My mood is always oscillating between wanting to rewatch Lady and the Tramp and wanting to rewatch 101 Dalmatians.

No title available
One Nice Bug Per Day

titsay
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
No title available
Stranger Things
taylor price
Game of Thrones Daily
Three Goblin Art
Claire Keane
d e v o n

Andulka
Peter Solarz

No title available

No title available

JBB: An Artblog!

PR's Tumblrdome
art blog(derogatory)

Love Begins

Kiana Khansmith
seen from United Kingdom
seen from France

seen from United States
seen from Brazil

seen from Bangladesh
seen from Thailand

seen from Iraq
seen from Cameroon

seen from Germany
seen from Spain
seen from Germany
seen from Türkiye
seen from Brazil

seen from Türkiye
seen from Bangladesh

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
@waltcrewlog
My mood is always oscillating between wanting to rewatch Lady and the Tramp and wanting to rewatch 101 Dalmatians.
I rewatched the first two Toy Story movies recently (it's been a very, very long time since I've seen either of them), and alksdjfkladjf THE SPIN AND MARTY REFERENCE IN TOY STORY 2!!!!!!!!
Wow, my Robby Benson post is doing numbers right now! I'm glad. I wanted to make a post about him because when I rewatched Beauty and the Beast during a marathon of all the WDAS films a year or two ago, I was blown away by how good his voice acting was. The way he's able to sound like an intimidating beast while still retaining a loserish quality is very impressive. When he's angry, he can go full rage. When he's having a romantic moment or feeling hopeless, he can be very quiet and nuanced. Whatever the Beast is going through at the moment, I can hear it in Robby Benson's voice. I could listen to the movie with no visuals and still clearly see the hidden feelings behind what he says.
Rewatching the film that time also made me realize that Beauty and the Beast is really about Beast (which Robby Benson disagrees with me on but alskdjfl he's wrong lol) because he's ultimately the character that grows the most. Truly I don't think the movie would be half as good as it is without a.) Alan Menken's music and b.) Robby Benson as Beast.
A BLATANT LIE
Sorry that my posts are so few and far between. I think about the thewaltcrew blog a lot and still check my activity all the time. But I'm just so bad at time management and am currently busy with other projects at the moment. Each of my posts on thewaltcrew take a lot of time to do, and I'm bad at making the time to work on a post a little at a time.
But meanwhile, here are just some random thoughts/updates:
I just found out about this Walt's People series by Didion Ghez? Which are compilations of interviews with Disney artists. I just bought two of the volumes (I specifically wanted the one with Bill Walsh and then I got one with Bill Peet, but upon reading the Bill Peet interview, I recognized it from here).
My next post (which to be completely honest, I haven't started yet) is on Mary Blair. I know the exact topic/idea I want to do but am still figuring out what the format should be.
I am still awaiting the day I can talk about my love for Tim Considine! I have plenty of other posts to make before then, but I've been watching The Champ (which is what Considine's film The Clown is a remake of), and it's rekindled my interest in him. One of these days, I will make a post either about him or one of the Disney projects he was in.
I don't understand so many of Disney's picks for Disney Legends, e.g. I feel like Jamie Lee Curtis doesn't have a deep enough connection to the company aside from Freaky Friday? (Though her father Tony Curtis was in 40 Pounds of Trouble, the first movie to receive permission from Walt to film in Disneyland!)
I rewatched Mary Poppins last week, and wow, what an amazing film. I should do a post on that one day too. Ub Iwerks' technical work on that film is fantastic, and the film as a whole incorporates so many of Disney's trades into one product (animation, live-action, and even animatronics/theme park magic).
Kay Nielsen illustrations for East of the Sun and West of the Moon
Kay Nielsen (1886 - 1957) was a Danish illustrator known for his distinctive graphic, intricate style. He was born to actors, and the influence of the performing arts is reflected in the detailed costumes and patterns of his artwork. He first studied painting in Paris and during his time there, he created a collection of pen and ink illustrations depicting literature and personal experiences, which garnered him an invitation to exhibit his work in London. He moved there in 1910, had his first exhibition in 1912, and worked on several gift book illustration commissions in the following years, including East of the Sun and West of the Moon. He had his first American exhibition in 1917, but following World War I, the popularity of such expensive illustration books waned. Nielsen left London and found work as a costume and set designer for the Royal Theater in Copenhagen, where he worked on productions of The Tempest and Aladdin. While in Denmark, he still found some work illustrating books for English publishers, including editions of Hans Christian Andersen and Brothers Grimm stories. Then in 1936, he went to California to work with his friend and colleague Johannes Poulsen (who had worked on Aladdin with him) to create the sets and costumes for a production of Everyman at the Hollywood Bowl and decided to remain in the States. In 1937, he found employment at Disney where he produced magnificent work for the "Night on Bald Mountain" sequence in Fantasia and created concept art for an adaptation of Hans Christian Andersen's "The Little Mermaid." Decades later when Disney eventually did make an adaptation of this fairy tale, the filmmakers put Nielsen's name in the credits as a visual developer, demonstrating how influential his work continues to be. He was laid off by Disney in 1941 and afterward, worked as a muralist and chicken farmer. By the time of his death in 1957, he had fallen into poverty and obscurity. But by the 1970s, interest in his work had revitalized and continues to this day, for the originality, elegance, and decor of his style is truly one-of-a-kind.
photo sources [x][x]
research sources [x] and "Kay Nielsen's Life and Work: Artist, Designer, Innovator" by Kendra Daniel from the Taschen edition of East of the Sun and West of the Moon edited by Noel Daniel
Kay Nielsen illustrations for East of the Sun and West of the Moon
Kay Nielsen (1886 - 1957) was a Danish illustrator known for his distinctive graphic, intricate style. He was born to actors, and the influence of the performing arts is reflected in the detailed costumes and patterns of his artwork. He first studied painting in Paris and during his time there, he created a collection of pen and ink illustrations depicting literature and personal experiences, which garnered him an invitation to exhibit his work in London. He moved there in 1910, had his first exhibition in 1912, and worked on several gift book illustration commissions in the following years, including East of the Sun and West of the Moon. He had his first American exhibition in 1917, but following World War I, the popularity of such expensive illustration books waned. Nielsen left London and found work as a costume and set designer for the Royal Theater in Copenhagen, where he worked on productions of The Tempest and Aladdin. While in Denmark, he still found some work illustrating books for English publishers, including editions of Hans Christian Andersen and Brothers Grimm stories. Then in 1936, he went to California to work with his friend and colleague Johannes Poulsen (who had worked on Aladdin with him) to create the sets and costumes for a production of Everyman at the Hollywood Bowl and decided to remain in the States. In 1937, he found employment at Disney where he produced magnificent work for the "Night on Bald Mountain" sequence in Fantasia and created concept art for an adaptation of Hans Christian Andersen's "The Little Mermaid." Decades later when Disney eventually did make an adaptation of this fairy tale, the filmmakers put Nielsen's name in the credits as a visual developer, demonstrating how influential his work continues to be. He was laid off by Disney in 1941 and afterward, worked as a muralist and chicken farmer. By the time of his death in 1957, he had fallen into poverty and obscurity. But by the 1970s, interest in his work had revitalized and continues to this day, for the originality, elegance, and decor of his style is truly one-of-a-kind.
photo sources [x][x]
research sources [x] and "Kay Nielsen's Life and Work: Artist, Designer, Innovator" by Kendra Daniel from the Taschen edition of East of the Sun and West of the Moon edited by Noel Daniel
https://www.cartoonbrew.com/studios/retired-disney-legend-mark-henn-work-had-been-more-meaningful-236985.html
Here's a Christmas movie rec tangentially related to Disney: It Happened on 5th Avenue (1947), dir. Roy Del Ruth.
Don DeFore plays the protagonist, and he and his wife operated the Silver Banjo Barbecue restaurant in Frontierland from 1957 to 1962. He was also present at Disneyland's opening day and is shown briefly in the telecast.
I finished all of Zorro, so now I'm sad.
Mickey Mouse Club serial.
My serotonin
Who runs their social media accounts? 😭
These kinds of posts pain me... They make it sound like using ink and paint was a rare technique back then asfkddjsj.
And I know not everyone knows José and Panchito, but a lot of people do (especially if they like Disney). If they want to ask a trivia question, they should ask something more interesting. Like behind-the-scenes trivia that would reveal more about the making of the film or about the film's content itself.
Recently saw an article with quotes from Rob Marshall and Alan Menken about how og Eric has no personality, and I was so upset by that.
???
Eric has a personality! He’s adventurous, brave, kind, easygoing, wants to marry for love, generous…
It’s so strange… the article discussed the live-action remake writing a point of contention between Eric and his parents to give him some kind of goal or backstory, which idk man, isn’t Eric talking about how he didn’t want to marry some random princess in the beginning of the og movie accomplishing the same purpose?
Just because a character is virtuous and lacks an emo backstory doesn’t mean they don’t have a personality! A lot of people accuse characters from older Disney movies of lacking personality for those same reasons, and I disagree strongly with that.
Also, a lot of old Disney characters do have sad backstories!
With Eric, you can easily read his personality based on how he acts and reacts and speaks and emotes. Prince Charming from the original Cinderella is a prince character I do find lacking in personality (the movie overall is still really great), but it’s because he doesn’t act in a way that feels specific to him. His actions don’t seem motivated by his character; they seem motivated by the plot. While in The Little Mermaid, the plot is so clearly driven by the choices made by Ariel and Eric that are reflective of and consistent with their specifically written personalities.
Anyway, I was very bothered lol. Haven’t seen the remake and don’t plan to, but I’ve seen a lot of the past remakes (though I haven’t watched any of the ones released in the last 2 years or so), and they were all truly awful.
I watched the remake last week while sick on the couch, and it was truly awful (no surprise). It's funny and ironic that Rob Marshall and Alan Menken complained about og Eric having no personality when the remake Eric truly had no personality...
Because the movie makes Eric verbalize all of his internal feelings and struggles with his family and his position as a prince, he feels like a caricature rather than a person. There's no subtlety or naturalness to the character. They just exposition his personality through complaint rather than showing it through his actions. And because most of his dialogue is him airing grievances, he comes off very whiny and unlikable.
The rest of the movie was weirdly very boring??? It's half an hour longer than the original, so the scenes are so unnecessarily padded.
It's very obvious that the writers didn't want Ariel to be motivated by instantaneous love, but because they had to change the original character's primary motivation, the plot feels so contrived. She seems more motivated by the fact that she wants to explore the human world but is forbidden by her father, which is part of her motivation in the original. But Ursula makes it clear in both this version and the original that she has to make Eric fall in love with her to permanently become human or else become owned by Ursula. And it's personally hard for me to believe that Ariel would take such a ginormous risk for any reason beside love. It kind of makes Ariel seem less thoughtful and even more impulsive than in the original.
And because the writers were so preoccupied by making sure love wasn't Ariel's primary motivation, they made it so that Ursula cursed her to forget the part in the contract about her having to kiss Eric within three days to stay human or else be owned by Ursula. So there's really no sense of urgency on Ariel's part, and it rubs off on the tone of the movie (and adds to the boringness).
Also, the movie looks ugly! The lighting is so dark, the colors are so muted, and the CGI can look very strange at times.
Everyone's acting is also very wooden, and I never really like the additional songs Alan Menken adds to his work (whether it's in the live-action remakes or in the Broadway shows), and I felt the same with the new songs in this film.
When will the remakes end........... It's mind-boggling and insulting that Disney continues to remake such beloved films while clearly having some sort of disdain for the original movies. It often feels like they're somewhat embarrassed by their older work?? But they still want to profit off of them.
Finished the Rolly Crump post, and now it's queued up!
"Why Lady and the Tramp is the greatest romance story Disney's ever made"
2 hour long video essay
Recently saw an article with quotes from Rob Marshall and Alan Menken about how og Eric has no personality, and I was so upset by that.
???
Eric has a personality! He’s adventurous, brave, kind, easygoing, wants to marry for love, generous...
It’s so strange... the article discussed the live-action remake writing a point of contention between Eric and his parents to give him some kind of goal or backstory, which idk man, isn’t Eric talking about how he didn’t want to marry some random princess in the beginning of the og movie accomplishing the same purpose?
Just because a character is virtuous and lacks an emo backstory doesn’t mean they don’t have a personality! A lot of people accuse characters from older Disney movies of lacking personality for those same reasons, and I disagree strongly with that.
Also, a lot of old Disney characters do have sad backstories!
With Eric, you can easily read his personality based on how he acts and reacts and speaks and emotes. Prince Charming from the original Cinderella is a prince character I do find lacking in personality (the movie overall is still really great), but it’s because he doesn’t act in a way that feels specific to him. His actions don’t seem motivated by his character; they seem motivated by the plot. While in The Little Mermaid, the plot is so clearly driven by the choices made by Ariel and Eric that are reflective of and consistent with their specifically written personalities.
Anyway, I was very bothered lol. Haven’t seen the remake and don’t plan to, but I’ve seen a lot of the past remakes (though I haven’t watched any of the ones released in the last 2 years or so), and they were all truly awful.
Today on admin's Disney recs: I watched Pollyanna, and it was pretty good! I didn't watch it in one sitting though, so I might not have the best assessment of it I could have. But it's well-directed, well-acted, and very sweet. It's good in all the ways good Disney movies of Walt era are: super well-paced, fantastic shot composition, likable characters, good music (in this case, just the score because it's not a musical), and an earnest, emotional story.
It's basically like It's a Wonderful Life but with a little girl protagonist (the concept of one person's positive impact on a community, and the community rallying behind said person when they hit their lowest point). Obviously, I would never say this is a better movie than It's a Wonderful Life (a movie I regard very highly), but I actually do think Pollyanna does a better job of fleshing out the community. It's a Wonderful Life focuses more on the individual while Pollyanna focuses more on the individual's impact, while still creating an interesting and likable protagonist. It doesn't have the proper dramatic lows that It's a Wonderful Life has nor does it take the time to marinate in the big low point before the denouement, which does lessen its overall emotional impact. But Pollyanna still really tugged at my heartstrings :'). It's a very uplifting watch, and I do appreciate how the ending, while positive, still has a note of ambiguity to it.
And although it doesn't have the dramatic lows or hurdles of It's a Wonderful Life, it doesn't make it all sunshine and rainbows either. Almost everyone is rude to Pollyanna when they first meet her, and it's made clear through the script and Hayley Mills' fantastic performance that being optimistic does require effort and perserverance.
There are so many famous Old Hollywood actors in this film, wow. I love Jane Wyman, Nancy Olsen, and Donald Crisp in everything I see them in. Agnes Moorehead, Karl Malden, Adolphe Menjou are great in this as well. And also, MOOCHIE! I always enjoy Kevin Corcoran in any Disney project. The only weak link acting-wise in the ensemble cast is Richard Egan (his performance is pretty wooden).
What's so interesting is that it very much looks like a film from the 1950s/1960s in its lighting, composition, and color. But it has such a 1940s sense of structure and acting style. That's part of what makes it feel like a Disney movie. I don't want to call it anachronistic or old-fashioned because I think 40s films are much better generally speaking than 50s/60s films. But it does give the film an interesting nostalgic quality you have a hard time finding in most 60s films. The Sound of Music (my all-time favorite film) feels nostalgic for similar reasons (having content that feels older than the way it looks).
Those are just a couple of thoughts I had. But check it out for yourself! It makes me sad that Disney hasn't been able to make movies like this in more than 50 years.