What titles consist of Disney's 90's comeback era?

[REINIER]

It's just wishful thinking to proclaim a new golden age in Disney Feature Animation before you've even seen the movies in question!

[WDWLocal]

...and "Pocahontas" - "Treasure Planet" another, very different one (largely stressful period of growth and change).

You may despise most of them, but not all of the animated films made during that era were bad and deserve to be hated.

Most of them were actually great and can be considered classics. And that especially includes Pocahontas, Hunchback, Hercules, Mulan, Tarzan, Lilo & Stitch and Brother Bear, all of which I really love.

Just because a certain film was not made during Walt's time does not automically mean that it's bad and doesn't deserve to be considered a "Disney film"

[Wonderlicious]

Well, this is an old thread bumped, but I'll give my thoughts on the matter. I do consider, for general purposes, the Fab 4 to be the Fab 4 as they were the films that really had the most success. However, my views on the whole thing are more chronological

I personally see The Great Mouse Detective, Oliver and Company and in particular Who Framed Roger Rabbit as being forerunners for the new golden age and certainly worthy of note. But I would start the era of with The Little Mermaid, as it was the film that made people think that Disney was back on form. The Rescuers Down Under is an odd case, and I would consider it to be pretty much in the background as it was simply a sequel at the end of the day. The constant leg of hits after The Rescuers Down Under (aka the remaining three of the Fab 4) are essentially the high points of the particular era.

The rest of the decade still remains a sort of golden age, yet there are obviously signs in overall terms of quality and success that there are dark clouds ahead for Walt Disney Feature Animation; the tepid critical response of Pocahontas, the beginnings of Pixar's rise to glory and the beginning of the DTV sequel onslaught are all such examples. That is not to say that there were no signs of growth and positivity in this part of the decade, and the successes of Mulan and Tarzan at the end of the decade highlight this.

However, around 2000/2001 is when things started to take a nose-dive (not in terms of quality but rather success), in my opinion. The DTV sequels started to really come out in earnest and the cinematic revenues seem a bit mixed. Fantasia 2000 did well enough considering its status as a largely IMAX-restricted piece, but Dinosaur and The Emperor's New Groove met with mixed response and stalling box-offices. However, I really consider Atlantis to be the part where everyone screams "ABANDON SHIP", as from then on, it seems that Disney is on its way out somewhat.

Of course, things are slowly getting better for Disney, and I do expect Rapunzel to be the final bit of cement for glory.

[Goliath]

The only reason the post-Lion King films are not seen as part of the "Disney Renaissance" is because they didn't make as much money as TLK. Even though they did make way more money than Little Mermaid, and other companies would kill for those numbers, the greedy Disney Company leadership viewed them as disappointments. Since they've come out, they've been promoting and marketing the "Fab four" a 100 times better than the films that came after them. Add to that, that the press was almost only interested in the box-office performances, and you know how all this combined somehow convinced the people that post-TLK films are not nearly as good as the "fab four".

But the irony is that most are better than the "fab four". The animation is always a whole lot better. I've seen 9 different Ariels and 7 different Aladdins, but never did I see a Mulan that was off-model. Later films dared to be a bit more different. Hunchback deals with a lot of heavy-handed themes about religion, sexual desire, guilt and sin (even despite the gargoyles). People sometimes ask me if it's really a Disney-film because it has such a dark undertone. Tarzan wasn't really a musical in that it didn't have characters bursting out in songs, and the deep-canvas technique made for some incredible animation. While BatB suffers from bad story structure, Mulan has exactly the right flow to it and never drags. Pocahontas dared to be a bit different with not having a "they lived happily ever after"-ending.

Not that I don't love Aladdin or The Little Mermaid (they're among my absolute favorites), but the other 1990's films should get more recognition. Besides Rescuers Down Under of course, which was an absolute waste of a 'film'.

[Margos]

I had always thought that the Renaissance was everything from TLM to Tarzan.... I had never heard that post TLK films weren't counted.

[Disney's Divinity]

Well, they are called the Fab Four, not the Fab Nine.

I personally enjoy the later films, but the Fab Four always got a lot of praise--not just from inside Disney or on forum boards. With Pocahontas onwards, reactions seem more mixed.

Also, Pocahontas and the others did make a lot more than TLM. But TLM, from what most documentaries have said about the film, was fighting a lot of public perception on what Disney was, that it's films didn't matter anymore and were only for kids. Pocahontas followed The Lion King. It didn't have nearly as much against it as TLM did. And I'm not sure what the budgets for Pocahontas, etc. were to say if they did better in that regard. They also weren't animated under the same stress as TLM, so of course the animation would be superior. It's hard for me to hold that against TLM though, when it mostly looks great in spite of that.

[zackiellovedisney]

The official list according to Wikipedia is it started with TLM and ended with Tarzan. I personally think it started with The Black Cauldron and ended with Lilo and Stitch. Cauldron is when Disney started taking risks again. Great Mouse Detective was a good film as was Oliver. Then you have the real renaissance. After that Disney had good successes until Treasure Planet.

[Margos]

I gotta say, I for one agree with Wiki.

TLM was Disney's first real success since Walt died. Creatively speaking, the films between '67 and '89 were good, but they never really reached into the public subconscious at the same level. I feel that the trend of that "classic Disney feel" kept going for the whole 90s decade. But with films like Dinosaur, they were starting to branch out and do more surprising, unexpected things, which marked the completely different era of the new millenium films. I would group Fantasia 2000 into the latter, mostly due to its visual experimentation.

[KennethE]

The dawn of the Renaissance was in 1989 with "The Little Mermaid."

It peaked in 1994 with "The Lion King."

As far as critics and audiences are concerned, it ended in 1999 with "Tarzan."

You'll notice that almost everything from Disney in the new millennium was so-so. "Dinosaur?" So. So. "Emperor's New Groove?" Funny, but so-so. "Lilo and Stitch?" Very good, but it disappointed horribly in the box office.

[estefan]

"Lilo and Stitch?" Very good, but it disappointed horribly in the box office.

In what universe? Lilo & Stitch is far-and-away Disney's most successful animated film of the 2000's. It's also the only hand-drawn animated film from the last decade to make $100 million domestically.

[WDWLocal]

In what universe? Lilo & Stitch is far-and-away Disney's most successful animated film of the 2000's. It's also the only hand-drawn animated film from the last decade to make $100 million domestically.

I totally agree. Lilo & Stitch was the only Disney animated feature from the post-2000 "Evil Eisner" period that actually brought in the cash.

I also feel that Brother Bear was at least a modest success and has done a somewhat better job of enduring than Atlantis, Treasure Planet or Home on the Range.

And The Princess and the Frog IS doing pretty darn well, despite some of the cynicism going around.

Getting back on topic, yes, I do agree that the entire 1990's decade was a MAJOR renaissance for Disney animated features (and that includes all of the post-Lion King flicks from that period).

P.S.: I hope that merlinjones will one day come to appreciate Pocahontas, et al.

[PatrickvD]

The dawn of the Renaissance was in 1989 with "The Little Mermaid."

It peaked in 1994 with "The Lion King."

As far as critics and audiences are concerned, it ended in 1999 with "Tarzan."

You'll notice that almost everything from Disney in the new millennium was so-so. "Dinosaur?" So. So. "Emperor's New Groove?" Funny, but so-so. "Lilo and Stitch?" Very good, but it disappointed horribly in the box office.

You've got your facts ALL wrong.

Lilo & Stitch was a Box Office and merchandise smash hit. Stitch is still bringing in insane amounts of dollars and critics adored the film.

New Groove "so-so"?? According to you, I assume? Critics and audiences loved it and the dvd sold millions of copies. Why else would they make a spin-off and a tv series?

[BelleGirl]

The only reason the post-Lion King films are not seen as part of the "Disney Renaissance" is because they didn't make as much money as TLK. Even though they did make way more money than Little Mermaid, and other companies would kill for those numbers, the greedy Disney Company leadership viewed them as disappointments. Since they've come out, they've been promoting and marketing the "Fab four" a 100 times better than the films that came after them. Add to that, that the press was almost only interested in the box-office performances, and you know how all this combined somehow convinced the people that post-TLK films are not nearly as good as the "fab four".

It indeed looks this way Goliath. But at least there were two-disc editions of Pocahontas (but not world-wide), Mulan and Tarzan. Hunchback and Hercules however, got a rahter poor dvd-release compared to these.It seems so arbitrary.

[Goliath]

New Groove "so-so"?? According to you, I assume? Critics and audiences loved it and the dvd sold millions of copies. Why else would they make a spin-off and a tv series?

They also made sequels to The Fox and the Hound and Brother Bear, and I don't think they were very popular.

[KennethE]

Yes, I understand that of all the animated features from Disney this decade, Lilo and Stitch made the most money. (I believe, 140 million, or something like that.)

However, you've got to remember--
Back in 2002, Disney was truly expecting Lilo and Stitch to make over 200 million. They were really banking on it to be the next "Aladdin" and "Lion King." Which is why in the teaser poster, Stitch was shown standing amongst all those other classic Disney characters. This was the studio's way of showing that "Lilo and Stitch" was going to be HUGE, a real comeback. Unfortunately, it was not a big, big hit. A great film, but not a big, big hit. "Cloudy with a chance of Meatballs" made nearly as much money!
In fact, I read somewhere that Lilo and Stitch was originally going to be released in 2003, but they PUSHED IT FORWARD A WHOLE YEAR to get a jump start on the other competing studios!

As for "New Groove" being so-so. I'm sorry. It was just my opinion. Maybe I was disappointed in the film because I've seen too much of "The Kingdom Of The Sun."