Favorite teaser trailer

[Disneyphile]

What's your favorite teaser trailer that has little or no footage from the actual movie? Here are my faves:

1. Ratatouille. "Once you can muscle your way past the gag reflex..."
2. The Incredibles. Mr. Incredible strains to buckle his belt.
3. The Princess and the Frog. "This may take awhile."
4. A Bug's Life. "I didn't know it was connected. Sorry!"

[Super Aurora]

The ones for Lilo and Stitch. It's basically Chris Sanders giving the middle finger to the fab four (and maybe the Disney exec..).

[estefan]

Also have to say the Lilo & Stitch ones. Just brilliant. I also love the one for Wall-E with Andrew Stanton talking about when they thought of the ideas for some of their features.

And I love the Toy Story 2 teaser, mainly because of how much I like those little green aliens.

[UmbrellaFish]

I can't think of any that really stand out right now, but I have to agree, the Lilo and Stitch teaser trailers were brilliant. I remember eagerly anticipating each one when the movie first came out. Great marketing idea.

[PixarFan2006]

Lilo & Stitch (Where Stitch interrupts the characters from other Disney movies)

The Incredibles (Where Mr Incredible struggles to get his belt on)

[DisneyJedi]

I believe that the Fab Four was poked at in the L&S trailers because Chris Sanders worked on those movies, except for The Little Mermaid. BTW, I liked those teasers, and what was funny when I saw the L&S one with BatB, I thought it was advertising for the BatB IMAX re-release.

Oh, and I liked the teaser for TPatF.

[estefan]

I believe that the Fab Four was poked at in the L&S trailers because Chris Sanders worked on those movies, except for The Little Mermaid. BTW, I liked those teasers, and what was funny when I saw the L&S one with BatB, I thought it was advertising for the BatB IMAX re-release.

Yeah, I don't think the marketing was making fun of the Fab Four, so much as saying how un-Disney-like a character Stitch is.

And yeah, when I saw that teaser back in 2001 or 2002, I also thought it was a trailer for Beauty and the Beast and I had clicked on the wrong link or something. And then I saw this little blue thing crawling on the ceiling, haha.

[ajmrowland]

Also have to say the Lilo & Stitch ones. Just brilliant. I also love the one for Wall-E with Andrew Stanton talking about when they thought of the ideas for some of their features.

And I love the Toy Story 2 teaser, mainly because of how much I like those little green aliens.

^these plus Incredibles.

[Goliath]

The ones for Lilo and Stitch. It's basically Chris Sanders giving the middle finger to the fab four (and maybe the Disney exec..).

I don't agree with that interpretation, but they are my favorites as well.

[Super Aurora]

The ones for Lilo and Stitch. It's basically Chris Sanders giving the middle finger to the fab four (and maybe the Disney exec..).

I don't agree with that interpretation, but they are my favorites as well.

That was a joke.

[SmartAleck25]

I've always liked the Lilo and Stitch ones as well. Another favorite is Toy Story 3:
Woody: Well, at least ours lit up.
Buzz: *ahem*
Aliens: Oooooooooooooooooooh!

[estefan]

I've always liked the Lilo and Stitch ones as well. Another favorite is Toy Story 3:
Woody: Well, at least ours lit up.
Buzz: *ahem*
Aliens: Oooooooooooooooooooh!

Haha, yeah, that was great. My favourite bit from that is from Hamm, though: "Eh, I'm super-vising."

[jpanimation]

Yeah, I don't think the marketing was making fun of the Fab Four, so much as saying how un-Disney-like a character Stitch is.

Exactly. They wanted you to know this was a Disney movie but different. That it was actually going to try something new instead of just repeating the tired Renaissance formula (not that their bad movies, but like Walt said: "I do not like to repeat successes, I like to go on to other things."). They defiantely caught my attention and got me excited in Disney again.

Anyways, these are my favorite teasers. A lot of effort went into these. They got all the original cast members to reprise their roles and they actually re-animated the entire scene for The Little Mermaid (the original sequence was done on cells, this was done on CAPS so they could reposition the rock she's on, change the background art, and remove any jarring instance that would've been the result of a transition from cells to CAPS).

Also, the teasers end on AC/DC, hellz yeah!

[Disney Duster]

Yeah, I don't think the marketing was making fun of the Fab Four, so much as saying how un-Disney-like a character Stitch is.

Exactly.

Exactly! That's why Disney shouldn't have made it because it was very un-Disney. It wasn't Dsiney it was Chris Sanders. And then he and his un-Disneyness trying to take over the company was fired.

[Neal]

Stitch was more of a wild-child character than we'd seen before, but how is it un-Disney?

It covered all the core Disney story elements. Absent parents? Check. Young, misfit boy/girl trying to find themselves? Check. Themes of familial bonding? Check. Sanders took the Disney themes and applied them to his own animation sensibilities. It was a break from the Disney formula, but not from the core of a true Disney animated film. Just because it wasn't a fairy tale, fantasy or princess movie doesn't make it so un-Disney.

Frankly, I like when Disney is a little more avant garde, a little different. The problem is that Disney can be pigeon-holed. Should an animation studio really be able to be defined by its own name? "That's so Disney" ... "That's so un-Disney!"

I believe that is not a sign of a healthy studio.

Pixar and Studio Ghibli - while animation styles and core themes remain constant - each new film is very different in characters, set-up, etc. Yamadas is scores different than Totoro. Up is leagues different than Cars.

Disney should be the same. While it will always be known as the studio for sweeping, Broadway musical style princess films, it should have others films to supplement.

I find this comment today on the Animation Guild blog site encouraging:

From what I hear from my friends over there [Disney Animation] - it sounds like some pretty amazing projects are in the works. They're most excited about the cg projects in the pipeline - No fairytale or princess material but all original takes! Quite the change for Disney?

I am looking forward to "Reboot Ralph" and hope a project like "Fraidy Cat" is revived. Disney needs to keep re-inventing itself to stay relevant but not lose sight of its core values to remain familiar. In the 70's/80's animators at WDFA kept asking "What would Walt do?" and tried to make "Robin Hood" "The AristoCats" etc. films that Walt would have made. The result of so much self-doubt and trying to live in the past? The films "Walt would have made" ended up stale - a little too familiar.

There is a tenuous line between familiar and too familiar that animators and story writers struggle with. You have to capture the Disney essence to the extent someone would recognize it as a Disney film. (And when other films, such as "Anastasia" effectively capture this essence, they are forever mis-labeled as a Disney film.) However, rely too much on the essence and the film will come off formulaic. I believe Stitch built on the Disney essence quite well.

Disney Animation is the house Walt built, but look at his own projects - Snow White, Dumbo, Fantasia, Pinocchio - his first four out of the gate all quite different from one another. Why, then, should today Disney be so stuck on princess films and fairy tales? It should not. Like Walt 70 years ago - each film should be a departure from the last - preserving core themes and family friendliness, but at the same time trying to offer a completely original story and a different style of animation.

Stitch was a refreshing Disney movie. And yes, it was DISNEY. It may have been a little weirder than other Disney films, a little snappier, but it preserved the core Disney themes and that's what matters.

I hope for more Stitches and I still lament the loss of Sanders.

[ajmrowland]

Exactly.

Exactly! That's why Disney shouldn't have made it because it was very un-Disney. It wasn't Dsiney it was Chris Sanders. And then he and his un-Disneyness trying to take over the company was fired.

well, damn him for trying to break the mold. I mean, walt obviously said that Disney tried nothing but to repeat success.

[Margos]

To me, I wish Disney would find their balance. Do new and exciting things to shock and awe us, but at the same time, do other things that feel comfotable and give us nostalgia. Do wild, unpredictable stories that we never saw coming, but do beautiful fairy tales as well. I wish they could do both, instead of one minute trying to do just one of them, and then the next minute, switching to the other. (Although, I guess the '90s was the latter, and the 00's was the former, but it would be nice if we didn't have to wait a decade for a shift! Maybe they should alternate years for projects of these two types?)

[Escapay]

for Neal. Excellent post.

albert

[Disney Duster]

This is going to be fun.

Stitch was more of a wild-child character than we'd seen before, but how is it un-Disney?

Easy. This destructive, rude, cursing in alien language, fish-killing, wacky alien in a wacky violent sci-fi film that even got edited to be family friendly in other countries that, woah, suddenly "becomes good" and "Disney" with the weird rude little girl was not something Walt would have wanted or approved of. This whole alien thing felt alien to Disney, and it felt alien to me as a Disney film.

It covered all the core Disney story elements. Absent parents? Check. Young, misfit boy/girl trying to find themselves? Check. Themes of familial bonding? Check. Sanders took the Disney themes and applied them to his own animation sensibilities. It was a break from the Disney formula, but not from the core of a true Disney animated film. Just because it wasn't a fairy tale, fantasy or princess movie doesn't make it so un-Disney.

I see, so if it crosses off a check-list, it must have what it takes, huh? Forget about the spirit of Disney and capturing something that only Disney can capture because it's hard to capture.

I think lots of movies don't have to be fairy tales to be Disney. Dumbo, Bambi, 101 Dalmatians, Lion King. But I couldn't imagine Walt sitting through Lilo & Stitch and approving.

Frankly, I like when Disney is a little more avant garde, a little different. The problem is that Disney can be pigeon-holed. Should an animation studio really be able to be defined by its own name? "That's so Disney" ... "That's so un-Disney!"

Avant garde is definately not what Lilo & Stitch was. Avant Garde was something more like Fantasia and Sleeping Beauty, or even all the earliest Disney features, or Alice in Wonderland or even the "Sing Sweet Nightingale" or "So This is Love" scenes in Cinderella.

And yea, you should be able to say "that's so Disney" or "that's un-Disney". Otherwise it could be any other studio. Is that what you want?

Pixar and Studio Ghibli - while animation styles and core themes remain constant - each new film is very different in characters, set-up, etc. Yamadas is scores different than Totoro. Up is leagues different than Cars.

Haven't seen them all, but from what I have seen there seems to be a feel that all those films maintain. Not everyone can tell, but discerning people look and say "that's Miyazaki" or "that's Pixar".

I am looking forward to "Reboot Ralph" and hope a project like "Fraidy Cat" is revived. Disney needs to keep re-inventing itself to stay relevant but not lose sight of its core values to remain familiar. In the 70's/80's animators at WDFA kept asking "What would Walt do?" and tried to make "Robin Hood" "The AristoCats" etc. films that Walt would have made. The result of so much self-doubt and trying to live in the past? The films "Walt would have made" ended up stale - a little too familiar.

HAHA! The films that were most Disney were actually all the Renaissance ones, based on fairy tales or what is essentially Bambi with lions, that also had to do with royalty and the magic of the stars. Walt even said if he ever went back to animation he wanted to do Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid. That's what Walt wanted, and that's what they did, and they were the biggest hits for Disney after so long!

There is a tenuous line between familiar and too familiar that animators and story writers struggle with. You have to capture the Disney essence to the extent someone would recognize it as a Disney film. (And when other films, such as "Anastasia" effectively capture this essence, they are forever mis-labeled as a Disney film.) However, rely too much on the essence and the film will come off formulaic. I believe Stitch built on the Disney essence quite well.

Only undiscerning people like the mass public can't tell that films like Anastasia isn't Disney. The Disney company shouldn't be too concerned with those, they aren't meant to please the least discerning of people, because when you do, you make trailers like the one for Tangled, and the name Tangled. And that's not what Disney really is.

The Disney essence can really only be captured by those trying to be Disney, drawing a Disney character or making something new they want to be Disney. If you don't believe that, whatever, keep calling yourself a Disney fan with that belief that goes against Walt's.

Disney Animation is the house Walt built, but look at his own projects - Snow White, Dumbo, Fantasia, Pinocchio - his first four out of the gate all quite different from one another. Why, then, should today Disney be so stuck on princess films and fairy tales? It should not. Like Walt 70 years ago - each film should be a departure from the last - preserving core themes and family friendliness, but at the same time trying to offer a completely original story and a different style of animation.

Actually, those films are all about magic. The fairy tale magic mirror and potions, the magic black feather, the scorcerer and fairies and more, and the Blue Fairy. And Bambi's about royalty, princes and such.

Stitch was a refreshing Disney movie. And yes, it was DISNEY. It may have been a little weirder than other Disney films, a little snappier, but it preserved the core Disney themes and that's what matters.

I don't think so! And it is more likely that Walt would think so, either. Or if it did preserve the themes it didn't preserve the essence, spirit, or feeling of what is really Disney. The Disney magic. That's what Walt was about, making all those magical films.

[Escapay]

*sigh*

Disney is Disney no matter who made it. They're a company, they put out a product. If it has the Disney name on it then, oh my word, it must be Disney. Regardless of the quality. And regardless of what fans think of it. It's still Disney.

Nobody here knows Walt, or what he would have thought about things that happened after his death. I wish people would stop speaking on his behalf.

albert