Disney Animation: No More Fairy Tales (for now)

All topics relating to Disney-branded content.
User avatar
DisneyJedi
Platinum Edition
Posts: 3737
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:53 pm
Gender: Male

Post by DisneyJedi »

UmbrellaFish wrote:
DisneyJedi wrote:By the way, one thing I'd like to add, if Michael Eisner hadn't come work for the company, Disney wouldn't be in such a damn funk! It's his fault Disney's a piggy bank and it's HIS fault for global warming!
Really?
Okay, okay. I over-exaggerated about the global warming bit. But I'm NOT over-exaggerating about turning Disney into a piggy bank. I mean, seriously. Back when Walt was around and in Eisner's early days, money wasn't all that mattered. All that mattered were films of good quality. But as time went by, Eisner became a greedy bastard, who said that the only thing important WAS the money and NOT quality. If that doesn't make my blood boil, I don't know what else would. :x

True, some companies need money to survive. But what should really count is a movie's quality.
merlinjones
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1056
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:52 am

Post by merlinjones »

The old fairy tales will still be with us when the current clueless executives are long gone to other jobs. The folk stories and myths speak to timeless issues of the common human condition.

But more to the matter - - how is such a totally negative PR article, that demeans and degrades what the majority of people associate and like best about the name Walt Disney, supposed to help sell this movie, this week?
User avatar
RyGuy
Special Edition
Posts: 685
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:50 pm
Location: Orange County, California

Post by RyGuy »

Last edited by RyGuy on Sun Nov 21, 2010 12:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RyGuy
Special Edition
Posts: 685
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:50 pm
Location: Orange County, California

Post by RyGuy »

True, some companies need money to survive. But what should really count is a movie's quality.
All companies need money to survive. I don't think the problem with the Eisner-era is that Disney wanted to make money. I think the problem is that in the lust for more money, Disney too often forgets that quality is what will make you money in the long run, and in turn they have churned out some painfully gawd-awful things, such as:

1. The entire Air Buddies franchise. Air Bud was a halfway decent movie. The sequels were dumb and the "buddies" were even dumber.
2. The Mighty Ducks sequels. I remember audible groans in the theater when the team takes the ice wearing Mighty Ducks of Anaheim (i.e., the initial name of the NHL team) jerseys (this was right before their inaugural season). People were actually saying out loud, "What is this? A commercial?"
3. The Santa Clause sequels. While the second one had some nice moments, there were some moments of utter cheese, such as when they sprayed the gigantic tin soldiers with silly string to make them fall down.
4. Everything High School Musical other than the initial film.
5. Most of the cheapquels (I'll admit a few of them are ok, but most are really bad).
6. A littany of really awful live action movies (has anyone ever seen Shipwrecked?)

I could go on, but I think the totality of these things convined Joe Public that Disney was no longer about quality movies like The Jungle Book or Swiss Family Robinson and that they would pander anything and everything they could to make a buck.

Once that happened, people stopped spending their money to take a chance on something that would probably be crap, since it seemed that more often than not, the story wouldn't be that interesting, would be filled with dumb, unengaging stories and all around cheesyness. I think that is why films like National Treasure and Pirates of the Caribbean were surprise hits, because the stories were engaging and in general not cheesy and people just didn't expect that anymore when it came to Disney movies.

What saddens me is that Disney thinks abandoning fairy tales is going to somehow magically solve the above.
User avatar
pap64
Platinum Edition
Posts: 3535
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:57 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Post by pap64 »

I already mentioned this on the Tangled thread, but I will say it again. What Disney needs to do is stop trying to target a demographic or to strictly follow trends. In the examples I showed, it seemed as if every movie they released had something to appeal to a certain demographic, like casting Disney Channel stars in big roles, changing names so its less feminine and such. These moves SCREAM of the marketing department being in charge.

And it frustrates me because Pixar doesn't do that... OK, they might start to do it with Cars 2 being released (it was a very successful new franchise) and Brave being changed as well. But still, their movies appeal to everyone equally. Sure there might be some complaints about not being enough female representation, but the stories are universal. I have read many testimonials from women and men who were affected by both Up and Toy Story 3. The emotions are universal and the stories tackle big human issues like loneliness, depression, love and the pursuit of dreams.

I think that if they want to stay away from fairy tales they first need to abandon the mentality of trying to appeal to a certain few and just do a great movie everyone can enjoy. I actually applaud the idea of more original ideas, but if they do this just to please a few then they will keep failing until they snap out of it.
ImageImageImageImage

Image
User avatar
PeterPanfan
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4553
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 1:43 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by PeterPanfan »

TBH, I'm both sad and okay about this. On one hand, I always love their fairy tales, but on the other, some of my favorite Disney movies are like The Fox and the Hound, Robin Hood, etc., which aren't really fairy-tale-esque.
steven132
Limited Issue
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 9:55 am

Post by steven132 »

This is a post from Disney's Animation facebook page

"A headline in today’s LA Times erroneously reported that the Disney fairy tale is a thing of the past, but I feel it is important to set the record straight that they are alive and well at Disney and continue this week with Tangled, a contemporary retelling of a much loved story. We have a number of projects in development with new twists that audiences will be able to enjoy for many years to come." - Ed Catmull
Tristy
Special Edition
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:18 pm

Post by Tristy »

Damn! I was on my way to posting that! Oh well. Thank god.

And this is my reaction to the article Monty Python style:

"You silly sod! You got us all worked up!"
User avatar
blackcauldron85
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 16689
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:54 am
Gender: Female
Contact:

Post by blackcauldron85 »

Then what tipped off the article? I mean, something must have happened or been said to have been the basis for the article, right? I hope that Mr. Catmull is not lying!!!!!
Image
Tristy
Special Edition
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:18 pm

Post by Tristy »

I think I know. It's this quote:

"but we don't have any other musicals or fairy tales lined up."

Note how it doesn't exactly say they are discontinuing with the fairy tales.
User avatar
Super Aurora
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 am

Post by Super Aurora »

Hey disney, Wanna attract numerous people and yet retain the fairytale genre?

Adapt Bluebeard!

Yay.
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
User avatar
DisneyJedi
Platinum Edition
Posts: 3737
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:53 pm
Gender: Male

Post by DisneyJedi »

steven132 wrote:This is a post from Disney's Animation facebook page

"A headline in today’s LA Times erroneously reported that the Disney fairy tale is a thing of the past, but I feel it is important to set the record straight that they are alive and well at Disney and continue this week with Tangled, a contemporary retelling of a much loved story. We have a number of projects in development with new twists that audiences will be able to enjoy for many years to come." - Ed Catmull
Thank Jesus. Thank. Frigging. Jesus.
merlinjones
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1056
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:52 am

Post by merlinjones »

The tide of comments at LA Times in reaction to this article were devastatingly negative - - looks like there's some serious backrolling going on...
User avatar
Super Aurora
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 am

Post by Super Aurora »

Disney is probably trolling you guys. You guys are so easy to troll when it comes to disney news, especially subjects like this one. LOL
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
User avatar
Prince Edward
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1184
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:23 pm
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Contact:

Post by Prince Edward »

Disney should continue to make fairytales if they get the story and the characters right. But, I have enjoyed many Disney-movies not based on fairy tales (Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, Pocahontas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, Mulan, Tarzan etc, etc). Disney should make movies based on legends, mythology and books as well as fairy tales. Now that we've got The Princess and the Frog and Rapunzel, they could wait a few years before their next fairy tale. (A few years that is, not 30;)
User avatar
Duckburger
Special Edition
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 4:23 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Duckburger »

LOL that would be funny. Corporate trolls.

I thought the article was pretty pointless all around. Why announce that you're not going to do something anymore. Just leave it alone, to evade backlash. I mean, during the Walt-years or even afterwards Disney had never done more than a few fairy tale projects close to eachother, don't really see how this is any different. We've had Enchanted, Princess and the Frog and Tangled close to eachother. It was time for something different anyway.

This kind of reminds me of the time when they announced that WDFA would never do hand-drawn features anymore after Home on the Range. Well... we all see how long that statement lasted.

And 260.000.000 budget for Tangled = WTF?
User avatar
Goliath
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4749
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:35 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Goliath »

Patrick wrote:I'm kind of torn about this. As much as I like animation films like Up and How to Train Your Dragon, I already feel as if they have a formula. The humor in CG animation has been the same ever since Shrek has come out.. and while that's funny, it's already getting old. Not to say I think Disney will only being doing films like that, but I hope that isn't where everything is going. Disney's movies have lost that "classical" feel and been replaced with quick humor and sassy sidekicks. I hope there will be a time sooner rather than later that Disney can return to a more serious film with short bursts of comic relief. [...]
THIS! Every. Single. Word. Of. It.

Edit: Listening to 'Beauty and the Beast', 'I Can Go the Distance', 'Whole new world' and 'Part of your world' while reading this thread. Starting to doubt Disney will ever do anything as great as this ever again. Pixar seems to have taken Disney's place. It's been the superior animation studio for the past decade.
User avatar
Neal
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:40 am

Post by Neal »

My thoughts:

1) This isn't permanent, just a hiatus - and this hiatus could even be for just a few years. I heard that in the beginning of the 80's they declared the same thing - and instead of fairy tales created "The Fox and the Hound," "The Black Cauldron," "The Great Mouse Detective," and "Oliver and Company" - Fox/Hound being one of my top 3 Disney films ever. But then in '89 they made "The Little Mermaid" and followed that with "Beauty and the Beast" - two of their most beloved fairy tales.

2) "The Emperor's New Groove" and "Tarzan," neither of these was a 'princess story.' Emperor's = Buddy Comedy. Tarzan = male literary hero. Neither of these were a bad movie. We don't always need fairy tales to have a good Disney animated feature.

3) Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora, Ariel, Belle, Jasmine, Tiana, Rapunzel - 8 princess/princess-starring films out of 50 Disney animated films total. Plus consider other Disney heroines: Mulan, Pocahontas, Alice, Lilo - there can be female-led movies that aren't fairy tales. That's not even mentioning female co-stars to male leads such as Lady, Wendy/Tinkerbell, Duchess/Marie, Maid Marion, Bianca, Princess Eilonwy, Esmeralda, Megara, Jane, Princess Kida, Grace/Maggie/Mrs. Calloway, Abby Mallard, Mittens.

Disney will be fine.

End rant.
Last edited by Neal on Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
PheR
Special Edition
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 9:08 am
Location: México

Post by PheR »

I believe they've forgotten 'The Black Cauldron', 'Dinosaur' or 'Atlantis' and their numbers at the box-office, I think they need to have a couple of those more to realize. Or maybe they want to turn Disney into pixar, now that pixar is turning into a sequel maker :cry:
I'ts enough for this restless warrior just to be with you...
Tristy
Special Edition
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:18 pm

Post by Tristy »

So, essentially Pixar is now the one with the sequel craze, only the sequels are more likely to be good!
Post Reply