Disney Dark Age

[slash]

I see Disney today and wonder if the company will ever regain it's magic. Since the Lion King, Disney has been releasing films with potential (Tarzan, Brother Bear) that have lots of magic but lack the overall power and coming together of true Disney classics. It also has been releasing films that are completely lacking everything (Atlantis, Home on the Range). So I am slightly saddenned by this pattern. But then I look at Disney's past dark ages and I'm left with hope that they are just a few years away from the next Little Mermaid. It seems like Disney has gone through three Golden ages each followed by a dark age, and this dark age we are in now is so much better than the previous ones. Just look at the miserable decade Disney had after Bambi. Just look at the miserable time Disney had following the Jungle Book. Sure there where some good hits and there were personal favorites released during that time, but nothing that appealed to everyone. Anyways, I look at these past trends and I'm left hoping that we are about to get out of this dark age and hit another magical moment. Here is to hope and the sacking of Eisner. So here is my question, do you see Disney coming out of this tailspin anytime soon? Do any of the things Disney is doing now give you hope? And how would you compare this Dark Age to previous one's?

[Class316]

This Dark Age is the absolute worse. At this point I wonder if it's recoverable. At this point the only reason I want Disney to even exist is so we can get good DVDs of the old stuff.

[AwallaceUNC]

New management is often a refreshing change. Whoever inevitably steps in as Eisner's successor will likely be heavily recruited by Roy & Stan, and will hopefully be the Anti-Eisner. Regardless of whether that's true, the successor will be looking for the Mermaid-type smash that set off the Eisner Admin (though it actually began with Disney's biggest flop to date). Hopefully they'll find it.

-Aaron

[Owlzindabarn]

My personal take on the current "Dark Age" is based on the fact that in the past 5-8 years Disney simply released too darn much product. They had animated features coming out of their ears, and cheapquels loading up the shelves at the Disney Store faster than anyone could watch them. It was overload. None of the movies seemed like a special event, because they were competing with one another. When I was a kid, Disney movies came out on average, every 4 years. So when they were released it was a BIG DEAL. Today's kids don't feel that way about Disney movies at all...they are just so oversaturated with product.

"Classic Disney" movies seem hard to come by these days. When I look back at movies that are deemed "classic," here are the things that I notice in common:

1) They are not irreverant, loaded with topical jokes and "adult" humor.
2) The songs are not witless, pop-inspired stinkers like the junk Phil Collins churns out, like a by-product of Metamucil
3) There's usually either a princess or a whole lot of really cute animals.


That's it. When Disney tries for the adult approach, they usually make an amusing movie, like "Emperor's New Groove," but not a classic.

[Lars Vermundsberget]

Regardless of whether that's true, the successor will be looking for the Mermaid-type smash that set off the Eisner Admin (though it actually began with Disney's biggest flop to date).

If "The Black Cauldron" is the one you consider "Disney's biggest flop to date" it should be noted, however, that Eisner can hardly be blamed for that.

[AwallaceUNC]

Oh definitely... I wasn't trying to say it was his fault. Just stating it for the sake of information (didn't want to say TLM was the first film released when it wasn't).

-Aaron

[TheZue]

2) The songs are not witless, pop-inspired stinkers like the junk Phil Collins churns out, like a by-product of Metamucil

That's too funny!!!! But too true

[2099net]

My personal take on the current "Dark Age" is based on the fact that in the past 5-8 years Disney simply released too darn much product. They had animated features coming out of their ears, and cheapquels loading up the shelves at the Disney Store faster than anyone could watch them. It was overload. None of the movies seemed like a special event, because they were competing with one another. When I was a kid, Disney movies came out on average, every 4 years. So when they were released it was a BIG DEAL. Today's kids don't feel that way about Disney movies at all...they are just so oversaturated with product.

Yeah, that's right. There's too many Disney cartoons made. Even though each is different from the last.

I suppose people won't want to see Spider-Man 2 being as there's been too many movies based on comics recently, or people won't want to see Disney's Nania films, as there'll be too many Harry Potter films. Troy will stop people seeing King Arthur, Scooby Doo 2 will mean people don't want to see Garfield, etc. It's nonsense to suggest people aren't going because the movies aren't an "event" anymore, or films of a similar medium and/or genre heavily impact on each other. Are there too many comedies? Too many thrillers? Or perhaps too many Children's films of all mediums - after all, a child can't go to all the children's films can he?

Firstly, I despise all this "event movie" marketing hype. Every week this summer has a "motion picture event". The whole "event" marketing has had it's day as far as I'm concerned - it only appeals to morons who can't think and decide what they want to watch anyway.

Secondly, if you are saying people only went to see the previous films because they were an "event", it sort of implies the previous films weren't good enough to stand on their own two feet anyway.

Thirdly, Disney in the 70's wasn't flooding the market with animated films, and on the whole most of those it did release were poor - poor stories and lower standard animation than should be expected (Robin Hood not only reuses traced animation from other Disney films, it even reuses it's own animation at a few points).

All of Disney's recent animated films have been different - The Emperor's New Groove was as far removed from Treasure Planet as Atlantis was from Brother Bear. People should see a movie if the concept and idea appeals to them - not if its made by a certain studio or stars a certain actor. If Atlantis didn't appeal, perhaps Brother Bear did. If they liked Emperor's New Groove, perhaps they were more likely to see Home on the Range. If they liked The Lion King, perhaps Brother Bear appealed to them.

If you see a movie you want to see because the concept appeals to you - say King Artur - do you think "I'd better not see that, there's been too many films with epic battles in recently" or do you just go?

[Mr. Toad]

My take on the three dark ages mentioned

1) The first in the war years in uncomparable to the other two. It was not as a result of lack of creativity but a lack of both human and financial resources. It was a dark age for humanity not as a result of anything at Disney.

2) Post Jungle Book - to me this is the worst. Robin Hood, Rescuers, Black Cauldron, Fox and the Hound. These are the Disney Studios worst animated films.

3) The current age - while there has been no great film since Lion King, I am not sure it is a total Dark Age. There have been many films with technical and/or story merit. I am not sure the public's fascination with 3D is as much to blame as the Disney product. I do agree that the music lately has been sorely lacking. But don't forget the Lion King and Aladdin had brilliant work and I don't think we can expect that every time out.

[Ludwig Von Drake]

The dark ages are relative to what you like. Personally I enjoy the war movies and the films made right after the war, the anthology ones.

[PatrickvD]

I see Disney today and wonder if the company will ever regain it's magic. Since the Lion King, Disney has been releasing films with potential (Tarzan, Brother Bear) that have lots of magic but lack the overall power and coming together of true Disney classics. It also has been releasing films that are completely lacking everything (Atlantis, Home on the Range).

I stopped reading there. I mean, this is obviously just your opinion, because I would prefer songs from Home On The Range, like Patch of Heaven and Home On The Range ANY time of the day over songs from The Lion King. Disney's magic is lost (at least to a majority) because they flooded the market. There is no anticipation anymore. Bus because Disney's movies never achieved blockbuster status after The Lion King, doesn't mean they're all worse. This is just an opinion, but we must try to look past a movie's status as blockbuster or flop when we judge its quality. Although everyone has a different taste.... wait I;m confused and I start contradicting, never mind

do you see Disney coming out of this tailspin anytime soon?

sure, just not any time soon. And I disagree about the dark ages. What miserable time was there after Bambi??? You have to buy some treasures and look at the wonderful things they've done in the fourties. But if we would have to fill dvd's with stuff made after Jungle Book... well then I'd agree. When Walt was gone a lot of forced movies were made. I still say a lot of this is just opinions, after having been in several discussion on this forum about sequels and stuff I've learnt that a lot of this is just about opinions.

And Disney being less succesful doesnt have to do anything with the movies. They're not THAT bad, they just dont promote them. I mean, the average Joe doesnt know about Treasure Planet or Home On The Range.... because Disney doesnt care anymore. They dont promote them at all. Yet movies like Finding Nemo are all over the place. I mean, it's cheaper for Disney, right? Having someone else make the movies and they get all the money. In that case they're okay with spending some extra millions on posters and commercials. They just dont want to risk their own money anymore. They're tired of trying and it's not even the artists that can be blamed. I refused to believe they suddenly don't know anymore how they made Beauty & The Beast. Management shouldnt interfere with that, they need to have faith in the artists and their vision. At Pixar and Dreamworks people obviously work in a happy environment where good movies can be made. Disney Feature Animation is toxic these days. At this point, not much good can come from that division. And I think Chicken Little will tell us that. But management change and fresh new approach can change things. Who knows when that will be.... 2005... 2008? we'll see. I'm sure it will happen. Too many people still care about Disney's legacy.

just my 02 cents, my opinion

And of course I hope they WILL come back. I love Disney, it's an inspiration and I'm sad to see them at the bottom

[DreamerQ18]

wow where to really begin on this topic. I guess ina way I can see where everyone is coming. Howevere i have to disagree on this being the worse Dark age Disney has gone thorugh I dont think that is necessarily true becasue as some one said some of the movies had the potential really i think they all did but were all lacking that somehting special the magic.

Someone said that Disney has just been realsing movies like grazy where as when we were younger there was only one animated classis being realsed for that year and was publaized like crazy.In that I toitlay agree I rememeber that when I was younger waiting all year for that movie to come out made it all that more special which is why I dont understand why they stoped doing that. In my opinion the Dark Ages began after Tarzan and that movie did really well in Box ofice if I am not mistaking.Soon after we got two movies realsed a year. I think had Disney stuck to realsing one movie a year pne well thought out movie not a musical per say but with great music developed Characters ther Dark agae would not exist.

Another thing though lets face there is nothing in this world that is perfect and everything is basically one big learning experience in order to have a really good year or decaded there msut be a rough one. this gives people new goals ambitions and ideas. So I like to think that this Dark age will bring that to the Disney Studios and I agree on new mangemtn sometimes being a refreshing change but just the same it could be bitter sweet.

Now that the movies are going to be done in 3-d I dont if there will be a big change in the quality of the movie. What it boils down to is not animiation as much as the plot of the stories. cause no one can deny that the movies relased recentley had bad qaulity just not thought out well. But these are just my opinions I could go and on this subject.

[PatrickvD]

Now that the movies are going to be done in 3-d I dont if there will be a big change in the quality of the movie. What it boils down to is not animiation as much as the plot of the stories. cause no one can deny that the movies relased recentley had bad qaulity just not thought out well. But these are just my opinions I could go and on this subject.

yeah I could go on and on too. And I;m starting to confuse myself

[Maerj]

I find online commentators to be a little too dramatic. No studio can stay on top all of the time. So, they made some movies you didn't care for or whatever, big deal. Maybe you'll like the next one or the one after that? Personally, the magic hasn't gone for me. It never has, the general public may be less interested in some of their product, but they'll keep on churning out movies until one day, out of the blue, one will hit big. Then all of the critics and online pundits will declare triumphantly that the magic has again returned! People will cheer and message boards will be flooded with posts as to how great it is to have the magic back once more. To the rest of us, we will sit back and smile, not because this intangible quality known as 'the magic' has returned, but because the people have returned for some of the magic.

[Lars Vermundsberget]

The Disney "ages" the way I see it:

I'll start at the beginning.

Pre-history - early 1920s-1928 (before MM).

"Real" history begins - 1928 (MM and sound).

Golden Age - according to Ernest Rister starts in 1933 with the pigs, as good a starting point as any.

End of Golden Age - 1942.

(This is THE Golden Age and has artistically not been surpassed since - IMO.)

War/post-war - ~1942-1949. Hard time for all - but despite lower budgets a lot of creativity at Disney.

Silver Age? - 1950s. Another Golden Age, but less golden...

"Cheaper times" - 1960s. Disney expanding in various directions, animation is no longer the most important thing - there is less of it and it's technically simpler.

Post-Walt - 1970s. Last works of Walt's own men.

Around 1980 is one low point in this history.

New generation starting to flourish in the 1980s.

New Golden Age 1989-94.

Dark Age? - 1995-present. This is not quite fair, of course, as a lot of good animation work has been done and considerable technological progress has been made over this past decade in a number of quite successful animated features. But it's also during these years that Disney animation has been accused of over-using formulas and catering to the "fast buck". It seems that the magic is gone somehow and now Disney is apparently discontinuing traditional animation.

To me this could also seem like an end to the Disney history.

[mvealf]

It seems that the magic is gone somehow and now Disney is apparently discontinuing traditional animation. To me this could also seem like an end to the Disney history.

I compare this period to the decade after Walt died. At that time, the quality of animation was bad, and there was talk about whether or not they could even continue without Walt, and possibly shutting down the animation department permanently. That's when Don Bluth and 25 other animators walked out and formed their own company. The same type of uprising seems to be happening now that they have fired hundreds of animators.

So now we're in a period of post-Eisner (hopefully soon). I believe that once he is replaced, things will slowly start to turn around again. It seems to be the natural progression of things. The Disney company still claims that they will probably return to hand drawn animation at some point in the future.

[castleinthesky]

Well, I personally love the so called "Dark Ages" (from the 80s'). I believe that the Disney "Dark Ages" include Lilo and Stitich and on.

Let's not also forget that if you include inflation the "biggest flop" (The Black Cauldron) may not really be the biggest flop.

[DreamerQ18]

[/quote]
So now we're in a period of post-Eisner (hopefully soon). I believe that once he is replaced, things will slowly start to turn around again. It seems to be the natural progression of things. The Disney company still claims that they will probably return to hand drawn animation at some point in the future.[/quote]

I like your atittude you seem to be very postive on the subject of going Disney some day going back to hand drwan animation I know that there is nothing I wqould reather see more and it helps me except 3-D animation a little easier howevere only that condition.

[michelle]

Silver Age? - 1950s. Another Golden Age, but less golden...

I just had to say that that really cracked me up!

[DisneyChris]

I would say that from 1995 to now Disney 2-D Feature Animation has generally been in a dark age, but for "Other Animation", it's not too dark yet. I mean, they had the Pixar films during this period of time, and Finding Nemo broke box office records. But since Pixar is leaving Disney, I'm afraid Disney animation would REALLY enter a dark age after The Incredibles and Cars (unless Chicken Little succeeds, but I'm not too sure about that).

Here is my list of Disney Ages:

1923-1928 Starting Period
1928-1942 The First Golden Age
1942-1949 War Period
1950-1967 The Second Golden Age
1967-1989 The Dark Age
1989-2005 The Disney Renaissance (3rd Golden Age)
2005-2??? The 2nd Dark Age (just my prediction, could be wrong)