Disney?

[Marky_198]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately.

I grew up with some of the most wonderful Disney classics.
Once there was a Disney Christmas special on tv with clips of all the big Disney Classics, and I was just hypnotized. Couldn't get it out of my head for weeks. Whenever there was an item about one of the classics in the "Donald Duck" for example, I would run to the store and buy it from my saved pocket money.

I remember seeing Sleeping Beauty for the first time and everything fell into place. This was wat true beauty is. Movies like that (and others, Cinderella, Aladdin, Little Mermaid, Snowwhite, Lion King) made me the person I am and how I see the world today.
(other things too of course But Disney had a great part in it)

I'm 25 now and still see that movies in the exact same way.
I love how that movies are not childish at all, the way they are drawn is very realistic and mature. They are masterpieces.
To be honest, I think some people need to be a little bit older to understand the artwork, true beauty and meaning of those movies.

I once went to Disneyworld and it was wonderful.
The parades, the characters, the shops with Disney Souvenirs, everything fitted into the image I had of Disney.

I also was fond of Disney stores in general.

But then something happened.
The Disney classics started to change.
The characters became childish, simple, like the cartoons you see on Nickelodeon. The people in "Home on the Range" the old lady, the bad guy have nothing to do with the classic Disneys. They are just caricatures.
And eventually, they started to disappear......

3d took over, a style I just can't watch. I'v tried and tried over again to appreciate it, but it just doesn't do it for me.

The only thing that's left of the original classics, is what I see in toy stores.
Pink plastic bracelets, pink little purses with glitters, with a childish pictures of Snowwhite or Aurora in a pink dress........

That's hard for me, because that's NOT how I see that movies.
All the beautiful artwork, those classics are masterpieces.

No wonder those movies get a childish image and I see advertisements on the internet : "Selling all my Disney movies, because my kids are too old now, 14 and 16".

Last week I went to a Disneystore and I was truly shocked.
It almost made me cry, and I realized, Disney is gone.................
The whole store was in 3d style, computer games, cars everywhere, tv's with pop music, there was nothing Disney anymore.
Oh yeah, there was, a litlle corner with the pink plastic glitter bracelets with a picture of Aurora in a pink dress (who didn't even look like Aurora).

I hate to say this, but I'm pretty sure that Walt is turning around in his grave.

[akhenaten]

i wouldnt put the blame solely on disney.yes disney is changing, so is the world and the way we perceive things. life is getting a little more trickier and critical nowadays that we have to work extra hard to survive.no matter how hard pixar tries to emulate the days of uncle walt, it too just wont be the same.remember the mid 20th century was a time of technological advent, now everything has settled into place and challenges r everywhere. the company must cater to the public in order to survive.but if disney is smart enough, it wont neglect its principles laid down by the founding fathers.

[Marky_198]

You maybe right,

But I'm afraid there are some people working at the company who just try to make more money and forget about the quality of the productions.

Maybe the people with brilliant ideas of storytelling don't work there anymore, because they didn't fit in with the modern money production business.

Besides. There may have been a technoligical advent, but the quality of the movies has gone way down.

[candydog]

Oh yes, Uncle Walt will be spinning in his fridge.

[2099net]

But then something happened.
The Disney classics started to change.
The characters became childish, simple, like the cartoons you see on Nickelodeon. The people in "Home on the Range" the old lady, the bad guy have nothing to do with the classic Disneys. They are just caricatures.
And eventually, they started to disappear......

I'm sorry, but I have to take exception to this. Are you seriously telling me that ill-defined characters like Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Prince Charming, Price Philip and Alice are better than modern Disney characters?

Not just Home on the Range, but excellent, well written and well defined characters like John Silver in Treasure Planet, Kenai and Koda in Brother Bear, Lilo and Stitch in - er - Lilo and Stitch? And yes, even Chicken Little in Chicken Little?

[Marky_198]

Yes, absolutely.

And I'm talking about the way the characters look.

The ones you mention are caricatures.

[Mr. Toad]

#1 - You should write a more descriptive title of your posts

Now on to content. Disney Stores are not even owned by Disney, they are owned by a children's clothing retailer.

As for the 3d -don't blame Disney, blame the populace. They stopped showing up to 2d movies. As for Home on the Range, it was meant to be a caricture, somewhat along the lines of the very popular Shrek. Again blame the populace.

As for Disneyland, it has many high end collectibles that remind you of the history. And the place is on the upswing.

So it aint all bad.

[2099net]

Yes, absolutely.

And I'm talking about the way the characters look.

The ones you mention are caricatures.

Well, again I disagree. What the heck is Mickey Mouse?

My view is, why use animation to emulate life, when you can do so much more with the format. And for the record, I think the best Disney animation ever committed to screen is Hercules.

The designs in Hercules are just wonderful - like Sleeping Beauty but taken to the next level. Nothing about their movement should work, they're a mass of spacial contradictions, but they work beautifully when in motion and visual logic is ignored, just like Mickey's ears do.

I don't have a problem with Home on the Range's style. A more "realistic" style wouldn't have worked. It may be too angular for some, but its just reflecting current design influences. I disagree 100% that it is just like a Nickelodeon cartoon. You may as well say Fantasia was just like a Disney short. It's not the design that matters, it's what they do with it.

Also, while I understand many people not liking the look of Chicken Little, the animation was purely in the style of 1940's Disney shorts - all squash/streach and rubber banding. More than maybe even any of the Pixar films, Chicken Little captured the early joy of animation.

[Jules]

My view is, why use animation to emulate life, when you can do so much more with the format.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Netty nailed it.

Also, while I understand many people not liking the look of Chicken Little, the animation was purely in the style of 1940's Disney shorts - all squash/streach and rubber banding. More than maybe even any of the Pixar films, Chicken Little captured the early joy of animation.

I can never make up my mind about Chicken Little. On seeing it the first time, its animation did dazzle me. I thought that technically it was quite a milestone, for the exact reasons you mentioned. But then I read critics' reviews saying that the animation looks fuzzy and plasticene. Others comment saying that it lacks detail and is inferior to Pixar's stuff and to that of the other major studios. James Berardinelli went so far as to say that Toy Story, ten years older than Chicken Little, looks better.

After viewing Meet the Robinsons in theatres, last March, I watched Chicken Little on DVD at home. Following Meet the Robinsons' exceptionally dazzling visuals (seriously ... that film has to be one of the best-looking CG films ever made) Chicken Little looked rather bland. This took me by surprise, as I had initially loved Chicken Little's visuals. A couple of weeks ago I viewed Chicken Little again, and this time I appreciated it much more.

Chicken Little's universe does seem to have a strange sense of simplicity which might lure people into saying that the CG is basic and unsophisticated. On the other hand, I've concluded that its simplistic-looking visuals coupled with the warmth of 2D squash and stretch are responsible for a lot of its charm.

So why then do people and critics consider Chicken Little to be inferior, animation-wise, to other CG toons? Even UD's review comments negatively in regards to its animation.

Your thoughts on the above?

Oh yes, Uncle Walt will be spinning in his fridge.

I heartily nominate this statement as the next in Escapay's WIST series, be it retired or not. FRIGGIN' HILARIOUS!!

[singerguy04]

Well Marky I'm 21 so I've kinda grown up with the same image of Disney as you have. I agree with a lot of what you say, but we have to take into account that Disney just isn't at the spot to do things like they used to.

Maybe in the next few years we'll see a new sort of re-birth to the Company if it hasn't already begun (Meet the Robinsons and High School Musical). Think about how much we have to look forward to now. I'm really excited for Enchanted, Bolt, Rapunzel, and The Princess and the Frog. I'm also getting excited to see what Disney is going to do with Blu-ray. Remember when DVD finally settled in and we got all those great Special Editions (Pocahontas, Sleeping Beauty, the first PE's, Mary Poppins, the Fantasia Anthology). I suspect the Blu-ray PE of Sleeping Beauty to be something to behold.

All in all, the present has been pretty bleak but I see a bright future ahead!

[toonaspie]

But then something happened.
The Disney classics started to change.
The characters became childish, simple, like the cartoons you see on Nickelodeon. The people in "Home on the Range" the old lady, the bad guy have nothing to do with the classic Disneys. They are just caricatures.
And eventually, they started to disappear......

The caricature issue is a huge problem with ALL AMERICAN CARTOONS today. Back in the 80s and 90s the animation was much more realistic and less blocky. Today's cartoons, which are fewer than usual nowadays, make animate their characters in ridiculous caricature fashion and have REALLY STUPID premises like ninja bunnies and kids who can replace parents. Watch cartoon network and it's even worse. Btw, there arent any girl cartoons out anymore or at least any cartoons out that girls can enjoy. Most of the ridiculous cartoons out there are mainly intended for boys (once again, forget about finding any shows for girls to watch on cartoon network).

Now with Lilo and Stitch The Series gone, it will be quite a while before we get to see a good quality animated cartoon series that doesnt look stupid on screen.

[2099net]

I can never make up my mind about Chicken Little. On seeing it the first time, its animation did dazzle me. I thought that technically it was quite a milestone, for the exact reasons you mentioned. But then I read critics' reviews saying that the animation looks fuzzy and plasticene. Others comment saying that it lacks detail and is inferior to Pixar's stuff and to that of the other major studios. James Berardinelli went so far as to say that Toy Story, ten years older than Chicken Little, looks better.

After viewing Meet the Robinsons in theatres, last March, I watched Chicken Little on DVD at home. Following Meet the Robinsons' exceptionally dazzling visuals (seriously ... that film has to be one of the best-looking CG films ever made) Chicken Little looked rather bland. This took me by surprise, as I had initially loved Chicken Little's visuals. A couple of weeks ago I viewed Chicken Little again, and this time I appreciated it much more.

Chicken Little's universe does seem to have a strange sense of simplicity which might lure people into saying that the CG is basic and unsophisticated. On the other hand, I've concluded that its simplistic-looking visuals coupled with the warmth of 2D squash and stretch are responsible for a lot of its charm.

Toy Story was just as simplistic though. OK, its older, but there's a reason Pixar did a film about Toys. It's because Toys are easier to render - especially at that time in CGI development cycle. Look at any of the non-toy animations and see how crude they look compared to Chicken Little's characters.

I refuse to believe for an instant Toy Story has better animation than Chicken Little. It may look more "realistic" and "photographic" than Chicken Little's, but absolute realism was never the goal of Chicken Little, and I don't think it should ever be the goal of any animated film.

[Loomis]

It does kind of get to me when I hear people romanticising the past for the sake of putting down the present.

The caricature issue is a huge problem with ALL AMERICAN CARTOONS today. Back in the 80s and 90s the animation was much more realistic and less blocky. Today's cartoons, which are fewer than usual nowadays, make animate their characters in ridiculous caricature fashion and have REALLY STUPID premises like ninja bunnies and kids who can replace parents

Firstly, I have to disagree on this point. I believe that animation today is more bold than it has ever been. Those caricatures, as you call them, are far more in keeping with the possibilities of animation than something that is 'realistic'. Sure, Disney was all about creating the 'illusion of life', but the big 5 - Mickey, Donald, Goofy, Daisy and Pluto - were all about this very sort of distended reality that makes animation great. Nothing annoys me more than something like The Polar Express and Beowulf that hire big names and then recreate them wrinkle for wrinkle on screen. What is the point of that, when you could just shoot the actors? If you want realism, go for live action. Animation is, and SHOULD, be about pushing the boundaries of the medium. Walt Disney certainly did with Snow White with 7 of the leads and the shorts of the era had dancing trees, pigs, households and boats.

The characters became childish, simple, like the cartoons you see on Nickelodeon. The people in "Home on the Range" the old lady, the bad guy have nothing to do with the classic Disneys. They are just caricatures.

Disney today, and I reluctantly admit Pixar is a big part of this, is more innovative than it has been in years. Rather than simply transplanting tired old characters onto the screen, it is reworking the possibilities of the medium. Treasure Planet combined an adapted story, original Disney magic, several types of animation and well-developed characters to make one of the more engaging pieces of animation in recent years. Atlantis has a great set of characters, and not just fairy-book archetypes. Don't get me wrong - I love the art and effort involved in the classic Disney days, and they will forever be considered to be classics and worthy of that name. However, to suggest that the characters were more complex than the ones in today's animation is stretching things as far as a rubber-banded Mickey.

Every generation deserves its own set of characters and styles. People seem to easily forget that Toy Story, a film that even the digital haters on the board seem to agree is 'good Pixar', is now TWELVE YEARS OLD AND COUNTING. That's a GENERATION. For them, the trials and tribulations of a princess and her villain for the sake of it witch will mean nothing. I for one am glad to see animation continually evolving.

[ichabod]

*groans very loudly*

Right, I'm annoyed now, so listen.

it's not often i get into full blown rant mode, but i've had enough of imbecillic mindless prattle.

The older Disney films provide entertainment value and are loved by many. But being old and being liked, does not automatically mean that it is the best. Take Cinderella for example. I mean of course Cinderella is well animated, it's the 9 old men who knew what they were doing. But it's simply animated as a cost cutting method, which means it is nowhere near the same level of sophistication as other disney movies, thus as a result has a much more toon-like appearance than most other animated disney films.

There are a lot of posters on this forum who talk like they know what they are on about, when clearly they do not. The differences between the meanings of animation and digital coloring are often confused. The understanding of background art and character personalities are similarly confused. Often people will claim a film is well animated, based upon their liking of a story, a character or a song, and quite frankly this ridiculousness needs to stop.

Now it is beyond I mean how could any imbecile ever suggest that Cinderella or The Little Mermaid is a better film than Treasure Planet or Home on the Range, just on the basis that it is a 'classic'.

Now, I am perfectly understanding of the fact that you may have a fondness for a film, since you grew up with it or loved it as a child. I know I adored 'Robin Hood' when I was little and find it enchanting and it is without a shadow of a doubt one of my all time favourite Disney films. However I have the sense to distinguish between personal liking and common fact. And even though I adore the film, I would never claim it has the best story/characters/animation etc like some people here claim about films like Sleeping Beauty/Little Mermaid/Cinderella etc.

I mean I cannot for the life of me ever work out how people can suggest Sleeping Beauty has a better story than Treasure Planet. When quite obviously it does not.

I cannot see how could possibly even suggest that the animation in Cinderella or little mermaid is of a higher quality than Home on the Range?I mean for all HotR's flaws, the animation is in no way, shape or form one of them

Yes, I can understand some of the more recent 'arty' looking films such as Home on the Range or Atlantis with stark lines and angular designs may not be to everyone's liking.But once again this is where most posters seem not to be able to distinguish personal taste from fact and this is where the ignorance of most of the idiots shows up most. Because they may not like the way it looks, they immediately say it's 'badly animated'. and quite frankly it is ludicrous.

It is a solid fact for example that Atlantis is in terms of animation far superior to say for example, The Little Mermaid.

And that is not opinion, It's not bias, it's not conjecture, it's not personal choice. It is a fact.

Yet most posters at UD are so blinded by a liking for a princess or storyline, they refuse to accept this.

It's like idiots who claim that Cinderella or Mermaid have the best platinum dvd. When quite clearly they do not.

Quite frankly I have become so annoyed during this post that I can't be bothered to type anymore. Although I'll probably be back for a bit more of a rant later.

[toonaspie]

I mean I cannot for the life of me ever work out how people can suggest Sleeping Beauty has a better story than Treasure Planet. When quite obviously it does not.

You make a point there as I got older I realized that huge bulks of Sleeping Beauty were less devoted to plot and scenes like Sleeping Beauty with Prince Phillip, the fairies planning the party, and King Stephen and King Hubert, were over extended than what was needed to move the story along (in other words, it drags a lot). I like the film's artsy-ness though.

I saw Treasure Planet once on video and I was quite impressed. The film had a good story and strong characters. What a shame that Disney has placed this film in the nonexistence bin because of box office numbers (especially since it was done by the great Ron 'n John team). However, I couldnt grasp the whole outer space theme of the film. Perhaps that's what drew the people away from seeing it.

[ichabod]

I mean I cannot for the life of me ever work out how people can suggest Sleeping Beauty has a better story than Treasure Planet. When quite obviously it does not.

You make a point there as I got older I realized that huge bulks of Sleeping Beauty were less devoted to plot and scenes like Sleeping Beauty with Prince Phillip, the fairies planning the party, and King Stephen and King Hubert, were over extended than what was needed to move the story along (in other words, it drags a lot). I like the film's artsy-ness though.

Precisely. But yet there are so many people here that will state till they are blue in the face that Sleeping Beauty is a masterpiece and yet sweep Treasure Planet under the rug.

Now I'm saying people can't like Sleeping Beauty, as you point out the film has wonderful design (in fact it always surprises me how people who claim to love the design of Sleeping Beauty often criticise the design of Home on the Range when stylistically they are really quite similar). Whilst the film does have its moments, quite frankly the story in very thin. It's a cinemascope beauty and design and score, whilst wonderful can't excuse the fact that the story is quite lacking.

I saw Treasure Planet once on video and I was quite impressed. The film had a good story and strong characters.

Treasure Planet is arguably the most character driver films Disney have made, second only to possible Atlantis. The character development and character interaction is simply astounding. We have distinguished characters with wants, needs and views. I make take the villains from these two films, Long John Silver and Rourke. Here are examples of characters with greed, ambition, the ability to deceive and fool. An particularly with silver, such a complex character. I doubt any character is Disney history shows so finely the inner turmoil, the greed coupled with the shining glimmer of hope of a good soul than Long John Silver. Complex, intruiging characters which really make animation come alive. And yet do these villains get much praise?

No. instead we get all this drivel about how Maleficent is one of the best Disney characters. Now Maleficent is wonderfully designed, have a superb voice provided by Eleanor Audley and is well animated. But, let's face she has hardly any character development and no motive. I mean she turns up at the palace and curses a baby. Why? Revenge? Jealousy? Anger? Prophecy? Greed? What? She does it, just, well, because she does. Maleficent is possibly one of the worst villains there is. Just because she's so spooky she makes children hide behind the sofa, it doesn't make her a good character/villain. Even Alameda Slim and Edgar the Butler have motive. Slim, greed and revenge. Edgar, pure greed.

What a shame that Disney has placed this film in the nonexistence bin because of box office numbers (especially since it was done by the great Ron 'n John team). However, I couldnt grasp the whole outer space theme of the film. Perhaps that's what drew the people away from seeing it.

Can you blame them? Treasure Planet is quite possibly the most innovative twist on a classic, having the most character driven plot, the most intricately thought out characters. Some of the finest emotion in animation ever made from any studio. With stunning animation, design and effects. And yet as this forum clearly proves, most would rather worship something with a generic princess a spooky villain and a load of cute anthroporphised animals. It's what Disney do, and the general public will seldom allow anything that doesn't fit into this mould to succeed. Other studios can experiment, but if Disney experiment and give us something out of the mould, because it's unexpected it's immediately labelled as bad.

Now I am very much looking forward to Rapunzel and The Frog Princess. But ask yourself one question.

Have Disney put these movies into production because they will see the creative, experimental growth of the studio and of the artists?

Or because it will swell the princess line and because fairy tales are the Disney thing and will see more chance of success, regardless of how predictable, generic and cliche the characters?

I think we know the answer, don't we.

[candydog]

I agree with the fact that many of Disney's older fairytale films feature very little character development, but isn't that the essence of a fairytale? We are told of "A faraway land", "once upon a time" and already from the opening lines we have no definite time or location. Fairytales were written as stories about magic and good and evil. If a character was a princess, it was accepted that she was a princess, if there was a prince, then that's what he was. Fairytales don't often include characters with extensive backgrounds or distinctive personalities, because that's not the kind of story that a fairytale is. They're simply a series of strange magical events that are strung together by a rather thin storyline.

That's the emphasis that was put on the earlier disney films, telling a familiar story.

[Mr. Toad]

*groans very loudly*

Right, I'm annoyed now, so listen.

it's not often i get into full blown rant mode, but i've had enough of imbellic mindless prattle.

.

Unfortunately that is the direction this forum has taken in the last six months. Too many intellignent posters disappearing and way too many unintelligent ones posting to every thread. I echo your frustration.

[Prudence]

Cinderella and Treasure Planet are BOTH my favorite Disney movies, to be honest. I'm not sure as to whether or not anyone was pointing fingers at me for the last few posts, but being a paranoid person, I have to ask.

That said, for the most part, I agree. Treasure Planet is vastly underrated, and Maleficent had no true motive or depth of character. Eleanor Audley and her character design are probably the main factors contributing to her continuing popularity.

[Flanger-Hanger]

I agree with you Prudence, it's possible to like both old and newer Disney films (both Sleeping Beauty and Treasure Planet are in my top ten). I think the reason poeple automatically catergorize Disney films is because of how there marketed, meaning all the films in the Classics VHS line are considered so. (the only flaw to this theory is the Disney masterpiece collection, wich had movies like Oliver and Company and Fun and Fancy Free which are both little known and generally not considred classics).

Current Disney is a buisness, more so than it used to be. Almost everything is designed to make money. Even films like Treasure Planet were only made because the directors had a history for money making films. Newer Disney executives are changing some of these problems, but issues are still around (such as the homoginization of Disney parks), but mabey 10 years from now things will be different.