Disney has always been shallow, childish garbage regardless of what "era" they were in. The only reason they're seen as visionaries is because they just had the money to get to shit first and then crush other, smaller studios under their thumb. And a metric fuckton of rose-tinted glasses doesn't hurt.
Also it's not Disney that is behind this shit, they were in luck to have talented people willing to work for them.
Once upon a time Disney had skillful craftsmen working for them. Their animation was top notch and the only one who could match them was Don Bluth, who was a former Disney animator.
Prince of Egypt was pretty cool.
They actually still employ 2D animators. They mostly make animation tests for their 3D output, the way I hear it:
Maybe I'm just old and sick of Pixar's style but that looks substantially better than the CG. That's some skill, that a simple animatic that's little more than a glorified mock up for something else looks that good.
Why does that happen?
I suppose traditional inking doesn't leave much room for errors when lines have to be perfect the first time around. You don't see too many variations in line width often in those films when it's safer to stick to a particular way.
And yet, I thought of the stork from Dumbo since it's the same guy too!
Reminded Ron Miller passed away recently. You could say he wasn't creative either but at least he tried his best to keep that studio afloat during his tenure. He did give us The Disney Channel and Touchstone Pictures.
I would assume because they live in magical fairy tale that the mob might think it's the beast's evil magic tricks or something.
I mean, this is a world where magic isn't unheard of so if it was me I'd expect to find some sort of magic in a monster's lair. Maybe I wouldn't expect it to be exactly in the form of angry teapots and wardrobes, but nothing at all would probably be more surprising.
