DVDizzy Forum

“Cars 2:” This one hurts. It had to happen sometime, I suppose: the first bad movie to come out of Pixar. It feels like Disney said to them. “Okay, we get it, you can craft deep emotional stories and all that happy horse s**t, but we’d really like to sell some toys.”

I think it’s funny that whenever Pixar does something wrong, Disney gets the blame. And whenever Disney does something right, Pixar gets the credit. Bizarre.

A few people think Disney ruins peoples' lives based off a few Disney Channel stars. And a huge number of people see only Disney Channel. Floyd Norman is constantly drawing cartoons about the negative parts of the company. He's really bitter. I'm on Kingdom Hearts boards a lot and some people there are still under the impression that Disney is just for kids and that it should be lessened or removed to make the stories darker. Of course, we always give them the same response, which is"no".

And Disney's the second-largest corporate media owner in the world. Since only six companies own over %90 of all media, We're easily talking about 15-20%. The bigger the company; the cheaper the company. They treat half their movies like they dont even belong on store shelves but will "tolerate them anyway", but the movies dont sell because they dont advertise them properly and they dont give them any new features aside from the occassional glossy featurette.

Even Dreamworks treats their DVDs for new releases better than Disney. Tangled's bonuses were mostly a joke.....literally. Funny ads. Even the Diamond Editions are decreasing in quality at a rapid rate moreso than the PEs.

And let's not forget the critical flops like Home on the Range and Chicken Little(which was okay, but not really good, and still had better bonuses than Tangled). Honestly, there's a lot to be said about how much this company values merchandising. Even Warner, the only company with more media under it, makes more transparent business decisions overall.

WarriorDreamer wrote:Well to each his own or her own. Everyone is different and everyone sees things differently. I don't quite understand what you mean about 'how the general public looks at Disney' at what point was the switch made from quality films to just poor quality and money grabbing? I must have been in la la land if Disney became a different company than it used to be when I was a child.

EDIT: Woah, didn't realize this was so long as I was typing. Sorry! I think it's worth a read though.

You're not grasping the concept of something changing over time. You ask "at what point was the switch made from quality films..." But there was never a "point" where Disney just switched to an evil greedy company. Because, in the end, they aren't. They're just one of the biggest companies in the entire world, doing what they have to do in order to remain so.

When you were a child, to use your own example... assuming this was probably sometime in the 90s, maybe into the late 80s (correct me if I'm wrong), Disney was in a good light in the general public's eye. For a long time, people other than parents and their young children would never be caught dead going to see a Disney film. In the 70s and early 80s, no one cared about the films... or at least the ones that were being released at the time. Even the parks were wavering, and not meeting attendance anticipation. But with the release of films like The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast, Disney was put on the map again. It was no longer only for little kids. Now, a Disney movie could be a date night for a couple teenagers, and the parents could enjoy the films with their kids, as opposed to only "taking them to the movies." A lot of this is covered in a lot more detail in Waking Sleeping Beauty.

So, all in all, great times were had by all within Disney. Critical success was great, financial success was great, and Disney was once again on top in the general public's eyes. Back then, there were no enormous pushes for merchandise or sequels like there are now. The films were enough by themselves. They became classics.

But with success comes only one thing: the need for more success. And so, we started getting cheaply made sequels and spinoffs, merchandise became a higher priority, and the company began to spread itself thin over so many things at once. While quality movies were still released (Pixar's films, Hunchback, Hercules, Mulan, Tarzan, Lilo & Stitch, the Pirates films, etc...), all with the potential to become classics, the problem is that there was just SO MUCH content being created, that fans, let alone the average passer-by, could hardly keep up with everything. New parents that grew up on the likes of Cinderella, wanting the best for their child, went out and bought Cinderella 2 and 3. Keeping in mind that the average consumer doesn't understand, or care about, the difference between "Disney Animated Classic" and "DisneyToon Studio Sequel", many people had the reaction of "Wow, Disney just isn't what it used to be."

Disney Channel added to problem, because, like ajmrowland said, many people today know "Disney" as ONLY the Disney Channel. And so they are comparing Hannah Montana and Mickey Mouse Clubhouse to Snow White, Peter Pan, and Wonderful World of Disney. Again, keep in mind that the average person does not differentiate between who or which studio made which film or TV show. To most, "Disney" means simply that... just "Disney." And so, the general public does not see "Disney" the way they used to.

Like I said, the idea of product lines and sequels and cheaply made tv shows is not a bad thing in and of itself. But, in the long run, it hurts the company's image. Working at Disney World, I've had countless number of adults mention that "Disney sure isn't how I remember it as a kid. Spiderman? High School Musical? Where's all the classic 'Disney Magic'?" To that, I usually respond with something like, "Yes, there's quite a lot of new, different things around here... Have you seen the new movie Tangled though? I promise it feels just like one of those classic Disney Magic movies." To which I sometimes get, "No... my daughter doesn't really like all those kinds of things... she just really likes Camp Rock and the Jonas Brothers."

It's a sad thing, because like I said, us "fans" do actually understand the difference between the different aspects of the company. And we understand that the films and the parks are the heart and soul of this company. But the general public does not always, and so, Disney just isn't what it used to be.

Regardless, like you, I usually enjoy everything the company does. I'm still a Disney nerd at heart.

Scarred4life wrote: Are you kidding me? How can you possibly say that the Hunchback of Notre Dame II was a classic film? It's very hard for me to think of a film that's worse than that right now.

No, I don't think of the sequels as classics at-all. I was talking about the originals. I just meant that nothing is going to take away from the main features for me. Even a crap sequel. Because I know the so called 'sequels' are just ways of making money and a way to follow up on those characters. I've seen most of the Disney sequels and to me it's just the kinda thing you watch once or twice. But I personally didn't see how it hurts the company.

Maybe it's me not being personally exposed to the Disney channel at-all but yes, I think it's sad now how kids are thinking Disney is the Disney channel. But what I've found with the company is the films are just as popular now as when they were released. So to me, there's no worries about those films being forgotten and the idea of Disney channel/ merchandise/ cheap sequels, etc taking over.

I think the PaTF and Tangled were films that needed to made to remind everyone of what they're famous for. And I agree that in recent years (pretty much since the 00's) those amazing classic films haven't been produced (well I myself really like Emperor's new groove & Lilo & stitch) but that was more a studio decision because CGI had taken over.

And ultimately Disney is just an entertainment company. It doesn't have to be soley JUST animated classics. Like all companies they sometimes do things for money over love but it doesn't mean you have to think about them differently.

I think it's exciting the amount of stuff they have coming out. From the live action movies, to the animated movies and of course Pixar (LOVE every Pixar film btw). And yeah it might be hard to keep up but this isn't 1950, they don't have just one or two films coming out every year.

WarriorDreamer wrote:Like all companies they sometimes do things for money over love but it doesn't mean you have to think about them differently.

But people do.

Scarred4life wrote:

WarriorDreamer wrote:Like all companies they sometimes do things for money over love but it doesn't mean you have to think about them differently.

But people do.

Exactly. WarriorDreamer, you aren't separating yourself from the general public. We, the "Disney Fans", mostly agree with what you're saying. But, as I explained, most people do not.

New 'Rapunzel/Disney Princess' merchandise:

Sotiris wrote:New 'Rapunzel/Disney Princess' merchandise:

Am I the only one who's worried that Jasmine is getting replaced?

BTW: Ariel looks so cute!

Am I the only one who's worried that Jasmine is getting replaced?

That's sad
Jasmine is one of my favorite Disney princess ♥

I definately have noticed that Jasmine is MIA alot and Tiana seems to have taken her place. It would be sad if she is replaced. She isn't my favorite but she was the first princess to add diversity in the group and she is pretty popular. I hope they don't axe her and send her into to Pocahontas/Mulan land where they are considered part of the "Princess "Line" but never appear on the merchandise.

Well I love Jasmine way more than Tiana ....
any ways

i have found some wedding concept art :3




I know these are from the art of Tangled book but it is quite interesting to imagine their wedding - will it be a grande celebrations or a very intimate wedding...

I'm getting excited now !!!!

When the short was first announced as an adventure type comedy I thought that would be fun but i think if they mixed that into a wedding short it will be horrible. i hope it will just be a wedding short and give rapunzel some limelight

DisneyDude2010 wrote:Well I love Jasmine way more than Tiana ....
any ways

i have found some wedding concept art :3




I know these are from the art of Tangled book but it is quite interesting to imagine their wedding - will it be a grande celebrations or a very intimate wedding...

I'm getting excited now !!!!

When the short was first announced as an adventure type comedy I thought that would be fun but i think if they mixed that into a wedding short it will be horrible. i hope it will just be a wedding short and give rapunzel some limelight

Oh god! THIS BETTER BE USED IN THE SPEICAL! THIS WILL BE AMAZING!!! I'm hoping for the first dress b/c of the golden veil, plus the other wedding dresses are repeats of Rapunzel's signature dress, and that annoys me. Also, Flynn is so cute in the last picture and Rapunzel and her dress looks exactly like Cinderella and Cinderekka's dress in the second picture.

BTW: My sister saw Tangled on Friday! She said she liked it alot, but mom told me that she said it was the best movie she saw in a while!

Woah that concept art looks good!!

I hope they have her in a dress that's alot different to any of the other princesses. So no huge puffy Giselle/ Ariel type dress. More like number 4 and 8. Sort of like a long version of her normal dress but in white and gold.

I found this online....I thought it was pretty funny

That picture came out a long time ago when Floyd Norman, who animated while Walt Disney was alive, and new him, even working on Sleeping Beauty, was telling Disney that the right thing to do was not change the title to Tangled, which Disney was doing just to make it not seem like a princess movie. Floyd Norman knew Walt, he new what he would want, that Walt would want the title to be Rapunzel, not Tangled.

disneyprincess11 wrote:

Rapunzel and her dress looks exactly like Cinderella and Cinderella's dress in the second picture.

I think her and Flynn look a little bit like Cinderella and the Prince, but more than that, the setting, the castle, looks almost exactly like something from Cinderella! I mean, the whole thing, the swirly gate-doors, the things on the side, the giant vases...

In fact, those giant vases look directly copied from the film!:
http://hq55.com/disney/cin/cinderella-d ... m-5417.jpg

It's the most beautiful concept art of all too me, but I hope they make it more their own, in the Rapunzel style, not Cinderella's! I think I hope for the dress to have some mix of the gold and white dresses and golden veils, with just a little poofiness.

Ugh just because you know someone, doesn't mean you know what they would've wanted

Moving on, I love how they used the veil to substitute her now missing golden hair.

Disney Duster wrote:

disneyprincess11 wrote:

Rapunzel and her dress looks exactly like Cinderella and Cinderella's dress in the second picture.

I think her and Flynn look a little bit like Cinderella and the Prince, but more than that, the setting, the castle, looks almost exactly like something from Cinderella! I mean, the whole thing, the swirly gate-doors, the things on the side, the giant vases...

In fact, those giant vases look directly copied from the film!:
http://hq55.com/disney/cin/cinderella-d ... m-5417.jpg

Wow, you're right! Good find!

DisneyDuster wrote:That picture came out a long time ago when Floyd Norman, who animated while Walt Disney was alive, and new him, even working on Sleeping Beauty, was telling Disney that the right thing to do was not change the title to Tangled, which Disney was doing just to make it not seem like a princess movie. Floyd Norman knew Walt, he new what he would want, that Walt would want the title to be Rapunzel, not Tangled.

There's a big difference between knowing someone and working for someone. As a storyman, Floyd Norman would have sat in on story meetings with Walt and saw him around the studio but I don't think the two knew each other personally or had many in-depth conversations. I know Floyd has been outspoken on Disney in recent years and I can remember him saying he didn't like the name change but I can not remember him saying "Walt would not have wanted this". The title will never be changed now so just try to accept it.

I agree that that concept art is very, very similar to Cinderella; when I first saw the picture I though it was a still from Cinderella until I read your post.

Disney Duster wrote:

disneyprincess11 wrote:

Rapunzel and her dress looks exactly like Cinderella and Cinderella's dress in the second picture.

I think her and Flynn look a little bit like Cinderella and the Prince, but more than that, the setting, the castle, looks almost exactly like something from Cinderella! I mean, the whole thing, the swirly gate-doors, the things on the side, the giant vases...

In fact, those giant vases look directly copied from the film!:
http://hq55.com/disney/cin/cinderella-d ... m-5417.jpg

Yeah I thought about the same thing with the setting!

Being serious Guys would Walt Disney really have a say in the matter of the name .... wouldn't he only own like 1% in the entire company and surely they would at the end of the day make money.

When the name changed first occurred I was worried that the story of Rapunzel would have been forgotten but when most people think of Tangled they think of Rapunzel, and vice versa. I really think that all the harsh criticism of the name change really ruined everyone's expectations of the movie. Tangled is one of my most loved Disney films it just goes to show ... Never judge a book by its cover!

I really hope we get some more information on the short soon ... wasn't toy story's short announced months before the release?

Do you guys think that the short will be released with the dvd/blu ray in future diamond/platinum addition?