You can see the same hierarchical principles in these frames as what I talked about in the last Toot post.
Even this assumed jumble of a broken horn is very carefully arranged to frame the character's head. All the negative spaces in the jumble are varied shapes and clear.
All important elements of the picture are separated. The blueish colors of the owl contrast against the reddish BG elements so he stands out.
Don't ever ask me to draw a school room! Oreb pulled it off easily. (I assume easily)
I love these opening titles. A masterpiece in the art of arranging shapes.
Here's the stock Preston Blair/Disney owl dressed up in a suit of angles to make him appear modern.
A problem with trying to make each scene perfectly composed is it restricts the animators. As soon as they move a head or anything, then the composition goes out of whack. That's why limited animation seems best suited for the design style. I should say the limited in animation in this cartoon approaches genius in some parts. - which again defies the goals of UPA's rebellion against Disney.
This is the scene that drives all the modern day hipsters wild. It drove me wild too when I first saw it. But my hipster period only lasted a couple years and I mixed it with funny. Funny and hip doesn't mix well.MORE FRAME GRABS
STORYBOARDS
There is a similar film called Melody that is superficially in the same style. It doesn't seem as well designed and composed and I'm not sure why:
Too Busy
No Focus. It's just a mish-mash of clutter.Not enough contrast or use of negative space to make the drummer read.
Characters too close and spaced too evenly apart. Not pleasing designs. Lazy looking.
Ugly balance of shapes.
Wonky broken looking building. Uninspired tree shapes.
Too Busy, textures in BG interfering with characters because they are too contrasty
Background noise and nasty colors jumping forward, distracting from character.
Too even. Left side exactly the same as right side.
