Disney?

[Goliath]

Sorry, Goliath, but I think you're wrong. Nobody can give a solid reason because there is no exact science to making a "hit" movie. If there was, everyone would do it.

Huh? Duckburger and I weren't arguing about reasons why the post-2000 films weren't "hits". We were arguing about the quality of the films. Which often doesn't have anything to do with a film's performance. A good film can flop and a bad film can make a lot of money (Transformers, anyone?). Of course there are a lot of solid reasons why most (not all) of the post-2000 Disney films sucked. I've given only a few in this thread.

Also - by all measures of poor quality you've used in the past to measure the content of 2000's Disney films, some of Dreamworks' films from the same period have been "worse" but made more money and attained greater popularity

Yes, that's what I said above. We're not talking about popularity. I mean, yes, it has come up here and there (see also Disney Duster's contribution), but it wasn't our main point of argument.

Oh, and we don't disagree on the fact that films like Transformers suck. (And no, I don't like Megan Fox either.)

[...] Do you honestly believe the average person to go out to see a movie and look for all the nitty-gritty details in the film? I think the reason why comedies and slapstick films like Shrek did so good is because people want simple entertainment. The film itself may be poor quality, but unless it's made by a thrid-grade kid most people don't care. All they care about is to have a little fun and not think so much about how it looks. Most people would probably suck at being a critic.

Oh, but we don't disagree on that. I don't hold the general public in very high esteem anyway. But the whole point of this discussion (as I see it), is that Disney used to provide that entertainment that the public craves in a quality form. Most films from the Walt-era and the 1990's (as well as some from the 'dark age') brought entertainment to 'the masses' without compromising the quality. Nowadays, Disney seems to have lost both of their strenghts: making quality stuff, and making stuff that's popular with the audience.

What gets me is that anyone with an opinion that sees a movie as good or bad in their eyes thinks his or her opinion is right if the majority think the same way.

No, I tend to think the opposite. If the majority of the people think different from me, I know my opinion is correct. The majority of people is stupid.

That's popularity, now let's move on to quality. Just because you think the movie is good or bad doesn't mean the movie itself is good or bad for sure. That is just your own opinion, and your entitled to it.

But there are standards by which you can measure quality. You can look to animation, story, structure, pacing, editing, characters, humor, music etc. and then decide if a film is good or bad. There are terrible films that I absolutely love (also called 'guilty pleasures') and there are good films that I simply don't care for (because they're not my cup of tea).

As for whether there are "quality" reasons to hate a movie, I think some members are misinterpreting Goliath's view of qulaity as "something that sells well." Good films don't have to sell well. Equally, bad films can sell well--doesn't make them good quality though.

Yes! THANK YOU!

[WDWLocal]

This has probably already been posted in some form by someone, but I haven't actually read all the posts This is clearly my opinion; so I'm sorry if I offend anybody go suck it


First of all quality is subjective, meaning that this thread is invalid. But whatever...

I'll add my opinion anyway, I don't think the quality in the official Walt Disney Feature Films (I'll leave DTV's out) has decreased at all. I think they merely took another direction in films, they started making action-esque films in begin 2000's, resulting in failure at the box office; were they bad, no (original story, solid animation, original score). Then 'comedy'-films started popping up afterwards: The Emperor's New Groove, Brother Bear (half comedy/drama) Home on the Range, Chicken Little; were they bad - no; did they fail at the box-office, again the answer would be 'no' - but it wasn't the succes Disney wanted. As a matter of fact the animation in all of the above mentioned films is known for a fact to be better than The Little Mermaid, Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast. In Lilo & Stitch I've only seen one Lilo in the entire film, though I've seen at least 5 Ariel's in The Little Mermaid.

Whether you like it or not these movies are not the definition of bad films - nobody can give a solid reason to why these would be bad, nor can be said that these are worse than everything that pre-dates them. It's always 1) the generally hated upon 2000 films; 2) post-renaissance; 3) different formula/genre; 4) different kind of storytelling; 5) the so-called added 'toilet'-humor. And the list goes on and on, sometimes it seems like people hate these films by default, which isn't really fair.

The Lion King also has some 'toilet'-humor - do people hate it because of that, the answer is 'no'. Beauty and the Beast has sub-par animation - do people hate it because of that, again the answer would be 'no'. Just because something isn't full of diabetes-inducing squeeky talking animals/objects doesn't mean it's not worth watching.

Again a statement like where have all the 'good' films gone is wrong on many levels. You can't say these movies are bad because YOU think they are, or even if 90% of the whole population agrees with you.

I have a few good questions though: what IS the definition of a so-called 'good' film? Does it only involve happily ever afters and princesses? Must it be made in CGI, hand-drawn or stop-motion?

Don't bother answering 'cause there is NO answer. Nobody can answer you - when you ask questions like where have the good films gone - 'cause it's SUBJECTIVE.

/Rant over/

P.S. I love Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, Lilo & Stitch, Brother Bear, etc., they were just examples to make a point.

VERY well said, Duckburger.

This very same analysis can also be applied to Disney's theme park attractions and TV shows as well.

[Disney Duster]

Another thing is...

Does anyone wonder if maybe when Disney tries to be un-Disney, they just don't do it well?

I mean, think about it. People are flocking to the gross humor in other films...but not in Disney films, which Disney has tried to do in the 2000 films (even Hunchback). Because Disney isn't "supposed to do that stuff" or are known to do that suff. Lion King, as I said, was an only implied gross humor, nothing about it was really gross at all, it was just funny, even funnier because they only talked about it, didn't show it. Disney took a more subtle approach for their dramatic epic in the kingdom of Africa.

That's just one example of what Im talking about. Maybe the public goes to some movie studios for a certain entertainment, and then to Disney for a different kind of entertainment.

But it might not just be that. Disney might really not be good at doing that kind of entertainment well, or maybe they just do it in a way the public doesn't like.

The Princess and the Frog seems to disprove all this since it's what Disney usually does and yet is still not performing as well as we want or feel as great as we hoped...but from the start I saw that film as actually very different for Disney. Yes, for the obvious reasons, even the ones called "superficial". But when I saw that cat with it's eyes rolled, veins popping out of them, dragging itself across the carpet, it just wasn't Disney. That's something I'd find in Ren & Stimpy or SpongeBob, maybe. And I like that kind of humor, but not in a Disney film (and I think those shows, able to be more bold and go farther with that humor, I find funnier). It didn't fit the rest of the film at all, though there were other modern expressions and things, which I also didn't like being in a Disney film, especially a fairy tale set in the 1920's... Then again, it is in a setting more modern than "long ago" and maybe Disney isn't good at that modern thing unless it's classic Disney confronting modern ala Enchanted, but Kevin Lima directed that, it was mainly live-action, and yet it still didn't do extremely well.

And I forgot, the way I felt about the pointless unfunny (at least to me) scene of the hillbilly frog hunter would also make sense with all this.

It's like The Emporer's New Groove. I like that film a lot, but it didn't do well (for Disney), and a lot of people said it felt more like Warner Bros. humor. Yes, I can see that. It was very un-Disney to me, and yes I like it a lot, but it's not what Disney does best, and it didn't do very well.

So what about Aladdin? Well, we know we can compare that film to other films with modern humor and see how different they are. That had only one celebrity voice, and he wasn't cast because he was a celebrity, and the genie's magic kind of allowed for modern references since he was all-powerful and knowing, a being of all time who could go back and forth through time. The thing was comedic, but not Warner Bros. comedic, Disney actually came up with something new (though I like to think The Emporer's New Groove had it's own new humor, too, though I can more easily see how it feels like Warner Bros., too). And it was still very dramatic and classic despite the humor, particulalry with Jasmine and Aladdin's romance and the climax of the film. But modern-ish Aladdin...well, hasn't done that well recently on video, but I'm not using that to conclude anything, just wondering about all this.

Well, these are just thoughts, I'm not concluding anything, just wondering. But now I'm really wondering if Rapunzel should try to look more hand-drawn and try to be more classic Disney...

One more thing, actually. Think about what are the kinds of popular cartoons these days. It's really more the stuff from Nickelodeon, which I honestly think are, for their boldness, stupidness, wackiness, more exaggeratedness or whatever reason, I don't know, are funnier. Mickey warms your heart and there's more of a concentration on good animation. Of course him and his gang have funny shorts, but it may not be the kind of humor the public finds funniest. Of course I loved the show Timon and Pumbaa, but that could get wacky and gross, too, unlike the movie they came from. That was my favorite show for a while, but if I had to say my absolute favorite cartoon, unfortunately it would probably Rocko's Modern Life, but that would probably be my personal taste there.

Disney's last 2D-feature before The Princess and the Frog was the fartastic wacky Home on the Range, Disney trying to be what it was not to get audiences back to them, yet be different from what audiences loved about them the first time.

[Babaloo]

I think people tend to think of Disney as this company that should only do one type of story. Yet if they kept doing this I think they would go out of business (well maybe not since they make a lot of money but you get what I'm trying to say). Disney is just trying to keep up with the times. They are progressing and in an era where everything is moving fast, it just seems Disney is doing the same. It's not their fault...they're just trying to please TODAY'S audience. Not the audience of the 90's. Do you think if Snow White, Pinocchio or any of those movies came out today, would it be as well received as it was back in the day. Even if there's such a high quality to these films, today's fast-paced, laugh-more-at-physical-comedy audience wouldn't like it as much. There are the few who look for quality like this, but the majority of the modern population don't care. Look to Alvin and the Chipmunks for example; it has such horrible quality and the least-timeless jokes I have ever seen, but look how much it made.

And I think Princess and the Frog made more than I thought it would make. These past years, Disney's name in animation was replaced by Pixar. I'm not saying that Disney made bad movies, but if I were to say the words "today's great animated movies" to anyone, they would automatically think Pixar, not Disney and it's sad, but that's how it is. I think PatF is an amazing movie and within a couple of years it will be praised as an amazing movie. But Disney has got to wrok up slowly to regain its old glory. You have to remember Little Mermaid didn't make that much compared to the rest of the "Disney Renaissance" films. It was the beginning of the era. I'm not claiming a new Disney era begins with PatF, but it has the makings of a great beginning.

I actually think most of the "un-Disney" movies this past decade were great with some exceptions. Obviously the quality in animation isn't as great as past movies (Again trying to integrate CGI with 2D didn't look as great (yes even in the disney renaissance movies) but CGI was the big thing so the movies were catered to today's audience). But the quality in story was no worse than any other Disney movies. I find people label Disney as this squeaky-clean company and if they do anything otherwise it won't work. People just don't give them a chance to be modern. And then if they do pull off the modern story with good CGI animation, they automatically think Pixar (I remember people kept saying I should go see Pixar's new movie Bolt , and then I was reading somewhere else that people thought that this Rapunzel movie was Pixar because it was CGI). I think people shouldn't look to the label to rate an animated movie, or any movie. Whether it be Pixar or Disney or even Dreamworks, a movie could be good or bad. I feel like that might be the trend in Pixar (now don't attack me for saying this) but Ithink from now on, whatever movie they make, critics and people just like it automatically (IMO I don't think Pixar has had a recent amazing movie (I loved Wall-E, but not so much Up...I know I'm the minority in this)). Like who said Toy Story 3 is going to be amazing, but it will make so much money just because it's labeled under Pixar's name. I love Pixar, don't get me wrong, but I wish people would give other animation companies a chance too.

My point to this little rant is that I think Disney is still making good movies, just when they try modernize their stories like every other company, they get rigged. Disney is just trying to regain its former glory and obviously the "new, futuristic" concept didn't work. So now they're trying to do the same they did in the past (with fairytales and happily-ever-after stories) adn we'll see how that goes.

[IagoZazu]

I think people tend to think of Disney as this company that should only do one type of story. Yet if they kept doing this I think they would go out of business (well maybe not since they make a lot of money but you get what I'm trying to say). Disney is just trying to keep up with the times. They are progressing and in an era where everything is moving fast, it just seems Disney is doing the same. It's not their fault...they're just trying to please TODAY'S audience. Not the audience of the 90's. Do you think if Snow White, Pinocchio or any of those movies came out today, would it be as well received as it was back in the day. Even if there's such a high quality to these films, today's fast-paced, laugh-more-at-physical-comedy audience wouldn't like it as much. There are the few who look for quality like this, but the majority of the modern population don't care. Look to Alvin and the Chipmunks for example; it has such horrible quality and the least-timeless jokes I have ever seen, but look how much it made.

And I think Princess and the Frog made more than I thought it would make. These past years, Disney's name in animation was replaced by Pixar. I'm not saying that Disney made bad movies, but if I were to say the words "today's great animated movies" to anyone, they would automatically think Pixar, not Disney and it's sad, but that's how it is. I think PatF is an amazing movie and within a couple of years it will be praised as an amazing movie. But Disney has got to wrok up slowly to regain its old glory. You have to remember Little Mermaid didn't make that much compared to the rest of the "Disney Renaissance" films. It was the beginning of the era. I'm not claiming a new Disney era begins with PatF, but it has the makings of a great beginning.

I actually think most of the "un-Disney" movies this past decade were great with some exceptions. Obviously the quality in animation isn't as great as past movies (Again trying to integrate CGI with 2D didn't look as great (yes even in the disney renaissance movies) but CGI was the big thing so the movies were catered to today's audience). But the quality in story was no worse than any other Disney movies. I find people label Disney as this squeaky-clean company and if they do anything otherwise it won't work. People just don't give them a chance to be modern. And then if they do pull off the modern story with good CGI animation, they automatically think Pixar (I remember people kept saying I should go see Pixar's new movie Bolt , and then I was reading somewhere else that people thought that this Rapunzel movie was Pixar because it was CGI). I think people shouldn't look to the label to rate an animated movie, or any movie. Whether it be Pixar or Disney or even Dreamworks, a movie could be good or bad. I feel like that might be the trend in Pixar (now don't attack me for saying this) but Ithink from now on, whatever movie they make, critics and people just like it automatically (IMO I don't think Pixar has had a recent amazing movie (I loved Wall-E, but not so much Up...I know I'm the minority in this)). Like who said Toy Story 3 is going to be amazing, but it will make so much money just because it's labeled under Pixar's name. I love Pixar, don't get me wrong, but I wish people would give other animation companies a chance too.

My point to this little rant is that I think Disney is still making good movies, just when they try modernize their stories like every other company, they get rigged. Disney is just trying to regain its former glory and obviously the "new, futuristic" concept didn't work. So now they're trying to do the same they did in the past (with fairytales and happily-ever-after stories) adn we'll see how that goes.

I completely agree with you. I said almost the same thing about Pixar in another post in another thread and I got rebuked. People aren't giving Disney the chance like they are Pixar. It's seems to me as though Pixar is the new Disney these days as far as popularity. Instead of seeing Pixar as a partner of Disney, people treat them as a separate studio (which they are) and give all the credit and attention to them. What you said about Bolt and the other Disney CGI movies being confused with Pixar is something I suspected too. Pixar's rise has been in large part to Disney not being what they used to be. Disney tried a new formula that didn't turn out to be so good. Meanwhile, Pixar has made great movies year after year.

I know Disney and Pixar are a partnership. I still like Pixar. I like Up, Toy Story, and Finding Nemo. It just seems to me that Hollywood and the people aren't being fair to the other guys as well. Pixar is talented, but so is Disney. It hasn't been easy for Disney to adapt to today's modern audience. Lilo and Stitch was a original film that was different from their formula and it went well. The Princess and the Frog was a return to the 90's charm and it did good enough. It took a bold move for Disney to make the Disney Renaissance happen, and I suspect it to be the same today.

[Goliath]

Does anyone wonder if maybe when Disney tries to be un-Disney, they just don't do it well?

Lilo & Stitch was a big departure from the regular Disney-recipe, by having a dysfunctional family with two sisters whose parents had passed away; and Lilo being almost taken away by Cobra. Yet that film succeeded on all points: animation, story, jokes, characters, sincerity, heart, warmth, adventure, music etc. It's not that I hate Disney for doing things 'differently' Walt himself has done many things 'differently', including the whole Xerox-process). I hate it when Disney puts out mediocre or bad films which they haven't spend any real attention to, and then fanboys with blinders on come and defend them, just because the name 'Disney' is on it, and insult all the critics who have real, genuine arguments.

I think people tend to think of Disney as this company that should only do one type of story.

But that's not true. Look at Snow White, Dumbo, Alice in Wonderland, 101 Dalmatians, Great Mouse Detective, Oliver & Company... Those are all very different stories, right? And there are a lot more of them. The Black Cauldron!

Disney is just trying to keep up with the times. They are progressing and in an era where everything is moving fast, it just seems Disney is doing the same.

In the 1990's Disney ALSO kept up with the times in an era in which everything ALSO went fast. And they still made hit films which drew huge audiences AND had high quality. So why didn't that work out in the 2000's? Could it possibly have anything to do with Disney turning out crap?

It's not their fault...they're just trying to please TODAY'S audience. Not the audience of the 90's.

Yes, it IS their fault. THEY are putting out bad films. They're not pleasing TODAY'S audience very much, are they? Almost all of their 2000-films bombed, while the old films that you and so many others in this thread trash (since you are such big Disney-fans, ahem...) make a lot of money on DVD.

And I think Princess and the Frog made more than I thought it would make. These past years, Disney's name in animation was replaced by Pixar. I'm not saying that Disney made bad movies, but if I were to say the words "today's great animated movies" to anyone, they would automatically think Pixar, not Disney and it's sad, but that's how it is.

YES! And that's because Disney's films stunk. Nobody I know, knows what Disney produces anymore, Their films have become inter-changable with other studio's output, because they were so generic. And yet you come in here to blame the critics instead of Disney itself? That doesn't make sense.

But the quality in story was no worse than any other Disney movies.

Then you obviously haven't seen Home on the Range.

I find people label Disney as this squeaky-clean company and if they do anything otherwise it won't work. People just don't give them a chance to be modern.

Oh no, thát strawman again. Hey guys, at least try to be original when you want to play the fanboy, okay?

And then if they do pull off the modern story with good CGI animation, they automatically think Pixar (I remember people kept saying I should go see Pixar's new movie Bolt , and then I was reading somewhere else that people thought that this Rapunzel movie was Pixar because it was CGI).

That's what I said: people don't know what Disney produces anymore. It has become inter-changable with other studio's crap.

I think people shouldn't look to the label to rate an animated movie, or any movie.

That's funny, giving that you and a lot of other people in this thread are saying we should just be glad with any movie Disney puts out and not be too critical.

[Babaloo]

But that's not true. Look at Snow White, Dumbo, Alice in Wonderland, 101 Dalmatians, Great Mouse Detective, Oliver & Company... Those are all very different stories, right? And there are a lot more of them. The Black Cauldron!

I'm pretty sure that the movies that have been different, such as some of the ones you mentioned like Oliver and Company and Great Mouse Detective didn't make that much.

In the 1990's Disney ALSO kept up with the times in an era in which everything ALSO went fast. And they still made hit films which drew huge audiences AND had high quality. So why didn't that work out in the 2000's? Could it possibly have anything to do with Disney turning out crap?

I don't think that the 90's were known to be as quick-paced as the 2000's were...the 90's did make breakthroughs in technology, but it wasn't until the new millennium that new technology after new technology appeared. Everything is happening a quick rate and it doesn't seem like its' slowing down. So yah its a lot quicker now.

Yes, it IS their fault. THEY are putting out bad films. They're not pleasing TODAY'S audience very much, are they? Almost all of their 2000-films bombed, while the old films that you and so many others in this thread trash (since you are such big Disney-fans, ahem...) make a lot of money on DVD.

I don't think I once said that the older movies were bad. Now you're putting words into my mouth. All I said is that the older movies wouldn't fare well with today's audience which is 100% completely true.

YES! And that's because Disney's films stunk. Nobody I know, knows what Disney produces anymore, Their films have become inter-changable with other studio's output, because they were so generic. And yet you come in here to blame the critics instead of Disney itself? That doesn't make sense.

Again, where did I say I'm blaming critics. Did I say critics are wrong. I specifically said MOST disney movies weren't bad, not ALL.

Then you obviously haven't seen Home on the Range.

Again I said MOST disney movies. I absolutely hate Home on the Range, and it even has pleased some people. So yah these movies are still pleasing today's audiences, just not everyone. I for one hate Enchanted (don't attack me everyone its just my personal opinion). But most people like it. Do you see me saying it's a bad movie or crap? NO. It's just not for me.

Oh no, thát strawman again. Hey guys, at least try to be original when you want to play the fanboy, okay?

What I don't understand is what's wrong with saying stuff like that. Yes I am a fanboy and what's wrong with that. What I hate is when people like you who think that only THEIR OWN OPINION should be the only opinion. I never claimed to be an English major did I? So I can be as unoriginal and say as many cliches as I want. I don't need to prove that I have this brilliant mind in English.

That's funny, giving that you and a lot of other people in this thread are saying we should just be glad with any movie Disney puts out and not be too critical.

Once again I don't see where you're seeing this stuff. Did I say that you should be happy with any Disney movie? I can't stand lots of films from Disney. All I said was that people should rate the movie rather than the label.

[estefan]

But that's not true. Look at Snow White, Dumbo, Alice in Wonderland, 101 Dalmatians, Great Mouse Detective, Oliver & Company... Those are all very different stories, right? And there are a lot more of them. The Black Cauldron!

I'm pretty sure that the movies that have been different, such as some of the ones you mentioned like Oliver and Company and Great Mouse Detective didn't make that much.

Considering how much money animated films made at the time, they did quite well, I think. Okay, so maybe An American Tail and The Land Before Time did a tad better. However, they were successful enough for Peter Schneider to announce that Disney would release a new animated film every year.

[2099net]

Another thing is...

Does anyone wonder if maybe when Disney tries to be un-Disney, they just don't do it well?

I mean, think about it. People are flocking to the gross humor in other films...but not in Disney films, which Disney has tried to do in the 2000 films (even Hunchback). Because Disney isn't "supposed to do that stuff" or are known to do that suff. Lion King, as I said, was an only implied gross humor, nothing about it was really gross at all, it was just funny, even funnier because they only talked about it, didn't show it. Disney took a more subtle approach for their dramatic epic in the kingdom of Africa.

Has Disney really ever done "gross" humour? I think this, like lots of other things is a myth. One udder remark or one farting (almost squeaking - its not as if it was a huge giant raspberry sound) pig does not "gross" humour make. The gross humour in each of the Disney films cited (including the "flatulent" alien in Treasure Planet can be counted in seconds. Seconds.

How come Disney get's criticised repeatedly on this forum for doing that, yet Pixar can do farting seagull jokes in Finding Nemo or can actually create a character called "Stinky Pete" in Toy Story 2 and not one single person complains. And no, before anyone says anything about script and characters, the "stinky" aspect of Stinky Pete adds absolutely nothing to the film or character.

That's just one example of what Im talking about. Maybe the public goes to some movie studios for a certain entertainment, and then to Disney for a different kind of entertainment.

But how does the public "know" without seeing the film in the first place? Granted the udder line was in the trailer for Home on the Range, but nothing was in the Chicken Little publicity to say "Hey, kids. Gross out humour! Come and get it!".

But it might not just be that. Disney might really not be good at doing that kind of entertainment well, or maybe they just do it in a way the public doesn't like.

I doubt more than 5% of the public even think about it to be honest.

It's like The Emporer's New Groove. I like that film a lot, but it didn't do well (for Disney), and a lot of people said it felt more like Warner Bros. humor. Yes, I can see that. It was very un-Disney to me, and yes I like it a lot, but it's not what Disney does best, and it didn't do very well.

But that's my point exactly. Why does a Disney film have to be "Disney"? It's crazy. When Disney made his first live-action film, did audiences mentally shun it because it wasn't "Disney"? Why can't Disney make wild and wacky animated farces if they want to?

There's no such thing as a "Spielberg" film and even directors who are more identifiable with a house style don't have a sub-genre all to themselves. Look at Tim Burton - is there such a thing as a "Burton" film? Sweeny Todd was R rated and covered in gore! How does that contrast to his upcoming Alice In Wonderland film for Disney? Will people be expecting gore and walk out if they don't get it (or in the case of Sweeny Todd, vice versa)? Nor is there a "Fox" film, or a "Universal" film...

So what about Aladdin? Well, we know we can compare that film to other films with modern humor and see how different they are. That had only one celebrity voice, and he wasn't cast because he was a celebrity, and the genie's magic kind of allowed for modern references since he was all-powerful and knowing, a being of all time who could go back and forth through time. The thing was comedic, but not Warner Bros. comedic, Disney actually came up with something new (though I like to think The Emporer's New Groove had it's own new humor, too, though I can more easily see how it feels like Warner Bros., too). And it was still very dramatic and classic despite the humor, particulalry with Jasmine and Aladdin's romance and the climax of the film. But modern-ish Aladdin...well, hasn't done that well recently on video, but I'm not using that to conclude anything, just wondering about all this.

Note however, most of the Genie's future pop-culture references were American culture. Considering people complain current Disney films have too much pop-culture references which will quickly date them - most are a little more broad and acceptable. And yes, to some extent Aladdin does seem dated now when you view it.

And again, Pixar isn't immune from pop-culture - Toy Story and Toy Story 2 (especially) is jam packed with toy references, film references (such as the casting of the toy solider general's voice artist) and of course Star Wars is heavily referenced in the Buzz Lightyear segments/story. Yet, I've never seen anyone complain about that. Likewise Pixar's Cars didn't do so well overseas because its plot/characters/references were too American orientated. (Cars actually took less money in the UK than Bolt for example). The Incredibles was NOTHING but pop-culture references! People not that familiar with comic-book story telling conventions definitely get less out of the film than those who are. Did anyone complain about that?

Why does Disney have to do one thing, one thing that no other studio on the planet has to adhere to? Just because the audience is somewhat small--minded?

[2099net]

YES! And that's because Disney's films stunk. Nobody I know, knows what Disney produces anymore, Their films have become inter-changable with other studio's output, because they were so generic. And yet you come in here to blame the critics instead of Disney itself? That doesn't make sense.

I'm sorry, but why should that even be an issue? Lots of people went to see Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs. Are you telling me that they all went because they had a strong idea of what "Sony Pictures Animation" creates? How many even knew it was from "Sony Pictures Animation".

It just sounds like an excuse to me. Why should anyone care what Disney stands for or if is generic. If they're interchangeable and comparable with other studios output, why should it matter? People go and see the other studios output - so my all logic they should also go and see Disney's output. All people should do is watch a trailer or see any other publicity and decide from that if they want to see a film or not. It's how virtually every other film attracts an audience.

I think that it's a stupid argument. People don't know what Disney "is" anymore, so won't go to see the films? But they'll plonk the money down for a Dreamworks, Sony, Universal or any other animated film?

And being as you brought this up in your posts Goliath, I do blame the critics - 100% - because its the critics who help to spread the myth that "Disney has lost its way", or Disney is "abandoning its history" or whatever. We're going back to the "originality" aspect again (and yes, an original film is not automatically a good film) but I'm sure the majority of critics would be just as harsh in their judgement if Disney did fall-back on its mainstay subjects/formulas more than they have. No other animation creators have as much to live up to - and as much ammunition for critics to use against them.

Why bother trying anything new, why bother trying to experiment, when a critic can just reach back to the 1940s or the 1980s and say "its good, but not 1940s good". Its a passive/aggressive form of criticism. A backhanded compliment, such as praising a child while saying it will never live up to its parents' grand achievements.

I'm grateful frankly that Disney has experimented in the face of such rebukes.

Of course, nobody is saying the 2000's films are flawless, but guess what, I don't happen to think most of Walt's films were flawless. And tastes change - Walt's early films are just as different in tone to his later films than some of the 2000's films to films from the 1980s. The Zeitgeist changes all the time and sometimes you can capture it, and sometimes you fail. But I'd rather people try to capture it than simply not bother.

Nobody can say for a fact, but I suspect if any of Walt's early films were released today - with no other history - the majority of critics would have positive and negative things to say about them. I would imagine the methods of storytelling (script, actions, pace) would be negatively critiqued, the animation and characters probably positively received (but its academic because its a totally hypothetical situation). It doesn't prove anything because its unprovable, but it shows people must constantly be looking not only at the past to see what was successful, but also to the present to see what works now, and even the future to predict what will work then.

[Goliath]

I'm pretty sure that the movies that have been different, such as some of the ones you mentioned like Oliver and Company and Great Mouse Detective didn't make that much.

Those two films paved the way for the 'Disney Renaissance'. It was Oliver's good box-office performance that made Katzenberg decide to put out a Disney animated film every year. But that's besides the point, since we were discussing the wide variety of stories told by Disney. They don't just do princess fairy tales.

were known to be as quick-paced as the 2000's were...the 90's did make breakthroughs in technology, but it wasn't until the new millennium that new technology after new technology appeared. Everything is happening a quick rate and it doesn't seem like its' slowing down. So yah its a lot quicker now.

Yeah, time really stood still in the 1990's... There were no such things as Toy Story or the deep canvas process in Tarzan... I must have dreamed that.

Disney made high quality productions in the 1990's that impressed both the public *and* the critics. Why can't they do that anymore? You haven't answered that point, but that is really the one important question.

I don't think I once said that the older movies were bad. Now you're putting words into my mouth. All I said is that the older movies wouldn't fare well with today's audience which is 100% completely true.

Is that so? Then who's buying all those dvd's of the old Classics? Maybe it's Santa Claus!

Again, where did I say I'm blaming critics. Did I say critics are wrong. I specifically said MOST disney movies weren't bad, not ALL.

With 'critics' I didn't mean professional movie critics, I mean all people who have been critical of Disney's recent output. You have blamed them for the bad box-office performance of recent Disney films by suggesting that these critics don't like anything new or different. That's the usual strawman used around here, on UD.

Again I said MOST disney movies. I absolutely hate Home on the Range, and it even has pleased some people. So yah these movies are still pleasing today's audiences, just not everyone.

No, when a film is pleasing only a handful of people, it's *not* pleasing "the audience", Babaloo, and I think you know that.

I for one hate Enchanted (don't attack me everyone its just my personal opinion). But most people like it. Do you see me saying it's a bad movie or crap? NO. It's just not for me.

But you may have very valid reasons for saying the movie is bad. Now you're not giving them, we'll never know. Quality doesn't have to have anything to do with opinion. You can like a bad film, and you can dislike a good film. My taste doesn't equal my opinion on film.

What I don't understand is what's wrong with saying stuff like that. Yes I am a fanboy and what's wrong with that.

You know what's wrong with saying stuff like that? It's not true, okay? It's a dishonest, lazy way to brush off any criticism of Disney's recent films. It's a strawman used to demonize the critics. And it's impossible for people to fight, that's why it;s unfair. If you don't agree with me, that's fine. Just discuss with me on arguments, not by saying I'm just too negative, or that I can't stand anything new/different.

What I hate is when people like you who think that only THEIR OWN OPINION should be the only opinion.

That's funny, because that's what you seem to be doing in this thread, by painting all people who don't agree with you as old, sour nagging peope who just can't stand change.

I never claimed to be an English major did I? So I can be as unoriginal and say as many cliches as I want. I don't need to prove that I have this brilliant mind in English.

WTF are you talking about?! 'English major'? What...?

I said you shouldn't falsely accuse people of being something they're not.

Once again I don't see where you're seeing this stuff. Did I say that you should be happy with any Disney movie? I can't stand lots of films from Disney. All I said was that people should rate the movie rather than the label.

That's what you're saying now. But I agree wholeheartedly with that.

[Goliath]

Has Disney really ever done "gross" humour? I think this, like lots of other things is a myth. [...] The gross humour in each of the Disney films cited [...] can be counted in seconds. Seconds.

Home on the Range. All through the film, from beginning to end. (And no, I'm not going to cite each and every example.)

But that's my point exactly. Why does a Disney film have to be "Disney"? It's crazy. When Disney made his first live-action film, did audiences mentally shun it because it wasn't "Disney"? Why can't Disney make wild and wacky animated farces if they want to?

They can, if they do it good. And they haven't yet.

Note however, most of the Genie's future pop-culture references were American culture. Considering people complain current Disney films have too much pop-culture references which will quickly date them - most are a little more broad and acceptable. And yes, to some extent Aladdin does seem dated now when you view it.

Aladdin had a decent story to back it up, and the Genie had enough true, genuine moments with Aladdin. There was heart in the story. That's the difference.

And again, Pixar isn't immune from pop-culture - Toy Story and Toy Story 2 (especially) is jam packed with toy references, film references (such as the casting of the toy solider general's voice artist) and of course Star Wars is heavily referenced in the Buzz Lightyear segments/story. Yet, I've never seen anyone complain about that.

See above: handled with taste and great story to back it up. Story easn't build on it.

Likewise Pixar's Cars didn't do so well overseas because its plot/characters/references were too American orientated. (Cars actually took less money in the UK than Bolt for example).

Cars took in less money because it sucked.

The Incredibles was NOTHING but pop-culture references! People not that familiar with comic-book story telling conventions definitely get less out of the film than those who are. Did anyone complain about that?

No, because, again, the story is still great for people who're not familiar with the conventions.

Why does Disney have to do one thing, one thing that no other studio on the planet has to adhere to?

Nobody said that. That's just your/Duckburgers/Babaloo's strawman again.
You will never, EVER even CONSIDER whether there is a teenie tiny POSSIBILITY that MAYBE most of Disney's post-2000 films were bad. Blinded by the name 'Disney', you just choose to insult the people who are critical of recent releases. NOT discussing them on facts or arguments. Just ad hominem attacks.

I'm sorry, but why should that even be an issue? Lots of people went to see Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs. Are you telling me that they all went because they had a strong idea of what "Sony Pictures Animation" creates? How many even knew it was from "Sony Pictures Animation".

It just sounds like an excuse to me. Why should anyone care what Disney stands for or if is generic. If they're interchangeable and comparable with other studios output, why should it matter? People go and see the other studios output - so my all logic they should also go and see Disney's output. All people should do is watch a trailer or see any other publicity and decide from that if they want to see a film or not. It's how virtually every other film attracts an audience.

There used to be a time when the name 'Disney' guaranteed huge audiences and good box-office performance. That's because people knew that a 'Disney' film was always good entertainment. Because Beauty and the Beast was great, and Aladdin was great, people just *knew* they wanted to see Lion King too. 'Disney' stood for something, and people could count on the fact that a film of theirs was good entertainment. Nowadays, that's not the case anymore. Disney has dropped the ball consistently and that's why people aren't drawn to a Disney film anymore like they used to be. Look at what Bolt made, or what Meet the Robinsons made. It can't compare to any of the 1990's fare. That has a reason. But you don't want to discuss it. And why not, anyway? Do you think you'll get kicked off UD when you make a critical post about Disney?

I think that it's a stupid argument. People don't know what Disney "is" anymore, so won't go to see the films? But they'll plonk the money down for a Dreamworks, Sony, Universal or any other animated film?

People at least know what they get when they're going to one of their pictures. And they can only spend their money once.

And being as you brought this up in your posts Goliath, I do blame the critics - 100% - because its the critics who help to spread the myth that "Disney has lost its way", or Disney is "abandoning its history" or whatever.

And that's why I blame you for being a fanboy with blinders on. Huge, huge, huge blinders. You have turned off your mind SO far, that you actually think that *all* the critics are wrong, and Disney can *never* put out a bad film. You don't love Disney films. You love the corporate logo that says 'Disney'. If you think critics who had real, valid points and arguments are just spreading "myths", you're not being reasonable. One can't actually reason with you, because you won't listen to reason. Where's your counter-arguments for the critics, and for me? You have never given any. That's because you don't have any. You think only your opinion is valid, and that critics are evil and plotting to kill Disney or something...

We're going back to the "originality" aspect again (and yes, an original film is not automatically a good film) but I'm sure the majority of critics would be just as harsh in their judgement if Disney did fall-back on its mainstay subjects/formulas more than they have.

Er... Disney *did* fall back on their formula with Princess and the Frog (although I'd say Disney doesn't have one formula, but for the sake of argument...) and the critics liked it. They weren't harsh at all. But they like the new, original, off-formula Lilo & Stitch as well. So again, you paranoid idea of an evil plot is nonsense.

No other animation creators have as much to live up to - and as much ammunition for critics to use against them. Why bother trying anything new, why bother trying to experiment, when a critic can just reach back to the 1940s or the 1980s and say "its good, but not 1940s good". Its a passive/aggressive form of criticism. A backhanded compliment, such as praising a child while saying it will never live up to its parents' grand achievements.

You don't have to use words like "ammunition". Again, it's not a fight against Disney or something. Geez, Disney just has more to live up to, yes. It's only LOGICAL that critics take that into account. That's what a GOOD critic does: he/she places the new films in context. If he/she doesn't do that, he/she's a lousy critic. Obviously you don't know the first thing about professional movie criticism. That's why I suggest you stop commenting on it.

I mean: "passive-agressive form of criticism"???? "Passive-agressive"?! Are you SERIOUS?!

Of course, nobody is saying the 2000's films are flawless,

Yes, you are.

[2099net]

You will never, EVER even CONSIDER whether there is a teenie tiny POSSIBILITY that MAYBE most of Disney's post-2000 films were bad. Blinded by the name 'Disney', you just choose to insult the people who are critical of recent releases. NOT discussing them on facts or arguments. Just ad hominem attacks.

You know that's not true. I've mentioned problems with 2000s films before - probably on this very thread, but definitely where you have read me list them before.

You're saying I'm blinded by Disney, but perhaps you're blinded by the history of Disney?

As for some of your other points: The WHOLE of Home on the Range consists of gross-out humour? Really? Its been a while since I've seen it, but really? I believe you mentioned the chickens laying eggs in response to male attention in one post previously. You really think that's gross-out humour? It was in Warner Brothers cartoons in the 1950s! (Yes, I know you'll say WB shorts were aimed at a broad, adult audiences, but times have moved on and their jokes have become part of today's lexicon - for children and adults. Besides, I don't see how its different to big-breasted girls draping themselves over Gaston in Beauty and the Beast as he displays his muscles.)

A few other matters: You use the word "heart" when describing the Genie. I defy anyone to define what heart actually means. I only seem to see it when people can't describe WHY they feel for/about something and resort to using a critical cliche. I find can find just as much "heart" in the majority of the 1990s/2000s films.

Cars may or may not be Pixar's biggest hit in the US, but it performed noticeably worse in the majority of the films overseas markets. That's probably why the sequel (as we know it) has a number of segments set in locations all over the globe - in order to make it appealing to the international audience turned off by overt nostalgic Americana in the original.

See above: handled with taste and great story to back it up. Story easn't build on it.

I dunno, most of Buzz's story in Toy Story 2 was basically spoofing Star Wars and his (fictional) relationship with Evil Emperor Zurg (or his fictional identity when replaced which while not Star Wars specific do use various pop-culture references as some form of shorthand), his "story" is not specifically about rescuing Woody. The Star Wars references were more than just an after-thought.

And can you name a Disney film which does build its story on Pop-Culture references?

No, because, again, the story is still great for people who're not familiar with the conventions.

Or people who did probably didn't think the story was that great after all, its hugely derivative. Take Fantastic Four in general for the family set-up (and even most of the powers, possibly even connections between Syndrome's and Dr Dooms motivations/scientific knowledge), add in a bit of Days of Future Past from the X-Man (concept of "outlawed" heroes, an attempted genocide of superhumans and of course giant ressurecting robots who can learn from their mistakes and develop immunities) and you've basically got The Incredibles.

Er... Disney *did* fall back on their formula with Princess and the Frog (although I'd say Disney doesn't have one formula, but for the sake of argument...) and the critics liked it. They weren't harsh at all. But they like the new, original, off-formula Lilo & Stitch as well. So again, you paranoid idea of an evil plot is nonsense.

Well, what exactly do you class as "like" - taking "Rotten Tomatoes" as a guide, any review with an average of 3/5 is classed as a "hit" - despite quotes such as:

* Randy Newman’s songs are a little too blandly Randy Newman-ish and the story is uneven, but there are some great characters, some even better jokes, a general sense of good humour and that entrancing, eye-ravishing old-school animation.

* It's a nice set-up, but the supporting cast are retreads of characters we've seen many times from Disney throughout the ages, and their wisecracks won't measure up for a grown-up crowd.

* Intermittently appealing and great to look at, this doesn’t add up to classic Disney, but it’s heaps better than the gruesome Home on the Range, which looked to be the last gasp of these old-style toons. It proves there’s life in dem bones yet.

* At the end of the day, it's okay. But when it comes to animation from Disney, 'okay' is a bit of a let-down.

etc. Not exactly glowing reviews. And that's just some of the summaries from the first page (all classed as "hits").

You don't have to use words like "ammunition". Again, it's not a fight against Disney or something. Geez, Disney just has more to live up to, yes. It's only LOGICAL that critics take that into account. That's what a GOOD critic does: he/she places the new films in context. If he/she doesn't do that, he/she's a lousy critic. Obviously you don't know the first thing about professional movie criticism. That's why I suggest you stop commenting on it.

Why? What context is there? Most of the people who made Walt's films are dead! Most of the people who made Disney's films in the 2000s didn't make them in the mid-80s or early 90s. What sort of context is that to put things in? Is it a fair context? It's not the same people making the films, why do they have to live-up to other people's expectations simply because they work for the same company? Is every new play put on by the RSC compared to their Shakespeare productions? Every new script they decide to perform put in context with their performances of Shakespeare's plays?

Not even every Spielberg film is judged against the peaks his other films. Because, on the whole they're different - to compare Catch Me If You Can to Schindlers' List would wouldn't achieve much.

They have different tones, different aims and different styles. Yes, they're made to a different audience, but so are Disney films today - the child audience of today is different from those in the 1940s, 1970s and 1990s. A film about pirates in space or princesses who turn into frogs or a Chinese girl who becomes a warrior (for examples) are all aimed at different audiences. There's crossover sure, but each film has its own identity, its own feel and its own reason for existing.

A film is either good, bad or indifferent in the reviewers opinion. A good critic should be able to articulate why without digging into the past.

[Babaloo]

Goliath, it may look like that I was going against you and everyone else who doesn't like the Disney movies from the 2000's (now that I look back at what I wrote I can see it myself). It also seems that I misinterpreted some of the stuff you were saying (I've never been that great at English), so sorry for that. All I was trying to say that I don't describe the 2000's as a decade with a crappy output. I agree with you that some Disney movies of this decade have been crap and that the quality in animation, story, etc...hasn't been as great as past Disney movies. But I do like some of the movies, and I actually think some of them are the best ones that have come out of the studio. I LOVE Lilo and Stitch (easily in my top 5), and Princess and the Frog is quickly growing on me; Atlantis, to me, has one of the best favourite looks to an animated film; Bolt made me realize how much I do love Disney for its subtle humour and heartfelt story. All these may have had stories that were done before, but how many movies recently have been copies of older movies. So I don't disagree with you that Disney this decade seemed to just pour out movies to try to make money, but at the same time I don't consider it a complete failure. I was just stating my own personal opinion, and I felt that you just had to say something back about everything I said.

I just think that there's no reason why Disney shouldn't be making as much money as other companies do. Most people tend to go see a movie blindly, without even knowing anything about it. "Up" had one of the worst marketing campaigns I have ever seen, but look how much it made. I didn't even know what I was about to see (all i knew was it was about an old man and balloons on his house). Of course it got better reviews than PatF did, but PatF didn't get bad reviews; it did quite well. But look what happened, it struggled to break even domestically (and its still has not happened).

And I actually in my previous post said that people should rate a movie rather than the label, that wasn't something I made up there. I did say it in my first post.

And I know that all these older movies are being bought today, but I still think that if Snow White were to come out today in theatres it wouldn't do well (I'm talking about the exact same movie with better technology). The story is not one that would appeal to people today, it would be step back in progress. People would go crazy over things like Snow White's weak personality. I think the reason why they still sell well is that there is a sense of nostalgia and accomplishment, and I don't think any of us criticize it's themes, etc because we can understand that it was made during a time where those exact themes were prevalent.

Also I didn't say that the 90's "stood still". All I said is that technology has progressed a lot quicker now than it has before. Look at Avatar's visuals! I do agree that Disney didn't use the new technology the best way they could (I was so disappointed when I saw how bad the CGI in Home on the Range was).

Anyways you have your opinion and I have mine, and that's fine. I'm not going to try to convince you that you should change your opinion about the 2000's since you have your own reasons why you think it's crap. And I do agree with you on a lot of points, but I do have to disagree with you that overall the decade should be considered bad. I've never been great at explaining myself, so I can't really say why I like a certain movie or dislike another (or at least try to write it down), but I do have my reasons and it does make sense in this giant head of mine .

[Goliath]

Goliath, it may look like that I was going against you and everyone else who doesn't like the Disney movies from the 2000's (now that I look back at what I wrote I can see it myself). It also seems that I misinterpreted some of the stuff you were saying (I've never been that great at English), so sorry for that.

That's okay. I think you took the heath from me for all the other people before you who (appeared to) use that old strawman. So I may have been a little too hard on you as well.

All I was trying to say that I don't describe the 2000's as a decade with a crappy output.

'Crappy' is also an over-statement from me. I used such strong language to really make clear what I see as a big gap in quality between Disney's pre- and post-2000 films.

I agree with you that some Disney movies of this decade have been crap and that the quality in animation, story, etc...hasn't been as great as past Disney movies. But I do like some of the movies, and I actually think some of them are the best ones that have come out of the studio. I LOVE Lilo and Stitch (easily in my top 5), and Princess and the Frog is quickly growing on me;

Lilo & Stitch is also one of my top 10 Disney films. Like I said, not everything Disney turned out after 2000 is automatically bad. And I agree with you: let's judge each film individually instead of judging it by the label of the company. We shouldn't praise every Disney-film just because it has the label 'Disney' on it. I'm planning on seeing Princess and the Frog next thursday.

[...] So I don't disagree with you that Disney this decade seemed to just pour out movies to try to make money, but at the same time I don't consider it a complete failure. I was just stating my own personal opinion, and I felt that you just had to say something back about everything I said.

I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. Then obviously I haven't communicated my thoughts clear enough. Each person has his/her own opinions and tastes, and we should all respect that. The only thing I have a problem with, is when people say that "there are no good or bad films" because it's all only opinions. (Not saying you said that.)

I just think that there's no reason why Disney shouldn't be making as much money as other companies do. Most people tend to go see a movie blindly, without even knowing anything about it. "Up" had one of the worst marketing campaigns I have ever seen, but look how much it made. I didn't even know what I was about to see (all i knew was it was about an old man and balloons on his house). Of course it got better reviews than PatF did, but PatF didn't get bad reviews; it did quite well. But look what happened, it struggled to break even domestically (and its still has not happened).

I don't know how it was in Canada (or in the US), but in The Netherlands, where I live, Up was getting a shipload of media attention months before it came out! You couldn't open a magazine or newspaper or there was a piece about it. So by the time it opened, everybody knew what it was about, and they were all curious to see it. It also got terrific reviews; all the critics loved it. But while Princess has opened this week, it hasn't gotten half as much attention as Up. Most people I know don't even know it's playing. Of course the succes of Up had a lot to do with Pixar's reputation. Even though Cars was not widely liked, Pixar still has the reputation of having only produced high-quality hit films. Every new film is received with more enthusiasm than the previous one. People know when they go to a Pixar film, they get quality entertainment for their money. Disney simply has lost that reputation over the last decade. I blame it on themselves. Other people blame it on an evil plot by critics to destroy Disney by spreading myths. You take your pick.

And I actually in my previous post said that people should rate a movie rather than the label, that wasn't something I made up there. I did say it in my first post.

I'm sorry, I must have missed that.

And I know that all these older movies are being bought today, but I still think that if Snow White were to come out today in theatres it wouldn't do well (I'm talking about the exact same movie with better technology). The story is not one that would appeal to people today, it would be step back in progress. People would go crazy over things like Snow White's weak personality. I think the reason why they still sell well is that there is a sense of nostalgia and accomplishment, and I don't think any of us criticize it's themes, etc because we can understand that it was made during a time where those exact themes were prevalent.

Good points. I agree that nostalgia and accomplishment have a lot to do with it. Those films have a reputation for being 'the best of the best'. On the other hand, they got that reputation for a reason. Lots of older films nowadays are only watched by film buffs, while old Disney films are being watched by everybody. To a certain degree they *are* timeless.

Anyways you have your opinion and I have mine, and that's fine. I'm not going to try to convince you that you should change your opinion about the 2000's since you have your own reasons why you think it's crap.

We can agree to disagree. Or agree to agree about some things and not all.

[Heil Donald Duck]

the year 1966 nuff said.

[Disney Duster]

Does anyone wonder if maybe when Disney tries to be un-Disney, they just don't do it well?

Lilo & Stitch was a big departure from the regular Disney-recipe, by having a dysfunctional family with two sisters whose parents had passed away; and Lilo being almost taken away by Cobra. Yet that film succeeded on all points: animation, story, jokes, characters, sincerity, heart, warmth, adventure, music etc. It's not that I hate Disney for doing things 'differently' Walt himself has done many things 'differently', including the whole Xerox-process).

I don't think too much of Lilo & Stitch, it was one of the better ones, but I still didn't find it as great as the ones from the Renaissance or even shortly after the Renaissance, and I don't like it that much, maybe my personal taste or something else, I don't know. But it didn't do as well as Disney should do, which is what we, or at least I, was getting at. Also, a different animation process is totally different from radically changing everything like Lilo & Stitch. And Walt actually only employed the Xerox process because of cost, and he said he didn't like the style! He wanted the beautifully inked, thin outlines and coloring of before...

I think people tend to think of Disney as this company that should only do one type of story.

But that's not true. Look at Snow White, Dumbo, Alice in Wonderland, 101 Dalmatians, Great Mouse Detective, Oliver & Company... Those are all very different stories, right? And there are a lot more of them. The Black Cauldron!

Those films do have things in common, talking animals of course (which can be found in some 2000 films, too, in grosser, wackier, edgier ways...), but also magic is in a lot of those, and a sense of warm fantasy. Alice was classic literature sometimes considered a fairy tale, it's kind of like them. And the ones that are oddest in that selection, Mouse Detective and Oliver, as has been said, didn't do well (though I know Oliver did better, and enough to start the ones that did do really well, to what we expect from Disney). But the reason we call it the Disney Renaissance was because films were finally getting hailed, and making money and critical acclaim, like Walt's days, because even though he had misses, he was pretty consistently good, it was usually like one loved, one not, one loved, one not. And it can be agreed they're all high quality, if some more than others. Maybe some of the ones after 101 Dalmatians were less good, but Walt was really involved in Disneyland and also kinda nearing the end of his life, and perhaps it was that the crews were waiting for his say, and he was distracted, that had something to do with it. Instead of trying to tap in the magic themselves? Of course people still love those films that came after 101 Dalmatians as well, except maybe The Sword in the Stone is loved by a much smaller amount of people.

Disney is just trying to keep up with the times. They are progressing and in an era where everything is moving fast, it just seems Disney is doing the same.

In the 1990's Disney ALSO kept up with the times in an era in which everything ALSO went fast. And they still made hit films which drew huge audiences AND had high quality. So why didn't that work out in the 2000's? Could it possibly have anything to do with Disney turning out crap?

But the films Disney did in the 1990's were fairy tales, and even the Lion King was about royalty, talking animals, and some magic.

How come Disney get's criticised repeatedly on this forum for doing that, yet Pixar can do farting seagull jokes in Finding Nemo or can actually create a character called "Stinky Pete" in Toy Story 2 and not one single person complains.

I am talking about Disney, not Pixar. Pixar is indeed different than Disney.

That's just one example of what Im talking about. Maybe the public goes to some movie studios for a certain entertainment, and then to Disney for a different kind of entertainment.

But how does the public "know" without seeing the film in the first place? Granted the udder line was in the trailer for Home on the Range, but nothing was in the Chicken Little publicity to say "Hey, kids. Gross out humour! Come and get it!".

I don't think the public thinks about it a lot, it may even be subconcious, but I am wondering if whatever senses people get from seeing or hearing anything about Disney doing a certain kind of genre or story or entertainment, they don't think Disney should do them. They don't have to see the movie to know it's Disney doing what they usually don't do, or just what other studios are doing. I don't know. It could even be the look of great sophisticated Disney animation not mixing well with the not-so-great pop-culture unsophisticated types of stories and humor and entire films...maybe the classic Disney animation mixing with any kind of different story, like a historical legend (Pocahontas) or a Chinese legend or a detective story (either of the Rescuers, and the Great Mouse Detective). But the legends, closer to fairy tales, faired better, and fair better in people's minds today. People like those a little more these days, and at least remember them.

There's no such thing as a "Spielberg" film and even directors who are more identifiable with a house style don't have a sub-genre all to themselves. Look at Tim Burton - is there such a thing as a "Burton" film? Sweeny Todd was R rated and covered in gore! How does that contrast to his upcoming Alice In Wonderland film for Disney? Will people be expecting gore and walk out if they don't get it (or in the case of Sweeny Todd, vice versa)? Nor is there a "Fox" film, or a "Universal" film...

I would definately say there is such a thing as a Burton film. Notice you only pointed out Sweeney Todd as being different. That still felt Burton to a degree, but you have to also notice he applied his direction to something where the story, music, script, and even period, location, and costumes to a degree were already there, and he couldn't change those. But one example of his feeling is in the costumes, and notice Sweeney's gloves or his bride of skunkenstein hair. Sweeney even reminds me of scissorhands...

Alice in Wonderland already feels very Burton.

As for the others, yea, they may not have as distinctive a style. But that is why I hold Disney a little higher, I like that they do have something that specifically feels like only their studio made it, but that seems to come on and off, pretty much off in the less successful films. I guess they tap into it sometimes and not other times, and if they tried, and thought, they could probably keep it in more often. Ironically, Burton has done a lot of films, shorts, and even animation designs for Disney. Alice is their most recent collaboration.

Now, the quality that a studio or a person has only to them is hard to describe, and it should be, as no other person or studio can attain it, after all. But generally there is a warm, heartfelt, fantasy, magical, often sentimental and dramatic quality to Disney that other studios don't have the same kind of. And so when Disney makes something that feels unlike that, I notice. I mean sci-fi is not the same as fantasy, though maybe Atlantis could have been done well if it was more like visiting an enchanted lost city instead of hardened edgy characters with their cool machines. That's just an example, and I am only theorizing and wondering.

That said, even Pixar feels Pixar to me everytime.

Let me put it this way. Do people ever say they are seeing a Dreamworks film? A Spielburg film? No. But some people will say they are seeing a Burton film, and a LOT of people will say they are seeing a Pixar film, and a LOT of people will say they are seeing a Disney film.

And again, Pixar isn't immune from pop-culture -

Yes, once again, they are Pixar. I'm talking about when Disney does such things, maybe people don't like it, or Disney doesn't do it well. Maybe it's the classic trying to be hip.

And by the way, laying an egg in excitiment does feel different to me than girls with (covered!) big chests swooning over a muscley man. And, if you ever saw the episode with Moral Orel on chicken eggs... And also, like I said, I want Disney to be Disney, not Warner Bros.! It is not okay if studios are interchangeable, otherwise why decide you will work for one or love one over the other? You even said yourself you like Disney for it's saferness with sexuality and violence, and I'm sure there are other reasons, too!

Aladdin and The Lion King are examples of films that I think are half-edgy but also dramatic, heartfelt, and fantastic and even have fantasy, they are still Disney (though actually less so to me than the previous Renaissance films). It seems contradictory that one of them is a poor seller on DVD but the other is a top seller. I would say that the edginess with the Disney dramaticness accounts for The Lion King's massive popularity as the Disney film everyone and their dad likes, and why Aladdin is also popular by today's generation. But maybe since Aladdin was more comedic than The Lion King, it is less remembered and less successful on video.

And lets not forget The Lion King is so edgier Bambi.

I am ust wondering if sometimes it's like classic Disney trying to be hip, the public doesn't want to see that, and neither do I. But Aladdin and The lion King weren't so bad with the hip, especially since Aladdin kind of started the pop-culture anyway, derived from something that related to the plot, that the genie was a creature of all time that would know pop culture. But then other films got really hip and pop-culture just for the sake of it, really modern, and sometimes really gross. And Disney may have tried to be like that and...yuck.

I still don't like how modern/edgy The Princess and the Frog was, but it only was in some moments.

So let's see...most Walt Disney films were literature classics, including fairy tales, and had cute talking animals, that were still rather realistic, and fantasy and magic. Even Dumbo had an elephant that could fly with a magic feather. Then Lady and the Tramp was an original story but a romance between talking animals. 101 Dalmatians is the oddest one out, but still literature with talking, realistic animals and realistic humans.

Magical Sword in the Stone and talking, singing animal Jungle Book were very Disney, but they did suffer from the crew looking to a man who was distracted. The AristoCats was like a cat version of 101 Dalmatians with not nearly as good a villain, and not based on literature. Plus I'd say there was a general boringness and more gags and songs than dramatic story (or maybe story, period) for a lot of the following films. Wouldn't it be great if Disney did a serious, dramatic Robin Hood with human characters? But they did a more laidback gag-full version of the literature classic with animals replacing the famous characters. But cuddly talking stuffed animal Winnie the Pooh was faithful to it's literature and fit right in.

Then the successful ones again were with the Renaissance, fairy tales of classic literature with royalty, and they ended with a talking animal version of royalty and some say Hamlet from classic literature.

They stuck to many classic pieces of literature, with maybe some unfaithfulness, a zany edgy comedic approach or a fart-sound-making gargoyle, but those did okay and are regarded well today, so it seems things only really went down hill for them when they did CGI Dinasaur, then some edgy Warner Bros. like New Groove, an edgy musicless sci-fi adventure, an edgy oddball sci-fi Hawaiian adventure, an edgy sci-fi half CGI version of classic literature, and then another Native American legend, and finally farting cartoony cows.

I'm not concluding anything here but merely theorizing on the aughties, now that we are in 2010. But boy do I wish Rapunzel looked more hand-drawn or painted like Glen Keane wanted...and was more faithful to the literature...

[blackcauldron85]

http://progresscityusa.com/2010/02/13/m ... like-this/
(via disneyreport.com)

Then there are the more insidious whispers. Whispers that the Walt Disney Animation Studios will be severely downsized, going to a model similar to the one that has occasionally been pushed on Imagineering – that of a small, centralized core of managers and key creatives still working at Disney, with the production work farmed out to contractors.

[WDWLocal]

http://progresscityusa.com/2010/02/13/m ... like-this/
(via disneyreport.com)

Then there are the more insidious whispers. Whispers that the Walt Disney Animation Studios will be severely downsized, going to a model similar to the one that has occasionally been pushed on Imagineering – that of a small, centralized core of managers and key creatives still working at Disney, with the production work farmed out to contractors.

Don't pay any attention to those gossip mongers/liars that have no lives.

[Elladorine]

Don't pay any attention to those gossip mongers/liars that have no lives.

Why are you acting like Michael (the author of the article Amy linked) is happy to make this report? He's not. He's listing off some facts and making a logical (albeit sad) speculation about downsizing and other issues (seriously, Toy Story 4?!!!).

Snow Queen is back on the shelf, newt is dead, Rapunzel has been ridiculously rebranded as Tangled, and King of the Elves is either in turnaround or abandoned depending on who you talk to.
. . .
despite what some might think, I do not relish disseminating bad news.

WDWLocal: It's obvious that a lot of changes are hitting the studios very recently, clear outlined facts that perhaps point to a dark period ahead. I don't like it any more than you do, but to accuse sources of being liars and having no lives just because something negative is presented? It doesn't get you, us, or even the Disney company anywhere to blindly defend them and pretend they do no wrong.

Look, I've read many of your posts and realize how strongly you feel about the company, but Disney is not a perfect fairy-tale place, it's a business. If they feel they need to downsize, rely too much on market research, or cancel projects we were all looking forward to, it won't be the first time they'll do so. Sigh . . . not that it makes any of us happy.

Hopefully we'll hear less depressing news soon enough.