The Disney Essence: Fact or Fiction?

[Margos]

Terrible music in that clip. I'd have liked it better if they had, for example, put the clips in some kind of chronological order and used music clips from several different songs. Or tried to take the songs from different sorts of eras. Like "Whistle While You Work" for the 30's, "When You Wish Upon a Star" for the 40's, "A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes" for the 50's, "(The) Bare Necessities" for the 60's, "The Age of Not Believing" for the 70's, maybe... "Why Should I Worry?" for the 80's, and "A Whole New World" for the 90's.

That would have been pretty cool. But IDK, I don't think the music was terrible. I've always loved the melody of "Simple and Clean," and something about the tone of it paired with those clips was really moving, I thought.

[Lazario]

It's too plain to go with Disney's epic, legendary animation and film history. Disney was not just another animation studio. They were pioneers. This music is like what MGM rejected for their "Means Great Movies" montage.

[Margos]

It's too plain to go with Disney's epic, legendary animation and film history. Disney was not just another animation studio. They were pioneers. This music is like what MGM rejected for their "Means Great Movies" montage.

I don't know if you play Kingdom Hearts, but that is part of the score for that game, a cross-over between Final Fantasy and Disney, so to pair it with Disney clips seem natural to me....

[Disney Duster]

Goliath, THANK YOU. If that wasn't proof...don't know what is.

The only thing - the Pixar movies felt out of place and ruined it. Seriously, not Disney, no Disney essence. They have their Pixar essence which they made inspired by Disney but is not the same.

The music in the clip was great, and I knew it was from Kingdom Hearts "Simple and Clean", which ironically you could say Disney movies try to be, but maybe the music wasn't great enough, and I'm okay with that thought, though I thought it was a fantastic fit.

[Lazario]

I don't know if you play Kingdom Hearts, but that is part of the score for that game, a cross-over between Final Fantasy and Disney, so to pair it with Disney clips seem natural to me...

Nah- I'm too nostalgic for the old games for the new ones to wow me.

But again, what I say can't be denied. This is not acceptable, considering Disney's legacy to filmmaking. This music is not truly Disney-esque. Not unless all you ever watch are the 90's and up. Or... I suppose... if the 90's and up means more to you than the 30's through the 80's.

[MagicMirror]

I personally don't believe there's an 'Essence'. But there is certainly a brand.

Probably like everyone on this forum, I would like as many Disney films as possible to be of a high quality. However, I don't think there should be any limitations on a filmmaker's creativity.

When did the 'Disney Essence' come into being? 1901? 1922? 1928? 1936? Or none of the above?

When did it die? 1966? 2001? 2010?

Who exactly should be the Pope of the Disney Essence and give every new project their blessing? Why do they have this authority?

Which Disney film has the best example of the 'Essence'? Why choose this film rather than any other that has just as equally been made by Disney?

If believers disagree on any of the answers to any of the above, how do they expect hundreds of studio employees to get it right?

[Lazario]

I guess you've proved something that was open to interpretation from the beginning is... open to interpretation.

We're just sharing opinions. I don't think the majority of posters participating in this discussion are telling everyone else definitively that they know exactly when it began and died.

[MagicMirror]

Point taken!

But it seems to me one thing to say that certain Disney films speak to or thrill one in a certain way (certainly that's true for me!), and quite another to define this as an 'essence' - a word which suggests to me some kind of fundamental element, without which a film would not be Disney.

[Disney's Divinity]

Terrible music in that clip.

Wow. It's amazing that anyone could find something that beautiful and majestic to be terrible.

I think some of the clips could've been better though.

I haven't really given my opinion, but...I don't really believe in a "Disney" essence. The only essence I think exists is what's found in all good movies. It just happens that Disney's essence is ten-fold because animation has always been--to me--an intense form of entertainment. It doesn't hurt that they've had a lot of great films either.

[Goliath]

Terrible music in that clip. I'd have liked it better if they had, for example, put the clips in some kind of chronological order and used music clips from several different songs.

I liked the music and thought it was very fitting. I would have disliked chronological ordering, because it's predictable and has been done already so many times in fan videos. Besides, the maker wanted to get the 'disney essence' across, not give an overview of Disney animation.

My only 'complaint' with the video is that it doesn't contain any clips from The Rescuers or the 1940's package features.

[Lazario]

Terrible music in that clip. I'd have liked it better if they had, for example, put the clips in some kind of chronological order and used music clips from several different songs.

I liked the music and thought it was very fitting. I would have disliked chronological ordering, because it's predictable and has been done already so many times in fan videos.

Oh yeah? Then, point me to a better video and I'll shut up.

Besides, the maker wanted to get the 'disney essence' across, not give an overview of Disney animation.

Well, they failed miserably. The essence is in the animation plus music! This music is a whitewash, damn it. It does not feel like the 30's through the 80's. It feels like something they put in on purpose just to get the people who like today's animation to respond. Man, have you even seen the MGM promo I was talking about? I think I would like you to tell me how the music for that and this Kingdom Hearts piece are really that much different?

Terrible music in that clip.

Wow. It's amazing that anyone could find something that beautiful and majestic to be terrible.

I just meant it really didn't fit. I could never judge the music accurately because it doesn't belong paired up with Disney animation (if they mean to blend classic with late 90's and up). It's the same way I'd feel if I saw something like a scene in a movie like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3odtrWWc2A

paired up with this music:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nry5zSJxG9k

Seriously. That's basically how that montage comes off to me. The two do not mix. The fact that you or even a majority of people like how majestic it is does not mean it mixes with the older essence of Disney. Which I do believe is a kind of real thing.

[Disney Duster]

But it seems to me one thing to say that certain Disney films speak to or thrill one in a certain way (certainly that's true for me!), and quite another to define this as an 'essence' - a word which suggests to me some kind of fundamental element, without which a film would not be Disney.

Well...what makes a film Disney? If it's only a name, that's kinda sucky and I think they should try for more, don't you think? Why wouldn't they just go to any other studio if it's not about making certain kinds of films?

No, what makes a film Disney is the Disney essence. Not just a name, but a name that means something.

Lazario...I can't believe you are so vehement against the music. It was made for a Disney game. Perhaps you simply think the music is too modern...but it just seems like Disney's essence modernized and dramaticized more to me.

There was this quote I found:

"Around here, however, we don’t look backwards for very long. We keep moving forward, opening up new doors and doing new things… and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths.” - Walt Disney

Now, the thing is...I don't know if that is completely true. Because Disney actually seemed to hold on to certain values, and not change or progress them. I mean, his movies often had such common, same themes. The fairy tales and princesses had to be certain ways. He even did more than one fariy tale, he returned to the same "genre" though I consider all his films being apart of fantasy, generally.

So, the company should move forward...but also keep some things the same. Disney essence. And I am just worried they are moving too many things forward instead of holding onto the same things that made them Disney. I'm worried about how far they may go before they won't be Disney any more.

[Disney Duster]

Wait, there's Mickey Milk? Argh, the box had no mention of Mickey Milk, I am so calling Customer Services. Unacceptable, I say. I demand my Disney Magic to be magical, because Disney's magical Magic is the best Magic and only kind of Magic I will have as my Magic, and only Disney Magic deserves special milk, magic milk even.

Magic.

And in the "Song of the South too Offensive to be Released?" thread:

Magic, Magic, Magic, Magic, Magic?

I just wanted to tell you, Duckburger, you made me laugh out loud repeatedly thinking of these quotes long after I first read them. Yes, I can laugh at myself everyone. Though, of course, this whole subject is still seriously important to me.

I just wanted to tell you, I think you're such a funny...Guy? Girl? And I thought these were gold.

[Lazario]

Lazario...I can't believe you are so vehement against the music. It was made for a Disney game. Perhaps you simply think the music is too modern...

Well, I thought I made that point pretty clear.

It's already been said that modern Disney is not very Disney-like at all. That's why I've been so against the gross-out humor in Lion King and Hunchback of Notre Dame all these years. Remember, I walked away from Disney animated features altogether because of that rubbish (and the pimping of Home Improvement stars didn't help the live-action output much, to be honest; though after trying to watch Parent Trap 2 the other day for the first time in over a decade and a half and it being so bad, I didn't even get halfway before shutting it off - YouTube, and then I watched Mickey's Christmas Carol...and that was worse! So you could say the 80's killed the magic and I just wasn't mature enough to know it at the time).

The feeling's gone. They pander way too much to today's ideas of comedy and drama. Though that clearly started somewhere around Oliver & Company (hard to blame Great Mouse Detective, since that film was so sophisticated for its' time, or The Black Cauldron since that film was beautiful and charming despite its' attempt to try to feel more realistic like the Indiana Jones trend of fantasy-adventure films). For example; The Little Mermaid had some of these wrong elements (silly over-the-top classy-old-book type tragedy played out with big-Hollywood action-adventure scene, or of course, the young Macaulay Culkin-esque blabbermouth kid). But they used magical elements to offset the film's Broadway musical theatricality (which before, they kept very well limited to a single 3-minute number and then you never saw it return, ala- Oliver & Company) - which is pretty much one of the things that killed Beauty in the Beast (that and the fact that everything that happens in the movie means nothing, comes too easy and too quickly, and the film's idea of romance and tragedy is so simple-minded that it's absurd). Nothing about the feel of that film is classic Disney at all. Or even follows the pattern of Mermaid to find a rawness of feeling in pure magic itself.

It was a winning formula. But one they should not have tried to copy verbatim. Because, every time they did (while the filmmakers would argue they didn't, and those are arguments worth listening to, making note of) they ended up with something more bland than the weakest elements of Little Mermaid (Flounder again) taking center stage over the most important ones (the danger, devilishness, and mysterious beauty of "Poor Unfortunate Souls"). And to date, following that film, Disney didn't try to do that kind of thing (beauty in a dark or ethereal feel / tone, a moody set-piece) again until Pocahontas. Then they killed it flat out in their non-package features (I haven't seen Fantasia 2000, the DVD's been out-of-print since I've been renting DVD's so no one can blame me for not having seen it).

[Disney Duster]

I think the Disney essence did change a bit come the Renaissance, it's true. Characters got cartoonier in design, and Ron and Jon seemed to really like light humor more...but even though I think the Disney essence didn't have as much magic headiness anymore, I can't say I thought it really lost that much essence. They still produced films that won over audiences. And Broadway, theatre, and the stage were always slightly apart of Disney, mostly in their voice actors coming from there. I actually think they only started losing the essence much later, possibly with the way they did Atlantis, but definately when they made things like Home on the Range and Chicken Little, some of Lilo & Stitch, Bolt, The Princess and the Frog, and now, Tangled, when it was gonna be Disney essence as Rapunzel but it changed.

Home on the Range was it's big starter, when Disney was trying to be un-Disney to make money like all the other studios were. Also, possibly Treaure Planet, which probably should have just been Treasure Island but, you know, the directors at the company wanted to make their movie, instead of make a movie for Disney's legacy. It was also aimed at boys, so business overcame Disney essence there, too.

I definately feel there is Disney magic in the likes of Beauty and the Beast. I must admit as a kid I found it kind of boring and perhaps little Diney magic is responsible, but I still think there is enough in it.

[Goliath]

Lazario,

Can you even make sense of what you've written, *yourself*? I've never read so much vagueness in my life. It's like you use a lot of words, but without giving any meaning to it. You pump up your post to such bloated proportions, but there's no actual substance to it. Your arguments are puzzling; your trains of thought very hard to understand because you bury them in weird, hard to follow sentences that go on and on without a point. It's obvious your post is made to impress, that's how it's constructed. But as is so often the case, this only serves as a way to hide the fact that you write in mumbo-jumbo.

What is "un-Disney-like"? What is "magic"? Your whole argument relies on such vague terms that we are supposed to swallow, but how can we swallow something that is, in essence, nothing? "Un-Disney-like" is nothing; "magic" is nothing. It can't be quantified, it can't be measured and it certainly can't be debated. It is so vague that your post is all over the place. Who's the judge of this supposed "Disney-like" or "magic"? I've asked Duster about it many times and that resulted in: "whatever the heck I think Walt Disney would think", which drove the entire forum crazy.

Are you now crowning yourself to be the new incarnation of Walt Disney, who "knows" what Disney "is" or "isn't"?

[Disney Duster]

Goliath, your flat out wrong.

Lazario has lots of subtstance. Sometimes I do not know what he is talking about, and you don't either, but did you ever think maybe there's stuff he knows and gets that you don't?

And if you think something unquantifiable and hard to describe is nothing, well I guess that means love is nothing, too. You go live in your loveless world if that's what you want then, you cynic. But this stuff is real. This stuff is hard to describe and figure out, that's why no one else can steal it from Disney, because you can't define it. The people at Disney need to find it themselves and tap into it and use it.

[Goliath]

Sure, Duster, Lazario is God; he works in mysterious ways. His intelligence is too big for you and me to comprehend. I'm lonely and empty inside because I don't agree with him. Can I cry on your shoulder because I'll never find love?





Gee, Mike, just when I thought your posts couldn't get any more retarded... You've outdone yourself once again!

[Lazario]

Duster, I'll get to what you said as soon as I can.

Lazario,

Can you even make sense of what you've written, *yourself*? I've never read so much vagueness in my life. It's like you use a lot of words, but without giving any meaning to it. You pump up your post to such bloated proportions, but there's no actual substance to it. Your arguments are puzzling; your trains of thought very hard to understand because you bury them in weird, hard to follow sentences that go on and on without a point. It's obvious your post is made to impress, that's how it's constructed. But as is so often the case, this only serves as a way to hide the fact that you write in mumbo-jumbo.

That's actually the way I usually think. I don't deny it, I didn't stop when spitting that out to make sure it made sense. Sometimes I write the way I think (like a brainstorm, disjointed as all hell) and sometimes I think the way I wish I always thought. I don't know how it happens or how to control it.

Either way, I still expect the person reading it to either ignore it and walk away (what usually happens) or to think about what it could mean (what never happens, but hope springs eternal...). You're not "supposed" to do anything, it's a free discussion. Or at least, it's meant to be. This is a Disney fan board, not a national speaking engagement. And the topic is something abstract to begin with.

[Duckburger]

I just wanted to tell you, Duckburger, you made me laugh out loud repeatedly thinking of these quotes long after I first read them. Yes, I can laugh at myself everyone. Though, of course, this whole subject is still seriously important to me.

I just wanted to tell you, I think you're such a funny...Guy? Girl? And I thought these were gold.

I completely missed this response, sorry. I'm a guy btw. And thanks for the compliment, I really wasn't trying to offend you, or anything. If I did then I apologize.

I can be careless like that.