Yes, fantasy, fairy tales and animals were focused upon in the majority of Walt's work, but I still maintain that that is not the Disney Essence. If he was alive today, Walt would fully embrace CGI and do more contemporary movies (in fact, he did do one contemporary movie in 1961, 101 Dalmatians), and the only thing those movies would have in common with the actual movies he was deeply involved in would be the inventive and unique worlds he created that can entertain both the young and the young at heart, as I've said over and over. Why? Because Walt himself said this several times (and I think he'd know better than you), and he chose to adapt classic fairy tales the most because those old tales are some of the most influential, imaginative and family-friendly (well, perhaps not the Grimm Brothers versions of some of the tales, but certainly Charles Perrault's versions), and of course they were particularly close to him. I think Walt must have felt like a child again when he reread his younger self's favourite fairy tales as an adult, and perhaps he wanted others to feel like that. In other words, I think there might be a Disney Essence in some ways, but it's not what you think it is.Disney Duster wrote:Dr Frankenollie, yes, those things are not fairy tales, but something you may not understood is I was talking about the things Disney has done so many times and that are in common with their work to find what it was about Disney that linked those things. Another aspect of Disney that is in common with those things is the idea of classic and fantastic stories. Legends and fairy tales are similar to each other. Fantasy and adventure go hand in hand. Hence things like the almost mythical Davy Crockett and Zorro. Though to be honest, and it's okay if you get mad because I didn't point this out, but I was focusing on what the main part of the Disney company usually did, and that is their Disney films, mainly their Disney Animated Classics, because that's how this started, it was bout the idea of the Disney Classics being said to feel like a movie by a different studio. I feel Disney's live-action television and films were a little looser with the Disney essence to appeal to wider audiences and experiment. But none of this matters because the topic of issue was the Disney classic feel which isn't the same as their television (no one calls them Disney classics that I know of).
The Disney Essence Debate
-
Dr Frankenollie
- In The Vaults
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am
The Disney Essence Debate
I don't think me and Disney Duster and others should argue in the Mort and Brave threads anymore, so perhaps we can settle this whole Disney Essence debate once and for all here instead.
-
Super Aurora
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4835
- Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 am
OH YEAH!
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
-
DisneyAnimation88
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1088
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:00 am
The Disney essence, or whatever you want to want to call it, is subjective; there is something unique about Disney films but I don't think that it should govern the choices that the studio makes when they are making films. I believe this after reading a comment by Ron Miller, Walt's son-in-law, when he recalled the family watching To Kill A Mockingbird and when it ended, Walt was frustrated and said that he would love to make similar films but felt too constricted by the public image of Disney, which suggests to me that even Walt himself had issues with the "essence". Who knows if Walt would have liked CGI, I think he would have but none of us, even those who worked with him, cannot say so for certain.
We're not going to Guam, are we?
-
milojthatch
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2646
- Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:34 am
Let me give you a heads up here and now. Nothing, and I do mean nothing will ever truly be settled when it comes to entertainment preferences or online discussions boards. It's just the nature of the beast. Online boards, if you let them, will sap all your time and you can theoretically argue something on them very easily until the end of time! Preferences in entertainment will always be subject to the taste of who you are talking too.
That said, have fun! Lets see how this turns out!
That said, have fun! Lets see how this turns out!
____________________________________________________________
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.
-Walt Disney
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.
-Walt Disney
-
Duckburger
- Special Edition
- Posts: 547
- Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 4:23 am
- Location: The Netherlands
-
Elladorine
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4372
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:02 pm
- Location: SouthernCaliforniaLiscious SunnyWingadocious
- Contact:
-
Disney Duster
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 14016
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: America
Re: The Disney Essence Debate
Actually, Dr Frankenollie here has done something that has made me feel so much better, I don't think this will turn out all bad like people feared. Sorry, popcorn lovers!
I feel like with everything that's been said, I am a little closer to getting to what the Disney essence might be, but like I said before, I don't think I will ever be able to fully describe it.
First, there's words like "ineffable" and "je ne sais quoi" which roughly both mean "things that are unique and can't be described in words". Actually, the essence of what makes anything unique can't and shouldn't be described, as then it could so easily be stolen and used in something else.
To be honest, there's this big thing I never told anyone here, and that is: because so many people have tried to explain why (they think) the things I believe in don't exist, I have listened to them and it has messed with me a bit. They never made me stop believing in what I do, but it has become harder for me to, so my desire to figure out what Disney is is even more frustrating for me (and unfortunately, also for everyone else).
I chose to use the word "Disney essence" in the first place because it was first coined by another member here, and I chose to use that word because I thought if another member had used it, that might mean other people would more easily understand what I'm talking, better than if I came up with my own word. It doesn't seem that that worked out, but anyway...
I want to believe in the Disney essence because I want to believe that if the Disney company is to keep continuing, it will stay how it was always meant to be. I believe it's possible to watch or listen to or experience lots of things from Disney's past and get a feel of what all those things have in common, or get a feel for what Disney is, and then make more things with that Disney feel, so that they can rightly be called Disney.
I don't want Disney to just be an empty name that doesn't mean anything and a bunch of people in charge just do whatever they want as long as it's family friendly, not specifically Disney, but just family friendly, like so many other things are. It's something I don't think anyone has ever thought would happen, but some things that have happened with Disney over the years has made me fear it's quite possible, and it may have already happened with quite a few things of the company's.
Disney has done fairy tales, fantasy, talking animals, nature, organic things, good winning over evil, art, classic stories and legends, traditionalism (and I'm sure some other things I've forgotton) so, so, so many times over and over again in so many things that I can't ignore that they all seem a part of what Disney is. A part of what makes the Disney essence.
I believe Walt Disney would use some CGI and some contemporary things, but along with the other things I mentioned to make it be Disney. For CGI, I think the ballroom in Beauty and the Beast, the carpet in Aladdin, or making the CGI look like a painting like Glen Keane wanted for Rapunzel sounds like exactly the kinds of things Walt would do with it. Or for contemporary settings, Lady and the Tramp was modern day, but it had this very traditonal, romantic, nostalgic feel, also with the fantasy of talking dogs falling in love. And 101 Dalmatians was set in a city known for being classy and romantic and also had a talking dog fantasy and a villain who rode her car in fantastic, impossible ways. The art styles of the films were like illustrations or painted works that are timeless instead of contemporary stuff (and the slightly more contemporary style of 101 Dalmatians was not liked by Walt, indicating he liked the prettier, older, painted looks) But all these films can be described as having Disney magic and it fits them.
I think I believe in something people have long given up on, and that is the idea of the Disney magic that is only in Disney films and makes them unique. Some people have said it's just nostalgia, but I think they only say that because they have given up on the idea of Disney magic being real, like the common adult's cynical view that's it's all only for marketing.
Well, like Walt said for himself, I will not be a cynical adult. I will continue to believe in the Disney magic and Disney essence no matter how hard it is, even with people pointing out in debates how impossible or wrong it seems. It really does hurt me to think of Disney as having no essence, that people think any other studio's film could be the same as a Disney one because Disney has no essence that makes them unique in a Disney way.
As it is, what I mainly do is I just wait and see what new film or other thing comes from Disney, and if something doesn't feel "Disney" about it to me, then I say why I think so, and this sometimes pulls up the Disney essence debate, which I don't even really want to. As I said, I can't really describe it fully, it's just that as each new thing from Disney comes out, I try to describe the specific aspects of the Disney essence I feel that thing may be failing to reach. I may be wrong, I may be right, but I just bring it up and we discuss it.
I think at the Disney studio, they should simply try and feel what Disney is and intend to make things Disney when they make something there. Or, if that doesn't quite work, they could simply come up with their ideas like they always do, and then, but then ask themselves if it feels Disney to them or seems to fit alongside the other past Disney films.
I honestly can't believe sometimes that I'm the only one who notices how certain films of theirs have had things in common for so long, and they mess up on those things in their new films.
I will say, though, that the whole Rapunzel/Tangled issue that almost everyone here got upset about at least does show me that everyone here sort of has a sense of the Disney essence, of what Disney should do to make a film be Disney. At least that gives me a glimmer of hope that people are aware of some kind of way Disney is and should continue to be, so that they keep their identity and aren't just a name that can be slapped onto anything.
I feel like with everything that's been said, I am a little closer to getting to what the Disney essence might be, but like I said before, I don't think I will ever be able to fully describe it.
First, there's words like "ineffable" and "je ne sais quoi" which roughly both mean "things that are unique and can't be described in words". Actually, the essence of what makes anything unique can't and shouldn't be described, as then it could so easily be stolen and used in something else.
To be honest, there's this big thing I never told anyone here, and that is: because so many people have tried to explain why (they think) the things I believe in don't exist, I have listened to them and it has messed with me a bit. They never made me stop believing in what I do, but it has become harder for me to, so my desire to figure out what Disney is is even more frustrating for me (and unfortunately, also for everyone else).
I chose to use the word "Disney essence" in the first place because it was first coined by another member here, and I chose to use that word because I thought if another member had used it, that might mean other people would more easily understand what I'm talking, better than if I came up with my own word. It doesn't seem that that worked out, but anyway...
I want to believe in the Disney essence because I want to believe that if the Disney company is to keep continuing, it will stay how it was always meant to be. I believe it's possible to watch or listen to or experience lots of things from Disney's past and get a feel of what all those things have in common, or get a feel for what Disney is, and then make more things with that Disney feel, so that they can rightly be called Disney.
I don't want Disney to just be an empty name that doesn't mean anything and a bunch of people in charge just do whatever they want as long as it's family friendly, not specifically Disney, but just family friendly, like so many other things are. It's something I don't think anyone has ever thought would happen, but some things that have happened with Disney over the years has made me fear it's quite possible, and it may have already happened with quite a few things of the company's.
Disney has done fairy tales, fantasy, talking animals, nature, organic things, good winning over evil, art, classic stories and legends, traditionalism (and I'm sure some other things I've forgotton) so, so, so many times over and over again in so many things that I can't ignore that they all seem a part of what Disney is. A part of what makes the Disney essence.
I believe Walt Disney would use some CGI and some contemporary things, but along with the other things I mentioned to make it be Disney. For CGI, I think the ballroom in Beauty and the Beast, the carpet in Aladdin, or making the CGI look like a painting like Glen Keane wanted for Rapunzel sounds like exactly the kinds of things Walt would do with it. Or for contemporary settings, Lady and the Tramp was modern day, but it had this very traditonal, romantic, nostalgic feel, also with the fantasy of talking dogs falling in love. And 101 Dalmatians was set in a city known for being classy and romantic and also had a talking dog fantasy and a villain who rode her car in fantastic, impossible ways. The art styles of the films were like illustrations or painted works that are timeless instead of contemporary stuff (and the slightly more contemporary style of 101 Dalmatians was not liked by Walt, indicating he liked the prettier, older, painted looks) But all these films can be described as having Disney magic and it fits them.
I think I believe in something people have long given up on, and that is the idea of the Disney magic that is only in Disney films and makes them unique. Some people have said it's just nostalgia, but I think they only say that because they have given up on the idea of Disney magic being real, like the common adult's cynical view that's it's all only for marketing.
Well, like Walt said for himself, I will not be a cynical adult. I will continue to believe in the Disney magic and Disney essence no matter how hard it is, even with people pointing out in debates how impossible or wrong it seems. It really does hurt me to think of Disney as having no essence, that people think any other studio's film could be the same as a Disney one because Disney has no essence that makes them unique in a Disney way.
As it is, what I mainly do is I just wait and see what new film or other thing comes from Disney, and if something doesn't feel "Disney" about it to me, then I say why I think so, and this sometimes pulls up the Disney essence debate, which I don't even really want to. As I said, I can't really describe it fully, it's just that as each new thing from Disney comes out, I try to describe the specific aspects of the Disney essence I feel that thing may be failing to reach. I may be wrong, I may be right, but I just bring it up and we discuss it.
I think at the Disney studio, they should simply try and feel what Disney is and intend to make things Disney when they make something there. Or, if that doesn't quite work, they could simply come up with their ideas like they always do, and then, but then ask themselves if it feels Disney to them or seems to fit alongside the other past Disney films.
I honestly can't believe sometimes that I'm the only one who notices how certain films of theirs have had things in common for so long, and they mess up on those things in their new films.
I will say, though, that the whole Rapunzel/Tangled issue that almost everyone here got upset about at least does show me that everyone here sort of has a sense of the Disney essence, of what Disney should do to make a film be Disney. At least that gives me a glimmer of hope that people are aware of some kind of way Disney is and should continue to be, so that they keep their identity and aren't just a name that can be slapped onto anything.
Last edited by Disney Duster on Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Wonderlicious
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:47 am
- Location: UK
- Contact:
milojthatch wrote:Let me give you a heads up here and now. Nothing, and I do mean nothing will ever truly be settled when it comes to entertainment preferences or online discussions boards. It's just the nature of the beast. Online boards, if you let them, will sap all your time and you can theoretically argue something on them very easily until the end of time! Preferences in entertainment will always be subject to the taste of who you are talking too.
That said, have fun! Lets see how this turns out!
Exactly. Now let's all listen to some soul:
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/un63LEAN22E" frameborder="0"></iframe>
Potentially fitting lyrics for this topic as well.
-
Scarred4life
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1410
- Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 12:18 pm
-
disneyboy20022
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 6868
- Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:17 pm
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/X8u7px_GzWQ" frameborder="0"></iframe>Goliath wrote:We already have a thread like this. It's called...
"Disney Essence" and it was started by...
Disney Duster!
Want to Hear How I met Roy E. Disney in 2003? Click the link Below
http://fromscreentotheme.com/ThursdayTr ... isney.aspx
http://fromscreentotheme.com/ThursdayTr ... isney.aspx
-
Dr Frankenollie
- In The Vaults
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am
Re: The Disney Essence Debate
My connection was down, so I haven't been able to reply in over a day... 
Basically, Disney Duster, I don't know what to make of your essay of a reply, but even though you mention it at one point as being something others frequently say, you are clouded by your nostalgia, and rather unfortunately, I think that's why you disliked Tangled and why I'm sure you'll dislike a great many other Disney features yet to come.
As difficult as it can be, you should go into every Disney movie with an open mind; you obviously want to see a traditional Disney feature, hand-drawn and using talking animals, songs, princesses and many fantasy elements, but you'll never see something that exceeds your expectations, as sad as this is. Why? Because many of the things that you claim are part of the Disney Essence reappeared in the Princess and the Frog and Tangled-moreso in the Princess and the Frog, which despite sporting the majority of your 'Disney Essence' elements was far from perfect.
Your problem, Disney Duster, is that you put Disney on too high of a pedestal. Try and grasp the harsh reality that Walt has been dead for nearly fifty years, and that the Disney Studio/Company has always tried to make money as well as entertain, as is plainly obvious. The closest thing Disney has ever had to a certain 'essence', at least in Walt's era, is the ability to entertain, excite and enchant both kids and adults, and through Pixar at the very least, this much simpler kind of 'Disney Essence' is kept alive.
I still don't understand why you *want* Disney to have an essence that makes it different to everything and anything else, even Pixar. Your first and only post in this thread shows quite clearly that you're not sure of what you're talking about, and I'm not sure of what you're talking about either.
Basically, Disney Duster, I don't know what to make of your essay of a reply, but even though you mention it at one point as being something others frequently say, you are clouded by your nostalgia, and rather unfortunately, I think that's why you disliked Tangled and why I'm sure you'll dislike a great many other Disney features yet to come.
As difficult as it can be, you should go into every Disney movie with an open mind; you obviously want to see a traditional Disney feature, hand-drawn and using talking animals, songs, princesses and many fantasy elements, but you'll never see something that exceeds your expectations, as sad as this is. Why? Because many of the things that you claim are part of the Disney Essence reappeared in the Princess and the Frog and Tangled-moreso in the Princess and the Frog, which despite sporting the majority of your 'Disney Essence' elements was far from perfect.
Your problem, Disney Duster, is that you put Disney on too high of a pedestal. Try and grasp the harsh reality that Walt has been dead for nearly fifty years, and that the Disney Studio/Company has always tried to make money as well as entertain, as is plainly obvious. The closest thing Disney has ever had to a certain 'essence', at least in Walt's era, is the ability to entertain, excite and enchant both kids and adults, and through Pixar at the very least, this much simpler kind of 'Disney Essence' is kept alive.
I still don't understand why you *want* Disney to have an essence that makes it different to everything and anything else, even Pixar. Your first and only post in this thread shows quite clearly that you're not sure of what you're talking about, and I'm not sure of what you're talking about either.
-
disneyboy20022
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 6868
- Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:17 pm
Regarding "The Disney Essence" that I think applies to this whole...Madness
Why do we go on and on the talk of the magical and controversial conspiracy/mythical/legend/ Great Pumpkin/ bigfoot is real/Walt's next to Austin Powers freeze dried/ etc etc.and I want to know the eral of the question...of Will this ever stop...it goes on and on my friends....and it's driving me nuts like Lamb Chop making Sherri Lewis nuts on a song...
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VZNaecq_rpU" frameborder="0"></iframe>
This is the Topic that never ends......
EDIT. I noticed this Disney Essence talk was going on again in during a Cars 2 discussion.....so I did post that in there but I removed it and put it here because this is the thread it should be in........I'm about to try to invest/invent or look to see how to remove Disney Essence Derailment powder
EDIT #2
And Here I thought the Blu ray vs DVD derailments were heated and out of control...heck this is worse
Why do we go on and on the talk of the magical and controversial conspiracy/mythical/legend/ Great Pumpkin/ bigfoot is real/Walt's next to Austin Powers freeze dried/ etc etc.and I want to know the eral of the question...of Will this ever stop...it goes on and on my friends....and it's driving me nuts like Lamb Chop making Sherri Lewis nuts on a song...
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VZNaecq_rpU" frameborder="0"></iframe>
This is the Topic that never ends......
EDIT. I noticed this Disney Essence talk was going on again in during a Cars 2 discussion.....so I did post that in there but I removed it and put it here because this is the thread it should be in........I'm about to try to invest/invent or look to see how to remove Disney Essence Derailment powder
EDIT #2
And Here I thought the Blu ray vs DVD derailments were heated and out of control...heck this is worse
Want to Hear How I met Roy E. Disney in 2003? Click the link Below
http://fromscreentotheme.com/ThursdayTr ... isney.aspx
http://fromscreentotheme.com/ThursdayTr ... isney.aspx
-
Sky Syndrome
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1187
- Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:07 am
- Location: Maine
-
disneyboy20022
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 6868
- Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:17 pm
Heath AnyoneSky Syndrome wrote:I wish Disney Essence was a bag of high quality milk chocolate pieces in shapes of Walt and Mickey. Mmmm.
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonliebi ... 844458686/" title="Heath - Walt Disney Characters molded in milk chocolate bar wrapper - 1970's by JasonLiebig, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3355/584 ... 3b521f.jpg" width="349" height="500" alt="Heath - Walt Disney Characters molded in milk chocolate bar wrapper - 1970's"></a>
Want to Hear How I met Roy E. Disney in 2003? Click the link Below
http://fromscreentotheme.com/ThursdayTr ... isney.aspx
http://fromscreentotheme.com/ThursdayTr ... isney.aspx
-
Elladorine
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4372
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:02 pm
- Location: SouthernCaliforniaLiscious SunnyWingadocious
- Contact:
-
Wonderlicious
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:47 am
- Location: UK
- Contact:
-
DisneyAnimation88
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1088
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:00 am
There's no Disney essence talk, Disney Duster said that Pixar is bad because it confuses people into thinking that Walt Disney founded Pixar and that is confuses people into believing that Pixar is better than Disney. Thankfully he hasn't made any mention of "the essence" just yet in that thread, just tried to explain why he believes that Pixar is bad.disneyboy20022 wrote:EDIT. I noticed this Disney Essence talk was going on again in during a Cars 2 discussion
We're not going to Guam, are we?
-
Disney Duster
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 14016
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: America
Re: The Disney Essence Debate
Dr Frankenollie, all I can say is I completely disagree with most of what you said. You see...I think there's a Disney essence in almost the same way that...anything that has it's own name has it's own distinction, seperate from everything else. This is true, right? Disney has it's own unique identity and qualities, right? That's what I'm really talking about, except that when Walt made his studio, he was able to choose to make his studio about something, to decide what characteristics it would have, and then pass it on to every person who worked at the studio after he died.
Like, when other people would offer projects, sometimes Walt would say "I don't think that's the right fit for our studio", showing what I mean, that the studio is a certain something (I call it the Disney essence) that means only certain things should be done there, certain Disney things.
As for Tangled and The Princess and the Frog, you brought up two great examples. The reason I have the problem with both movies is they didn't have all the elements that make the Disney essence. In the past, every fairy tale that Walt Disney made was set in the country that the fairy tale "supposedly" came from, was set around that time, long ago, and they were fairly close to the original stories, and kept close to the original title and the original backgrounds of the characters.
The Princess and the Frog changed all this by being modern and twisting the story. It was set in a time and place much more modern than the long ago European kingdoms that the Frog Prince tale came from, it twisted the story so that the princess had to become a frog, et cetera. With Tangled, the main characters all had their backgrounds changed, even the prince changed into a thief! And then the title was changed to something not even recognizable of the original title. Neither felt like Disney's past fairy tales, at least not completely.
Now, I would accept the Princess and the Frog a little more because I could see it as them doing their own original story that is just kinda like The Frog Prince. It's just that Walt Disney always made the fairy tales be the actual stories, instead of doing an different story slightly based on the fairy tale.
This doesn't even just go for fairy tales, it goes for all of Walt's films which were based on books or legends, too. He was slightly looser with very few of some films based on stories, but not nearly as loose as these two films were!
And I don't want to see a film that has all princesses and talking animals, just that kind of thing! Things that seem to fit alongside those things, things set in nature or fantasy, not sci-fi weirdness or something.
But something you said is true. If Disney did these un-Disney things, I probably will not be happy with a lot of their future things. But there is still hope, because even Glen Keane is still there and he wanted to make Rapunzel be a very traditional, very Disney type of fairy tale, and if people like him are still there in the future, there's still hope, unless people above them will always, always crush their ideas like they did with Rapunzel.
And Walt only made money to make more art. He made art to make money and money to make art. Making money was only to keep the art up at his studio. That's not how it is at Disney now.
So Pixar doesn't have the Disney essence. They may have the ability to make people feel like kids again, not the enchantment word, though, because the enchantment thing is more a Disney thing, but maybe some other words you said.
What I don't think you understand is the need for things to have their own identity. If Pixar had the same identity as Disney...wtf would be up with that?! When I say Disney essence I mean the Disney identity, the things they do that no one else does, at least no one else can do exactly the way they do it. And that "way" may be a way that is hard to describe, and maybe we can never figure it out, but that doesn't mean we can't tell, "Hey, this film, this attraction, this thing just doesn't fit the Disney essence/identity. It just doesn't feel Disney". Which is all I've really been trying to do all along.
Like, when other people would offer projects, sometimes Walt would say "I don't think that's the right fit for our studio", showing what I mean, that the studio is a certain something (I call it the Disney essence) that means only certain things should be done there, certain Disney things.
As for Tangled and The Princess and the Frog, you brought up two great examples. The reason I have the problem with both movies is they didn't have all the elements that make the Disney essence. In the past, every fairy tale that Walt Disney made was set in the country that the fairy tale "supposedly" came from, was set around that time, long ago, and they were fairly close to the original stories, and kept close to the original title and the original backgrounds of the characters.
The Princess and the Frog changed all this by being modern and twisting the story. It was set in a time and place much more modern than the long ago European kingdoms that the Frog Prince tale came from, it twisted the story so that the princess had to become a frog, et cetera. With Tangled, the main characters all had their backgrounds changed, even the prince changed into a thief! And then the title was changed to something not even recognizable of the original title. Neither felt like Disney's past fairy tales, at least not completely.
Now, I would accept the Princess and the Frog a little more because I could see it as them doing their own original story that is just kinda like The Frog Prince. It's just that Walt Disney always made the fairy tales be the actual stories, instead of doing an different story slightly based on the fairy tale.
This doesn't even just go for fairy tales, it goes for all of Walt's films which were based on books or legends, too. He was slightly looser with very few of some films based on stories, but not nearly as loose as these two films were!
And I don't want to see a film that has all princesses and talking animals, just that kind of thing! Things that seem to fit alongside those things, things set in nature or fantasy, not sci-fi weirdness or something.
But something you said is true. If Disney did these un-Disney things, I probably will not be happy with a lot of their future things. But there is still hope, because even Glen Keane is still there and he wanted to make Rapunzel be a very traditional, very Disney type of fairy tale, and if people like him are still there in the future, there's still hope, unless people above them will always, always crush their ideas like they did with Rapunzel.
And Walt only made money to make more art. He made art to make money and money to make art. Making money was only to keep the art up at his studio. That's not how it is at Disney now.
So Pixar doesn't have the Disney essence. They may have the ability to make people feel like kids again, not the enchantment word, though, because the enchantment thing is more a Disney thing, but maybe some other words you said.
What I don't think you understand is the need for things to have their own identity. If Pixar had the same identity as Disney...wtf would be up with that?! When I say Disney essence I mean the Disney identity, the things they do that no one else does, at least no one else can do exactly the way they do it. And that "way" may be a way that is hard to describe, and maybe we can never figure it out, but that doesn't mean we can't tell, "Hey, this film, this attraction, this thing just doesn't fit the Disney essence/identity. It just doesn't feel Disney". Which is all I've really been trying to do all along.