megustajake wrote:The animation style wasn't rich, the songs were minimal and bland, the story was shallow and the humor failed to amuse.
The Emperor's New Groove was appointed a lesser budget than the regular Disney feature, but I think criticising its animation for being less rich is a little silly. It makes up for that with some lovely character design and outstanding character animation by Dale Baer (for Yzma). Do you really require every animated film to be a visual tour-de-force, Jake? Let me tell you, the best character animation is determined by the animation acting and movement and not by the filters and effects applied to it and the dry-brush, and shadows and copious effects animation and the like.
As for the songs, do you seriously expect every Disney animated feature to be a musical!? Wouldn't you get sick doing nothing but musicals year in year out? The film has just the right amount of music.
Also, why weren't you amused with the humour? I thought it was the funniest thing I'd ever seen back in 2004.[/quote]
I think megustajake was saying it was not the Disney type of humour. At least, that's how it was for me. I thought the humor was hilarious, it really made me laugh...but it was more like Warner Brothers than Disney, and they've gotta stay Disney, don't you think?
What megustajake said actually points out, I think, how Disney changed from their Disney ways, a very bad thing.
Disney's Divinity wrote:Stitch's...final speech he gave was probably enough to put me off from watching it much.
YES!!!! That cheesy, hypocritical, out of nowhere, he-just-became-good-who-is-he-to-know-or-judge-what-good-family-is speech that was supposed to be like a big conclusion for the film!
Though Mother Gothel was good enough for me. Perhaps not the best villain but right behind my top favorites.
megustajake wrote:The animation style wasn't rich, the songs were minimal and bland, the story was shallow and the humor failed to amuse.
The Emperor's New Groove was appointed a lesser budget than the regular Disney feature, but I think criticising its animation for being less rich is a little silly. It makes up for that with some lovely character design and outstanding character animation by Dale Baer (for Yzma). Do you really require every animated film to be a visual tour-de-force, Jake? Let me tell you, the best character animation is determined by the animation acting and movement and not by the filters and effects applied to it and the dry-brush, and shadows and copious effects animation and the like.
As for the songs, do you seriously expect every Disney animated feature to be a musical!? Wouldn't you get sick doing nothing but musicals year in year out? The film has just the right amount of music.
Also, why weren't you amused with the humour? I thought it was the funniest thing I'd ever seen back in 2004.
^ This. And I think it was the Disney type of humour (if that type even excist), Yzma is one of my favorite characters ever. And I think it's good that they change the style/humour/etc of the Disney movies, because it doesn't have to be all the same to have a 'Disney feeling'.
Disney Duster wrote:I think megustajake was saying it was not the Disney type of humour. At least, that's how it was for me. I thought the humor was hilarious, it really made me laugh...but it was more like Warner Brothers than Disney, and they've gotta stay Disney, don't you think?
What megustajake said actually points out, I think, how Disney changed from their Disney ways, a very bad thing.
Disney's Divinity wrote:Stitch's...final speech he gave was probably enough to put me off from watching it much.
YES!!!! That cheesy, hypocritical, out of nowhere, he-just-became-good-who-is-he-to-know-or-judge-what-good-family-is speech that was supposed to be like a big conclusion for the film!
He could know what a good family is despite being good a short time. Lilo didn't give up on him and Nani supported her for wanting to help Stitch even though Nani had mixed feelings about him.
DisneyFan09 wrote:I agree with Pleakley. Although Lilo was somewhat a brat, she was still the most likeable character in the film. Much more relatable than Stitch. The film focused too much about him and not enough about Lilo.
I like Lilo and Stitch but I feel it was trying too hard to be hip. They advertised and portrayed Stitch as a hip and cool character. The teaser trailers illustrated that. I found the film off-putting for that reason.
Last edited by The_Iceflash on Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Disney Geek wrote:Another one of mine would be Fantasia 2000 It just didn't charm me anywhere near as much as the first one. I wish I could say why.
Because it's much too short; it uses awfully dated CGI-animation; it's nowhere near as innovative as the original; it focusses way too much on badly written slapstick comedy; and the best part of the movie is the segment from 1940.
DisneyFan09 wrote:Haven't we discussed the former issue before, Goliath? Besides, we're just giving our subjective opinion, so why should it be seen as false?
I don't know we've discussed this before. I don't keep track. There's nothing false about your opinion of Lilo & Stitch being disappointing to you. If it was disappointing to you, it was. No arguing there. Can't be argued even. A matter of opinion. However, the idea that Lilo and Stitch, the characters, had no real connection or dynamic, is just not supported by the movie itself. That's not an opinion, that's something that's a fact taken from the actual movie.
The_Iceflash wrote:I like Lilo and Stitch was trying too hard to be hip. They advertised and portrayed Stitch as a hip and cool character. The teaser trailers illustrated that. I found the film off-putting for that reason.
Wait... what? You dislike a movie based on how it was marketed?
Last edited by Goliath on Thu Jun 16, 2011 4:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Disney Geek wrote:Another one of mine would be Fantasia 2000 It just didn't charm me anywhere near as much as the first one. I wish I could say why.
Because it's much too short; it uses awfully dated CGI-animation; it's nowhere near as innovative as the original; it focusses way too much on badly written slapstick comedy; and the best part of the movie is the segment from 1940.
Super Aurora wrote:you didn't think firdbird was that good?
'Firebird' was good, but again, too short. Too much potential cut short there. 'Quantity' does not equal 'quality' most of the time, but that doesn't mean it could've been expanded. I liked 'Rhapsody in blue' the most, but that should've been made as a short subject instead of part of a Fantasia sequel. I mean, just compare the look of the sequel to the original: it's like comparing a direct-to-dvd cheapquel to an original Walt-era Classic.
Goliath wrote:I liked 'Rhapsody in blue' the most, but that should've been made as a short subject instead of part of a Fantasia sequel.
I agree with this. It was originally intended as a short but when Emperor's New Groove went on hiatus, Disney offered Eric Goldberg some artists to finish the segment on the condition it became part of Fantasia 2000. It's my favourite segment in Fantasia 2000 but I think it might have been better if had been extended a bit and made into a short as was intended.
The_Iceflash wrote:I like Lilo and Stitch but I feel it was trying too hard to be hip. They advertised and portrayed Stitch as a hip and cool character. The teaser trailers illustrated that. I found the film off-putting for that reason.
Wait... what? You dislike a movie based on how it was marketed?
Oh no, I still enjoyed the the film but it's marketing and the trying to be/acting "hip" tone of the film/the portrayal of Stitch put a bit of a damper on it. It's hard to completely dislike a film with "Hawaiian Roller Coaster Ride" in it though.
I feel like Stitch's character in the film was similar to that of Jar Jar Binks in Star Wars Episode 1. I don't know, it's hard to explain...
I agree that Fantasia 2000 had a lot of missed potential. My least favorite is Piano Concerto No.1. The story is good enough, but it doesn't interact enough with the music. Not a good pairing IMO. The Firebird is the only one that really stands out from the others for its grand scope and to me, stunning animation, but we never see anything like Dance of the Hours, Night on Bald Mountain, and most certainly the Sorcerer's Apprentice.
The_Iceflash wrote:
I feel like Stitch's character in the film was similar to that of Jar Jar Binks in Star Wars Episode 1. I don't know, it's hard to explain...
DisneyFan09 wrote:
- Mulan; The same reason at Hercules. But I’ve learned to like it as well.
- Lilo & Stitch; Undoubtable one of the most overrated Disney movies ever made. The story had the potential to be really engaging and unique, yet it was destroyed by too many plot holes and an incoherent script. Besides, there was a real lack of connection and dynamic between the two title characters.
Really? "Mulan" is an awesome film and before "Princess and the Frog" and "Tangled," "Lilo and Stitch" was the last great Disney film. Both "Mulan" and "Stitch" are at worst the tops of he "B-list" Disney films, but really belong more at the bottom of the "A-list" Disney films.
The_Iceflash wrote:
I feel like Stitch's character in the film was similar to that of Jar Jar Binks in Star Wars Episode 1. I don't know, it's hard to explain...
Where is all this dislike for Stitch coming from? He was one of the best Disney characters of the last decade, if not the best, hands down! I do feel that Disney pushed him too much, I'll give you that, but he was far to awesome to be compared to Jar Jar Binks. I mean really!
____________________________________________________________
All the adversity I've had in my life, all my troubles and obstacles, have strengthened me... You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you.
The_Iceflash wrote: I feel like Stitch's character in the film was similar to that of Jar Jar Binks in Star Wars Episode 1. I don't know, it's hard to explain...
Excuse me??
Stitch is a hostile alien who eventually finds a purpose in life, as a friend to a lonely little girl (I can't explain it all too well). Jar Jar was just... annoying. I mean, really.
Comparing Stitch to an alien who makes little to no contribution to the plot is just... well.... irrelevant.
I'd say Brother Bear but I didn't have high expectations of it in the first place.
But seriously, I'd have to say Oliver & Company. Don't get me wrong as I do enjoy the film, but it's one of the few I never got to see a as a kid. I loved the soundtrack, had some of the books and merchandise, but didn't actually get to see it until its first home video release when I was about 20. I think waiting so long made my expectations a little high and initially watching it felt far more disappointing than I'd expected.
megustajake wrote:The animation style wasn't rich, the songs were minimal and bland, the story was shallow and the humor failed to amuse.
The Emperor's New Groove was appointed a lesser budget than the regular Disney feature, but I think criticising its animation for being less rich is a little silly. It makes up for that with some lovely character design and outstanding character animation by Dale Baer (for Yzma). Do you really require every animated film to be a visual tour-de-force, Jake? Let me tell you, the best character animation is determined by the animation acting and movement and not by the filters and effects applied to it and the dry-brush, and shadows and copious effects animation and the like.
As for the songs, do you seriously expect every Disney animated feature to be a musical!? Wouldn't you get sick doing nothing but musicals year in year out? The film has just the right amount of music.
Also, why weren't you amused with the humour? I thought it was the funniest thing I'd ever seen back in 2004.
[/quote]
It took me a few viewings of "Emperor's New Groove" to warm up to it but I hated it upon first viewing. Now I say it's so-so. Slightly better in comparison to Mark Dindal's other Disney film "Chicken Little". That tongue-in-cheek Shrek style humor only works if it stays fresh throughout. But in "Chicken Little" they were doing the same "anthropomorphic animals with very animal behavior" jokes throughout the entire movie and it driving me crazy.
I also have to agree with Fantasia 2000. Didn't like the celebrity segways. It made the whole thing too contemporary. Also I think some of the segments didn't go along with the selected music well and vice versa.
Oh dear, there's rather a lot of those for me. I do love Disney, but there's just a lot that have disappointed me.
Sleeping Beauty: I was expecting it to be like Cinderella. Instead, Aurora is a heroine so bland she shouldn't even count as a heroine. I hadn't exactly learned to appreciate animation for animation's sake yet, but now I appreciate the film as very beautiful visually. The story and characters, however, are still bland to me. The soundtrack is a high point, though not really for the songs (with Aurora's songs as the exception).
Atlantis: The Lost Empire: for some reason, Atlantis always seems to be grouped with Treasure Planet. I recently watched Treasure Planet and loved it, so I assumed Atlantis was of similar quality. Not so. Lifeless, unlikeable characters, glaring plotholes, horrible climax, etc. I will give points for interesting premise and twists and Kida. I tried to be open-minded about the visuals, but I just couldn't get into them. Many of the characters looked subpar for Disney. I really appreciate that they were trying to do something new, but, to me, Atlantis just didn't work.
The Little Mermaid: Now I realize it's an unsaid rule on UD not to criticize TLM, but I shall have to break it. There's a lot I love about TLM. Animation, music, premise, engaging (for the most part) characters. But there's some things I don't love about it too. For starters, the story. Or rather, Disney's version of it. If they wanted a happy ending, they shouldn't have touched TLM with a 10 foot pole. Andersen's TLM is an incredibly beautiful, lyrical tale with a sad ending. The Prince doesn't fall for the Little Mermaid, and she dies. While on land she endures constant pain. For the Little Mermaid, every step feels like she's walking on knives. And yet, in the Disney version Ariel has the time of her life on land, gets Prince Eric, and lives happily ever after (if you don't count the sequel). It bothers me. Then there's the climax with the gigantic Ursula and Prince Eric steering a ship into her while navigating a whirlpool. I've always thought that part was clumsy. I know no one will agree with me and will probably vociferously oppose me, but I'm not here to argue. I just thought, for once, someone might point out that TLM is not necessarily perfection incarnate.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame: This one I was disappointed with because I watched it thinking how unsuitable for children it was. I have yet to watch it as a movie, so I will reserve judgment on it.
Pinocchio: The same goes for Pinocchio as Hunchback.
Enchanted: I do like this movie, but I was initially very disappointed with the messy ending. Nancy did nothing wrong, yet she gets stuck with vapid Prince Edward. I'm still disappointed with it, but I've become resigned to the fact that Nancy was wronged.
The Princess and the Frog: It just wasn't everything it should have been. The humor, especially, is weak at best and beat-you-over-the-head dumb at worst (pun intended). It does have beautiful animation, some good songs, and a very likeable (and what's more, respectable) heroine, but overall, it's a weak addition to the Disney canon.
The Sword in the Stone: It's occasionally funny and has some good parts, but I find it hard to sit through. T. H. White's book is so much better.
The Black Cauldron: I dislike these for much the same reason as The Sword in the Stone and The Little Mermaid. It's nowhere near as good as its source material. I love Lloyd Alexander's Chronicles of Prydain and was very excited when I figured out there was a Disney movie based on The Black Cauldron. But I watched the movie and found it was more based on The Book of Three and was an extremely poor adaptation at that. Taran served well enough, but Eilonwy is a shadow of her real self. Gurgi also was far more unlikeable than his book self. It's been a long time since I've seen it, so that's about all I can say.
And I know, most of the reasons I am disappointed with Disney movies is because they aren't faithful adaptations of source materials. But that's one of the main reasons I tend to dislike movies in general. It's just me.
