DVDizzy Forum

Disney's Divinity wrote:Of those past 1999, The Emperor's New Groove isn't exactly original either, considering that kind of animated film was being put out all over the place by Dreamworks. Though I guess it's something new for Disney, but it's not really a risk when the audience is used to it. Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, Lilo and Stitch, Home On The Range, and Atlantis are the only films I would fairly say are original. Unfortunately, BB is so sappy it's unbearable, HOTR is forgettable, and Atlantis falls completely flat (though it was a nice effort). Just because some people who like Beauty and the Beast or The Lion King don't like these doesn't mean they hate them just because they're different. It's because most of them were bad. And there's no amount of fairy-tale-bias that takes away from that.

Bad? Really? Bad? Are you sure you meant that when you typed it? Whatever the faults with said films (and I'll happily admit they're not perfect) the criticisms are way over the top in most instances. None of the films you single out are close to being worse than Disney films from the 70's/80's (IMO) nor are they worse than animated films from other studios released at the same time.

I definitely agree that TP&TF and Rapunzel are marketing at its best--I can't believe anyone would argue with you on that (although I do wonder how much more marketable a lightning bug, a frog and a crocodile is than a bear or a moose).

But the main focus of the marketing of Princess and the Frog is the princess. They don't want to sell anything else (except maybe the Prince) Its not the side-kicks or anything else - especially for the long term. It's all about expanding the Princess line and providing a boost for an already successful franchise. How many Belle products come with Mrs Potts or Lumiere? How many Cinderella products come with Gus Gus or Jaq?

But what exactly do you have against The Snow Queen? Because it's a fairy tale? Unless I'm mistaken, Pinocchio is also a fairy tale--and it has no princesses, doesn't follow the princess formula, and is easily one of the greatest films in the Disney canon. I'm sorry, but you seem completely biased against the word "fairy tale." It doesn't always equal a TLM or a Sleeping Beauty--which aren't even the same anyway, though they have a similar formula.

I'd argue Pinocchio wasn't a fairy-tale. After all, when Disney released Pinocchio it wasn't that long since the book was published. It would be like saying The Wizard of Oz is a fairy-tale today. It may have similar beats, but I don't think the Oz stories are fairy-tales.

Will the Nightmare Before Christmas be a fairy-tale in 50 years time? It has iconic characters (some long associated with tradition), a love story, lessons learned by the main character and a timeless setting and appeal? But will it ever by a fairy-tale?

To a certain extent, its all about giving the people what they want. People want stories with fairy-tale. Regardless of the actual stories (which are pretty formulaic at the end of the day) people recognise the titles as being fairy-tales or fairy-tale like in cases like "King of the Elves". It's all about perception as well as content. Say you're going to see Disney's Rapunzel and yes, people will expect a Little Mermaid or Sleeping Beauty experience (even though, as you say the films are actually very different - people still perceive them as being similar).

Of course, there is some cause for your doubts of this being another princess-formula re-tread, considering they might easily turn The Snow Queen into a princess-esque film, but that's not a sure thing yet and your posts make it seem as if you hate the idea of a "fairy tale" completely regardless of the subject matter.

Yes, I do, when the upcoming slate appears to be Princess and the Frog, Rapunzel, Snow Queen and King of the Elves with only the odd other subject film possibly being released somewhere along the line. If they were all animal films, or all adaptations of literally classics I'd be equally scathing and critical. To me its Disney taking steps backwards in order to move forwards.

Not to beat a dead horse, but there are many Disney greats that were pulled from development hell. It doesn't mean they're deliberately trying to do a bad film. It could mean that they've worked out of the kinks, or found someone to take it into a better direction or who is more experienced and can work out the problems. Sorry, but it seems somewhat insane to me that anyone would prohibit Disney from going back to ideas they've dropped. Maybe it just needed to sit for a while before it could get running properly again.

As to Disney greats from development hell, firstly I don't think most were from Development "hell" - Walt shelved a lot of stuff when war broke out for example which wasn't because of (significant) story issues, but financial issues. I suppose the only one I can actually think of being from a development hell background is Beauty and the Beast - but [all of?] the previous work was done on creating a live-action film (and knowing Walt's live action films, I would guess he was expecting more adventure and thrills than we ended up with in the animated musical version).

And even if several "great" Disney films have come from earlier abandoned projects, we still don't know if an original film from the same creative team rather than a reworking would have been as popular or possibly more popular.

I personally just don't see the point of going back. The only reason for going back that there could possibly be is somebody somewhere in management has said "We need to make xxx as a film." Not "We need to make a good film" or "We need to make a film a little more diverse than we usually do" or "We need to make a film like xxx." But "We need to make XXX specifically as a film". Which of course means the main motivation for making the film isn't creatively led, but financially led. Something people accused Eisnet-Era Disney as being.

There are literally an infinite amount of stories waiting to be told (even if there is only 7 basic story archetypes). Why even go back to something people have failed to realise in the past? As I said before, if there's new talent involved, wouldn't said new talent be happier making their own films, rather than corporate mandated "fix-up" work?

It is somewhat insane to prohibit Disney to revist work dropped in the past, then its downright crazy not to let the same film makers create and write the films they want to create - especially in a time when most people here seem to bemoan the lack of originality in Disney's live action output. Yes, going back may not be a "remake" or a "reimagining" like most of Disney's upcoming live-action films appear to be... but its still looking to the past for inspiration for today.

(If the creative team have specifically requested to revisit The Snow Queen then I'll happily take back most of what I have said - but I still think the upcoming WDFA line-up is "fairy tale" heavy to that remains).

But the fact sort of remains that Disney has always made similar films shortly after one another. Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin all followed each other because the formula worked.

Just as Pixar movies are similar and Dreamworks keeps making the same thing over and over again.

Disney has to rebuild its brand name. And if it takes a string of fairytales to do so, I don't understand how that is considered a step backwards. It's not like they haven't done it before. Other studios do the same thing.

The princess angle provides a guarantee that the film will make money. TPATF will make its budget back the same way Cars did - through merchandise. Meanwhile, it's a better film.

If they can make familiar films that are actually good I don't see the problem.

Please inform me, we do know that they are doing The Snow Queen? From a book or something?

Netty, though I think feeling that Pinocchio is a fairy tale may be up to the individual person (I'm not sure how Walt himself classified it), it still feels very much like a fairy tale, complete with a fairy. I considered it a fairy tale for a long time (also Peter Pan, which has a fairy). I now differentiate between that kind of fairy tale and the kind of Grimm's and Perrault.

But L. Frank Baum actually did refer to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz as a fairy tale. He said he set out to make a classic tale that was Amercian because so many famous (children's as well as adults) classics were from Britain, and he also set out to make and Amercian fairy tale. He talked about the fairy tales of others like the Grimms in his first introduction and how his tale set out to be a modernized fairy-tale.

I never considered it a fairy tale, but that will be my personal opinion. Fairy tales to me were always supposed to be kind of short, and have other elements. Not going off to far away lands, which seems more adventurous, but things taking place in your own kingdom. Yet Alice in Wonderland has somehow become a fairy tale to me as well, more so than Oz!

Anyway, I think Disney should set out to make, well, what their artists want to do, and lots of original stuff (that still feels Disney), but also to continue their traditions, and their diehard fans all rather expect, or at least wish to see, their takes on the most well known stories and tales like they used to do. It's kind of like finishing the tradition they started of doing famous fairy tales. Like you, I want original stuff, but I also don't want them to abandon their traditions, who they are, the kinds of stories they told that made them iconic and a big part of who they are! We can peacefully have many original things along with old things. I'm sure more original things will come as these fairy tales become successes and they can afford to take some original risks.

Disney Duster wrote:Please inform me, we do know that they are doing The Snow Queen? From a book or something?

There's a video even confirming it. I think Robster16 posted it in this thread.

PatrickvD wrote:But the fact sort of remains that Disney has always made similar films shortly after one another. Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin all followed each other because the formula worked.

Just as Pixar movies are similar and Dreamworks keeps making the same thing over and over again.

Disney has to rebuild its brand name. And if it takes a string of fairytales to do so, I don't understand how that is considered a step backwards. It's not like they haven't done it before. Other studios do the same thing.

The princess angle provides a guarantee that the film will make money. TPATF will make its budget back the same way Cars did - through merchandise. Meanwhile, it's a better film.

If they can make familiar films that are actually good I don't see the problem.

I agree, Disney's band name when it comes to animation is based on fairy tales. That is what they do, that is what works. We had a decade of Disney Animation NOT based on them, and the outcome wasn't so pretty.

Super Aurora wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Please inform me, we do know that they are doing The Snow Queen? From a book or something?

There's a video even confirming it. I think Robster16 posted it in this thread.

Yup, Peter Del Vecho, producer of Princess and the Frog confirmed it. First they will be doing Snow Queen in 2D and then they will start production on another movie in spring, directed by Ron & John...

milojthatch wrote:I agree, Disney's band name when it comes to animation is based on fairy tales. That is what they do, that is what works. We had a decade of Disney Animation NOT based on them, and the outcome wasn't so pretty.

They also had a decade from 1940 to 1949 without fairytales. Are you going to say that decade wasn't so pretty? Dispite Walt himself being intimately involved in all of the films (and the additional problems caused by WWII)? (And plenty of decades since without fairy tale inspired works too)

Disney animations brand shouldn't be fairy tales. it's sure not what Walt wanted - and their non-fairy tale animated films well outweigh their fairy tale inspired ones. By making more (especially so many in quick succession) its only enforcing the myth in people's minds and it will make it harder for them to diversify in the future. In short, I believe they're running themselves into a creative dead end to some extent.

So since we basically know this is in production, and with King of the Elves canned, does that mean this will be coming out sooner?

I also read somewhere (it was just a comment on another website, but still worried me nonetheless), that because of the low success of PatF (which I think is premature to say) that Disney is talking about whether they should make this a CG movie rather than a traditional animated movie. I really hope this person was crazy! And if they're right, then Disney has no patience whatsoever!

Babaloo wrote:So since we basically know this is in production, and with King of the Elves canned, does that mean this will be coming out sooner?

I certainly hope so! I mean "King of the Elves" sounded great and all, but come on! This is going to be one "cool" movie!

Margos wrote:I certainly hope so! I mean "King of the Elves" sounded great and all, but come on! This is going to be one "cool" movie!

I know!!! I like King of the Elves, but you should have seen me jump when I heard that The Snow Queen was in production!!!

I had never read the story before, but it seems like a very nice one to adapt... and of course, the visuals have me intrigued. Ice-themed characters can be some of the most beautiful of all if done correctly, and the same goes for locales! This could be a very aesthetically pleasing film, not to mention a wonderful story, of course! And if Menken's doing the music, we'll have the trifecta!

Well as long as they don't make this into a comedy, I think this can do really well! They can market this to people of all ages, like they did for Beauty and the Beast. And I agree the ice theme could work really well for visuals! i was thinking it would do better of the movie is more "angular" in visuals. I don't know if that makes sense, but a wispy look wouldn't look good here. Since it takes place a lot in the Snow Queen's home, they can really make this look really good!

I don't see what makes Atlantis bad. It's really enjoyable, IMO. Sure, it switches gears rather quickly, but still a good movie.

ajmrowland wrote:I don't see what makes Atlantis bad. It's really enjoyable, IMO. Sure, it switches gears rather quickly, but still a good movie.

I agree! I just love all of the characters! I went through a phase when it first came out when I wanted to be Kida so bad it hurt: Not the more popular, franchise-approved Disney Princesses, but Princess Kidagakash!

You think your anti-establishment? Pssh. Try being Princess Eilonwy, then!

Neal wrote:You think your anti-establishment? Pssh. Try being Princess Eilonwy, then!

Who?

ajmrowland wrote:I don't see what makes Atlantis bad. It's really enjoyable, IMO. Sure, it switches gears rather quickly, but still a good movie.

I actually enjoy Atlantis somewhat, but it's not exactly what I'd call a reasonable good movie. It has a nice cast (much better than many of the empty, pointlessly large casts in Pixar films), but the story seems to go nowhere. And Milo is one of the blandest leading characters Disney's had. I said it was a "nice effort" because it tried being different. It just wouldn't appeal to many people. Which is sad, because I think it could have been better than it was (so could The Kingdom in the Sun...I mean, The Emperor's New Groove).

2099net wrote:None of the films you single out are close to being worse than Disney films from the 70's/80's (IMO) nor are they worse than animated films from other studios released at the same time.

It's funny you bring up the 70s/80s, because I think those films would fit well in that era. Although the 2000s/late 90s tried to be more creative than those, they turn out being as memorable as The Black Cauldron. In other words, not very.

And, to be on point, I wasn't saying I found them bad necessarily, just that I can understand why the general masses found them to be bad. As said, I found Atlantis mildly enjoyable and Treasure Planet's one of my favorite films. However, I'm not blind to the flaws they both have and neither do I ignore the fact that I'm a rare exception with that opinion of them.

Yes, I do, when the upcoming slate appears to be Princess and the Frog, Rapunzel, Snow Queen and King of the Elves with only the odd other subject film possibly being released somewhere along the line. If they were all animal films, or all adaptations of literally classics I'd be equally scathing and critical. To me its Disney taking steps backwards in order to move forwards.

Well, I suppose I can understand your criticism now. However, I would argue that the public doesn't expect Disney to only put out fairy tales. Dalmations, Jungle Book, The Lion King, Bambi and Dumbo are all extremely well-known. Although, again, they seem to follow a general animal pattern, implying that human films can only be princess-esque. Although, Lilo & Stitch was reasonably popular, so I think people would give Disney a chance as long as the film itself is good.

I don't know, I guess it's just because I generally love fairy tales that I'm not disappointed in seeing The Snow Queen. Though you're right that pumping out so many at one time can have restrictive repercussions for Disney in the future.

Neal wrote:You think your anti-establishment? Pssh. Try being Princess Eilonwy, then!

I love her, but I've never wanted to be her.... I just really liked the whole Atlantean thing, and the big floating crystal sequence....

an old storyboard from the canceled "The Snow Queen" from years ago:

Lol, looks like Oogie Boogie mixed with a snowman.

That's very cool- I wish dialogue was pinned under the pictures, though!!! Thanks for sharing!

Whoa, was that woman supposed to be the Snow Queen? Looks like Lady Tremaine.