Define the term "Disney Movie"...

[Jules]

I feel rather bewildered lately. Which movies are truly Disney movies?
Was Narnia at least co-produced by Disney, or was it made by Walden Media and PUBLISHED by Disney?

And National Treasure and Pearl Harbour, were they made by Jerry Bruckheimer only or partially made by Disney?


By the way...how long has it been since a Disney Classic won an Academy Award?

This is what I know:
Chicken Little - No nominations
Home on the Range - No nominations
Brother Bear - Nominated for Animated Feature
Treasure Planet - I don't know...
Lilo & Stitch - I don't know
Atlantis - Not that I know of
Emperor's New Groove - Nominated for Best Song
Fantasia 2000 - ???
Tarzan - ???
Mulan - Nominated for Animated Feature
Hercules - ???
Hunchback - ???
Pocahontas - Won Best Song and Best Score (If I'm not mistaken...)

etc.....

[Lars Vermundsberget]

Well, my first hunch is that the term "Disney movie" is in itself a bit too loose to actually require an exact definition.

"Made by..." and "published by..." and a number of companies/studios belonging to Disney but with different names and very different kind of products make the whole picture complicated.

[Disney Princess Ariellen]

By the way...how long has it been since a Disney Classic won an Academy Award?

This is what I know:
Chicken Little - No nominations
Home on the Range - No nominations
Brother Bear - Nominated for Animated Feature
Treasure Planet - I don't know...
Lilo & Stitch - I don't know

I know that Lilo and Stitch was a best animated feature nominee; I can't remember if Treasure Planet was or not.

Tarzan - ???
Mulan - Nominated for Animated Feature

"You'll Be in My Heart" won the Oscar for Best Song.
The Best Animated Feature Catergory wasn't instituted until several years after Mulan was released...2001's Shrek was the first winner in that category.

Hunchback - ???

Hunchback was nominated for best original score (musical/comedy).

[memnv]

Treasure Planet was nominated for Best Animated Feature
Hercules was nominated for Best Music, Original Song
Mulan - Best Music, Original Musical or Comedy Score
Little Mermaid - Won - Best Music, Original Score and Best Music, Original Song
nominated - Best Music, Original Song
Lion King - Won - Best Music, Original Score and Best Music, Original Song
nominated - Best Music, Original Song and Best Music, Original Song they had 3 songs up for oscars - wow
Aladdin - Won -Best Music, Original Score, Best Music, Original Song,
Nominated- Best Effects, Sound Effects Editing, Best Sound, Best Music, Original Song

Beauty and the Beast -won- Best Music, Original Score, Best Music, Original Song

nominated - Best Picture, Best Sound, Best Music, Original Song - 3 songs again

[Loomis]

Many larger companies release films that they may not have wholly produced.

Take Kevin Smith's last few films, funded or co-produced by Miramax/Weinstein Company. However, technically it is his production company - View Askew films - that is actually making the movies. Sorry, this is the best example I can think of.

Look at the opening credits of most movies and you will see that it is usally a case of "Major Studio Presents a A Blah Blah Company Film in Association with the Associated Productions". The cost of filmmaking today is such that most films appear to be co-produced on some level.

I just count a Disney film as any that has "A Walt Disney" logo on it.

[Karushifa]

Many larger companies release films that they may not have wholly produced.

Take Kevin Smith's last few films, funded or co-produced by Miramax/Weinstein Company. However, technically it is his production company - View Askew films - that is actually making the movies. Sorry, this is the best example I can think of.

Look at the opening credits of most movies and you will see that it is usally a case of "Major Studio Presents a A Blah Blah Company Film in Association with the Associated Productions". The cost of filmmaking today is such that most films appear to be co-produced on some level.

I just count a Disney film as any that has "A Walt Disney" logo on it.

"Walt Disney Company presents a Studio Ghibli Film" is another example...

Studio Ghibli makes but does not distribute any of their films, therefore they must work out distribution deals both at home and abroad. In Japan, most if not all Ghibli films are distributed by Tokuma Publishing Company (Tokuma Shoten), and in the US they are distributed by Disney, with DVD rights going to Buena Vista Home Entertainment, a division of Disney.

[Loomis]

Many larger companies release films that they may not have wholly produced.

Take Kevin Smith's last few films, funded or co-produced by Miramax/Weinstein Company. However, technically it is his production company - View Askew films - that is actually making the movies. Sorry, this is the best example I can think of.

Look at the opening credits of most movies and you will see that it is usally a case of "Major Studio Presents a A Blah Blah Company Film in Association with the Associated Productions". The cost of filmmaking today is such that most films appear to be co-produced on some level.

I just count a Disney film as any that has "A Walt Disney" logo on it.

"Walt Disney Company presents a Studio Ghibli Film" is another example...

Studio Ghibli makes but does not distribute any of their films, therefore they must work out distribution deals both at home and abroad. In Japan, most if not all Ghibli films are distributed by Tokuma Publishing Company (Tokuma Shoten), and in the US they are distributed by Disney, with DVD rights going to Buena Vista Home Entertainment, a division of Disney.

That's slightly different again. In that case, Disney has just bought the foreign distribution rights to a film made outside of their studio system. Valiant was released in the the same way (kinda). Although, in the case of the Ghibli films, Disney do partake some of the cost of hiring actors to revoice the soundtrack for an English-speaking audience.

I'm talking about major studios BACKING a film financially, but the actual production of the film is done by a smaller unit. I believe that Bruckheimer's films are done this way (I could be wrong on this), but certainly the example I gave about View Askew's films above is apt. It is a case where the studio puts up the money, in whole or part, and makes the film with a ready-made production team.

[Karushifa]

I'm talking about major studios BACKING a film financially, but the actual production of the film is done by a smaller unit. I believe that Bruckheimer's films are done this way (I could be wrong on this), but certainly the example I gave about View Askew's films above is apt. It is a case where the studio puts up the money, in whole or part, and makes the film with a ready-made production team.

Okay...how about "Ducktales: The Movie"? Backed by Disney, based on a Disney-owned property, but animated overseas (France, I believe). Although it has the Disney label, was released theatrically, and uses Disney-owned characters, it is not a part of the "classic animated films" canon.

Some other animated films released by studios without dedicated animation units may have the same deal, but I think it gets a bit tricky when trying to determine just who paid for what, especially when three or more co-producers are involved.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

I'm talking about major studios BACKING a film financially, but the actual production of the film is done by a smaller unit. I believe that Bruckheimer's films are done this way (I could be wrong on this), but certainly the example I gave about View Askew's films above is apt. It is a case where the studio puts up the money, in whole or part, and makes the film with a ready-made production team.

Okay...how about "Ducktales: The Movie"? Backed by Disney, based on a Disney-owned property, but animated overseas (France, I believe). Although it has the Disney label, was released theatrically, and uses Disney-owned characters, it is not a part of the "classic animated films" canon.

Unlike "Valiant", "The Wild" and even "The Brave Little Toaster", the studio that made "DuckTales: Treasure of the Lost Lamp" was owned 100% by Disney, so it's considered a Disney film.

Oh and BTW, just to set records straight, Touchstone films are Disney films, but that's going to turn into an UGLY rant!

[Karushifa]

Unlike "Valiant", "The Wild" and even "The Brave Little Toaster", the studio that made "DuckTales: Treasure of the Lost Lamp" was owned 100% by Disney, so it's considered a Disney film.

Oh and BTW, just to set records straight, Touchstone films are Disney films, but that's going to turn into an UGLY rant!

Triple post ahoy! Man, this forum has really been lagging recently...

I think that the cadre of films that Loomis was trying to think of examples of was pretty narrow to begin with; a lot of films are made by small companies and distributed by big ones, and a lot of films are backed by the studios and produced by smaller units (mostly affiliated), but trying to determine which were both fully backed by a studio AND produced by a wholly independent unit is quite tricky; apparently, View Askew is the only true example of this that immediately comes to mind.

I mentioned Ducktales because it was a rare choice of Disney to go to a completely off-the-lot unit to produce an animated feature for them. I wasn't making the distinction between whether or not the smaller production unit was actually Disney property or not, but apparently somone thinks there is enough distinction there not to label Ducktales as a "Classic". So for the sake of this argument, it is in fact a Disney film (I wasn't debating that point), just not for some reason on the same echelon as The 44 Classics.

The situation I find more interesting is with Don Bluth movies: he's had so many co-producers and distributors that it's hard to figure out what was going on with most of his work. Which ones were financially backed by the big studios, and which ones were merely distributed? It's basically a different situation for every one.

(P.S.: NOW I know why I like the Ducktales movie so much...it was directed by the Brizzi brothers! )

[Jules]

The situation I find more interesting is with Don Bluth movies: he's had so many co-producers and distributors that it's hard to figure out what was going on with most of his work. Which ones were financially backed by the big studios, and which ones were merely distributed? It's basically a different situation for every one. )

You're absolutely right! They're very confusing!

An American Tale* : Universal Studios (If I'm not mistaken)
Thumbelina: Warner Brothers
Anastasia: 20th Century Fox

* Is it 'Tale' or 'Tail'?


Let's say Disney produced all the animated classics and most of the live-action, but although there is the Walt Disney Pictures logo on the Pixar Films, you can never really say they are Disney films. Officially they are...in practice they're not...especially when John Lasseter calls Chicken Little 'undercooked' and basically embarrasses the Disney film-makers.

Oh! And the question I was itching to ask!
Was 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit?' majorly produced by Disney?
I know it was a co-production of the Steven Spielberg and Walt Disney Companies, but were the animated characters animated by Disney animators...in other words the same team behind the animated classics such as the Little Mermaid?

[Escapay]

* Is it 'Tale' or 'Tail'?

It's "Tail".

Was 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit?' majorly produced by Disney?
I know it was a co-production of the Steven Spielberg and Walt Disney Companies, but were the animated characters animated by Disney animators...in other words the same team behind the animated classics such as the Little Mermaid?

IIRC, WFRR was a joint production with Walt Disney Studios and Amblin Entertainment (Spielberg's company), but the animation was primarily done by Disney. And the film was to have been released under the Disney banner, before it ultimately moved to the Touchstone banner. Paraphrasing Koenig's Mouse Under Glass, but it was safer to release it under the Touchstone banner, since the Disney name on a live-action film wasn't quite...prestigious yet. I believe Koenig's example was, "Who Framed Roger Rabbit would be coming from the studio that brought Unidentified Flying Oddball...", and that's why it got the Touchstone banner, though many consider it a wholly Disney film (well, Disney and Spielberg).

Escapay

[Jules]

It's a shame that WFRR was released under Touchstone, primarily because many people don't know that Touchstone IS Disney.

The general public in Malta (my country) does not know that Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, and Miramax Films belong to Disney.

Whenever I tell a person about Disney's ownership of Touchstone, he or she would probably look surprised and say something like "Really!?"
Moreover, Disney is normally associated with Kids' movies (unfortunately); when in fact they make adult movies aswell.

A company like DreamWorks distributes both the animated and adult films through 'DreamWorks SKG', but Disney have different banners which confuse the public.

Well honestly...Disney don't really make that much effort to make Touchstone seem Disney. How on earth is one to know unless he finds out on...say the internet!?!

[Finch]

I wouldn't call a Touchstone/Miramax movie a Disney movie, even though technically it is.

Disney usually refers to a film produced by Pixar/Disney Studios - a family movie.

[2099net]

Well honestly...Disney don't really make that much effort to make Touchstone seem Disney. How on earth is one to know unless he finds out on...say the internet!?!

Because at the time, that's what they wanted to do. It's why Touchstone was set up. Live action films from Disney in the 80's were more miss than hit. And when Disney tried to broaden their audience with 'darker' films like Something Wicked This Way Comes and Watcher in the Woods they failed - not from an artistic point of view, but from a financial point of view because the public wasn't ready to associate Disney with horror movies (even though they were reasonably tame - especially when compared to some of today's movies).

So they started up a new division, away from the Disney branding to appeal to older audiences. Touchstone to some extent saved Disney, thanks to their re-branding.

[mickeymousechen]

Well honestly...Disney don't really make that much effort to make Touchstone seem Disney.

If it's that simple, we won't be on this topic. However, when small companies produce the movies, Disney hasn't decided whether it will release the movie under Disney or Touchstone banner; even after the trailer comes out, the banner often switches (like National Treasure, etc.)

If I love a future movie (though haven't seen it), BECAUSE it is going to be under the Disney banner, and then is switches to Touchstone, what should I do? Don't love it?

So things are not that easy.

[Mushu2083]

Treasure Planet was nominated for an Academy Award.

By the way...how long has it been since a Disney Classic won an Academy Award?

This is what I know:
Chicken Little - No nominations
Home on the Range - No nominations
Brother Bear - Nominated for Animated Feature
Treasure Planet - I don't know...
Lilo & Stitch - I don't know

I know that Lilo and Stitch was a best animated feature nominee; I can't remember if Treasure Planet was or not.

Tarzan - ???
Mulan - Nominated for Animated Feature

"You'll Be in My Heart" won the Oscar for Best Song.
The Best Animated Feature Catergory wasn't instituted until several years after Mulan was released...2001's Shrek was the first winner in that category.

Hunchback - ???

Hunchback was nominated for best original score (musical/comedy).

[Luke]

Here's a good read, which includes a section and good and poor uses of the "quote" function:
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... php?t=9799

[ichabod]

Well I class anything that Disney had some input on as a Disney movie. Yes Jerry Bruckheimer and Walden Media to name a few are in cahoots with Disney during the film's production but Disney would still play a part in their production.

However this is a thorny issue for me as there are some films I absolutely refuse to acknowledge are Disney.

Disney in the US has a habit of getting hold of the distribution rights to a number of films they had no input on, for example 'Valiant'. It was not made by Disney, was not created under their wing, outside R1 it does not ever have the Disney name on it. It only appears as such in the US because Disney bought the distribution rights to it.

Now i adamantly state that this is in no way, nor could it ever be a Disney film (even though some would disagree! )

[Lars Vermundsberget]

...and at that point I guess I'd ask: Does it really matter?