The Future of Disney Animation

[KubrickFan]

No wonder Disney can't get a break. The fans want everything to stay the same, while the public has been fed up with the standard animated musical for years. The man Walt Disney used to be about innovation, and I'm not seeing nearly enough of that.

[Disney Duster]

Super Aurora, magic is in almost all of Disney's films, or something like it, such as Alice in Wonderland.

But the doorknob in Alice in Wonderland came to real life through dreaming. Reboot Ralph is fake life that could would be treated as real, unless they specify he came to real life (magically).

You know that Disney is pretty much all about magic. They said it all the time, they coined the term Disney magic back then in his time and it's still used today for a reason.

DisneyAnimation88, no, they would just have to say that Reboot Ralph came to real life from means other than fake virtual life. They would have to say he gained life, much like Pinocchio who was still a puppet but had real emotions in him.

And they didn't have to do Treaure Planet if they already had a good other version. I just don't get why they chose to do that at all. But then again they said it was to get the tween boy market, so I guess that's the reason.

KubrickFan, no the public didn't go to see all the different kind of Disney films like Atlantis, Treasure Planet, The Emporer's New Groove, or even The Princess and the Frog which was a fairy tale but changed and twisted to be different. So they want classic Disney just like us. They want Disney to be Disney. And by the way, Walt was about innovation, sure, but it was almost always about new technology and styles applied to old classics and classic things like that, for instance doing a fairy tale for the third time, but with a new style, in Sleeping Beauty.

Goliath, it's funny because someone who doesn't go here much anymore told me that cartoon reminded them of you! I imagined the cartoon differently before you posted it.

[DisneyAnimation88]

According to the book "Disneywar", a sci-fi version of "Treasure Island" had been the project Clements and Musker had always wanted to do and pitched it in the same meeting as they did "The Little Mermaid". Katzenberg turned them down but Eisner decided in the early 2000's to let them do the film they wanted, partly as their track record had been so good in the past as well as that he wanted Disney animation to put more contemporary twists on classic stories, much like Katzenberg had done at Dreamworks with the "Shrek" films.

Ok, I undertand your point about "Reboot Ralph" now with that explanation. I have to repeat myself after what you said to KubrickFan and point to the "Shrek" films as evidence that audiences like fairytales done with a modern twist. Disney is in danger of being left behind by the likes of Pixar and Dreamworks as evidenced by the company's lack of success in the last decade. They have to change to keep up with the trends in the market today so while that isn't an entirely good thing, this could only be a trend that won't last. Many critics predicted "The Little Mermaid" or "Beauty and the Beast" wouldn't be successful before they were released and they sparked one of the most successful periods of any film studio in history. So it is not impossible that such a thing could happen again in the future, but at the moment Disney is obviously trying to match and compete with their competitors.

[Disney Duster]

Okay, great, we've come to a really good understanding. I'm really glad you got what I was saying about Reboot Ralph and virtual life vs. real life.

However, I know you must be tired of this but I still want to point out about the directors, it turns out that means I was kind of right on what I thought at first about them.

That Ron and Jon just really, really want to do the kinds of films they want to do, not really caring if it was the most right thing for Disney. The Little Mermaid and others were like very Disney safe bets, and then things like Treasure Planet were more what they really wanted to do but were less traditional Disney. But most importantly, Eisner saying they should put modern twists on things just like Dreamworks did...that says it all about how I mean them becoming un-Disney and more like other studios, don't you think?

Just so you know, I did hear they also allowed Treasure Planet because they wanted to get more boys, I heard that from lots of places so I know it's not made up.

As for Shrek, well, here's what I think: I think that not only do people think Dreamworks is more of a fit for things like that, but I think they think studios like Dreamworks are better at doing things like that, while Disney isn't (as) good as doing things like that.

I think that people want Disney to be Disney (non-twists) and Dreamworks and other studios to be the way they are (twists, modern).

Because otherwise that doesn't explain how so many of Disney's twisted, modern movies failed. I feel that Pocahontas was a change, into the realm of realism, and from then on, they kept changing and unfortunately people didn't like it. But it wasn't twisted or modern yet, just different.

It's like...Pocahontas up to Tarzan and Fantasia 2000 were Disney because they were based on classic stories or legends or Disneyish things, but they were different because they were more mature and other ways. But audiences didn't like it as much (maybe they thought Disney should be more for kids, not so mature?)

So for some reason, then they went even more different being wacky and sillier and modern and like other studios (I heard Brother Bear had some bad attempts at humor, and then Home on the Range, all the CGI).

So they said, okay, we'll go back to the classic stories we always did...but to keep being different, we'll set an old German fairy tale in 1920's New Orleans. And it didn't do well.

By the way I like the setting of New Orleans but I do not like a classic story being changed in that way, way more than they used to change them. Sorry this keeps dragging on, but I am trying to find where Disney has gone wrong, as we all are.

[KubrickFan]

KubrickFan, no the public didn't go to see all the different kind of Disney films like Atlantis, Treasure Planet, The Emporer's New Groove, or even The Princess and the Frog which was a fairy tale but changed and twisted to be different. So they want classic Disney just like us. They want Disney to be Disney. And by the way, Walt was about innovation, sure, but it was almost always about new technology and styles applied to old classics and classic things like that, for instance doing a fairy tale for the third time, but with a new style, in Sleeping Beauty.

I think they public didn't go to those movies because the stigma of the animated musical was still over them. Otherwise they wouldn't have embraced all the Pixar movies, either, would they?
I also believe Walt was more or less forced back into making fairy tales. The movies he really wanted to make (like Bambi or Fantasia) flopped, so the only thing that would be a certified hit would be another fairy tale. And how is padding the entire story with wacky animal antics any different from what The Princess and the Frog did?

[DisneyAnimation88]

I think ultimately where Disney went wrong in the period your talking about is the damaging struggle between Michael Eisner and Roy Disney. Roy had been in charge of animation since the 1980's and had overseen one of the most successful periods in the company's history and now he was being pushed out. Eisner I think was desperate to keep the company's most important people onside, people like Clements and Musker, and resorted to planting spies in the department to keep an eye on Roy. With Roy's resignation, Disney, not just animation, was in chaos and the resolution has only really begun since Lasseter joined the company in charge of animation.

As far as "Shrek" goes, the parodies of the fairytales Disney were famous for was the result of Katzenberg's departure from Disney and his personal issues with Eisner. Petty, but it changed animation and forced Disney to make animated films unlike any they had made before to win back the audience who were now beginning to favour Dreamworks. Disney probably isn't going to be as good as those types of films but ultimately, they have the tradition and history to outlast any competition.

It could be the case that "Reboot Ralph" is never made, especially in light of the confusion surrounding "Snow Queen" and "King of the Elves". Only two films are currently in some kind of production at Disney animation and all of the others that have been mentioned could be cancelled or delayed.

[Disney Duster]

I think they public didn't go to those movies because the stigma of the animated musical was still over them. Otherwise they wouldn't have embraced all the Pixar movies, either, would they?
I also believe Walt was more or less forced back into making fairy tales. The movies he really wanted to make (like Bambi or Fantasia) flopped, so the only thing that would be a certified hit would be another fairy tale. And how is padding the entire story with wacky animal antics any different from what The Princess and the Frog did?

Pixar is not Disney. People expected Pixar to just be Pixar. It's when Disney changed from what was familiar that they stopped seeing Disney.

Walt wanted his first ever feature to be Snow White. Bambi was about royalty and princes and Fantasia had fairies and wizards and magic and love in it. He didn't have to make Sleeping Beauty to save the studio, he made it because he wanted to. And when he was busy with the theme parks, and someone asked him to come back to animation, he said "If I ever go back, I want to do two movies" and those were Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid. Two fairy tales.

Using anthropomorphized animals a lot in their films is almost necessary because it is so hard to draw humans, especially the kind of human Walt had. In Cinderella, the mice and cat reflected and commented on Cinderella and her villain and also helped the story signifigantly. The mice were in the version they based most of the movie on, and the birds were from the Grimm's version. In the Grimm's version which the movie also draws influence the birds help Cinderella throughout the whole story, and so the mice and birds help throughout the whole film in Disney's version. Walt also wanted us to grow and care about the mice instead of just see them as there. One thing Walt was known for doing was give lots of time and care to as many characters as possible instead of just the main one(s).

The Princess and the Frog completely changed the story. Not only was it moved to a completely different setting and time and culture, but it had the heroine not be a born princess, had her turn into a frog, had a whole bayou adventure with a voodoo fairy godmother and trying to kiss another princess and then staying as frogs and then the kiss makes them both human and then they have a restaraunt instead of living in the palace.

It's a huge, huge derailment of the story that is extremely obviously different from anything Walt Disney did in the past that to say they aren't very different is quite obviously you just trying to make up an argument.

DisneyAnimation, I still don't think Disney had to change to compete with Shrek. That's like Disney trying to become another studio because that studio is more popular. I think people wanted Disney to stay Disney and because they didn't, they didn't see them.

I know by now that you disagree, and your opinion is very valid, but I can't help but see that even though Disney did already change to become like other studios, that didn't work. They still aren't on top. So it seems doing what they did just didn't work. And so I think the opposite of that is being truer to their traditional selves again.

[Goliath]

[Super Aurora]

Gromit=Escapy
Cindy=Duster

I made that.

[Duckburger]

THIS is why we can't have nice things.

[Avaitor]

Gromit=Escapy
Cindy=Duster

I made that.

Why does Cinderella have Buzz Lightyear's head?

[Escapay]

She's secretly a member of the Galactic Alliance.

albert

[Disney Duster]

I think it's supposed to be manly Cinderella.

Super Aurora I gotta admit that's funny and real well drawn on the computer on the fly, but, it's hard to laugh at something aimed at me. You're humor is very...nothing is sacred. Sorry, not my style.

[Elladorine]

Why does Cinderella have Buzz Lightyear's head?

[Super Aurora]

Why does Cinderella have Buzz Lightyear's head?

THIS:

Somebody got the joke.

It's some random meme that is quite funny.








Duster, you shouldn't take that personally. You know me.

[DisneyAnimation88]

Disney Duster, it's obvious you will never agree with the points being made in opposition to your arguments, which you are completely entitled to do, but, at the risk of starting a whole new, long debate, if you were in charge of animation right now, what films would you put into production?

[Disney Duster]

Oh, um...well Snow Queen, and I don't know much about Fraidy Cat, but probably that one, I guess King of the Elves but don't know much about that one either, and maybe Joe Jump/Reboot Ralph if I oversaw it.

Just like I would be okay with Lilo & Stitch if it was less violent and there was more indication Stitch had soul in him that decided to be good. A little more Walt Disney value.

I would try to figure out the Disney essence, and each project presented to me, I would try to figure out how to put the essence into it and if not, then I wouldn't do it.

[DisneyAnimation88]

I'm not sure that "Lilo & Stitch" has violence, it's more slapstick comedy in many ways. I would say "Pinocchio" and "Sleeping Beauty" were more violent than "Lilo & Stitch", or at least there are parts that could be seen as scary for the audience.

I don't think anyone could ever figure out the Disney essence as you put it. The only person who knew the secret to this was Walt Disney himself and the person who came closest to matching it was Jeffrey Katzenberg, at least in terms of the success Disney enjoyed while he was at the helm.

As for the future, I'm all for "King of the Elves" and "Reboot Ralph". In my opinion Disney needs more original stories for their animated films and releasing one every three or four years will help the medium by making it more of an event. Ultimately, I believe Disney outclasses it's competitors and, with good management, 2D animation could prosper for years.

[Disney Duster]

Scary and violent were different.

I would at least try to figure out the Disney essence. I'm not saying I would let it stop everything, but damnit, I would try to fit it with whatever ideas are pitched, attempt to make sure it's in there.

Why was Jeffrey Katzenburg fired then?

I agree they need to be original but you can be original without being completely different from the past and who you (your studio) are.

[Super Aurora]

Why was Jeffrey Katzenburg fired then?

Promotion conflict. After Frank Wells died, jeff wanted some higher up position that i think frank was but didn't get it and there was a fight about it or something.