DVDizzy Forum

ce1ticmoon wrote:I suppose this is a bit off topic, but the only film I'm kind of iffy on as being included in the WDAS/WDFA official "canon" is Dinosaur. I'm not too clear about the history, but that was a Secret Lab film, which I think should be considered a different studio despite its relations to WDFA. Wasn't it retroactively added to the "list" as well?

As for the 2D rants being brought up here, I am recalling some fond memories of the "Disney Essence (TM)"... It's a different issue, yet very similar...

"Dinosaur" was included in the canon to make sure that "Tangled" would be the 50th Disney Animated Feature Film. Though they could've included either "Return to Neverland" or "The Jungle Book 2" as they were theatrical films even though they were made by Disneytoons, so that would've made more sense seeing as they were still Disney. But in all fairness, "Dinosaur" is actually a very good film and I don't mind it's inclusion in the canon.

At least Dinosaur didn't exist to replace Disney's entire 2D animation unit, which was the purpose of Chicken Little and for all of the CG films being made now. I look at Dinosaur as really a side-project and an experimental film of sorts, but at that time 2D animation was still very much Disney's main form of animation, so that makes Dinosaur an odd one as far as CG movies go. Unlike the others, it wasn't bad or harmful to Disney's 2D animation in any way. It was just something to see while waiting for Emperor's New Groove to come out.

2Disney4Ever wrote:At least Dinosaur didn't exist to replace Disney's entire 2D animation unit, which was the purpose of Chicken Little and for all of the CG films being made now. I look at Dinosaur as really a side-project and an experimental film of sorts, but at that time 2D animation was still very much Disney's main form of animation, so that makes Dinosaur an odd one as far as CG movies go. Unlike the others, it wasn't bad or harmful to Disney's 2D animation in any way. It was just something to see while waiting for Emperor's New Groove to come out.

And Emperor's New Groove was a huge dissapointment (at least to me anyway). The original concept of this film was called "Kingdom of the Sun" and was to be a grand epic with a powerful story much like "The Lion King" was before it. But the brass at the Mouse House decided that it might not be profitable enough so they wanted a more comic and hip treatment for the film. The original director was so incensed that he quit Disney over this. And I can't say I blame him.

Getting back on topic... it's clear that this current period is a New Rennaissance for Disney, or a Resurgence. Now let's just hope it lasts and we get good new films in the future. I'm still giving BH6 the benefit of the doubt, but still... I don't feel that Marvel has a place in the canon. It just doesn't feel like Disney. But then again, we did say the same thing about WIR before it came out, and that turned out quite well.

Angeldude98 wrote:

2Disney4Ever wrote:At least Dinosaur didn't exist to replace Disney's entire 2D animation unit, which was the purpose of Chicken Little and for all of the CG films being made now. I look at Dinosaur as really a side-project and an experimental film of sorts, but at that time 2D animation was still very much Disney's main form of animation, so that makes Dinosaur an odd one as far as CG movies go. Unlike the others, it wasn't bad or harmful to Disney's 2D animation in any way. It was just something to see while waiting for Emperor's New Groove to come out.

And Emperor's New Groove was a huge dissapointment (at least to me anyway). The original concept of this film was called "Kingdom of the Sun" and was to be a grand epic with a powerful story much like "The Lion King" was before it. But the brass at the Mouse House decided that it might not be profitable enough so they wanted a more comic and hip treatment for the film. The original director was so incensed that he quit Disney over this. And I can't say I blame him.

Eh, I kind of like Emperor's New Groove. I know all about the original concept of the movie, which I'm sure would have made a great Disney film, but I kind of look at this film the way I now look at Steven Spielberg's Freakazoid!, where it still came out an entertaining movie nonetheless despite being changed so drastically from it's original conception.

Also, I believe the real issue they were having with "Kingdom of the Sun" was story problems.

Yeah, I thought Kingdom of the Sun was having so many issues in terms of production that they basically retooled it to become Emperor's New Groove. Personally, I would have loved to see the original film, but honestly, I think TENG was better than most of their post-Lion King 90s films, and is one of the funniest comedy films I've ever seen.

As for adding Dinosaur to make Tangled the 50th, I guess that makes sense... But then they could have added Victory Through Air Power, which is actually a WDFA film. But I suppose they don't want a propaganda film in the list.

ce1ticmoon wrote:Yeah, I thought Kingdom of the Sun was having so many issues in terms of production that they basically retooled it to become Emperor's New Groove. Personally, I would have loved to see the original film, but honestly, I think TENG was better than most of their post-Lion King 90s films, and is one of the funniest comedy films I've ever seen.

It was a dissapointment because of what it could have been. I mean, I went to see it in theaters and I do own the DVD and Blu-ray. It wasn't bad... just dissapointing. I was expecting much more. I tend to prefer Disney movies with more emphasis on the story and serious elements than movies heavy on the comedy and slapstick (which is the genre that seems to be prevailing lately). The great Disney films of the classic era as well as the 90's rennaissance era had very serious plot elements, yet they did have great comedic moments to lighten up the mood (Snow White had the seven dwarfs' antics, Sleeping Beauty had the fairies' bickering, Beauty and the Beast had Cogsworth and Lumiere Bickering, The Lion King had Timon and Pumbaa, and even The Hunchback of Notra Dame had the Gargoyles and their silliness).
TENG was just constant comedy and it got a little tiring to me. Same thing happened with Hercules. I think it could have been WAY better if Hades had been made more menacing and less comedic, like Maleficent was. She is my favorite Disney villain! Yzma is just a villain wannabe in my book.

2Disney4Ever wrote:

Angeldude98 wrote: And Emperor's New Groove was a huge dissapointment (at least to me anyway). The original concept of this film was called "Kingdom of the Sun" and was to be a grand epic with a powerful story much like "The Lion King" was before it. But the brass at the Mouse House decided that it might not be profitable enough so they wanted a more comic and hip treatment for the film. The original director was so incensed that he quit Disney over this. And I can't say I blame him.

Eh, I kind of like Emperor's New Groove. I know all about the original concept of the movie, which I'm sure would have made a great Disney film, but I kind of look at this film the way I now look at Steven Spielberg's Freakazoid!, where it still came out an entertaining movie nonetheless despite being changed so drastically from it's original conception.

Also, I believe the real issue they were having with "Kingdom of the Sun" was story problems.

Still, I think I would've loved to see the original "Kingdom of the Sun". And I wonder if this is the same issue that has been plaguing "King of the Elves". That film was supposed to have been released back in 2012 and got shelved, but some rumors say it's still being worked on for future release. I wonder if we will ever get to see it. I think it was supposed to be done in 2D traditional animation too.

I can see what you mean, but I think the wonderful thing about animation is it's flexibility to tackle many different genres, so while I truthfully would have loved to have seen "Kingdom of the Sun", I also like how Emperor's New Groove was one of those movies that broke out of the Disney tradition of storytelling by being a zany comedy more akin to Looney Tunes. Admittingly I do have a flair for those kind of cartoons, but I also have appreciation for the more serious forms of storytelling from Disney (that's why I'm one of those people who would watch both Gargoyles and Bonkers and enjoy both for different reasons).

Angeldude98 wrote:It was a dissapointment because of what it could have been. I mean, I went to see it in theaters and I do own the DVD and Blu-ray. It wasn't bad... just dissapointing. I was expecting much more. I tend to prefer Disney movies with more emphasis on the story and serious elements than movies heavy on the comedy and slapstick (which is the genre that seems to be prevailing lately). The great Disney films of the classic era as well as the 90's rennaissance era had very serious plot elements, yet they did have great comedic moments to lighten up the mood (Snow White had the seven dwarfs' antics, Sleeping Beauty had the fairies' bickering, Beauty and the Beast had Cogsworth and Lumiere Bickering, The Lion King had Timon and Pumbaa, and even The Hunchback of Notra Dame had the Gargoyles and their silliness).
TENG was just constant comedy and it got a little tiring to me. Same thing happened with Hercules. I think it could have been WAY better if Hades had been made more menacing and less comedic, like Maleficent was. She is my favorite Disney villain! Yzma is just a villain wannabe in my book.

I can totally understand where you're coming from. I didn't know about the production history until after I saw it, so I never had that sense of disappointment, I suppose. As a straight comedy, though, I think it is great, and I don't mind if Disney does something a bit different from time to time. I agree with 2Disney4Ever's Looney Tunes comment.

And a bit of zany comedy now and then is fine. I was just dissapointed because like I said, even though I knew how comedic TENG was because of the trailers, I still was expecting it to be much more than it turned out to be. For example, at the climax of the film they tricked us into thinking that Yzma had turned into this great beast that would challenge Kuzco and Pacha, much like Maleficent or Ursula, only to actually be a tiny kitten. Seriously! I felt it was a total ripoff!!! I would've loved to see how that would've played out (when was the last time we saw a villain turn into a supervillain for a grand climax anyway?). But like I said before, Yzma didn't come across a menacing villainess to begin with - they could've done a lot better with her too.

And the constant breaking of the fourth wall by Kuzco kept getting on my nerves as well. However the basic premise of Kuzco learning to be humble and care for his fellow man was good. However I think that could've been dealt with a bit more seriously, without compromising the overall comedic appeal of the film.

I think the idea for Yzma becoming a cat was kind of their way of doing a parody of the traditional "evil villain transforms into a giant monster" thing that we've all been familiar with in past Disney films.

And I feel I need to respond to this comment here since I missed it.

thedisneyspirit wrote:2Disney's ideas are flawed. So Disney could make any shitty movie and as long as it's hand-drawn it's "good" in your eyes. You must love Home on the Range.

I'm certainly in favor of any animated film having a good story, but I'm not one to let any animated film with great hand-drawn animation, Disney or Non-Disney, go by without my appreciation or respect, especially in this day and age when 2D animation really deserves to be appreciated more than CGI does. But I can certainly acknowledge that there can be 2D films that aren't that great story-wise. In the case of Disney's 2D films in the early 2000's, I simply think that they were just weaker efforts (with the exception of Lilo & Stitch and possibly Emperor's New Groove). I really don't hate any of them or think that they were just "bad". If there was one that I could say wasn't a very good film, then yes, I would say Home on the Range myself.

But where I stand with Disney's CG movies, they're just bad. I'm sorry, but they are. They're bad for the studio, they're bad for 2D animation's future at the studio, and whether or not people think Disney makes better CG movies now is really irrelevant to me when it doesn't change any of those problems and only continues them. So to me there's just no such thing as Disney making a good CG movie. CG movies have just been bad for 2D animation in general.

2Disney4Ever wrote:But where I stand with Disney's CG movies, they're just bad. I'm sorry, but they are. They're bad for the studio, they're bad for 2D animation's future at the studio, and whether or not people think Disney makes better CG movies now is really irrelevant to me when it doesn't change any of those problems and only continues them. So to me there's just no such thing as Disney making a good CG movie. CG movies have just been bad for 2D animation in general.

Wow..... I got nothing.....

Musical Master wrote:

2Disney4Ever wrote:But where I stand with Disney's CG movies, they're just bad. I'm sorry, but they are. They're bad for the studio, they're bad for 2D animation's future at the studio, and whether or not people think Disney makes better CG movies now is really irrelevant to me when it doesn't change any of those problems and only continues them. So to me there's just no such thing as Disney making a good CG movie. CG movies have just been bad for 2D animation in general.

Wow..... I got nothing.....

Well, take a look on the bright side, at least I'm toning down my obsession for hand drawn animation.

I know this should be on the hand drawn animation dead post but since it was brought up here I see no reason why not to talk about it.

I´m also of the ones that believe that Disney is AND should always be hand drawn; just making exceptions every once in a while if the movie needs to be CGI like Wreck it Ralph.

...however, change Chicken Little, Dinosaur, Bolt, Meet the Robinsons, Tangled and Frozen in 2D and you wouldn´t loose anything.

Besides, for the studio that:

-created the first animated movie

-that reached a point in the 90´s where adults would sit down by themselves and what these movies because of how good they were.

Worth mentioning:

-we´re living in world where since from few years ago anime broke into mainstream and is something appreciated for adults particularly...

-...meaning that it´s not like Disney will be fighting a loosing battle because 2D animation didn´t go anywhere and is as strong as ever.

Since Disney started in hand drawn, their movies are something special since they come out ever X years and everyone watches them don´t know why they can´t go back to that. In fact, going back to it would make them stand by themselves with no competition.

More importantly... Where´s John Lasseter?

For a person that claims that his favorite movies are from Hayao Miyazaki and that at some point mentioned how he wanted to bring back 2D animation, where is it?

More so, it would benefit Pixar greatly so that way they can stand on their own.

TsWade2 wrote:

Musical Master wrote:

Wow..... I got nothing.....

Well, take a look on the bright side, at least toning down my obsession for hand drawn animation.

I'm glad to hear that Wade, good luck.

Ok, so I'm bumping this thread back up because it's been about two years since it was last revisited, and it would be cool to see if opinions remain the same or have changed since then, especially considering the current era of the studio.

Here is my personal list as it currently looks:

Do you agree with it? Which era or period is your favorite, and why? My personal film favorites from each period are marked with a My best favorites are marked with a

A) The Golden Age (1937-1942)
This period reflects Walt’s beginnings in the animated feature film genre, and the studio’s most creative and ambitious time. The films in this period boast a level of meticulous detailing unseen before or since then.

1. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)
2. Pinocchio (1940)
3. Fantasia (1940)
4. Dumbo (1941)
5. Bambi (1942)

B) The War-Package Years (1943-1949)
This period started when the war took a heavy toll on the studio by not only drafting many of the employees and animators, but by also cutting off the European market for the films, and by having the studio do films to support the war effort. In order to cut costs and still cover the demand for the animated features, Walt decided to combine multiple short films to create full features. However, even though the war ended in 1945, the film style continued until 1949.

6. Saludos Amigos (1943)
7. The Three Caballeros (1945)
8. Make Mine Music (1946)
9. Fun and Fancy Free (1947)
10. Melody Time (1948)
11. The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949)

C) The Silver Age (1950-1967)
This period marks the return of the studio to single-narrative films. They also show a marked increase in the quality of the music and songs used for the films. The films from this period are among the most cherished by fans and are seen as classic Disney. This period ended soon after Walt’s death. It includes all the films in which Walt was directly involved.

12. Cinderella (1950)
13. Alice in Wonderland (1951)
14. Peter Pan (1953)
15. Lady and the Tramp (1955)
16. Sleeping Beauty (1959)
17. 101 Dalmatians (1961)
18. The Sword in the Stone (1963)
19. The Jungle Book (1967)

D) The Dark Age (1968-1988)
This period is called as such because it reflects the lack of Walt’s guidance at the studio. It was a time when the original animators (the 9 old men) began passing the baton – or the pencil – to a new generation of animators. This period was a time of trial and error, hits and misses, and experimentation into new mediums such as CGI (which was in its infancy) as well as different styles of storytelling.

20. The Aristocats (1970)
21. Robin Hood (1973)
22. The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977)
23. The Rescuers (1977)
24. The Fox and the Hound (1981)
25. The Black Cauldron (1985)
26. The Great Mouse Detective (1986)
27. Oliver and Company (1988)

E) The Renaissance (1989-1999)
This period marks the return of Disney in full force. It is noted for outstanding stories and broadway-style music and storytelling. The films in this period revived interest in Disney, and it can be argued that it was the most successful period for the studio yet.

28. The Little Mermaid (1989)
29. The Rescuers Down Under (1990)
30. Beauty and the Beast (1991)
31. Aladdin (1992)
32. The Lion King (1994)
33. Pocahontas (1995)
34. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)
35. Hercules (1997)
36. Mulan (1998)
37. Tarzan (1999)
38. Fantasia 2000 (1999)

F) The Depression (2000-2008)
In the same way that the roaring 20’s gave way to the Great Depression, such was the case with Disney. Whether it was overconfidence, lack of new ideas, experimentation… whatever the cause the result was the same. This period is notable in that it reflects the studio’s shift of direction, and the blunt experimentation of new styles and ideas. Due to this, most films in this period (with a few exceptions) performed very poorly, nearly destroying the studio and also almost bringing the end of traditional hand-drawn animation at Disney.

39. Dinosaur (2000)
40. The Emperor’s New Groove (2000)
41. Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001)
42. Lilo and Stitch (2002)
43. Treasure Planet (2002)
44. Brother Bear (2003)
45. Home on the Range (2004)
46. Chicken Little (2005)
47. Meet the Robinsons (2007)
48. Bolt (2008)

G) The Resurgence (2009-Ongoing)
This is the current period at the studio. After the pronounced failures of the previous period, the studio finally realizes that it needs to go back to its roots, and so it goes back to the musical fairytale with the first film of the period, thus successfully restoring interest in Disney. This period combines many elements of past periods (such as the storytelling and music from the renaissance) as well as some of the styles and techniques from the depression (such as comedy and CGI). It is noted for a marked and substantial improvement in the quality of the films. However, experimentation still remains strong at the studio and it is yet to be seen what the outcome of the period will be. The good thing is that the films slated for release in the near future look very promising, and there's a very good possibility that they will not disappoint, notably Zootopia and Moana.

49. The Princess and the Frog (2009)
50. Tangled (2010)
51. Winnie The Pooh (2011)
52. Wreck-It Ralph (2012)
53. Frozen (2013)
54. Big Hero 6 (2014)
55. Zootopia (2016)

(Upcoming)
56. Moana (2016)
57. Gigantic (2018)
58: Frozen 2 (TBA)
59. Wreck-it-Ralph 2 (TBA)
60. Big Hero 7 (TBA)

So the question is: Given the success of the latest Disney films since 2009, do you guys agree that we are in a new Disney Renaissance / Resurgence period?
Yes, no, and why?

There's no doubt that we are in another high period for Disney animation.

People in general are taking their films seriously again. Their movies are now making as much money in the box office as the average Pixar or Dreamworks movies. Each film has produced a new stream of memorable characters, be they in the classic fairy tale model, or the more modern setting.

Most notably, Frozen won the Best Animated Feature Oscar which, from the time it was dedicated in 2002, had alluded Disney without help from Pixar.

I thought this was the "Revival Era"?

I thought it was being used just around here, but to my surprise, I've been seeing the term thrown around here and there on the Internet. (Though I suppose it could be the same people using it.) Personally, I think it sounds kinda dumb, and I don't think all of the films necessarily fit into certain "periods" or "eras," since there are always those films that serve more as transitions.

Anyway, regardless of our individual opinions of the Lasseter takeover and the current direction of the films, I agree with what Semaj has said--WDAS has definitely reached a new high in terms of pop culture significance. Critical and audience response, as well as box office returns, show that the studio is back in the public consciousness in a big way. And they may just be the most consistent mainstream animation studio right now.

ce1ticmoon wrote:I thought this was the "Revival Era"?

I hope that name sticks, because nothing about these films are a "Renaissance."