Disney films (and now even Pixar) seemed to have stagnated on going for timeless and instead have pushed towards "prettiest" and "most generically appealing". As much as Moana is a very pretty movie, the lack of dynamic poses once again holds it back.
I like Moana too, but you can really feel the wind in Pocahontas' hair. Moana's is more realistic and impressive, but can you really say sometimes you've never felt like
COLOURS OF THE WIIIIIND on certain fall days? The exaggeration tends to click with more people because in your mind, you are Pocahontas on those days, when the reality is you probably look like Moana.
Again, the water physics in Moana are amazing. It looks like a real beach you'd find in the Pacific. And yet, Stitch's contentment and relaxation from the ocean is emoted better, despite being in a simpler background. Disney does good jobs on their 3D movies, but traditional still holds a high place in people's library because even in a simple collection of moving images, you know what is going on and what emotions are on display in a few frames.
What I think is the problem is animators seem to only do a couple classes, or maybe a year of traditional animation to understand the basics of squash and stretch motions. But then they go full into 3D without ever thinking about it again. Or their references are only other 3D films, and those seem to be more on the technical aspects. I remember the bragging about "snow physics" in frozen, as if that's what should be so impressive instead of maybe, idk, telling a better story. And the push for better special effects over character animation feels like it's beginning to show the more, which in turn is going to date your movies when better effects come out.
Frozen's is already starting to look a bit dated, whereas Hunchback doesn't. In 10 years time, Frozen will probably look "ugly" to kids, while Hunchback retains a timelessness.
www.yahoo.com
