DVDizzy Forum

I think someone's got a pair of rose tinted glasses on!

Yes Walt was a visionary, but that does not mean he was a God who got everything right! If you'll remember Walt made some 'bombs' too.

ichabod wrote:I think someone's got a pair of rose tinted glasses on!

Yes Walt was a visionary, but that does not mean he was a God who got everything right! If you'll remember Walt made some 'bombs' too.

True, but he learned by experience what types of movies engaged audiences and which ones didn't. Walt's main justification for shelving Chanticleer was that it's almost impossible to make a rooster (often a symbol of arrogance and superiority) sympathetic, no matter how hard you try, and if you can't have a sympathetic lead character, then your movie won't engage audiences. He used the same justification for shelving the "Reynard the Fox" project, and sure enough, when the studio used pretty much the same character as Robin Hood after Walt's death, their movie garnered a fairly tepid response.

Some other things that Walt learned the hard way:
- Walt never updated his "concert film" in his lifetime. After Fantasia's harsh initial reception, he perhaps thought that a new edition would be received just as poorly.
- He vowed to streamline the feature animation process in the wake of the mediocre initial response to Sleeping Beauty, which took a number of years to make.
- He found that the "magic" length of a successful animated film was around an hour and a half, which is about how long most kids can be kept still and entertained. It's no wonder that the next film after the two-hour Fantasia was the little-over-an-hour Dumbo.

Now, of course, Walt Disney was not and is not the only one with good ideas regarding feature animation technique. But even today's people at Disney are probably going to have a better idea than us as to what movie concepts would ultimately work.

Karushifa wrote:

ichabod wrote:I think someone's got a pair of rose tinted glasses on!

Yes Walt was a visionary, but that does not mean he was a God who got everything right! If you'll remember Walt made some 'bombs' too.

True, but he learned by experience what types of movies engaged audiences and which ones didn't. Walt's main justification for shelving Chanticleer was that it's almost impossible to make a rooster (often a symbol of arrogance and superiority) sympathetic, no matter how hard you try, and if you can't have a sympathetic lead character, then your movie won't engage audiences. He used the same justification for shelving the "Reynard the Fox" project, and sure enough, when the studio used pretty much the same character as Robin Hood after Walt's death, their movie garnered a fairly tepid response.

Some other things that Walt learned the hard way:
- Walt never updated his "concert film" in his lifetime. After Fantasia's harsh initial reception, he perhaps thought that a new edition would be received just as poorly.
- He vowed to streamline the feature animation process in the wake of the mediocre initial response to Sleeping Beauty, which took a number of years to make.
- He found that the "magic" length of a successful animated film was around an hour and a half, which is about how long most kids can be kept still and entertained. It's no wonder that the next film after the two-hour Fantasia was the little-over-an-hour Dumbo.

Now, of course, Walt Disney was not and is not the only one with good ideas regarding feature animation technique. But even today's people at Disney are probably going to have a better idea than us as to what movie concepts would ultimately work.

Excellent response! Also, Disney's "bombs" were more of a product of them being ahead of their time. I could imagine sitting there and watching Fantasia on its initial release. Nothing like it had been done before, and I'd probably think it a bit pretentious. Time proved everyone, including Walt, wrong, though. Time hasn't done the same for Rock-A-Doodle or Robin Hood, and I highly doubt it will do it for Chicken Little.

Prince Eric wrote:Disney's "bombs" were more of a product of them being ahead of their time. I could imagine sitting there and watching Fantasia on its initial release. Nothing like it had been done before, and I'd probably think it a bit pretentious. Time proved everyone, including Walt, wrong, though. Time hasn't done the same for Rock-A-Doodle or Robin Hood, and I highly doubt it will do it for Chicken Little.

Good point on the distinction between Fantasia and other animated bombs. I didn't intend any criticism of Fantasia, which is in fact one of my favorite Disney films, but the entire medium of animation was perceived differently in 1940 than it is now. Back then, animation was still seen primarily as a way to illustrate subjects that weren't all too serious, i.e. the animated shorts of the time which were rife with slapstick humor and broadly entertaining material. Keep in mind that the very first feature-length work of animation, Snow White, had only been released three years previously.

Nowadays, you have whole festivals dedicated to alternative animation, and experimental animation running on TV all the time (think Adult Swim or, more mildly, shows like Samurai Jack). The environment for animators is a little more forgiving now, as animation has truly been accepted as an art form in addition to an entertainment medium. So it's not quite fair in at least some respects to compare the initial bombing of Fantasia to that of a wide-release CGI film (take your pick which one).

Prince Eric wrote: Again, what school of movie history did you go to? Critics never hated any of the movies you just mentioned.

Yeah, they did. Well maybe nobody "hated" them, but for movies that are considered "classics" today, the reviews were pretty mediocre.

Prince Eric wrote:Shrek and Finding Nemo were original, that's all I'll say on that, because I'm confident in my own assessment of originality.

I'm also pretty sure 2099net and I confident in our own assessment as well.

Prince Eric wrote: Also, Disney's "bombs" were more of a product of them being ahead of their time. I could imagine sitting there and watching Fantasia on its initial release. Nothing like it had been done before, and I'd probably think it a bit pretentious. Time proved everyone, including Walt, wrong, though. Time hasn't done the same for Rock-A-Doodle or Robin Hood, and I highly doubt it will do it for Chicken Little.

Well, I agree that Chicken Little has a few problems and it won't age very well, but remember, Emperor's New Groove didn't do very well, but it's gotten a big fan club with strong video sales and high ratings when they play the movie on the Disney Channel.

Same goes to Brother Bear, it bearly(excuse the pun) made sucessful box office scores, but now, Kenai and Koda are two of DCA's unofficial mascots.

So I still say a couple of Disney's films have grown in time.

Karushifa wrote: Nowadays, you have whole festivals dedicated to alternative animation, and experimental animation running on TV all the time (think Adult Swim or, more mildly, shows like Samurai Jack). The environment for animators is a little more forgiving now, as animation has truly been accepted as an art form in addition to an entertainment medium. So it's not quite fair in at least some respects to compare the initial bombing of Fantasia to that of a wide-release CGI film (take your pick which one).

Great point, in fact, I'm with Netty, who believe that television has made 2D animation "unpopular".

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:Well, I agree that Chicken Little has a few problems and it won't age very well, but remember, Emperor's New Groove didn't do very well, but it's gotten a big fan club with strong video sales and high ratings when they play the movie on the Disney Channel.

Although it may not seem so if you just look at the final domestic box office talley, The Emperor's New Groove actually had a very interesting theater run. Its opening weekend was paltry (probably at least partially due to relatively low-key marketing), but it thereafter became the Little Movie That Could, displaying respectable legs (i.e. strength in theaters after opening weekend) and eventually ending up with almost $90 million when most box office analysts didn't think it would reach $50 million.

Still, I'd call TENG a cult hit more than anything else, since a lot of its 11th hour support came from adult audiences - not typically a specific target of Disney films. It's a good example of how positive word-of-mouth can help the right film.

Karushifa wrote:

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:Well, I agree that Chicken Little has a few problems and it won't age very well, but remember, Emperor's New Groove didn't do very well, but it's gotten a big fan club with strong video sales and high ratings when they play the movie on the Disney Channel.

Although it may not seem so if you just look at the final domestic box office talley, The Emperor's New Groove actually had a very interesting theater run. Its opening weekend was paltry (probably at least partially due to relatively low-key marketing), but it thereafter became the Little Movie That Could, displaying respectable legs (i.e. strength in theaters after opening weekend) and eventually ending up with almost $90 million when most box office analysts didn't think it would reach $50 million.

Still, I'd call TENG a cult hit more than anything else, since a lot of its 11th hour support came from adult audiences - not typically a specific target of Disney films. It's a good example of how positive word-of-mouth can help the right film.

Exactly, I fully agree. However, even if something has built up an audience over time, I don't think that's indicative of quality. It just means people have slowly begun to take notice of the movie.

Oh, and I maintain that none of those movies were badly reviewed. Unless you have some database you are looking at Timon/Pumba Fan that I don't know about and that's were you're taking your information from, most of the comments you have been making lately are completely erroneous. (That means incorrect. )

Prince Eric wrote:Oh, and I maintain that none of those movies were badly reviewed. Unless you have some database you are looking at Timon/Pumba Fan that I don't know about and that's were you're taking your information from, most of the comments you have been making lately are completely erroneous. (That means incorrect. )

Well, pretty much EVERY movie is going to have at least some negative reviews. Even Princess Mononoke, which many animation aficianados consider to be an excellent film, had some negative reviews (although to be honest...I read a couple such reviews, and at several points I wondered whether the reviewers had actually watched the movie ). So it's not really a challenge to find bad reviews of any particular movie...all you have to do is go to a review archive site like Rotten Tomatoes.

Now, sometimes there is a difference between critics' opinions and those of the public. For example, The Hunchback of Notre Dame was widely praised by film critics, but was not received as well by mainstream audiences, some of whom were perhaps expecting a milder, more family-friendly film (eternal damnation and sexual obsession are pretty heavy themes for 6-year-olds, after all). And, of course, there are every year movies which are critically reviled and yet rake in lots of money, too many to list. So perhaps taking public opinion into consideration in addition to the opinions of film critics can allow the successes or failures of various films to be judged more objectively.

I am well aware that Disney knew his stuff, that is not up for arguement, however not everything he made was a success, that is fact!

Also when the Disney studios did have a hit, it was not purely down to Disney, it was due to the talented staff that were involved in it's production!

In fact Walt had very little to do with many of his animated films after the mid 1950s. So the success of films such as 101 Dalmatians or The Jungle Book was more due to the efforts of the story writers, animators and other people involved, as Walt's priority at this stage was Disneyland, TV and in his later years The Florida Project!.

PrinceEric wrote:Also, Disney's "bombs" were more of a product of them being ahead of their time. I could imagine sitting there and watching Fantasia on its initial release. Nothing like it had been done before, and I'd probably think it a bit pretentious. Time hasn't done the same for Rock-A-Doodle or Robin Hood, and I highly doubt it will do it for Chicken Little.

That statement baffles me. It is almost as though you are chiding the people of the 40s for not accepting films such as Fantasia, branding them almost phillestines. Did you ever think that in 50 years time, people could be branding people like you who criticized Chicken Little a phillestine?

The truth of the matter is that not all of Disney's films live action or animated were greeted warmly by critics or fans.

In partcular some of the more scathing reviews include:

Fantasia:

I left the theatre in a condition bordering nervous breakdown. I felt as though I had been subjected to an attentat, to an assault, but I had no desire to throw myself before the two masters who were responsible for the brutalization of sensibility in this remarkable nightmare.

The Three Caballeros:

...a mixture of atrocious taste, bogus mysticism and authentic fantasy, guarenteed to baffle any not hopelessly enchanted with the word "Disney".

Treasure Island:

Yo Ho Ho and a Coca-Cola

That one always makes me smile!


Alice in Wonderland:

...there is a blins incapacity to understand that a literary masterwork cannot be improved by the introduction of shiny little tunes, and touches more suited to a flea circus than to any major imaginative effort.

The Story of Robin Hood:

The most that can be said for it is unmemorable

In truth Walt had more flops and mixed welcome films than he had hits, with both the critcs AND the public!

Ichabod, not trying to argue, but where did you find those reviews? Just wondering, that's all...

ichabod wrote:I am well aware that Disney knew his stuff, that is not up for arguement, however not everything he made was a success, that is fact!

Also when the Disney studios did have a hit, it was not purely down to Disney, it was due to the talented staff that were involved in it's production!

In fact Walt had very little to do with many of his animated films after the mid 1950s. So the success of films such as 101 Dalmatians or The Jungle Book was more due to the efforts of the story writers, animators and other people involved, as Walt's priority at this stage was Disneyland, TV and in his later years The Florida Project!.

I for one never once denied that the Disney Company of Walt's time had a number of films that were not received as well back then as they are today. Pinocchio (the character) was criticized for being unlikable and a brat. Fantasia was criticized by music experts and the public alike. Sleeping Beauty took way too long to make and did not boast as many memorable characters and songs as the other "princess" films of the time. Song of the South caused a controversy even in its day.

I think the greatest challenge for Walt was to try to keep an appropriate balance of experimentation and giving audiences what they wanted. So for almost every "experiment" film (Fantasia, Saludos Amigos, etc.), there was a landmark film that audiences DID love (Cinderella, Snow White, Dumbo). You're right in that the sole credit of each film does not go to Walt, but he had a pretty good idea most of the time as to which movie concepts would work and which ones would not. For instance, he resisted the pressure to adapt Alice in Wonderland for years because he felt it wasn't the right story for him, i.e. it was too disjointed and confusing and complicated to translate to an hour-and-a-half movie. Sure enough, the movie received harsh reviews upon initial release, so perhaps in some respect Walt's first instinct was right. Also, see the Chanticleer and Reynard the Fox examples I mentioned earlier, which were perhaps the most famous examples of heading a mediocre movie concept off at the pass.

It's interesting to look at the lineup of films after Walt's death. Bedknobs & Broomsticks is basically Mary Poppins Lite. The Aristocats is 101 Dalmatians with feline protagonists. Robin Hood is the discarded Reynard the Fox character with recycled animation from other films. It perhaps wasn't until The Rescuers that Disney animators started to come up with some wholly new concepts that weren't borrowing from the good old days. And I'm not talking about writing or animation style, but rather mimicking entire plot elements of past films. While there's definitely something to admire in all the films I listed, one can definitely tell that something was missing.

I REALLY like the way ichabod attacks!

Also, again about Chicken Little, while it has a few minor problems so it won't age wonderfully, but Chicken Little is already becoming an unofficial Disney mascot. Ever been to DCA recently? Tons of CL merchandise there! Also remember the Oscars? Guess who made the appearance!

So I say CL is starting to grow on popularity a little bit.

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:I REALLY like the way ichabod attacks!

Also, again about Chicken Little, while it has a few minor problems so it won't age wonderfully, but Chicken Little is already becoming an unofficial Disney mascot. Ever been to DCA recently? Tons of CL merchandise there! Also remember the Oscars? Guess who made the appearance!

So I say CL is starting to grow on popularity a little bit.

Why should anyone have to attack? This is a civilized conversation. I agree, though, it's refreshing to have someone respond with logical and intelligent thinking.

FYI: Disney has always made it a marketing strategy to flood there stores and theme parks with the most recent Disney character. It happens after every movie, and always will. Also, Chicken Little made the Oscars because he's the only one who could be done in CGI, which was needed to maneuver around the stage. Duh.

Ichabod - I don't think myself or anyone here stated that every Walt picture was successful. No one even stated that he was soley responsible the the studio's success. Pointing that out doesn't really bring out much insight on anyone's behalf. The point EVERYONE in this thread has been trying to make in defense of Pixar is that Disney needs some type of creative revival...RIGHT NOW. Disney has dropped the ball too many times. I, personally, have given Disney too many chances and they've dashed my hopes each time. I like Treasure Planet and Brother Bear well enough, but they are not anywhere near the quality of Disney past. If Pixar needs to lead them by the hand to success, then so be it.

I also didn't call anyone a philistine. Are you trying to say that there's no such thing as the concept of being ahead of one's own time? If you are, then most people would beg to differ. I have no problem saying the people of the 40's, who were looking for escapism and whimsy during a time of crisis, would not find Fantasia accessible. That doesn't mean it was a bad movie, and like I said, time has proven otherwise. Believe me, I can pretty much bet anyone's life (except mine, way too important) that I won't be proven wrong in 50 years. It's just not going to happen.

Prince Eric wrote: Why should anyone have to attack? This is a civilized conversation. I agree, though, it's refreshing to have someone respond with logical and intelligent thinking.

Whatever! 2099net and I have had logical explanations.

Prince Eric wrote:FYI: Disney has always made it a marketing strategy to flood there stores and theme parks with the most recent Disney character. It happens after every movie, and always will. Also, Chicken Little made the Oscars because he's the only one who could be done in CGI, which was needed to maneuver around the stage. Duh.

It's quite obvious you are not a Disney Theme Park fan.

If you were, you would know, that there was/is almost NO Atlantis merchandise, Emperor's New Groove merchandise or Home on the Range merchandise.

They did have Treasure Planet "meet an greet" but after it floped, both Jim Hawkins and B.E.N were vanished from the parks.

Brother Bear and Chicken Little have both been released for quite a while now and the theme park stuff only continures to grow.

Also, they could've easily made Wallace and Gromit in CG. I mean Aardman is making their film "Flused Away" in CGI, so it could've been done on Oscar night?

Ichabod - I don't think myself or anyone here stated that every Walt picture was successful. No one even stated that he was soley responsible the the studio's success. Pointing that out doesn't really bring out much insight on anyone's behalf. The point EVERYONE in this thread has been trying to make in defense of Pixar is that Disney needs some type of creative revival...RIGHT NOW. Disney has dropped the ball too many times. I, personally, have given Disney too many chances and they've dashed my hopes each time. I like Treasure Planet and Brother Bear well enough, but they are not anywhere near the quality of Disney past. If Pixar needs to lead them by the hand to success, then so be it.

Really? I thought you really like Lilo and Stitch?

People are forgetting Disney can always make a comeback, and Meet the Robinsons, is at the moment a definate comeback as far as predictions go.

Pixar will run out of ideas eventually, in fact, some would argue they never had a lot of ideas.

That doesn't mean it was a bad movie, and like I said, time has proven otherwise. Believe me, I can pretty much bet anyone's life (except mine, way too important) that I won't be proven wrong in 50 years. It's just not going to happen.

I doubt that! I don't think you can argue with my latest Chicken Little arguement, unless you know more about Disney theme park history than me which I HIGHLY doubt!

Also, Brother Bear has already started to get a bigger audience and more lovers. Same with ENG! Treasure Planet I also think will get some better feedback as time goes on. I also think people will look upon "Chicken Little" and say, "That was a pretty fun movie, why didn't it do better?" 50 years from now. That's what happened to "Alice in Wonderland" which got WORSE reviews than CL during its first theatrical run.

So no, I wouldn't say you're completely right!

And why is a bunch more critisim and personal attacks important?

Prince Eric wrote: Oh, and I maintain that none of those movies were badly reviewed. Unless you have some database you are looking at Timon/Pumba Fan that I don't know about and that's were you're taking your information from, most of the comments you have been making lately are completely erroneous. (That means incorrect. )

Many Disney sources I have read claim Fantasia got bad reviews. George Lucas said himself that the original Star Wars got mixed reviews one its first theatircal run.

As for the other movies, well I've heard that they got negative reviews from various people who probably got them from relyable sources.

I don't think anyone can prove any of these movies DID have positive feedback at their time, unless you have movie reviews from newspapers stored all the way back since 1939!

Prince Eric wrote:Believe me, I can pretty much bet anyone's life (except mine, way too important) that I won't be proven wrong in 50 years. It's just not going to happen.

Dude, what PLANET do you live on?

Escapay

Escapay wrote:

Prince Eric wrote:Believe me, I can pretty much bet anyone's life (except mine, way too important) that I won't be proven wrong in 50 years. It's just not going to happen.

Dude, what PLANET do you live on?

Escapay

I live on the one with intelligent humanoid beings. Which one do you live on?

Timon/Pumba Fan - Just because a movie gains a larger fanbase is not indicative of good quality. That's common sense. You're really not making a point, just like you're not making a point making judgements on Meet the Robinsons BEFORE it has even started production. I do happen to have a source for past reviews all the way to 1939, and the archives of my UNIVERSITY library show that for the most part, all the films you mentioned recieved POSITIVE reviews. Scholarly research always beats hearsay factoids.

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:I REALLY like the way ichabod attacks!

I wouldn't necessarilly say it was an attack, I was just playing devil's advocate, putting forth a different set of opinions.

Prince Eric wrote:The point EVERYONE in this thread has been trying to make in defense of Pixar is that Disney needs some type of creative revival...RIGHT NOW.

I agree that Disney needs a kick up the butt, but I don't think creativity is the problem. I mean Disney needs help with forming characters creating sympathetic characters, and will fixing the holes that often litter areas of the script. I'm in no way denying there are problems, but in terms of creativity, IMO Disney has got all other competition beat! I whole heartedly share the view that Pixar are almost running to a formula as 2099net pointed out. However the charm of the characters masking the fact that the story is ho hum, and in places a rehash of something done before. I must be one of the few people to have honestly liked every one of Disney's 2000s movies (with Chicken Little being the weaker of the set by far, but still enjoyable).
Yes i can see in them plot holes and weakness of character, but the creativity and versatiltiy shown in swinging from sci fi adventure, to wild west whimsy has enchanted me in a way that no other studio has done, or any other Disney decade has done.

With my feelings towards Pixar's (in some places blatantly obvious) reuse of set ups, personality pairings, and comedy devices, I shudder to think of Pixar inflicting the same ideas upon Disney's movies. I would rather have Disney movies that showed originality and creativity that had low grosses and weak areas, that a big Disney hit, full of something we've all seen before. The exception being of course Chicken Little which obviously had been 'artistically borrowed' shall we say from the 'Dreck, S**t Tale, Crapagascar school of filmmaking.

PrinceEric wrote:Are you trying to say that there's no such thing as the concept of being ahead of one's own time?...That doesn't mean it was a bad movie, and like I said, time has proven otherwise.

No I'm not trying to say there's no such thing as being ahead of your time, and i truly believe that Walt was a visionary. I was merely playing Devil's advocate and simply trying to correct (the often skewed) view of most people that Everything Walt was instantly loved and was a hit. The above opinions from critics are not my views. Anyone who speaks to me in chat, will know that Fantasia, Alice in Wonderland and The 3 Caballeros are amongst my top 10 all time favourite Disney films! Each was truly ahead of its time.

Prince Eric wrote:Believe me, I can pretty much bet anyone's life (except mine, way too important) that I won't be proven wrong in 50 years. It's just not going to happen.

I wouldn't be so sure, not just yet at least.

Wonderlicious wrote:Ichabod, not trying to argue, but where did you find those reviews? Just wondering, that's all...

From perhaps the definitive Disney book ever, Leonard Maltin's 'The Disney Films', which goes through every Disney film explaining the plot, the film's production and explaining each work's strengths and weaknesses and showing the public and critical reactions, with many quotations from critic's reviews.

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:

Prince Eric wrote: Why should anyone have to attack? This is a civilized conversation. I agree, though, it's refreshing to have someone respond with logical and intelligent thinking.

Whatever! 2099net and I have had logical explanations.

Geez, I wish ALL of you guys would try to rein in some of this combative energy. It's getting somewhat tiresome. But, just a friendly suggestion

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:They did have Treasure Planet "meet an greet" but after it floped, both Jim Hawkins and B.E.N were vanished from the parks.

Brother Bear and Chicken Little have both been released for quite a while now and the theme park stuff only continures to grow.

Also, they could've easily made Wallace and Gromit in CG. I mean Aardman is making their film "Flused Away" in CGI, so it could've been done on Oscar night?

I don't really think that merchandise volume is a very accurate indicator of the overall quality of a film. I mean, look at all the dreck that came out with the Fantastic Four movie last summer. And yet, for all the merchandise push that film had, it was badly received by both critics and average movie-goers, and had something like a 25% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

Also, I suspect that Disney found Chicken Little to be a bit more marketable than Atlantis or Treasure Planet in terms of merchandise. CL is full of cute, kid-friendly characters that the tykes will actually want to buy plush toys and such of, whereas Atlantis and TP were targeted to a slightly older, predominantly male demographic that perhaps they thought was beyond the age of all but perhaps action figures. Of course, Disney is not too famous for producing suggestively violent, weapon-ridden action figures, thus leaving not too much left to offer (although I did pick up some Treasure Planet lapel pins in Animal Kingdom a couple of years ago).

Also...I don't need to see a CGI Wallace or Gromit on Oscar night to be convinced that Curse of the Were-Rabbit is a great film. Rendering those guys in CGI would be near blasphemy to some, I think

ichabod wrote:I agree that Disney needs a kick up the butt, but I don't think creativity is the problem. I mean Disney needs help with forming characters creating sympathetic characters, and will fixing the holes that often litter areas of the script. I'm in no way denying there are problems, but in terms of creativity, IMO Disney has got all other competition beat! I whole heartedly share the view that Pixar are almost running to a formula as 2099net pointed out. However the charm of the characters masking the fact that the story is ho hum, and in places a rehash of something done before. I must be one of the few people to have honestly liked every one of Disney's 2000s movies (with Chicken Little being the weaker of the set by far, but still enjoyable).
Yes i can see in them plot holes and weakness of character, but the creativity and versatiltiy shown in swinging from sci fi adventure, to wild west whimsy has enchanted me in a way that no other studio has done, or any other Disney decade has done.

With my feelings towards Pixar's (in some places blatantly obvious) reuse of set ups, personality pairings, and comedy devices, I shudder to think of Pixar inflicting the same ideas upon Disney's movies. I would rather have Disney movies that showed originality and creativity that had low grosses and weak areas, that a big Disney hit, full of something we've all seen before. The exception being of course Chicken Little which obviously had been 'artistically borrowed' shall we say from the 'Dreck, S**t Tale, Crapagascar school of filmmaking.

I think the biggest problem with Dsiney films in the past ten years has been execution. They have had plenty of good concepts for films, but as you stated, the character development and writing has not been as tight and clean as it could or should have been. With some films, it seems, they have almost gotten so caught up in the crafting of the actual animation that they left little time for really fleshing out the characters and plot.

As for the people faulting Pixar on this board for being "unoriginal"...you know...the difference here is that they can re-use elements from previous films and yet STILL make me care. Why? Because in each case I felt a genuine love for not only the animation, but the characters as well. Sure, some are weaker than others, but in no case (not even during A Bug's Life, which I consider to be the weakest Pixar film) did I find myself wishing the movie would hurry up and end for lack of concern over the character's fates. And let's not forget how many times Disney has gone to the well with similar ideas, especially the princess movie. From there we moved to the genre of "plucky, headstrong female protagonist with goofy animalian sidekick(s)". Be aware that this is a family movie market, where many people will in some ways keep coming back for the same things that they like, so if you can't take a wholly original concept and make people like that care about it, then what's the point?

So if you "shudder" to think just how HORRIBLE it would be for, Walt forbid, Pixar staff to start giving input on Disney films...just be aware that it could be MUCH worse. Disney could have gone the route of trying to make the next Shrek

Just to put my two cents in.....while I wont say that everything Walt did turned to gold or that he didn't have his share of failures....I find it interesting that the Disney films that are MOST revered are the ones that Walt had the MOST personal involvement in.

Karushifa wrote:So if you "shudder" to think just how HORRIBLE it would be for, Walt forbid, Pixar staff to start giving input on Disney films...just be aware that it could be MUCH worse. Disney could have gone the route of trying to make the next Shrek

Well, really, I think any external decision "forced" upon to the current Disney filmmakers is just as bad as the other. No artist should be forced to do anything. I know in reality the world is not like that, and I know Disney bigwigs have long forced the animation department to do things, for better (Aladdin - allegedly) or worse (most other films - allegedly), but the only way to get good movies is to let creators "create".

It's odd, because when the Pixar deal was announced, the selling point was it would cut away the endless forms of management, and let the creators work in a much streamlined and free environment. But now it seems that "the Pixar culture" means cut away the existing management, and impose yourself at the top.

And being as Walt's films have been brought up, I would like to add

I find it impossible to believe people here can, in all honestly and with a straight face, proclaim that the characters in Chicken Little have less character development i.e. likability, charisma and overall personality than those in such films as Sleeping Beauty, Peter Pan (although to some extent Hook and Tinkerbell save Pan) or The Sword In The Stone.

And for some reason, the worst offender, a film filled with nothing but shallow, 2D stereotypes Sleeping Beauty is the highest regarded. Yes, I know the backgrounds are beautiful, I know the animation is stlyish and fluid. But come on people, the story, such as it is, could be told on the back of a postcard, and none of the expended running time for the movie adds a single speck of personality to the characters. This film is filled with some of the most boring animated characters ever to be commited to film. And even Maleficent, who somehow got to be the number one villain on UD's Villain Countdown has no clearly defined motive or plan. She's literally just evil because... well, in Sleeping Beauty you're just evil or good. Don't bother explaining the whys and wherefors, because the characters won't stand up to even the smallest bit of self-examination, being as they have nothing to examine.

Yet, Sleeping Beauty is a beloved "Animated Classic". I keep hearing Sleeping Beauty underperformed on release (which I'm not so sure about) but if it did, don't you think Walt may have got it wrong? All the effort expanded on the visuals, and almost nothing on the scripting? Even the at-first promising climax just fizzles out.

I know times have changed and audiences expect more these days, but even then, compared to Walt's earlier films, Sleeping Beauty was written strictly with the kindergarten in mind.

Why do I mention this? Because obviously the technique of a film can overcome such obstacles. The designs, the backgrounds, the animation and yes, perhaps even the 'scope aspect ratio combine to seduce the audience to ignore the dullness of the scripting.

It's one thing not to like the film, but to label it as a trainwreck, fit only for burning or waste of time, is clearly overstepping the bounds of proportion.

And going back to Eric's point, yes I do think Chicken Little has a lot of British humour. It's a film which is basically about a looser. How many American films do that? And I don't mean a looser in the way Aladdin begins the film as a looser - a streetwise thief with more than a hint of "coolness" - I mean a true bullied at school, pushed around and abused looser. It's not something I see a lot of in American films or TV, where as such characters are common in British film and TV.

Add to this character one who is - gasp - ugly (an attribute rarely seen at all in US media) which doesn't get a "makeover" at the end and one who is (as I pointed out before in the same roundabout way as the film does) strongly hinted to be (sadly stereotypically) gay and you have three main characters who, sadly it would seem, the American audience fail to bond with, but can easily identify with the non-entities that inhabit Sleeping Beauty etc.