Marky_198 wrote:After Snowwhite things went downhill for years
It wouldn't be fair to say that after
Snow White it was downhill for Disney. To say "downhill" makes it sound like a dip in quality, when it was far from it. Remember, just because a film wasn't profitable doesn't mean it was bad. After all, World War II came along and they lost the European viewing market/revenue as well as animators to the draft. Coupled with the government commissioning them to make educational war shorts, Disney had to scale back/postpone on projects that would have otherwised been produced. Stuff like
Peter Pan,
Alice in Wonderland, and even
Cinderella. And of course, in the post-war years, the company had to literally rebuild from what was left over, resulting in the quick "meat and potatoes" pictures like
Make Mine Music,
Fun and Fancy Free, etc. Most so-called Disney fans dismiss the package features, without even taking into account that they are essentially the foundation for what would become the 1950s "Golden Age".
Marky_198 wrote:Same thing happened later, there were movies like 101 Dalmatians, The sword in the stone and the Rescuers,
Aside from
The Sword in the Stone, the other two actually did well financially for the company.
101 Dalmatians was one of, if not the, highest grossing films if 1961.
The Rescuers turned a surprising profit, something which was pretty good for late-1970s Disney.
Marky_198 wrote:they came with "the Little Mermaid", this movie was given credit for breathing life back into the animated feature film genre after a string of critical and commercial failures.
The company was saved again.
If you want to consider the company saved, go back about 5 years to 1984 when Eisner, Wells, and Katzenberg came. Disney would have been bought out and split up among other companies if not for the reshuffling of the powers that be. Yes,
The Little Mermaid brought "life" back to animated features, but it didn't really "save" the company the way
Cinderella did. If anything, it was the catalyst for a renewed interest in Disney animation among the viewing public. The 1980s was a time of transition (much like the 1940s), which provided quality animation, regardless of the critical/commercial reception. Saying one picture saved a company this time wouldn't really be accurate. After all,
The Rescuers Down Under,
Beauty and the Beast, and I think even
Aladdin were already well into production (with
Aladdin, possibly development) and would have come about (albeit, probably with a few changes) regardless if
The Little Mermaid was a hit or a flop.
Marky_198 wrote:Beauty and the Beast was a huge success, Aladdin was a success, but after the Lion King things went downhill again. Unfortunately the past didn't open the company's eyes, and they tried to keep their head above the water in different ways. Working together with other companies. 3d movies, pixar, etc.
It's going down hill again.
Aladdin had a bigger box office intake and critical/commercial response than
Beauty and the Beast (despite it getting an Oscar nom and Golden Globe), and if anything,
The Lion King simply road on the coattails of their successes and pulled in an audience who were expecting every next picture to be better and better. Of course,
Pocahontas was misuderstood by the same audience, and
The Hunchback of Notre Dame was innovative and mature but didn't fit a general public's misconceived notions of a Disney film. But just because every film post-
Lion King didn't make
Lion King box office numbers, it doesn't mean the company went downhill. You're making it sound like Disney was in danger of closing because their films aren't being received well at the box office, without taking into consideration the millions of $$$ they get back in merchandise, theme parks, television, etc. Don't confuse personal distaste in recent films with a company on the brink of collapse.
Marky_198 wrote:It well could be that the world is tired of the crap Disney produced the last few years and lost interest in the company and see "The frog princess" as just one of the products out of the disney money making cannon.
CRAP? Are you judging their animated films based on their own merits, or how they compare to the company's earlier successes and your own personal tastes? I'd have to guess the latter.
Marky_198 wrote:Because even I, as a Disney fan, couldn't name the last 5 movies they produced.
Then I have to ask, are you really a Disney fan? Or just a Princess fan?
Marky_198 wrote:There would be no Disney without the princess movies and they proved over and over again that that is what the world wants to see.
I can't even dignify this with a response.
Plus, you haven't even touched upon
Sleeping Beauty, which the world apparently didn't want to see in 1959.
Jack Skellington wrote:I don't think that those movies saved the company because they were based on fairy tales, I think it's because of the romance that is present in these movies that made them famous because romance is a universally appreciated genre, I guess you can say that's why even after 400 years people are still reading books like Romeo and Juliet and Pride and Prejudice,
I totally agree. Well-stated, Jack!
Jack Skellington wrote:whereas books like Animal Farm aren't as appreciated because the politics behind that movie was important ages ago only.
I think the politics of
Animal Farm are just as timeless and important now as it was when it was first published. After all, the concept of some being "more equal than others" is still to be found in our society, even if we don't want to admit it.
Prudence wrote:I could ask what planet you are from, but I won't give this a real explanation.

I love you, Prudence.
Scaps