The Walt Era vs the Disney Renaissance

[Dr Frankenollie]

Which do you prefer? Which do you think was better? Just to clarify, when I say Disney Renaissance, I mean all the way up to Tarzan or Fantasia 2000. Although this is obviously focused on Disney Animated Classics, you can also consider live-action movies or non-DAC animation too.

Personally, I prefer the Walt era by a long, long, long mile. The Renaissance followed a lazy and repetitious formula, not just in terms of storytelling and musical style, but also when it comes to archetypal characters. Comparatively, when the Walt era was at its best (to me, that's 1937-1942) every film had a different, fresh flavour and style to it. Maybe it's down to nostalgia, but I think that the soft, storybook and richly detailed/coloured animation quality of the Walt-era to be far superior to the animation of the Renaissance, animation that in the likes of Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast could often deviate awkwardly off-model. Yes, the 50's features featured human characters that were too realistic and life-like, but the Xerox features of the 60's balance these issues out with a strange but lovely and creative sketchy, 'imperfectly perfect' tone. Admittedly, the music of the Renaissance is better and sometimes the characters are more developed, although the Walt era is helped by featuring the best of the best when it comes to all Disney films: Dumbo, Fantasia and Mary Poppins.

[qindarka]

I prefer the Renaisance by a good bit though as time goes by, I am able to appreciate the older films more and more, especially the animation quality.
I agree that the Renaissance can be formulaic but still I like pretty much all the films during that period whereas there are a few in the Golden Age that I don't think I will ever be able to fully warm to such as Snow White and Fantasia. Certain later films like The Sword in the Stone and Peter Pan were pretty poor efforts.

It is rather annoying when people on the Internet seem to focus solely on the Renaissance era films though at the expense of the Walt era ones.

Maybe it's just my more modern sensibilities. Films like Snow White feel pretty poorly paced to me. Then again, I don't feel this way for most of them, so it's could be the movie's own fault.

[carolinakid]

Walt Era (1937-1967) all the way.

[Disney's Divinity]

Which do I prefer? The Renaissance. I naturally have a stronger connection to them because I grew up while they were being released and I was around during the buzz face when merchandise was everywhere for each film. I love nearly every film in this period (some more than others, of course, but the closest I come to dislike is Hunchback). The music was glorious, the characters were memorable (to me; most of my favorite characters come from the Renaissance, rather than the Walt Era), and while the stories could have been more diverse overall, I love most things to come from the Renaissance.

Which do I think was better overall? The Walt Era. The Renaissance had TLM through TLK, but most everything after that had some serious flaw or other. Not to mention they tried to hard too mimic Mermaid, B&tB and Aladdin to the point of causing audience fatigue. While the 50's-60's aren't perfect, I do find them superior to most films from Pocahontas and onwards.

I enjoy both, obviously, but I feel more attachment to all the films from the Renaissance, whereas I feel strongly about some Walt-era films, but not others. Even some of the Walt-era films that are considered masterpieces (Sleeping Beauty, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Bambi, Peter Pan and The Jungle Book, for instance) I feel very little towards, even though I respect the work there.

[Dr Frankenollie]

Bumpy-wumpy.

I was hoping this would cause a debate.

I agree that the Renaissance can be formulaic but still I like pretty much all the films during that period whereas there are a few in the Golden Age that I don't think I will ever be able to fully warm to such as Snow White and Fantasia. Certain later films like The Sword in the Stone and Peter Pan were pretty poor efforts.

The Sword in the Stone was NOT a poor effort. It was episodic, yes, but that criticism can be given to most features from this period. The designs were lazy and most visuals unappealing. But what about the excellent animation of hands and bodies? What about the music? What about lively characters like Archimedes, Madam Mim and Merlin (characters a thousand times more entertaining and compelling than anyone in Pocahontas)? Wart is a badly-written and underdeveloped protagonist, but that's par for the course with the Walt era. Nevertheless, I do have to agree with you about Peter Pan; besides being awfully racist and featuring the poorest animation of the 50's features, Peter Pan, Wendy and Tinkerbell are annoying little bastards. Thank goodness for Hook and Smee, otherwise it would be virtually unwatchable.

I understand dislike for Fantasia, and even Snow White, grudgingly.

[qindarka]

The Sword in the Stone was NOT a poor effort. It was episodic, yes, but that criticism can be given to most features from this period. The designs were lazy and most visuals unappealing. But what about the excellent animation of hands and bodies? What about the music? What about lively characters like Archimedes, Madam Mim and Merlin (characters a thousand times more entertaining and compelling than anyone in Pocahontas)? Wart is a badly-written and underdeveloped protagonist, but that's par for the course with the Walt era. Nevertheless, I do have to agree with you about Peter Pan; besides being awfully racist and featuring the poorest animation of the 50's features, Peter Pan, Wendy and Tinkerbell are annoying little bastards. Thank goodness for Hook and Smee, otherwise it would be virtually unwatchable.

Wart being a poorly written character is a pretty big deal, isn't it? Sure, other Disney characters around that period may be bland, but they at least fulfill their parts in the story. The Sword in the Stone is supposedly about a young boy learning lessons in order to prepare him for his destiny of becoming King. Yet, at no point do I get the feeling that Wart has learnt anything at all. And Wart's reward at the end comes after a falling out with Merlin and a rejection of his teachings. What was the point of all those lessons then?

Lively characters can only go so far when the movie is so fundamentally flawed. Not as if all the humor is great either, the squirrel sequence, which takes up a lot of time, is incredibly stupid and insulting, trying to portray stalkerish behaviour as 'love'. Of course, it's 'love'when the pretty squirrel does it, when the fat one does pretty much the exact same thing, its presented as being repulsive. Lovely messages there. And to top it off, Merlin delivers a hamfisted line about 'love' being the most powerful force in the universe.

I don't think it's a terrible movie, or even a bad one, it is generally entertaining outside the ridiculous squirrel segment. Still a poor effort though.

Also, I don't actually dislike Snow White. I even acknowledge it as a good movie but think there are enough problems with it thatI won't consider it as any form of masterpiece.

[carolinakid]

I don't necessarily find Peter Pan racist but reflecting the stereotypes of Indians at the time. I'm not familiar with the Barrie play/book ,but how are the Indians portrayed in that? Is there anything Disney could have done at the time, other than omitting the whole Indian subplot, which would satisfy the PC crowd of today?

[Prince Edward]

If I had to chose between the two I would have preferred the 90's. I watched The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King, Pocahontas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, Mulan and Tarzan in cinema, and I rememeber it was a huge deal each time Disney released a new animated film. The VHS release of it was also a highpoint of the year. Those movies made my childhood and made me a Disney fan, so they will always have a special place in my Disney loving heart. Much of the credit for that I give to the soundtracks by Alan Menken.

I did also get a chance to see some of the Walt era movies re-released in theaters, and I got many of them on VHS, but I only really loved a few of them. Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella being my absolute Walt era favorites. Now that I am an adult I have gotten all the classic's on DVD (and in later years Blu-ray) and I have seen all of the Walt Disney Animation Studios movies, but I will always have a stronger connection to the movies that was released for the first time when I was a child.

[L&P on the Scales]

I've actually got a stronger connection to the Walt era films than the renaissance era films despite being in the very demographic Disney were aiming for at the time. Y'see, cinema-going is pretty dear around these parts, and always has been, so I never went to see new releases in the theatres. They did buy them when they came out on VHS, but they also did that for the older films. It's just by chance that I grew a greater affinity for the Walt era ones moreso.

Although I do remember my Ariel and Pochahontas dolls. They were awesome because of the animal sidekicks they came with.

[Disney Duster]

This didn't cause much debate because this can is virtually no contest. It is almost agreed by everyone that the Walt era had a bigger, more consistent list of classics than the Renaissance. I mean, I know some people don't want this to prove anything, but a much larger portion of Platinum and Diamond Editions came from the Walt era.

I am dismayed when I realize that people prefer the big four of the Renaissance to the Walt era because they grew up with those films and those films are more a product of their generation. I consider it unique when people prefer the Walt era films (like I do) because they don't have those advantages.

I prefer the Walt era, because it has Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and Bambi, and would say it is the better era, too, but perhaps only because it had so many hits while the Renaissance devolved into the mess it did.

[Dosencola]

From an artistic point-of-view I prefer Walt's era, as they really put much more effort into each movie, as can be seen in numerous documents. But from the story and final composition point-of-view I think, the guys of the 80's and 90's reached a new level Disney had never even skratched.

[Dr Frankenollie]

Wart being a poorly written character is a pretty big deal, isn't it? Sure, other Disney characters around that period may be bland, but they at least fulfill their parts in the story. The Sword in the Stone is supposedly about a young boy learning lessons in order to prepare him for his destiny of becoming King. Yet, at no point do I get the feeling that Wart has learnt anything at all. And Wart's reward at the end comes after a falling out with Merlin and a rejection of his teachings. What was the point of all those lessons then?

Wart's reward isn't a result of his falling out with Merlin. His reward was inevitable from the start; Merlin's lessons are there to teach him to be a better king, as they give him a better understanding of the world around him. Initially, Wart has awfully low self-esteem, and Merlin tries to teach him about the importance of "brains over brawn" and so forth. Admittedly, we don't see the effects of these lessons on Wart, but they are really present for two purposes: (1), entertaining the audience, and (2) teaching the audience. It doesn't matter that Wart is a poor character when he's meant to be a surrogate for the audience, or at least the children in the audience, in the same way Watson is a surrogate for the reader in the Sherlock Holmes stories. So, as Wart is nothing more than a plot device - like Aurora in Sleeping Beauty - he does fulfil his role in the story.

Lively characters can only go so far when the movie is so fundamentally flawed. Not as if all the humor is great either, the squirrel sequence, which takes up a lot of time, is incredibly stupid and insulting, trying to portray stalkerish behaviour as 'love'. Of course, it's 'love'when the pretty squirrel does it, when the fat one does pretty much the exact same thing, its presented as being repulsive. Lovely messages there. And to top it off, Merlin delivers a hamfisted line about 'love' being the most powerful force in the universe.

I don't think the humour in Disney films actually feature 'messages'. You might as well criticise Winnie the Pooh, because it presents a lazy, fat and selfish character who takes advantage of hard workers like Rabbit as a hero, and said hard workers as joyless pessimists who deserve their problems. The fat squirrel isn't mean to suggest or convey anything, it's merely designed to be silly fun, and because of Merlin's awkwardness and flustered response, it works. The line about love's power is cringe-worthy, but it's added as a way to try and justify the sequence.

But from the story and final composition point-of-view I think, the guys of the 80's and 90's reached a new level Disney had never even skratched.

I disagree. The Walt era went beyond them before they were even made. The experimental, unique films like Fantasia are superior to the repetitive formulas and recycled characters of the Renaissance, even from a final composition POV.

[qindarka]

Lively characters can only go so far when the movie is so fundamentally flawed. Not as if all the humor is great either, the squirrel sequence, which takes up a lot of time, is incredibly stupid and insulting, trying to portray stalkerish behaviour as 'love'. Of course, it's 'love'when the pretty squirrel does it, when the fat one does pretty much the exact same thing, its presented as being repulsive. Lovely messages there. And to top it off, Merlin delivers a hamfisted line about 'love' being the most powerful force in the universe.

I don't think the humour in Disney films actually feature 'messages'. You might as well criticise Winnie the Pooh, because it presents a lazy, fat and selfish character who takes advantage of hard workers like Rabbit as a hero, and said hard workers as joyless pessimists who deserve their problems. The fat squirrel isn't mean to suggest or convey anything, it's merely designed to be silly fun, and because of Merlin's awkwardness and flustered response, it works. The line about love's power is cringe-worthy, but it's added as a way to try and justify the sequence.

Oh, I'm not particularly scandalized or offended. Just think it is ridiculously stupid and unfunny, especially since efforts were made to make the squirrel's affections seem touching.

Even if the sequence was meant solely as humor (which it isn't), it still fails badly at it.

[qindarka]

I disagree. The Walt era went beyond them before they were even made. The experimental, unique films like Fantasia are superior to the repetitive formulas and recycled characters of the Renaissance, even from a final composition POV.

Outside of Fantasia, which I don't particularly like but will admit is tremendously ambitious, were the films in this period really that experimental and unique?

Wart's reward isn't a result of his falling out with Merlin. His reward was inevitable from the start; Merlin's lessons are there to teach him to be a better king, as they give him a better understanding of the world around him. Initially, Wart has awfully low self-esteem, and Merlin tries to teach him about the importance of "brains over brawn" and so forth. Admittedly, we don't see the effects of these lessons on Wart, but they are really present for two purposes: (1), entertaining the audience, and (2) teaching the audience. It doesn't matter that Wart is a poor character when he's meant to be a surrogate for the audience, or at least the children in the audience, in the same way Watson is a surrogate for the reader in the Sherlock Holmes stories. So, as Wart is nothing more than a plot device - like Aurora in Sleeping Beauty - he does fulfil his role in the story.

His position is not equivalent to that of Aurora. Aurora is indeed, nothing more than a plot device in the movie, the filmmakers were probably aware of this and intended it that way. She is not the protagonist of the movie. Wart, however, is the protagonist, has many time more screen-time, and was meant to learn messages, go through a character arc etc. I won't give the movie a pass for having him be so badly written as to be nothing more than an audience surrogate. It's really not an excuse for shoddy characterization.

He isn't fulfilling his role in the story, because for the story to work, Wart must have actually learned certain lessons from Merlin, in order to help prepare him for Kingship, none of which is successfully executed. What you are describing is the filmmakers using Wart as a device to fulfill their intentions to entertain/educate the audience which is separate from the story of the movie itself.

I will admit the movie does have entertainment value outside the squirrel scene. I'm fine with movies that exist for no other purpose than entertainment, but if they try to impart messages and tell a proper story then end up botching it, I will view it as a serious flaw.

Edit: Sorry for the doublepost. Meant to type this out then edit it into my previous post and ended up forgetting.

[Disney's Divinity]

I am dismayed when I realize that people prefer the big four of the Renaissance to the Walt era because they grew up with those films and those films are more a product of their generation. I consider it unique when people prefer the Walt era films (like I do) because they don't have those advantages.

I can't speak for everyone, but that's not the case with me at all. Although there's a certain edge automatically given to films that were released while I was young, they sat side-by-side on the shelf with VHS's of Cinderella, Snow White, etc. I just don't enjoy the Walt-era as much, overall. I think there are many films from the Renaissance that are equal to or superior to many films from the Walt Era (which I find unique considering most people assume what is old is better automatically). There's just less of them, which is expected when you compare a 20+-year period strongly lead by one individual, to a 12-year span of films with many different people behind the scenes.

Wart, however, is the protagonist, has many time more screen-time, and was meant to learn messages, go through a character arc etc.

I think Merlin is more of the protagonist in this film, since he receives more screentime and most of the film is built around his attempts to teach Wart. At least, Merlin and Wart are both protagonists here. I don't find any fault with Wart's characterization in the film just because he didn't "learn" the lessons Merlin was trying to teach him (I don't believe that to be true, but for argument's sake), considering Arthur in most legends is an idiot. This is why Merlin stays around to assist him in the end, because he has the same flaws as most men of the time (that he would prefer to sword-fight than to think). I always thought they intended it that way, considering even the final scene has Merlin and Wart at odds with one another over his crown.

[PatrickvD]

I always saw Merlin as the main protagonist. Especially because I grew up watching the Dutch version and it's titled 'Merlin, The Sorcerer' over here.

An accurate title I think.

[Dr Frankenollie]

Outside of Fantasia, which I don't particularly like but will admit is tremendously ambitious, were the films in this period really that experimental and unique?

YES, a thousand times YES, YES, YES! Besides the first five, all of which were clearly experimental and unique (particularly Snow White, for obvious reasons): The Three Caballeros (blending live-action with animation), Alice in Wonderland, Sleeping Beauty, 101 Dalmatians and The Sword in the Stone. Heck, virtually all of them have something new and ambitious about them.

Which Renaissance films were experimental and unique? The Little Mermaid experimented with the formula originally, but only Rescuers Down Under is unique at all. Arguably, The Lion King could be viewed as experimental and unique in some aspects, although many elements follow the familiar Renaissance formula.

His position is not equivalent to that of Aurora. Aurora is indeed, nothing more than a plot device in the movie, the filmmakers were probably aware of this and intended it that way. She is not the protagonist of the movie. Wart, however, is the protagonist, has many time more screen-time, and was meant to learn messages, go through a character arc etc. I won't give the movie a pass for having him be so badly written as to be nothing more than an audience surrogate. It's really not an excuse for shoddy characterization.

He isn't fulfilling his role in the story, because for the story to work, Wart must have actually learned certain lessons from Merlin, in order to help prepare him for Kingship, none of which is successfully executed. What you are describing is the filmmakers using Wart as a device to fulfill their intentions to entertain/educate the audience which is separate from the story of the movie itself.

As others have said, it could reasonably be argued that Merlin is the true protagonist of Sword in the Stone, in the same sense that the Fairies are the true protagonists of Sleeping Beauty. And in that case, he fulfils his role efficiently, going through a character arc (albeit a poorly resolved one). As for your statement that the purposes of the film are 'separate from the story...itself', the story itself is used for those purposes (to educate and entertain). It can't be dismissed as something disconnected, because the purposes of the film are directly linked to how the story plays out, and the story effectively suits those purposes.

One more thing: even if he is the protagonist, Wart's role can still be nothing more than an audience surrogate. It's the same with Harry Potter in the early Potter books. He's the protagonist, yet his main purpose is to be the eyes of the audience. He doesn't necessarily have to go through a character arc. It would make the film emotionally stronger and improve character depth, but the film is designed as little more than a comedy, and for me succeeds excellently.

[mdseverin]

[quote="Dr Frankenollie"]Which Renaissance films were experimental and unique? The Little Mermaid experimented with the formula originally, but only Rescuers Down Under is unique at all. Arguably, The Lion King could be viewed as experimental and unique in some aspects, although many elements follow the familiar Renaissance formula.
[/quote]

I don't have an opinion either way as far as which is better, but I want to point out that the use of computer animation began with the Renaissance films and I think that qualifies as experimental and unique. During this time Disney started using pop artists to sing a song from the movie, which leads up to Tarzan where Phil Collins music/voice is actually used inthe film. That is unique as well. Another unique feature in the Renissance films is the many non-white princesses (Jasmine, Pocahontas, and Mulan).

[L&P on the Scales]

During this time Disney started using pop artists to sing a song from the movie, which leads up to Tarzan where Phil Collins music/voice is actually used inthe film. That is unique as well.

I don't it's that unique. As said I in the 1950s topic, there was that one song that was sung by Peggy Lee (who was a pop star of the 1950s, since "pop" just means popular), and you can't forget about ol' King Louis from the Jungle Book.

[Dr Frankenollie]

I don't have an opinion either way as far as which is better, but I want to point out that the use of computer animation began with the Renaissance films and I think that qualifies as experimental and unique. During this time Disney started using pop artists to sing a song from the movie, which leads up to Tarzan where Phil Collins music/voice is actually used inthe film. That is unique as well. Another unique feature in the Renissance films is the many non-white princesses (Jasmine, Pocahontas, and Mulan).

Computer animation didn't begin with the Renaissance films; if we're talking about DACs alone, then it began with The Great Mouse Detective. But what about Tron?

Besides, the CGI used in those films was very fleeting and minor (e.g. the stairs in The Little Mermaid), whereas the experimental techniques shown throughout the Walt era - such as the Xerox process in 101 Dalmatians, a defining part of that particular feature - were much more saliently used.

When I say 'unique' and 'experimental', I'm really looking at the film as a whole. Alice in Wonderland's story was unique amongst features, almost entirely lacking any sort of emotion or 'heart' and being a mostly story-less, episodic tale. At first glance, it could be seen as an extension of the package features, although when you look at their segments individually, it's evident that those feature more heart and story than Alice does. Another excellent example is 101 Dalmatians, set in the modern day with an animation style and process completely different to anything that came before. To a lesser extent, Sleeping Beauty is unique and experimental amongst princess films, cutting back on sentiment and substituting it with a very gothic, eerie and unsettling sort of atmosphere, not to mention being a princess film where the backgrounds are less 'European storybook' and more 'painted masterpiece'.

Although certain elements of one or two Renaissance features brought something fresh and different to the table, they had much less of an impact on the film as a whole than the unique elements of the Walt era. Although Tarzan's music and songs are admittedly unique, it still follows a weary formula that all Renaissance films loyally stick to.

As for the fact that many female protagonists in the Renaissance were non-white: they were still fairly cookie-cutter in terms of personality, whereas protagonists of the Walt era were much more varied (Pinocchio, Jumbo Junior Cinderella, Lady, the Three SB Fairies, Mowgli...). Besides, if most of the Renaissance's heroines were non-white, that doesn't make their respective films particularly unique, does it?