The Future of Disney Animation

[DisneyJedi]

Well, it does have a Chuck Jones/Animaniacs-type sensibility in its writing, but considering I'm a big fan of both, you won't hear any complaints from me. Emperor's New Groove is one of my favourite Disney animated films.

Well, considering Mark Dindal used that style earlier in Cat's Don't Dance, he was really copying himself. Either way, Lilo & Stitch and The Emperor's New Groove are really the only good DACs to come out this decade.

Opinion or not, that's rather debatable.

[Goliath]

I know! But for some reason, certain people like to talk down to anyone who happen to like certain films, but the certain person doesn't.

I agree.

I'm not talking down to anybody. But if you're getting emotional when somebody disagrees with you on a certain movie and voices that disagreement, then you're going to have a tough time on this forum --or any other forum, for that matter. Or in real life. And, DisneyJedi, we have already seen how extremely emotional you can get when people disagree with you --over Louis the obnoxious alligator. You went ballistic; I remember that very well. So just because you get emotional, doesn't mean I'm "talking down" to people. And, Disney's Divinity, you're smart enough to know this.

Of course The Princess and the Frog is far from Disney's shining moment, but it's hardly a "very weak" film. It's easily much better than Tarzan or Atlantis, and nearly on par with Mulan.

I beg to differ. I think PatF can't hold a candle to Tarzan; and also that Atlantis isn't anywhere near the quality of Tarzan. But, I'll give you that PatF is a far better film than Atlantis, and it's also a lot better than some of Disney's efforts in the 2000's. But a true Classic like The Rescuers or The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, it is not.

And since this is a discussion board, I trust that I don't have to add the words "in my opinion" to it.

BUT, PatF was a critical darling, even named the best animated film for 2010 in TIME Magazine.

That's not too hard. All the rest was even worse.

The problem when you get into the argument of what makes a good film is that everyone will have a difference of opinion, becuase everyone is different and has different tastes.

I have argued this a lot of times, and I stay with my point that there's a difference between 'liking a film' and 'considering it a good film'. There are films that I personally dislike, but I acknowledge them for their qualities. You can see that a certain film is indeed very good, while at the same time saying it's just 'not your cup of tea'. A film can be judged on many different aspects: story, structure, timing, internal logic, acting, direction, camera work, soundtrack etc. That's a whole lot different than "I don't like it!"

Personally, I think PatF was WAY better then any of the crappy CGI Chipmunk films

We obviously don't disagree about that.

It was every bit as good as any of the 90's Disney Animation.

And this is where we split ways. I think PatF was a trite, uninspired, forced repetition of past successes. To come back to the actual topic of this thread: like somebody else already said, Disney can only 'come back' if they come with something new (without the gender-targeting of Atlantis and Treasure Planet), instead of ripping off their earlier pictures.

[Scamander]

BUT, PatF was a critical darling, even named the best animated film for 2010 in TIME Magazine.

That's not too hard. All the rest was even worse.

In fact, PatF was named the best picture (of animated AND live action movies) for 2009, but even if not, there were plenty of good other animated features in 2009. Just to name a few: Up, Coraline, The Secret of Kells, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Mary & Max...

[Goliath]

In fact, PatF was named the best picture (of animated AND live action movies) for 2009, but even if not, there were plenty of good other animated features in 2009. Just to name a few: Up, Coraline, The Secret of Kells, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Mary & Max...

Oh yeah, forgot about Up and Coraline...

[Disney's Divinity]

I'm not talking down to anybody. But if you're getting emotional when somebody disagrees with you on a certain movie and voices that disagreement, then you're going to have a tough time on this forum --or any other forum, for that matter. Or in real life. And, DisneyJedi, we have already seen how extremely emotional you can get when people disagree with you --over Louis the obnoxious alligator. You went ballistic; I remember that very well. So just because you get emotional, doesn't mean I'm "talking down" to people. And, Disney's Divinity, you're smart enough to know this.

I am open to disagreement--I haven’t at all in this thread indicated otherwise. I’ve differed with many people on this board before, without being labeled “emotional.” I was incredibly lucid when I made my comments, and I don’t simply find TP&TF a good film because “I liked it,” anymore than you find it a “weak film” because you didn’t like it. So, yes, I would find it nice if you didn’t treat your statements as if they were facts.

Really, you don't have to be antagonistic just because someone happens to disagree with you. You're only making life unnecessarily more difficult than it already is.

I beg to differ. I think PatF can't hold a candle to Tarzan; and also that Atlantis isn't anywhere near the quality of Tarzan. But, I'll give you that PatF is a far better film than Atlantis, and it's also a lot better than some of Disney's efforts in the 2000's. But a true Classic like The Rescuers or The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, it is not.

There was more than Winnie the Pooh between Jungle Book and Mermaid. There was The Black Cauldron, Oliver and Company, The Aristocats, Robin Hood, The Fox and the Hound, etc. The Princess and the Frog sits well (if not above) most all of those. They're very similar films, in that they each have their flaws, but they (the majority of them) succeed mostly on charm. They also represent a period where the company was attempting to find its way again.

And this is where we split ways. I think PatF was a trite, uninspired, forced repetition of past successes. To come back to the actual topic of this thread: like somebody else already said, Disney can only 'come back' if they come with something new (without the gender-targeting of Atlantis and Treasure Planet), instead of ripping off their earlier pictures.

This is a similar complaint that I've read from several members on this board. However, I fail to see how TP&TF re-treads too much familiar ground. The only similarity I can really think of is that Facilier is very much like Ursula, but he's also twisted in a new direction than she was, as a character. Besides that, the only similarities are superficial (clock strikes twelve, Naveen look-a-like like Vanessa, Cinderella dress, "princess" vibe, etc.). I don't recognize anything in TP&TF that is remotely familiar to the 90s films. It has a distinct mood that fits well alongside everything else from the 2000s (for better or worse) and comes across much less pretentious than most of the 90s films. In fact, I find Hunchback, Pocahontas, Hercules, Tarzan, and Mulan to be much more formulaic and repetitious, and far from tread "new ground" (except, perhaps, in terms of animation).

And it's worth noticing that two major classics (Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty) are remarkably similar to Snow White in nearly every respect, though they do have enough difference to separate them. Re-treading ground, in different ways, is hardly a new concept for Disney.

n fact, PatF was named the best picture (of animated AND live action movies) for 2009, but even if not, there were plenty of good other animated features in 2009. Just to name a few: Up, Coraline, The Secret of Kells, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Mary & Max...

I was thinking of that, too. Coraline and Up weren't masterpieces, but they were hardly bad films.

[Goliath]

I’ve differed with many people on this board before, without being labeled “emotional.”

That was directed toward DisneyJedi, as you know.

So, yes, I would find it nice if you didn’t treat your statements as if they were facts.

Either nobody does that on this forum (since it's a forum and we expect everybody to know *everything* is opinion), or everybody does it. Either way, you can't put me apart.

Really, you don't have to be antagonistic just because someone happens to disagree with you.

I'm not. *You* and DisneyJedi are! This is projection, from your part. My point was *exactly* that people don't have to be antagonistic over opinions. Read back, please: that's what I said.

You're only making life unnecessarily more difficult than it already is.

Wow, talk about over-dramatizing...

[Disney's Divinity]

I’ve differed with many people on this board before, without being labeled “emotional.”

That was directed toward DisneyJedi, as you know.

It was hard to tell, because you quoted him through me.

I'm not. *You* and DisneyJedi are! This is projection, from your part. My point was *exactly* that people don't have to be antagonistic over opinions. Read back, please: that's what I said.

Um...saying you were snubbing people's opinions is not antagonistic. Especially when that's what you were doing.

But, regardless, I tried to make most of my post into a civil discussion. Maybe you could look at that part of it later.

[Goliath]

@ Disney's Divinity: I was not being antagonistic, nor was I "snubbing" people's opinions. But I'm used to being judged by other, higher standards on this board. Whenever other people express disagreement, they're simply disagreeing. When I express disagreement, I'm snubbing other people's opinions. Alas, it has to be that way...

There was more than Winnie the Pooh between Jungle Book and Mermaid.

Indeed, there also was The Rescuers, like I said. And many others, you're right, but we were talking about PatF being on par with them, and that doesn't go for all of them --in my humble opinion!

They're very similar films, in that they each have their flaws, but they (the majority of them) succeed mostly on charm. They also represent a period where the company was attempting to find its way again.

I can agree with most of that, although I think The Black Cauldron still is a better film than PatF, because it's more its own film, more sincere; whereas PatF was more of a copy from the 1990's films. I state it as a fact --just like you did.

This is a similar complaint that I've read from several members on this board. However, I fail to see how TP&TF re-treads too much familiar ground. [...] I don't recognize anything in TP&TF that is remotely familiar to the 90s films. It has a distinct mood that fits well alongside everything else from the 2000s (for better or worse) and comes across much less pretentious than most of the 90s films.

There's a lot in PatF that follows the 1990's formula: the leading heroine who has a big dream she wants to realize; a theatrical bad guy who interferes with her plans; loud-mouthed and unneccesary sidekicks; the obligatory love story; the Broadway-style songs; the design of the characters; the gross-out humor etc. It was fresh in the first half of the 1990's, and elements were added and changed in the latter half. But PatF is a setback to the early 90's.

In fact, I find Hunchback, Pocahontas, Hercules, Tarzan, and Mulan to be much more formulaic and repetitious, and far from tread "new ground" (except, perhaps, in terms of animation).

Pocahontas was the first Disney film based on a true historical event; Hunchback was much more serious as usual (even despite the gargoyles) and Tarzan said goodbye to the Broadway-style musicals (no singing characters). And, like you said, all animated far better and more consistent than the uneven early 1990's films. I'll give you that Mulan and Hercules were following formulas, and the other three also have formulaic elements, I agree. Their execution of it was better.

And it's worth noticing that two major classics (Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty) are remarkably similar to Snow White in nearly every respect, though they do have enough difference to separate them. Re-treading ground, in different ways, is hardly a new concept for Disney.

I don't disagree with that. But at least Sleeping Beauty broke radically with the other two films in style (which PatF did not); and it focused much more on 'secondary' characters instead of the title character. Also, Cinderella is almost two films in one, with the extensive screentime the mice get. And their relationship with Cinderella is hugely different from that of Snow White and the dwarfs. Disney may follow formulas, but they always disguised it really well.

[jayar1977]

When "The Princess and the Frog" came out last year, I was really excited. I haven't felt this way since "Lilo & Stitch". When "Chicken Little" came out, I thought it's not a true Disney film. The magic was gone. I lost interest until Frog came out. I was happy to see 2D animation back and all the old animators who created the Renaissance Era are back. But it did okay in the box office. I was hoping for a big splash like "Cinderella" did in the 50s and "The Little Mermaid" . I like all the computer generated movies but not as much as I like the traditional hand drawn. With "Winnie the Pooh" coming out next year, I hope it does well but you never know. "Tangled" looks promising. But I'm not as excited like I did for Frog.

[DisneyAnimation88]

While I understand that not everybody likes TP&TF, I would much rather Disney and John Lasseter focus their attention on revitalising animation. The best thing Lasseter did was to end the cheaply made direct-to-video sequels that had cheapened the medium in my opinion. It would be good if perhaps they reopened the studio at Hollywood Studios in Florida to show their faith in animation but I'm not holding out any hope.

I'm glad Lasseter seems determined to carry on the tradition of animated features and shorts that were the lifeblood of the company for so long and would look forward to their next animated project far more than Jerry Bruckheimer's next expensive summer "blockbuster" flop.

While some Disney animated features are better than others, the only two I can say that I disliked are Dinosaur and Chicken Little. Everyone is entitled to their opinion regarding what they like and don't like about Disney but I don't see 2D animation as a gimmick or similar to black and white films as some people have suggested.

[DisneyJedi]

I agree.

I'm not talking down to anybody. But if you're getting emotional when somebody disagrees with you on a certain movie and voices that disagreement, then you're going to have a tough time on this forum --or any other forum, for that matter. Or in real life. And, DisneyJedi, we have already seen how extremely emotional you can get when people disagree with you --over Louis the obnoxious alligator. You went ballistic; I remember that very well. So just because you get emotional, doesn't mean I'm "talking down" to people. And, Disney's Divinity, you're smart enough to know this.

Well, you actually treat the movie like it's the worst Disney film to ever be made, when in reality, it isn't. And by the way, you know who's really obnoxious?

You!

Yeah, I said it. You're an obnoxious snob who's never satisfied with ANYTHING!!

And here's the definition of talking down to somebody: To speak with insulting condescension. Which is exactly what YOU do when someone brings up the movie. So yeah. You actually DO talk down to people who happen to like it. There.

[Goliath]

Well, you actually treat the movie like it's the worst Disney film to ever be made, when in reality, it isn't. And by the way, you know who's really obnoxious?

You!

Yeah, I said it. You're an obnoxious snob who's never satisfied with ANYTHING!!

Thanks for, once again, proving my point.

And here's the definition of talking down to somebody: To speak with insulting condescension. Which is exactly what YOU do when someone brings up the movie. So yeah. You actually DO talk down to people who happen to like it. There.

I talk down to the movie; not the people. And the movie richly deserves it. Oh, and I *do* talk down to people who start to call other people names for disagreeing with them --over a talking alligator!

[estefan]

Yeah, I said it. You're an obnoxious snob who's never satisfied with ANYTHING!!

I'm pretty sure Goliath is the same "snob" who loves The Rescuers. Hardly somebody whose never "satisfied with anything."

The secret to reading Goliath's posts without throwing a fit might be to put "in my opinion" at the end of all of his sentences. Although, you could work on using more of the "I" or "me" words in your critiques. Would waste less time than putting "in my opinion" at the end of everything as well as making it sound less like fact. For example, "I personally didn't like the talking alligator" or "Randy Newman's songs didn't do it for me" or "I didn't care for the characters."

[DisneyJedi]

I talk down to the movie; not the people. And the movie richly deserves it.

No, it does not. And you know what? I've had it with you and your talk, acting like your opinions are fact. News flash: You can't MAKE your opinions FACT!!

And by the way, I'm over the whole character deal. Plus, when I said you were an obnoxious snob, I meant it. I'd go deeper with the name-calling, but I have my limits.

Plus, if you're done badmouthing a movie that some people here like, then good. I mean, that's ALL you ever have to say about it and it gets redundant after a while. Also, if it's a supposedly "bad" movie, then explain the positive feedback it's gotten.

...

You stupid dipstick.

[Escapay]

Plus, when I said you were an obnoxious snob, I meant it. I'd go deeper with the name-calling, but I have my limits.

...

you stupid dipstick.

Hate to butt in, but really...re-read what you just said.



Off to write a PM to Ceej...

albert

[Super Aurora]

lol at autistic people and their pointless raging.

[Disney's Divinity]

There was more than Winnie the Pooh between Jungle Book and Mermaid.

Indeed, there also was The Rescuers, like I said. And many others, you're right, but we were talking about PatF being on par with them, and that doesn't go for all of them --in my humble opinion!

I left out The Rescuers because I've always felt it was of a similar standard to most of the other films I named (and, no, I don't say that because I know you enjoy that film, I've always felt that way). In fact, as far as mood goes, TP&TF probably is most similar to The Rescuers, at least superficially, with the bayou setting and frog-hunting hicks. Winnie the Pooh is the only real stand-out for me. And even that is not so much a film as several shorts, and its appeal relies very much on charm.

I can agree with most of that, although I think The Black Cauldron still is a better film than PatF, because it's more its own film, more sincere; whereas PatF was more of a copy from the 1990's films. I state it as a fact --just like you did.

It's hard for me to agree on that. The Black Cauldron, as a concept, attempted to be its own film. The problem--and the most likely reason it ultimately failed--is that it never went the distance in doing that. A sci-fi/action film needs a huge sci-fi/action sequence at the end. The fact that the "outrageous" scene was edited out shows why this film/genre could never have made it under Disney.

But I would agree that it more of its "own thing" than TP&TF. The point from my previous post was that, I don't find vague similarities to be a huge, or not at all a, flaw with a film, and not with TP&TF.

There's a lot in PatF that follows the 1990's formula: the leading heroine who has a big dream she wants to realize; a theatrical bad guy who interferes with her plans; loud-mouthed and unneccesary sidekicks; the obligatory love story; the Broadway-style songs; the design of the characters; the gross-out humor etc. It was fresh in the first half of the 1990's, and elements were added and changed in the latter half. But PatF is a setback to the early 90's.

This is the crux of my disagreement. Tiana is not at all like Ariel (or her variations in Aladdin, Belle, Quasimodo, Pocahontas, Hercules, Tarzan, and Mulan). She does have a dream in the film, but it's emphatically understated. Throughout the movie, what you would usually see in a 90s film is mostly undercut. "Almost There" is not an "I wish/I want" song, but a "this is the way it'll be" song. The use of an art style that impersonalizes the character emphasizes that, whereas "Part of That World" or "Go The Distance" would have you centered on their eyes, with wide-open arms. That the song is almost more of a showstopper emphasizes that. There's one part in the film, when she's at the party and falls to the floor after the property owners refuse her bid on the restaurant--at that point sitting in the theater (from a 90s bias), I actually expected Charlotte to come and berate her for ruining her party and embarrassing her (a la Hunchback pummeled with vegetables, Hercules called a "freak" by the town, Pocahontas blamed for Powhatan's death, Tarzan for endangering the herd, or Mulan humiliated when found out to be a woman). And even in the following scene where she's on the balcony, you never get that sense of melodrama that most of the 90s would spoon-feed you. The goal is also entwined with her memories of her father, whereas the 90s "dream" was completely personal/self-centered (Mulan is the only exception to this; and I don't mean "self-centered" as in "selfish"). By the end of the movie, the dream is not even the focus anymore. Yes, she gets her restaurant, but the movie goes out of its way to say that focusing on one dream, that you never allow to change, as your be-all, end-all of existence is somewhat selfish and not at all fulfilling or realistic.

As for Facilier, he actually has very little to do with Tiana the whole film, and he was never a roadblock to Tiana's dream. The dream was blocked before he even came into play here, and he had nothing to do with it. There's no indication that he even knew or, rather, cared who she was prior to the finale scene. Her involvement was entirely random and Facilier's plan had no connection to her dream. Also, Facilier is easily their best, serious villain (which would exclude the brilliant Hades and Yzma) since Frollo.

With the sidekicks, you're forgetting Ray, easily the most well-integrated sidekick since Sebastian, in my personal opinion. He's not critical to plot details, yes, but he plays a huge role in the film's message/idea (more than Mama Odie, really--who at least, to me, was a likable character if a fairly unimportant one; her presence only re-affirms, at the time, Tiana's and Naveen's flawed focus on external dreams/desires, because they expect going to Odie will fix the problem, just like they expected that getting money again will make Naveen feel better, or that having a restaurant will give Tiana fulfillment--fulfillment she only got from her father previously). Ray's a character who you actually care about and, shocker!, actually dies at the end--something they have not been done since...? Well, I know they were going to in Lady and the Tramp, and there was that brief moment with Baloo, but... In fact, he becomes more than a "sidekick" and an actual character who was relevant. Louis is a loud-mouthed, unnecessary sidekick, but he actually is fairly endearing to me, at the very least (and well-voiced, which is more than you could say for O'Donnell's Terk, the barely-there Pegasus, the burping goat in Hunchback, or the nail-scratching animals from Pocahontas). And there are very few Charlotte characters I can think of from the 90s or before (Charlotte also goes along with that message of getting beyond the external, by being a constant joke because she's focused on the star, the dream, the title, etc.). In fact, I find it much like the 2000s in terms of these characters, because you wouldn't find John Silver from Treasure Planet, Nani from Lilo & Stitch, or The Bowler Hat Guy from Meet The Robinsons in a 90s film, anymore than you would Charlotte or Ray.

As for the obligatory love story, it's a bit unreasonable to pin that onto TP&TF. For one, nearly all Disney films are like this, not just the 90s. Second, you can't expect a "princess" film to be the one that branches out in this aspect. The one consolation is that the relationship is more developed and egalitarian than they've ever had before, with both characters being developed simultaneously. And the Broadway music--you can blame the 90s for that, but I don't think of it as Disney just re-treading ground. Animated films, Disney especially, have almost become synonymous with "musical" these days, and people expect some form of music, at any rate (if not theatrical, it needs to be written by a famous musician with animated montages, like with Elton John, Phil Collins 2x, Elvis, and Jon Rzeznik). The most that can be said is that TP&TF only has 4 songs done in a musical style, and even those aren't as theatrical as most of Menken's work. There is more of a mood to the music of TP&TF, regardless of how weak the lyrics are.

True, if you found flaw in the moralizing of the movie, I could halfway understand (although I would say all Disney films have their fair share of moralizing). But I just don't agree that this movie is a 90s retread, and the other complaints are something that will always be attached to "princess" films, especially as they've become known as today. And those superficial similarities I was talking about, I've felt since I first watched the film that those were intentionally included to turn the film into almost a "tribute" to the 'princess' genre.

To Disney, though I'm sure they most care about profits, they at least can find consolation that most critics liked TP&TF. So I doubt they're blaming the film's lack of blockbuster success on a lack of quality.

[CJ]

You stupid dipstick.

*sigh* DisneyJedi, you can not personally attack your fellow forum members. It's alright to respectfully disagree with someone, but personal attacks are never alright. Please re-read the forum's rules and guidelines thread and do not allow this to happen again. Consider yourself warned.

[Goliath]

@ Disney's Divinity: My compliments! That was an excellent post. Good arguments. Funny thing is that I can agree with most of them, but *overall*, we will never agree on PatF, and that's because of the weight we attribute to each other's arguments. I'll explain it further.

I have summed up a lot of elements in PatF which I see as a throwback to the 1990's films, and I consider your nuancing of those elements (very well done, by the way) as mere 'cosmetical', superficial differences that don't really take away from the feeling of a setback/repetition. Contrary, if I understand you correctly, you see the similarities I listed as being only 'cosmetical'/superficial and you attribute more weight to the nuances you listed (which I don't disagree with).

Of course I don't think PatF is not one of the worst films Disney has ever put out. That category includes (in my opinion) Home on the Range, Brother Bear (don't shoot me, Margos!), The Rescuers Down Under (despite excellent animation), The Aristocats and The Fox and the Hound. PatF has its strong points, most notably Dr. Facilier and the segment 'Almost there'...

I'm pretty sure Goliath is the same "snob" who loves The Rescuers. Hardly somebody whose never "satisfied with anything."

Exactly, the same snob who adores Lilo & Stitch; who raves on and on about The Little Mermaid; and who loves Gargoyles to death. Among many, many other things.

The secret to reading Goliath's posts without throwing a fit might be to put "in my opinion" at the end of all of his sentences.

Oh, you have figured me out...

Although, you could work on using more of the "I" or "me" words in your critiques. Would waste less time than putting "in my opinion" at the end of everything as well as making it sound less like fact. For example, "I personally didn't like the talking alligator" or "Randy Newman's songs didn't do it for me" or "I didn't care for the characters."

Nah, that wouldn't be half as much fun.

[Disney Duster]

A Disney animated feature about video games is un-Disney.

None of you will convince me otherwise. You all have the feeling it is un-Disney as well, but you're just ignoring it.

Walt Disney may not have been around when video games were, but computers were around in his time and he didn't make animated features about those.