Well, I hope you would believe in Disney's essence, but I was not offended, I just genuinely thought you were really funny.
I kept laughing and my friend asked. Now that she knows, she'll occasionally just say "Magic" and I smile.
The Disney Essence: Fact or Fiction?
-
Disney Duster
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 14017
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: America
-
Lazario
Let me try to elaborate slightly on my previous semi-"nonsensical" post. (And it wasn't even that jumbled - it was just cut down because I didn't have the time to get this detailed)
Now we also know, corporately, that Disney have been copying other movies, shows, etc(.) by other studios, etc. Modern Disney is a follower, not a leader in any way. I said someone else here said it before me. And if you look through the forums, you'll see that. People who probably pay more attention to their shows and live-action movies. As for their live-action movies, I said in my post that really Parent Trap II was proof that the old magic had died (and in animation, Fox and the Hound and Mickey's Christmas Carol were equally void of magic to match their ideas of tragedy). That film is so ridiculous and obnoxious that it actually kind of puts Saved by the Bell / or the Hayley-starred first incarnation of it, Good Morning Miss Bliss, to shame in the logical-WtF department. Then, I mean- do I have to mention the parade of Jonathan Taylor Thomas flicks of the 90's? I think we can both agree there's no difference between those and any given PG/PG-13 Touchstone / Hollywood flick, except less language and risque themes.
All their 90's live-action movies took a huge leap into somewhere else and I'm not sure anyone would argue this. But at the very least, they were side-by-side with other trends in other company's product: usually involving using child stars or stereotypes to sell their films. The precocious child, the "Dad, this is so lame!" child, the fat kids, the "nervous with girls" kids, the "I've got a dream but it'll be a huge undertaking" kids. And yes, the music scores that would play were not only indistinguishable from each other- but also didn't carry on the feeling of classic Disney in any way. Same with the films' pacing and any sense of fantasy, I never felt I was being taken away to another place. So okay- they changed their approach to keep the company afloat. Maybe popular tastes changed so much that even Walt himself couldn't have created something new out of the stories they had left to keep the classic feeling alive. But all I said anyway was that this was enough to make me walk away from the company's output. Almost completely, in every way.
As far as the animated films go, Beauty and the Beast is just bland. I say that's because the makers thought we'll just keep that big musical vibe and the action-adventure element (and the chatty kid character; Flounder) from Mermaid and toss out the creepiness and the wild, unbridled, anything-can-happen feeling with the art. The "Poor Unfortunate Souls" sequence was a bar-raiser that not only makes you feel that edginess Disney had mastered in the 40's, but also challenges the reputations of some of Disney's 50's movies - in one of their most cherished decades - for; "did they really insinuate anything nearly this sinister?" And make you think it was possible that they'll deliver an ending as stirring or thrilling as Monstro... And so, Disney's real cinematic reputation in the 90's is: big movie musical. Not just a musical with characters singing- but choreographed animated-dancing where it's like the makers wanted to tap into some West Side Story or something. It's in everything: Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Lion King, Pocahontas, and further down the line- I'll bet money. Hell, there was a stand-up comic (Pablo Francisco, I believe) once who pointed this out as well. That there was no difference between Aladdin and something like Grease. He didn't even have to mention Disney, everyone just immediately connected to the cliche and understood.
So, they sell to the mainstream-musical lovers (of which, I was never one- I think they're mostly stupid, shallow, and... almost sports-like, though they're crazy about dancing instead, the moves like sports-plays are still important to the people who stage them), and they also sell to the silly kids with over-the-top comedy (propelled by the stars, by the way: Robin Williams, JTT, Jason Alexander, Cheech Marin, James Woods - so you know they never tried to separate the stars from the characters they were playing, like they could in most of the decades before), gross-out humor and crude jokes, quirky characters with mouths overstuffed with one-liners to keep the laughs high (which is another thing fairly absent from Disney's previous decades-worth of animated features), and loud, noisy action sequences (scored almost identically as whatever big music score you could barely tell the difference between: Hook, Jurassic Park, Casper, Jumanji- you name it). I was 9 when Aladdin came out. 9 years old and I enjoyed it but because it was visually so beautiful. I was becoming detached from the same-same-same approach Hollywood gave us with all kids' movies. I was the same age when my family went to see Beauty and the Beast in the theater and my mother didn't like it either. It was bland.
So, I groaned big time when all the kids were laughing at every single thing The Genie did in Aladdin. I was still like 10 or 11 when they'd show Disney movies in school. They laughed at everything, and it felt like they were laughing because they thought they were supposed to laugh. If I laughed at all, it was when he was legitimately funny. And when Lion King came out; the same zombie-like effect occured. People quoted Timon and Pumbaa daily, to the point where I practically wanted to shoot myself. "Tastes like chicken tastes like chicken tastes like chicken tastes like chicken tastes like chicken tastes like chicken" over and over and over again. What would you have thought? And of course, they loved the farting. Over and over again, they mention it. They do impressions. They talk to the screen (and I can't get out of the room while they're showing this- I tried everything!), fill in the blanks when they set up the fart joke but never say the word, and make the noise. And everyone is singing one of those songs and driving me crazy. Mostly the buddy song (I won't even say the words) and "The Circle of Life" and "I Just Can't Wait to Be King" which proves what I said about the casting of JTT- it infiltrated the kids because he was popular and it's like subliminal marketing. They didn't hire him because he was good. They hired him because he was popular.
And though Pocahontas is one of my top 20 favorite Disney films now, I don't deny it had some of the same problems. But after that, they upped the comedy to tip the scales. Maybe you guys remember how heavy the drama was, but the kids remembered the spitting and the "cut the cheese" gross out humor. I know, because the same Lion King effect occurred, "pour the wine and cut the cheese" was frequently mentioned at school. Corporate Disney hedged their bets just fine (because you can tell that's where the majority of the concern with that movie was placed) and stained the whole film with marketing savvy. Lots of savvy, no feeling. I checked out.
I've never been a butt-kisser of Walt the human being. I didn't know him. I can't speak for him (like some people try to) and don't pretend to. Based on what I've heard, he seemed like he believed in what he was doing whole-heartedly and I respect that. What he helped to create is amazing. And I guess because the essence / magic / spirit / soul / feeling / ambience (whatever you call it) lasted so long in the classic movies (even up to The Rescuers, and I thought it was re-invented pretty well for The Black Cauldron), and because the filmmakers cared about Walt's vision past his death, that it could last for as long as people wanted it to. The late 80's re-invented it again and though the movies were fun, The Little Mermaid was their last epic and yet, it was starting trends that kept changing the movies until they didn't feel like Disney anymore. The people who made the movies to follow Mermaid continued to bring out the elements in Mermaid that were the least characteristic of a magical Disney animated film experience.Lazario wrote:It's already been said that modern Disney is not very Disney-like at all.Disney Duster wrote:Lazario...I can't believe you are so vehement against the music. It was made for a Disney game. Perhaps you simply think the music is too modern...
Now we also know, corporately, that Disney have been copying other movies, shows, etc(.) by other studios, etc. Modern Disney is a follower, not a leader in any way. I said someone else here said it before me. And if you look through the forums, you'll see that. People who probably pay more attention to their shows and live-action movies. As for their live-action movies, I said in my post that really Parent Trap II was proof that the old magic had died (and in animation, Fox and the Hound and Mickey's Christmas Carol were equally void of magic to match their ideas of tragedy). That film is so ridiculous and obnoxious that it actually kind of puts Saved by the Bell / or the Hayley-starred first incarnation of it, Good Morning Miss Bliss, to shame in the logical-WtF department. Then, I mean- do I have to mention the parade of Jonathan Taylor Thomas flicks of the 90's? I think we can both agree there's no difference between those and any given PG/PG-13 Touchstone / Hollywood flick, except less language and risque themes.
All their 90's live-action movies took a huge leap into somewhere else and I'm not sure anyone would argue this. But at the very least, they were side-by-side with other trends in other company's product: usually involving using child stars or stereotypes to sell their films. The precocious child, the "Dad, this is so lame!" child, the fat kids, the "nervous with girls" kids, the "I've got a dream but it'll be a huge undertaking" kids. And yes, the music scores that would play were not only indistinguishable from each other- but also didn't carry on the feeling of classic Disney in any way. Same with the films' pacing and any sense of fantasy, I never felt I was being taken away to another place. So okay- they changed their approach to keep the company afloat. Maybe popular tastes changed so much that even Walt himself couldn't have created something new out of the stories they had left to keep the classic feeling alive. But all I said anyway was that this was enough to make me walk away from the company's output. Almost completely, in every way.
As far as the animated films go, Beauty and the Beast is just bland. I say that's because the makers thought we'll just keep that big musical vibe and the action-adventure element (and the chatty kid character; Flounder) from Mermaid and toss out the creepiness and the wild, unbridled, anything-can-happen feeling with the art. The "Poor Unfortunate Souls" sequence was a bar-raiser that not only makes you feel that edginess Disney had mastered in the 40's, but also challenges the reputations of some of Disney's 50's movies - in one of their most cherished decades - for; "did they really insinuate anything nearly this sinister?" And make you think it was possible that they'll deliver an ending as stirring or thrilling as Monstro... And so, Disney's real cinematic reputation in the 90's is: big movie musical. Not just a musical with characters singing- but choreographed animated-dancing where it's like the makers wanted to tap into some West Side Story or something. It's in everything: Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Lion King, Pocahontas, and further down the line- I'll bet money. Hell, there was a stand-up comic (Pablo Francisco, I believe) once who pointed this out as well. That there was no difference between Aladdin and something like Grease. He didn't even have to mention Disney, everyone just immediately connected to the cliche and understood.
So, they sell to the mainstream-musical lovers (of which, I was never one- I think they're mostly stupid, shallow, and... almost sports-like, though they're crazy about dancing instead, the moves like sports-plays are still important to the people who stage them), and they also sell to the silly kids with over-the-top comedy (propelled by the stars, by the way: Robin Williams, JTT, Jason Alexander, Cheech Marin, James Woods - so you know they never tried to separate the stars from the characters they were playing, like they could in most of the decades before), gross-out humor and crude jokes, quirky characters with mouths overstuffed with one-liners to keep the laughs high (which is another thing fairly absent from Disney's previous decades-worth of animated features), and loud, noisy action sequences (scored almost identically as whatever big music score you could barely tell the difference between: Hook, Jurassic Park, Casper, Jumanji- you name it). I was 9 when Aladdin came out. 9 years old and I enjoyed it but because it was visually so beautiful. I was becoming detached from the same-same-same approach Hollywood gave us with all kids' movies. I was the same age when my family went to see Beauty and the Beast in the theater and my mother didn't like it either. It was bland.
So, I groaned big time when all the kids were laughing at every single thing The Genie did in Aladdin. I was still like 10 or 11 when they'd show Disney movies in school. They laughed at everything, and it felt like they were laughing because they thought they were supposed to laugh. If I laughed at all, it was when he was legitimately funny. And when Lion King came out; the same zombie-like effect occured. People quoted Timon and Pumbaa daily, to the point where I practically wanted to shoot myself. "Tastes like chicken tastes like chicken tastes like chicken tastes like chicken tastes like chicken tastes like chicken" over and over and over again. What would you have thought? And of course, they loved the farting. Over and over again, they mention it. They do impressions. They talk to the screen (and I can't get out of the room while they're showing this- I tried everything!), fill in the blanks when they set up the fart joke but never say the word, and make the noise. And everyone is singing one of those songs and driving me crazy. Mostly the buddy song (I won't even say the words) and "The Circle of Life" and "I Just Can't Wait to Be King" which proves what I said about the casting of JTT- it infiltrated the kids because he was popular and it's like subliminal marketing. They didn't hire him because he was good. They hired him because he was popular.
And though Pocahontas is one of my top 20 favorite Disney films now, I don't deny it had some of the same problems. But after that, they upped the comedy to tip the scales. Maybe you guys remember how heavy the drama was, but the kids remembered the spitting and the "cut the cheese" gross out humor. I know, because the same Lion King effect occurred, "pour the wine and cut the cheese" was frequently mentioned at school. Corporate Disney hedged their bets just fine (because you can tell that's where the majority of the concern with that movie was placed) and stained the whole film with marketing savvy. Lots of savvy, no feeling. I checked out.
-
Disney Duster
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 14017
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: America
The Disney Essence
Goliath said you weren't saying anything, while I said you were but we couldn't understand it. Glad I turned out to be right!
I must say, I do get a lot of what you mean, in I think I understand it, but I do not agree with a lot, too. I dodn't believe The Little Mermaid was their last most Disney essenced film, I don't believe Ursula's darkness was much like that of the 40's. I think The Black Cauldron comes much closer, and actually...some of Beauty and the Beast. At least that film comes close to magical headiness with the mysterious music and the dark monster architectured enchantment placed on the castle. I don't feel it was bland.
I do agree that aside from the song, Mickey's Christmas Carol seemed surprisingly not so good when I watched it after so long. I do not know enough about Disney's live-action films to think I can't comment so much so you may be right, I don't know. Except I will say, with Walt's Mickey Mouse club and it's stars put in shows and movies, and his re-using of youth in movies, I feel it is a little like what is happening today. It's just that the youth they are finding and movies and shows they're making...they're a bit over the top silly and stupid and don't seem to have the same quality, or even an edge of seriousness.
I deifnately do not feel Aladdn was like Grease or that any Disney musical is just like any other musical. I still feel they kept the Walt "story songs" to a good enough degree and their worlds and animation and the way the use the music which is also a score I feel makes them different, among other things I can't explain. I was surprised to learn Walt did have Brooadway performers in their films. However, if they made the Broadway feel just a little more tone down into the way past Disney films used music, it would have kept a little more of the old Disney feeling and consistency. I mean there's the openings of past Disney films, and then there's the song "Belle" where a whole town starts singing and gathering together while the girl is reading, completely unaware. Yea it's exciting but...past Disney was good, too, ya know.
I do not feel it is sold to mainstream musical lovers at all! Young children and the mainstream are not of the kind who are that into musical theater. And actually, those into musical theater do tend to be deep and artistic, especially with things like Sondheim, just so you know (though his shows are more about lyrics than dancing). But think of ballet. Anyway...
The celebrity stuff...that is a little "oh geeze", but I thought it was okay in some cases because I would imagine genies or gods would be other-worldly, so they can seem other-worldy in their humor and personalities, like from other times and across all times. I do not think of Robin Williams or James Woods though when I watch those characters. Maybe they could have tried to make them more different, new personalities, but that would probably take the edge off their making laughs. Also, there were certain musicians and I think fairly famous actors and comediens in Walt Disney films, but I think actually that was more towards the end of Walt's career when I think the quality changed a bit, like The Jungle Book...I may be wrong on all that, though.
As for the humor, well first off, it was not like humor plus drama, it was more like drama was the base and they added humor. If you let the sidekicks ruin The Lion King and Hunchback for you, that's a pity because they are great films aside from them, at least trying to be deep and dramatic.
Also, your hatred towards any gross out things is something I think is extreme in you. Look, if you let it have power over you, why would you do that? They're just farts. Personally, I think it's cute when guys make mistakes like that, and if they do it on purpose, I think it shows them being rugged and manly. Maybe it's even childish but hell, look at what forum I'm on, I think childishness is cute, too. No, it's not sophisticated, but I don't want everything everywhere to be every time.
However, I must admit Walt probably wouldn't put those things in. it's hard for me to seperate Walt's personal taste with that of the Disney essence, though. I mean, I wouldn't want sexual impotentcy in any of the films, really.
Anyway, I was trying to figure out what is the one thing Disney is that no one else is. Lots of things are clean and family friendly, what are they? Well, actually, the words sophistication and purity would take care of the art, fantasy, fairy tales, associations with animals and nature, and cleanliness that characterize so many Disney films, and what so much, not all, but so much of today's modern Disney isn't, and what modern Disney has wrong, but that's still not it. It's like the only way I can say what it is by a concrete word is to use the word Disney, for Disney, and everything really, has it's own quality that no other words can sum up, because if they could, well, those words have already been applied to other things, havent they? Though the combination of childhood with adulthood and sophistication and fantasy might reveal a unique mix that...no, still doesn't some it up. Oh, that unique Disney feeling! Thta special quality...it escapes me!
I must say, I do get a lot of what you mean, in I think I understand it, but I do not agree with a lot, too. I dodn't believe The Little Mermaid was their last most Disney essenced film, I don't believe Ursula's darkness was much like that of the 40's. I think The Black Cauldron comes much closer, and actually...some of Beauty and the Beast. At least that film comes close to magical headiness with the mysterious music and the dark monster architectured enchantment placed on the castle. I don't feel it was bland.
I do agree that aside from the song, Mickey's Christmas Carol seemed surprisingly not so good when I watched it after so long. I do not know enough about Disney's live-action films to think I can't comment so much so you may be right, I don't know. Except I will say, with Walt's Mickey Mouse club and it's stars put in shows and movies, and his re-using of youth in movies, I feel it is a little like what is happening today. It's just that the youth they are finding and movies and shows they're making...they're a bit over the top silly and stupid and don't seem to have the same quality, or even an edge of seriousness.
I deifnately do not feel Aladdn was like Grease or that any Disney musical is just like any other musical. I still feel they kept the Walt "story songs" to a good enough degree and their worlds and animation and the way the use the music which is also a score I feel makes them different, among other things I can't explain. I was surprised to learn Walt did have Brooadway performers in their films. However, if they made the Broadway feel just a little more tone down into the way past Disney films used music, it would have kept a little more of the old Disney feeling and consistency. I mean there's the openings of past Disney films, and then there's the song "Belle" where a whole town starts singing and gathering together while the girl is reading, completely unaware. Yea it's exciting but...past Disney was good, too, ya know.
I do not feel it is sold to mainstream musical lovers at all! Young children and the mainstream are not of the kind who are that into musical theater. And actually, those into musical theater do tend to be deep and artistic, especially with things like Sondheim, just so you know (though his shows are more about lyrics than dancing). But think of ballet. Anyway...
The celebrity stuff...that is a little "oh geeze", but I thought it was okay in some cases because I would imagine genies or gods would be other-worldly, so they can seem other-worldy in their humor and personalities, like from other times and across all times. I do not think of Robin Williams or James Woods though when I watch those characters. Maybe they could have tried to make them more different, new personalities, but that would probably take the edge off their making laughs. Also, there were certain musicians and I think fairly famous actors and comediens in Walt Disney films, but I think actually that was more towards the end of Walt's career when I think the quality changed a bit, like The Jungle Book...I may be wrong on all that, though.
As for the humor, well first off, it was not like humor plus drama, it was more like drama was the base and they added humor. If you let the sidekicks ruin The Lion King and Hunchback for you, that's a pity because they are great films aside from them, at least trying to be deep and dramatic.
Also, your hatred towards any gross out things is something I think is extreme in you. Look, if you let it have power over you, why would you do that? They're just farts. Personally, I think it's cute when guys make mistakes like that, and if they do it on purpose, I think it shows them being rugged and manly. Maybe it's even childish but hell, look at what forum I'm on, I think childishness is cute, too. No, it's not sophisticated, but I don't want everything everywhere to be every time.
However, I must admit Walt probably wouldn't put those things in. it's hard for me to seperate Walt's personal taste with that of the Disney essence, though. I mean, I wouldn't want sexual impotentcy in any of the films, really.
Anyway, I was trying to figure out what is the one thing Disney is that no one else is. Lots of things are clean and family friendly, what are they? Well, actually, the words sophistication and purity would take care of the art, fantasy, fairy tales, associations with animals and nature, and cleanliness that characterize so many Disney films, and what so much, not all, but so much of today's modern Disney isn't, and what modern Disney has wrong, but that's still not it. It's like the only way I can say what it is by a concrete word is to use the word Disney, for Disney, and everything really, has it's own quality that no other words can sum up, because if they could, well, those words have already been applied to other things, havent they? Though the combination of childhood with adulthood and sophistication and fantasy might reveal a unique mix that...no, still doesn't some it up. Oh, that unique Disney feeling! Thta special quality...it escapes me!
-
ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
too bad, cuz the games are very good.Lazario wrote:Nah- I'm too nostalgic for the old games for the new ones to wow me.Margos wrote:I don't know if you play Kingdom Hearts, but that is part of the score for that game, a cross-over between Final Fantasy and Disney, so to pair it with Disney clips seem natural to me...
But again, what I say can't be denied. This is not acceptable, considering Disney's legacy to filmmaking. This music is not truly Disney-esque. Not unless all you ever watch are the 90's and up. Or... I suppose... if the 90's and up means more to you than the 30's through the 80's.
-
Super Aurora
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4835
- Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 am
Not really.ajmrowland wrote:too bad, cuz the games are very good.Lazario wrote: Nah- I'm too nostalgic for the old games for the new ones to wow me.
But again, what I say can't be denied. This is not acceptable, considering Disney's legacy to filmmaking. This music is not truly Disney-esque. Not unless all you ever watch are the 90's and up. Or... I suppose... if the 90's and up means more to you than the 30's through the 80's.
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
-
ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
-
Lazario
I meant the Atari, Nintendo, Super Nintendo stuff. God, and I was really young back then. I grew into a colossal dork very quickly. I mean it. By 1996, everything I loved was considered outdated. My brother and his friends were all into PlayStation before I even had a chance to see what Nintendo64 was all about.ajmrowland wrote:too bad, cuz the games are very good.Lazario wrote: Nah- I'm too nostalgic for the old games for the new ones to wow me.