Disney Animation: No More Fairy Tales (for now)

[Escapay]

Is it something you have to believe in, as a Disney fan? Yes, yes you do.

Who died and put you in charge of all the Disney fans and how they're supposed to think? How dare you.

albert

[Disney Duster]

But I will not believe there is an "essence"; instead I think the quality of film depends on the creative minds who make it. And with John Lasseter, they have the best creative mind in animation today.

You think it only takes creative minds? GUESS WHAT, LOTS OF STUDIOS HAVE CREATIVE MINDS. I believe it takes a creative mind that also tries to figure out and apply the Disney essence to their films. Maybe it was even subconcious when they made filsm after Walt that still retained the essence, but now, they're more like F the essence, we don't care about it, and it looks like some people here feel that way too, even though they call themselves Disney fans.

IF THEY AREN'T GOING TO CARE ABOUT THE KINDS OF FILMS WALT MADE AND MAKING NEW FILMS LIKE THOSE, WHY ARE THEY WORKING AT HIS COMPANY? Maybe they should just remove the Disney name and become something else.

And, despite all of that, Disney has retained its stature and quality so change has been good for the company.

No, it has lost it's quality and it's stature. Their films aren't on top anymore. And they happen to also be less Disney, looking more like Dreamworks. Possibly losing some of their Disney essence.

[Duckburger]

No need to speculate, he was quite clear on the subject:

/Quotes/

While those are some nice quotes - PR is not something that was newly discovered in the 21th century. The fact of the matter is that Disney now has more competition than ever -even within their own company- and they need to keep their movies contemporary to get the average Joe to want to see their movie. That's just the way it is, and the die-hard Disney fans are not the only audience Disney caters to, most of us here at UD are sure things for a seat at their animated films on the first weekend, while others may need a little more convincing.

If you ask me, most contemporary audiences would not be particularly convinced to see a movie like Snow White or Cinderella in theatres, as good as they may be. Different times, learn to live with it is what I'd recommend.

[DisneyAnimation88]

Who died and put you in charge of all the Disney fans and how they're supposed to think?

Walt?

Don't you understand that the Disney "essence" is in your head? It's something you believe Disney films should have, like I believe they should have more originality. It's not an actual thing, perhaps it's the nostalgia you feel for the older films but it's not an "essence" that anyone at Disney needs to know.

I know other studios have creative minds, thank you for enlightening me. What I meant was Disney has creative minds who were trained at Disney, worked with the legends of Disney, know what a Disney film needs to be and have.

IF THEY AREN'T GOING TO CARE ABOUT THE KINDS OF FILMS WALT MADE AND MAKING NEW FILMS LIKE THOSE, WHY ARE THEY WORKING AT HIS COMPANY? Maybe they should just remove the Disney name and become something else.

Of course they care, I never said they didn't. They shouldn't rename the company, instead, Lasseter, Clements, Musker, Keane, Deja and co should all learn the "essence".

[Elladorine]

[Disney Duster]

Maybe the Disney essence can live on modern times, in modern movies. Otherwise they would have to turn into something they are not, which some people are saying they may be doing as we speak.

The Disney essence was real, it was in Walt's head. And he put it in the heads of his artists. Then people who grew up watching the films, and some who learned from the artists under Walt (which I guess they can still learn from) keep the essence living on.

Or they're supposed to. Walt wouldn't want his company to become anything. He would want it to stay Disney, with whatever essence makes it Disney.

[DisneyJedi]

Super Aurora, no, that was not a twist, that was just a different, lighter tone. Even Pinocchio had a lighter tone than the original fairy tale novel. I was talking about a real twist, something like changing the humans to animals, changing the location to something else, or changing the title and whole thing into something else.

something like changing the humans to animals: Robin Hood

You forgot about Oliver & Company. Well, some of the characters were changed from humans to animals, at least.

[Disney Duster]

Oliver & Company's one I have a problem with, too. But at least that was purposely trying to be something different, with a complete different title.

It was trying to be a new story, only inspired by an old classic. Meanwhile, things like Tangled are supposed to be the original story...but twisted. Not good.

[Duckburger]

LOL that was genius.

[DisneyAnimation88]

That's the point several people on other threads have tried to make to you: you cannot say without any degree of certainty what Walt Disney would have done, said or wanted.

They're not turning into something un=Disney. It has stayed Disney for almost fifty years without Walt so why would that change now? Animation is in good hands, just let them get on with what they feel they have to do. If in ten years things look bad, fine, but give them a chance to make the films we all want them to make.

Sadly the artists who worked directly with Walt are almost all dead or retired. But the majority of young animators in the world today would probably all love to work for Disney so they should have no problem attracting new talent to eventually take over from the likes of Glen Keane and Nik Ranieri and Andreas Deja.

[Disney Duster]

You may not be able to tell everything Walt would have wanted, but you can at least try and make films that they think fit the the studio. And the essence. You can at least try.

But these days, they're becoming less and less Disney...while still calling themselves by the Disney name they slap onto everything...

[Wonderlicious]

Oh dear, so it's our bi-monthly "Feel the power of the Disney Essence/Disney fans and employees shouldn't think like this/and on the eighth day <strike>God</strike> Walt said" argument. I predict will last for five pages and have little or nothing to do with the thread's original objective. In any event, the inevitable question has to be asked...





Milk Buds and popcorn, anyone?

[merlinjones]

>>If you ask me, most contemporary audiences would not be particularly convinced to see a movie like Snow White or Cinderella in theatres, as good as they may be. Different times, learn to live with it is what I'd recommend.<<

I just don't buy it. Skeptics said exactly the same thing before "The Little Mermaid" came out... and again before "Beauty and the Beast" was made.

These timeless stories, characters and films have lasted generations and remain resonant (and commercially successful), as it ever was.

Changes in product, subject matter, theme, aesthetics, tone and content don't come from the audience or the times but the decision makers and what they choose to make and market (and spin).

[DisneyAnimation88]

Going back to the topic as Wonderlicious said, let's try and give them time to do the things they want to do. I absolutely believe John Lasseter is the perfect person to take Disney animation forward and that the creative people there will make films based on good stories, regardless of the genre. Pixar are making their first fairytale right now so I don't think Lasseter or anyone else would turn down a fairytale if they thought the story was strong enough.

[Duckburger]

>>If you ask me, most contemporary audiences would not be particularly convinced to see a movie like Snow White or Cinderella in theatres, as good as they may be. Different times, learn to live with it is what I'd recommend.<<

I just don't buy it. Skeptics said exactly the same thing before "The Little Mermaid" came out... and again before "Beauty and the Beast" was made.

These timeless stories, characters and films have lasted generations and remain resonant (and commercially successful), as it ever was.

Changes in product, subject matter, theme, aesthetics, tone and content don't come from the audience or the times but the decision makers and what they choose to make and market (and spin).

There's a flaw in your logic. Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid are exactly what you seem to oppose. They differ greatly from their original source material (well, at least, Mermaid does a lot), while some slight contemporary material is also added in its place. No different than what's been done with The Princess and the Frog and most likely Tangled too. So, those are not good examples. Who's to say that Tangled isn't just as good as any of those films, the reviews certainly point to that direction.

Going by your logic of "what Walt would've done". I'm going to pull a Duster and say that Walt would've never done Little Mermaid like they've done it in the '80s, yet the movie was still excellent.

[Super Aurora]

Oliver & Company's one I have a problem with, too. But at least that was purposely trying to be something different, with a complete different title.

It was trying to be a new story, only inspired by an old classic. Meanwhile, things like Tangled are supposed to be the original story...but twisted. Not good.

I like how you try to (ironically) twist around words to make it as if the examples we make does not count.

You specifically said it's a twist if they change setting and background. I gave an example, and still ignore it.

Jedi and I gave example of animals in place of humans(robin hood, and Oliver), you don't like them but yet apparently that's not enough.

Tangled, despite the title, is less of a twist example you're trying to tell than the example the ones we gave. where as in Tangled it's mostly title change. any change in the story isn't all that different from changes made in previous Disney movies.

[Goliath]

And they have not been making good films for the last 15 years [...]

Ahem...

Hunchback of the Notre Dame, Mulan, Tarzan, Lilo & Stitch? All great films!

And to hell with you 'Disney essence'! Disney turned Kipling's Jungle Book upside down, essentially only keeping the characters' names; he changed Pinocchio from an obnoxious brat to a cute kid and revived Jiminy Cricket from the death; he made Aurora an extra in her own film.

Yes, Walt Disney did have twists in his film. But the difference with modern day Disney is that Walt took his films serious and thus he took his audience serious. That's also what Disney did in the 1990's: take your stuff seriously and develop a film *you* think is right. Do it with sincerity and authenticity and people are going to like it. But at the turn of the century, Disney decided to abandon that principle and start targeting specific demographics. Making more 'boy-ish' films like Atlantis and Treasure Planet. They also started to distance themselves from their own legacy. Trying to work in a style that is not theirs, just for the sake of it, like Emperor's New Groove. Or they tried to live on past succes formulas, copying old glory, like Princess and the Frog.

Disney hasn't been very true to itself. It doesn't take itself and the audience seriously anymore. That's the main problem. They try too hard to imitate others, when they really should make something they would want to watch themselves --that's the secret to succes.

[Disney Duster]

Duckburger, how do you not see the big difference between giving The Little Mermaid a happy ending, and but with The Princess and the Frog changing everything except the idea of a prince who turns into a frog (that seriously is the only idea kept! everything else, setting, time, characters, and much more extremely changed!) and only keeping Rapunzel's name, hair, and tower in Tangled, not even keeping the title?

I think The Little Mermaid may actually still be how Walt would have made such a film. There were very, very slight traces of the times in even Disney's fairy tale films, and I bet the kind of beats and accent Sebastian had were around for a long time, at least the 1800's when the original tale was written.

Super Aurora, I already explained that I do actually have problems with those films you mentioned that came out after Walt, but they still were different and not the kind of twists Disney is talking about, as I explained. I gave my reasons, and that's truly what I think.

Goliath, when you think of the word "twist" to an old classic, what do you usually think of? Making it really different. Usually something modern. That's what Disney is talking about now, that's what they have done recently (mainly with Treasure Planet, Princess and the Frog, and unfortunately mostly do to the title change, Tangled). They are not the same kinds of things Walt did, you know they are very different.

And I meant that Disney has not made good films through all of the last 15 years, I guess I should have been more specific. But even though they have made good ones...they haven't...really become memorable or great films to the bigger public who are really who Disney has always been trying to appeal to. I don't know if we'd call them successful.

[Goliath]

Duckburger, how do you not see the big difference between giving The Little Mermaid a happy ending, and but with The Princess and the Frog changing everything except the idea of a prince who turns into a frog (that seriously is the only idea kept! everything else, setting, time, characters, and much more extremely changed!) and only keeping Rapunzel's name, hair, and tower in Tangled, not even keeping the title?

I think The Little Mermaid may actually still be how Walt would have made such a film. There were very, very slight traces of the times in even Disney's fairy tale films, and I bet the kind of beats and accent Sebastian had were around for a long time, at least the 1800's when the original tale was written.

Super Aurora, I already explained that I do actually have problems with those films you mentioned that came out after Walt, but they still were different and not the kind of twists Disney is talking about, as I explained. I gave my reasons, and that's truly what I think.

Goliath, when you think of the word "twist" to an old classic, what do you usually think of? Making it really different. Usually something modern. That's what Disney is talking about now, that's what they have done recently (mainly with Treasure Planet, Princess and the Frog, and unfortunately mostly do to the title change, Tangled). They are not the same kinds of things Walt did, you know they are very different.

And I meant that Disney has not made good films through all of the last 15 years, I guess I should have been more specific. But even though they have made good ones...they haven't...really become memorable or great films to the bigger public who are really who Disney has always been trying to appeal to. I don't know if we'd call them successful.

(Credits to disneyboy)

[toonaspie]

I wish people would give The Princess and the Frog a break. I considered it a great effort by Disney to get serious with their animated features again after their BB/HOTR/3-film CGI slump (though with some mismanaged intentions). It had all the good emotion and story that fits the tone of Walt's classics and it dealt with settings and characters that Disney had never attempted before. To me, it was the best film done in the 2001-2010 decade (unless Tangled proves me wrong of course). The film got screwed over by a poorly managed marketing campaign that thought this was still the 1990s (or that young audiences still had the same investment in Disney 2D as the older people did).

But one thing about Disney is that it is not...nor was it ever been about...just fairytales. And it bothers me when people associate Disney with fairytale happy endings because it's not like that with every film (eg Pocahontas). Let's not forget that the highest grossing film in the canon is NOT a fairytale.

The WDAS is in fact a diverse collection of fairytales, children's classics, talking animals, fantasy epics, and original stories...even in Walt's time. Blame the suits for focusing so damn much on isolating the audiences and then trying to even out the balance. That is no way a film should be made and I think it's stupid that Disney is now focused on making more boy-oriented films because that's 100% missing the point on why the Disney Princess franchise is now a bust!

Besides if I want boy-oriented stuff I will go see a Pixar movie since leading feminine roles are taboo with their company. (Yes i know they're making Brave. It's a joke people )