistently made money. I think Disney has gone back to bet the farm style. I personally think it will end up with them sliced up in to a bunch of smaller companies.
Not an Disney expect, but my take is it's more like it didn't kill Disney. It was the ~first full-length animated movie and was very expensive to produce.
I'm a bit of a Disney geek, not for their content, but for their business history. I got reading a bio on Walt years ago and was astonished by how much Disney really is a "start up" in many of the ways we think of them today. Walt and his people were wildly inventive and incredibly driven. And that inventiveness, though not always perfect, is still very much within the company's DNA today. And I think it plays as much a role today in Disney's dominance as their IP.
Hmm, this is the first time I've heard an explanation for the thick outlines of American cartoons. The visual difference between "Sleeping Beauty" and "101 Dalmatians" is striking. Black-outlines were needed because the cels on 101-Dalmatians were designed to be used in many different scenes.
In contrast, each outline in Sleeping Beauty was specifically designed for its own scene: lighter Yellow outlines on Sleeping Beauty's hair to contrast with the dark castle around her.
----------
The "Thick lines" is a tell-tale of American cartoon vs Japanese cartoons/anime. I never once imagined that this was because of the technology that American animators used.
And it never occurred to me that these kinds of thick outlines would be offputting. I've lived with those outlines my whole life in a wide variety of cartoons: but we can see here that Walt Disney himself felt like they were too harsh the first time he saw 101 Dalmatians.
The Mitchells vs the Machines has interesting stylized outlining around faces and clothing, not completely unlike Archer, but a much more complex watercolor variant.
I don't really notice these visual details, but I appreciate the explanations behind them, and I find the history of the process and the integration of technology interesting.
On a somewhat related note, I watched this film last week with my children (3,7,11) and I thought it was really great. Not that it was my first time seeing it, but my first time as an adult. I don't think it was rose-colored glasses, but I was just genuinely impressed by the story, voice acting (especially), animation, and the whole.
I watched it last night with my kids as it happens, and thought it was pretty bad. The story is basically just a single long chase sequence which doesn't really reward adult viewers. I much prefer the one millionth rewatch of Robin Hood, which definitely has a lot of flaws (really blatant reuse of animations) but is a lot more fun with a lot of different action sequences and jokes. Basically the only easter egg for adults in 101 Dalmatians is the What's My Crime TV show.
I will say compared to Sleeping Beauty; it's at least watchable. SB was a triumph of the art department over any common sense. "Let's make a high modernist technicolor crazy angular art piece… about Sleeping Beauty." I can see how they talked themselves into it, but Walt should have talked them back out of it. That art style is fine for a short but can't hold a feature and conflicts with the goal of making a movie for children with resonant themes for adults.
I work with computer graphics (in game development) and I love how much I notice about the technical details when watching movies.
With Disney and Pixar it's often delight at how well made something is. With Hollywood productions it's often cringe at some cheap CG and obvious artifacts. Even then, I often enjoy being able to spot it.
Snow White and Sleeping Beauty are from an era of animation master pieces. The article describe the steps to make such films and how labor intensive it was. Hand drawn and hand painted, the difference in quality is remarkable compared to today's disposable computer-generated animation. In many ways, a lost art form, most likely there will never be another film produced in such a manner.
65 comments
[ 0.25 ms ] story [ 124 ms ] threadThen I wonder what Walt Disney would have to say today about the company bearing his name...
Sometimes this works well: for example, pretty much everybody thinks Toy Story is a great movie, and Lasseter and Pixar were rewarded handsomely for it. Sometimes it doesn't work so well: for example, Wall Street thinks money is great, so they spend a lot of time and energy figuring out ways to extract more money from people.
Why is this more objective than other metrics? The fact you can easily put a number on it doesn't make it objective.
It's a definite indicator of wealth, but surely greatness is a different thing?
I hope we can come up with something better in the next few hundred years. The main problem of money lies exactly in its simplicity, i.e. everything becomes fungible, which in reality many things just aren't. To work around this we needed to invent stuff like taxation and legal persons. A mind-boggingly huge part of government and thus man-power is set aside to work around the problems that the fungibility of money creates. I am pretty sure there are superior technological solutions, where the rules/laws don't have to work-around ever more clever ways that cooperations and rich people use to work-around the limits we try to set for the fungibility of money.
Even if we just focus on popularity (i.e., first-order preference satisfaction), money is a very rough proxy for it:
1. Lots of profitable activities, once you price-in their externalised social costs, are net negative. Given the scale of the climate and ecological crisis, that is very far from a marginal phenomenon. Ecological economists like Herman Daly argue that once ecological costs are included in the national accounts, we are running a GDP loss.
2. Some commodities are instrumentally necessary but intrinsically negative. Many people acknowledge that social media is a net negative, but use it anyway because it helps build their profile and career. Market dynamics often transform intrinsically positive activities into merely instrumentally necessary activities, e.g., the marketisation of academia means researchers spend their whole career optimising for maximum articles and grants, not great work.
3. Market demand reflects the stratified incomes of people around the world. Markets are therefore heavily skewed in favour of the interests of the rich.
4. Market exchanges which are mutually beneficial for the transacting parties often have unintended effects in the aggregate, sometimes negative, e.g., no one wants Facebook to be a monopoly, and no individual makes it so, but it is the aggregate consequence of people joining Facebook.
There are two things that IMO Disney does far more than most other animation studios; First being sequel churn (the general pacing of MCU releases, the pacing on the last SW trilogy and sidecar movies,) But the bigger one being Toyetics. [0]
Neither of those things are particularly 'innovative', and the latter of the two is a semi-exploitative practice of child psychology.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyetic
Even in theory, it only works in some contexts, though, namely in exchanges between individuals. Because there's a strong reliance that neighbors in the path trust each other and leaves them responsible for settling exchanges to mutual satisfaction. All this proposal adds to direct barter is long-distance authenticity guarantees.
[1] https://www.offsetcredit.org/
[2] https://docs.offsetcredit.org/en/latest/intro/economic.html
IOU works well on small scales. It has often worked locally or within small communities[1]. LETS[2], babysitting vouchers, friends who value and track favours and keep the scales balanced.
Make the FOSS infrastructure as easily deployable as wordpress.
IOUs with a PGP signed chain of trust is brilliant and it could be a killer app for PGP adoption.
Who of us doesn't owe Stallman and Torvalds at least a favour ? But never got their key-signed ?
Widespread PGP adoption means lots of people would have their own crypto so privacy and trust could be run over any insecure transport medium.
Maybe there could be a FIDOnet type central glue and exchange protocols so money could travel further than local.
Local non-currency ledgers on a eco-friendly blockchain.
Money is human glue. It represents creativity and potential energy.
It is democratic to have lots of types of small monies so no-one has to be excluded. Small things often work well. National monies fail for a lot of people and cryptos current success model is to be worth something - and so are stuck being tied to national monies so the excluded are still excluded.
Make it easy to make an altcoin, so anyone can and the goal can be stimulating a local economy rather than being tied back into the main one.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Exchange_System [2] https://www.lowimpact.org/lets-origins-michael-linton-letsys...
In this proposal, we don't even need consensus. The only thing that matters is human trust between individuals.
That said, it is definitely worse than money if you want to make an exchange with someone more than a degree or two distant from you.
Anyway, right now it's just a thought experiment. I think the critical feedback is sufficient motivation to just make the thing and see how it works or doesn't in practice.
I don’t think this claim makes sense. Fungible value is only “centralized” in that it creates a virtual fully connected node in the market graph. This is a strictly good thing, decreasing maximum market hop distance to a constant.
Yeah, I'd agree with this.
> This is a strictly good thing, decreasing maximum market hop distance to a constant.
I think I see your point here, but I disagree. I will agree it's more convenient than the alternative (and exponentially so at longer distances), but I'm not sure it's strictly better. The trouble I see is that authority then always accumulates to that node. With something like Offset, which is mechanically highly decentralized but measures value in USD despite actual USD never needing to change hands, the value of a unit there is still tied to American financial policy because that influences people's perception of the value of USD. But of course if we changed it to some other real currency like the Euro, that would just shift the authority to a different government. And if we shifted to a completely imaginary currency, then we'd need consensus on the value of that currency, and whatever form of consensus was used would then have authority over the whole network.
So I arrive at non-fungible value as the only way to avoid this situation.
That said, for most modern use cases where you're dealing with untrusted individuals (and thus this proposal doesn't work), money is better, yes. The intended use case for this proposal would be for "local" things like co-ops where there's already trust among the members and they can then benefit from cutting out transaction costs (and relative to Offset, which offers zero transaction costs between trusted members, also provides insulation from third-party financial policy by not measuring value in any fiat currency).
This is why you want the node to be purely abstract and outside of anyone’s control.
> the value of a unit there is still tied to American financial policy
Indeed. This is why you don’t want something backed by USD.
> And if we shifted to a completely imaginary currency, then we'd need consensus on the value of that currency, and whatever form of consensus was used would then have authority over the whole network.
I don’t think this claim makes sense. The consensus for a pure asset like bitcoin comes from marketwide supply and demand. This doesn’t create “authority” over the network any more than physics creates “authority” over the strength of gravity.
> The consensus for a pure asset like bitcoin comes from marketwide supply and demand.
That's where the trouble lies, though, as various entities are doing their best to manipulate marketwide supply and demand all the time (advertising/PR/tariffs/sanctions/etc), and generally the more powerful said entity already is, the easier time they have of it. The laws of physics, thankfully, are immune to human manipulation.
By contrast, a transaction backed by the trust between two individuals is harder to manipulate at scale. Laws still apply, but nobody's going to run global ad/PR campaigns about the value of your neighbor Bob's lawn mowing skills. That's between you and Bob.
It all makes sense when you dig down.
In contrast, 3D animation (for feature films) feels stuck in an aesthetic rut - call it the "Pixar look".
The recent animated film Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse has a refreshing 3D/2D hybrid visual look. It's a satisfying break from the 'convential' look of 3D animated movies. I hope the success of Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse will inspire more visually varied computer animated films to follow.
Lets take one genre dominated by Japan: fighting games. Look at Street Fighter V, Dragonball FighterZ, Guilty Gear Strive, Tekken, and Mortal Kombat (the only non-Japanese on this list).
None of these characters, or animation styles, are the same. In fact, Dragonball FighterZ clearly "bends" the rules of 3d animation the most (aka: squash and stretch animation), likely because the original source material (Dragonball Z / Dragonball Super) is traditional 2d animation.
-------
Street Fighter V was based off of Street Fighter IV's style, which was itself based off of Battle Fantasia. (Street Fighter Alpha, the game before IV, was traditional 2D animation, so they looked at other games for inspiration on how to make 3d look good).
------
Thanos (Avengers: Endgame), Shrek, Davy Jones (Pirates of the Caribbean), the Na'vi (Avatar), Spiderman (Into the Spiderverse), and the recreation of Princess Leia (Rogue One) are all 3d animation. Would you argue that they're the same style?
AAA games as of late are even more rigid as they aim for realistic-looking characters, save for monster-design. So you get the same brown-haired 6ft tall white guy hero in 90% of games.
I dunno if that even qualifies as a style for FPS games, let alone AAA games in general.
Overwatch, Gears of War, Halo, Team Fortress 2, Destiny, and Splatoon all have distinctive art styles.
Sure, some games take inspiration / style from other games (ex: Fortnite clearly is going for Overwatch's style). Call of Duty vs Battlefront both also take from each other pretty severely.
But there's more to AAA games than just Activision or EA Games.
*The Mitchell’s vs The Machines” does seem to have a sort of blended 2D/3D thing going on as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Starlight_Barking
It has a Space Dog and a kind of "Dog Rapture" thing going on. I'm guessing Smith fully embraced late 60's in many ways.
https://twitter.com/SketchesbyBoze/status/140015018819540172...
"It has never been filmed. It can never be filmed. It is unfilmable."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_and_the_Great_Glass_El...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gump_and_Co.
It was actually Iger who restructured Disney with the double/homerun style movies. Why did Disney crank out junk movie after junk movie in the 90s? Because they were cheap and consistently made money. I think Disney has gone back to bet the farm style. I personally think it will end up with them sliced up in to a bunch of smaller companies.
I think Disney needs saving every generation.
In contrast, each outline in Sleeping Beauty was specifically designed for its own scene: lighter Yellow outlines on Sleeping Beauty's hair to contrast with the dark castle around her.
----------
The "Thick lines" is a tell-tale of American cartoon vs Japanese cartoons/anime. I never once imagined that this was because of the technology that American animators used.
And it never occurred to me that these kinds of thick outlines would be offputting. I've lived with those outlines my whole life in a wide variety of cartoons: but we can see here that Walt Disney himself felt like they were too harsh the first time he saw 101 Dalmatians.
On a somewhat related note, I watched this film last week with my children (3,7,11) and I thought it was really great. Not that it was my first time seeing it, but my first time as an adult. I don't think it was rose-colored glasses, but I was just genuinely impressed by the story, voice acting (especially), animation, and the whole.
With Disney and Pixar it's often delight at how well made something is. With Hollywood productions it's often cringe at some cheap CG and obvious artifacts. Even then, I often enjoy being able to spot it.