What Type of Disney Snob Are You?

[BrandonH]

I voted for the excluded option. Elements of the "everything" and "Disney only" snobs can apply to me.

I judge the films on their own merits, but I'm not automatically accepting of a film just because of the company name. I do think WDAS has the best feature animation catalogue by a long shot, but I do like films from other studios, such as TMNT, Fievel Goes West, All Dogs Go to Heaven, and The Prince of Egypt.

[Lazario]

My type of Snobbery isn't listed.

*I'm highly skeptical of anything animated after Pocahontas, and with most of the live-action films beginning in the mid-80's.
*Most of Touchstone's product is lame to me and I can live without.
*If Michael Eisner is the one who invented putting DVD's in the Vault after only 3 months to a couple years after their initial release - I hope he dies a death more painful than... whoever is famous for dying a really painful death.
*I miss the old Disney music and scores to movies. This died somewhere between Fox and the Hound or Black Cauldron.
*I miss those music montage type scenes where the camera would off into the background while you heard a piece of music and didn't have to see the characters right up front and it didn't always have to be funny or cutesy. You know?
*I miss the old humor of the older films. I don't mind that the new films are less old-fashioned about relationships and stuff like that. But the newer films (at least in the early to mid-90's) are also more crude. Something like The Little Mermaid was the best balance between the two. Because the supporting characters weren't so loud and obnoxious like The Genie.
*I also miss the epic sense of danger, the creepiness, and the profound non-P.C. quality to the older films. Some more than others.

[Wonderlicious]

I'm not sure where I really fit. To be honest, I guess I'm a mix of "I love Walt", "old is better" and "traditional animation is the best". However, I can't say that I really adhere to any of those views, and I'm clever enough to have a balanced opinion. I know that under Walt the likes of Fantasia, Pinocchio and Mary Poppins were made, but so were the likes of the Mickey Mouse Club and Bon Voyage (and as lovely as he surely was, I also believe that Walt made his mistakes like we all do and wasn't the second coming as propaganda implies). I would also say that whilst I respect and love the older films (pre 1980s), I can't ignore the likes of The Little Mermaid, Toy Story, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Aladdin and many others, and I look forward to so much of the studio's output (although due to not being a thirteen year old girl, I can't muster up much excitement for the likes of Hannah Montana: the Movie). I also love traditional animation so dearly, but I understand that I can't slam a film just because of the medium it's been made in, and that many wonderful films have been made using CG or stop-motion (just as many bad films have been made in every animation medium). So, I suppose I am...


An Undecided and all-round Neutral Snob!!!!!


...which Scaps didn't provide for.

[Flanger-Hanger]

*I also miss the epic sense of danger, the creepiness, and the profound non-P.C. quality to the older films. Some more than others.

This I really agree with, both for animated and live action products. And not just "danger" but anything that's really abstract, mature or has a real sense of dramatic weight to it.

I was recently viewing The Watcher in the Woods and Tex again and I couldn't help but think how odd it was, for instance to see a character get a)shot and b)by a drug dealer in Tex for example. Both films are from the abnormal period between The Black Hole and Return to Oz were Disney as willing to experiment and that's what made me dislike Disney today so much. There is no attempt now to try something different or unusual in terms of subject matter or artistic technique with Disney. Forget trying to make a realistic teen movie, a horror film, an experimental sci-fi piece or a period drama, we need more talking animal garbage that panders to it's 5 and under audience.

Back in the early 80s they didn't care about offending soccer moms they just wanted to reach new markets and try something new. Now Disney has become a parody of itself where everything seems the same and the brand is just as dull as it was in the 70s. There are some exceptions of quality, but even they might be compromised (Amy Adams remarked that the climax for Enchanted was toned down, when ironically it was trying to pay tribute to a scene from another movie which at the time of it's release had it's appropriateness questioned). Only the Pirates franchise truly does what it wants to be a good movie without lowering itself to please a disappointing standard.

Pixar seems to try more adult themes at times (see Carl's relationship to Ellie), but even they feel at times are forced into adding something to the story to make it appear to be more kid friendly or light hearted (talking dogs). One of the reasons I adored Coraline was that it was a kids movie that knew you could scare kids while recognizing their limits and not make it dull for adults.

Disney doesn't have to make a Pulp Fiction kind of movie all the time but something different, in tone or style on a frequent basis would be so nice to have. I've always said that a Disney movie could be whatever it wanted to be so long as it had a high quality production and a happy ending (or at least an optimistic one like Old Yeller).

[Escapay]

Glad (and a little bit disturbed) that people are picking out which snobs they are, and I expected a lot of "my snobbery isn't listed!" posts. Like I said, I only thought about it for an hour, and really only thought about the really negative type of snobs. The ones you don't want to be friends with because of the extreme snobbery they possess. So, in most cases, you can take bits and pieces of each category without actually belonging to one or the other.

Regarding a theme park snob (as I don't think I mention anything about theme parks beyond "Walt stepped upon Disneyland and made it holy ground" or something), Howard pointed it out to me soon after I posted (we were AIM chatting) and I said I realised it too. I couldn't edit any type of theme park snob in, though, because you can't edit polls. So it'd be unfair to add new snob categories to the message part, but not to the poll part, and thus, I left it and a few more out. Wondy's Neutral Snob, for example. I would have called it the Switzerland Snob, as they don't take sides and don't want confrontation with other snobs.

And Wire Hanger, regarding the cult snobs, it's really more something I notice sometimes, that some people (not everyone), will be into a cult thing just because it's not well known and they intentionally want to not be into a mainstream popularity. So I took names of popular vs. not-so-popular Disney films and plugged them in there, regardless of how obviously cool (The Black Hole) they are.

Regarding Pixar...well, even though Disney bought it, I still consider it a separate entity and its own little thing (which it is). So if I were to include a "Pixar is Overrated!" Snob, it'd be under a "What type of Pixar Snob Are You?" kind of thread. Maybe I'll think of that next.

albert

[Super Aurora]

*I also miss the epic sense of danger, the creepiness, and the profound non-P.C. quality to the older films. Some more than others.

This I really agree with, both for animated and live action products. And not just "danger" but anything that's really abstract, mature or has a real sense of dramatic weight to it.

I was recently viewing The Watcher in the Woods and Tex again and I couldn't help but think how odd it was, for instance to see a character get a)shot and b)by a drug dealer in Tex for example. Both films are from the abnormal period between The Black Hole and Return to Oz were Disney as willing to experiment and that's what made me dislike Disney today so much. There is no attempt now to try something different or unusual in terms of subject matter or artistic technique with Disney. Forget trying to make a realistic teen movie, a horror film, an experimental sci-fi piece or a period drama, we need more talking animal garbage that panders to it's 5 and under audience.

Back in the early 80s they didn't care about offending soccer moms they just wanted to reach new markets and try something new. Now Disney has become a parody of itself where everything seems the same and the brand is just as dull as it was in the 70s. There are some exceptions of quality, but even they might be compromised (Amy Adams remarked that the climax for Enchanted was toned down, when ironically it was trying to pay tribute to a scene from another movie which at the time of it's release had it's appropriateness questioned). Only the Pirates franchise truly does what it wants to be a good movie without lowering itself to please a disappointing standard.

Pixar seems to try more adult themes at times (see Carl's relationship to Ellie), but even they feel at times are forced into adding something to the story to make it appear to be more kid friendly or light hearted (talking dogs). One of the reasons I adored Coraline was that it was a kids movie that knew you could scare kids while recognizing their limits and not make it dull for adults.

Disney doesn't have to make a Pulp Fiction kind of movie all the time but something different, in tone or style on a frequent basis would be so nice to have. I've always said that a Disney movie could be whatever it wanted to be so long as it had a high quality production and a happy ending (or at least an optimistic one like Old Yeller).

I agree and Basically That's what Walt was all about. Experimentations. Thinking new ideas and innovations to improve the entertainment.

[Wonderlicious]

Wondy's Neutral Snob, for example. I would have called it the Switzerland Snob, as they don't take sides and don't want confrontation with other snobs.

lol, I thought about making a reference to Switzerland when I was making that post, actually! I remember once saying that I wanted to be Swiss, as I could be neutral in a dispute of sorts and everyone would still like me. Plus, knowing both French and German, I'd be well suited for that title (though I don't know much Italian and absolutely no Rhaeto-Romansch, which is what they also speak in yodel-land ).

P.S. Where's the mention to Twilight under the "Disney Princess snob" description? Or is it just me that has a strange belief that every obsessive princess nut has an obsession with Robert Patterson (or whatever he's called)?

[MagicMirror]

Regarding Pixar...well, even though Disney bought it, I still consider it a separate entity and its own little thing (which it is). So if I were to include a "Pixar is Overrated!" Snob, it'd be under a "What type of Pixar Snob Are You?" kind of thread. Maybe I'll think of that next.

albert

Be sure to put 'Brad Bird Snob' in that poll, or I won't be able to vote!

As for this one, I'm easily a 'Old is Better Snob' though I pay very little attention to the live-action stuff. I automatically assume a film is better styled and animated if it's from the older generation, when in reality I suppose it's really only a different style.

[Goliath]

I'm a Disney snob who only likes 'traditional animation'; who thinks the older films are far better than the newer ones; and who doesn't think Walt personally was such a nice person. I also am the kind of Disney snob who discounts all sequels because they are empty, lazy, lifeless utter crap which were only made to make some quick bucks. And when it comes to the sequels, I'm also a snob who thinks you're a moron if you don't agree.

I'also the kind of snob who, like Neal, only likes the animation, not the live-action stuff. Besides Mary Poppins. That's the only exception I make. The rest I don't care for.

[Flanger-Hanger]

And Wire Hanger, regarding the cult snobs, it's really more something I notice sometimes, that some people (not everyone), will be into a cult thing just because it's not well known and they intentionally want to not be into a mainstream popularity. So I took names of popular vs. not-so-popular Disney films and plugged them in there, regardless of how obviously cool (The Black Hole) they are.

albert

I know that Scaps, I just wanted to make a point about me liking cult/obscure stuff not for a ridiculous reason like that, but because I honestly do enjoy them for what they are (Black Hole included, which is cool of course).

[KubrickFan]

I have actually no idea what kind of snob I am. I love the first five movies that Walt did, and a lot of the movies that came after those were, while good, nowhere near the league of the first five, I think. So that would make me a 'Walt is good' snob.
But, I also like the underrated ones. Not to be different, but I really think those are interesting. The Black Cauldron was good, and so was Hunchback (not really overrated here, but the general opinion is different) Atlantis and Treasure Planet were good too, so that would make me a 'I like the underrated films' snob.
I also like my movies the way they were. Did Snow White have an RKO logo? I would like to see it. Did Mary Poppins have some problems with the special effects? I would like to see those. Did The Little Mermaid have some grain in it, being a film? Yes, I would very much like to see that too. The characteristics of a format should be visible as well. If The Black Cauldron and Sleeping Beauty were shot in 70mm, I would like to see that on my (potential) Blu-ray copy.
So... would that make me a technical snob? Anyway, I'm done with my rant. Glad to see I'm not the only one here who's anally retentive .

[Disneykid]

I'm a little of several categories, but I think I lean heaviest towards "Old is Better!" Disney's feature animation (and a few select live-action releases) are the only things I get excited for anymoore. Nothing on Disney Channel thrills me at all (I really like Phineas and Ferb, but even that can't compare to other company aspects I love), and 3/4 of their live-action slate makes me cringe (G-Force, anyone?). I find that even the crappier aspects of old Disney have a certain charm to them that I find easier to embrace than the crappier aspects of new Disney. Maybe it's because old programming, even at its most banal, felt more sincere and not as cynically processed and marketed as today's stuff.

[Cordy_Biddle]

I picked the last one, too. I'll never ever subject myself to the Pixar films; they hold no interest for me whatsoever. Apart from "Toy Story", which I've seen many times (and really should pick up on DVD one of these days), they just seem...ordinary.

[BelleGirl]

I choose the "Traditional animation snob", that's the closests to what I am. Though I also do like CGI and have most of the Pixar films in my collection, and even liked Meet the Robinsons, I feel CGI should never replace traditional animation, because no matter how well animated and how good the story, it will never have the same feeling. (nor does CGI have the limitless possibilities traditional animation has been having for ages)

Actuall Scaps, could you not have included the "I detest DTV Disney-sequels" snob? I think there are quite a few of these kind of Disney snobs out here, including me.

[Rudy Matt]

I do like films from other studios, such as TMNT, Fievel Goes West, All Dogs Go to Heaven, and The Prince of Egypt.

Prince of Egypt is mushy poop.

[Super Aurora]

I do like films from other studios, such as TMNT, Fievel Goes West, All Dogs Go to Heaven, and The Prince of Egypt.

Prince of Egypt is mushy poop.

wow...just wow. I like to hear what made Prince of Egypt so bad to you.

[Avaitor]

I must say that this is an interesting idea for a thread, but you will probably have to take that as you will.

I guess if I have to catagorize myself with any of these varying levels of snobs I would have to be both an "old is better" and an "I love Walt". It's not like I hate everything made after Walt died, in fact, most of my favorite DACs come from the mid-80's and from as far as this decade, but I believe in the long run I will always have to go with the movies from the studio's first animated golden age of the early 40's and their second throughout their 50's as their overall best. Like I said, love the 90's for Disney, I grew up with all of these movies, seeing all of them in theaters between Lion King and Tarzan, but when I watch Dumbo or Pinocchio again I notice how well-detailed the animation is in these movies, how their expressions and movements perfectly reflect their characters, and when I see how uneven Aladdin's animation is I can't come back.

When it comes to live-action though then I'm definitely "old is better" and "I love Walt", mainly for some of the reasons Flanger-Hanger mentioned and because, well, Walt knew how to make quality entertainment. We still had some of the broad comedy and adventure films that the studio makes today, but I find certain charms in movies like The Absent-Minded Professor and Swiss Family Robinson that can allow me to enjoy them at age 18 that I can't find in most of the movies they make today. I especially like when they made movies like Pollyanna which would be well-written dramas for adults, not to mention how good they would be for kids movies. The closest to when Disney can match these are with Pixar's films which aren't live-action or their own productions.

[Disney Duster]

I look down on anyone who does not share my opinion, and anyone who doesn't share my opinion is a moron, so I look down on a lot of morons.

I laughed at this one!

I agree with Luke, you did a really great job of summing up the different kinds of forum members here! Not all, of course, it's a big sum up, you can't get it all. But it kind of makes us all feel like one big (opinionated) community/family! : )

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

Congratulations Escapay, you made the most worth-wild and fascinating post on this silly forum since.. well okay, this is the most worth-wild and fascinating post on this forum. One of the only few to make me get out of my ongoing hiatus(which will probably be forever permanent).

I'm somewhere between the "I Love Walt" snob and the "Old is Better" snob.

Everything Walt made is the only thing that makes me somewhat interested in this company. The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King all have their moments...but eh the first two are just rip-offs of the Walt era, the later have too many pop-culture references.

And frankly, nothing about the company interests me much more. The Cyrus Channel has zero interest for me, the Pixar films are hit and miss for me, I've grown to love Ratatouille, but man did the last half of Wall-E suck. Not even the theme parks interest me much as the plans seem mostly to inject Pixar themes through-out the park(that and where the hell is Star Tours 2.0?). "Traditional animation"...maybe if the first film back wasn't some so damn-awfully politically-correct just so those ugly Obama kids can have something to dress as during Halloween. I am looking forward to TRON Legacy, and I am becoming somewhat an avid collector of Blu-Rays(Disney or other-wise, other site's coverage beats the living daylights out of this site nowadays sadly)...that's about it.

If Walt didn't make it, chances are its not an all-time favorite of mine. Even then, most of the films made in 1950-after just doesn't capture anything for me.

Here's one person who has grown up and moved on to other things than a favorite childhood brand-name.

I'll see you guys when Roger Rabbit 2 gets made.

[Rudy Matt]

Prince of Egypt is mushy poop.

wow...just wow. I like to hear what made Prince of Egypt so bad to you.

The lead characters are animated as if the have two by fours shoved up their...well, their rear ends. The animation is so stiff in that film, it seems like you can use any of the characters for a dart board. The comic relief is a waste of time, and the exclusion of the 10 Commandments is unforgivable -- the story of the liberation of Moses' people is the story of a compact between the Israelites and God. Prince of Egypt only shows the happy feel good part where everyone marches out of Egypt singing Mariah Carey songs, but stops before audiences would learn of the resonsibilities asked of people in exchange for their salvation. Like everything American in the 90's, the film is all reward, all touchy feel good emotion, and no responsibility. In other words...

...mushy poop.