2099net wrote:All of that is all well and said Karushifa, but it doesn't explain why Sleeping Beauty is so well-recieved today and why a - quite frankly (plot wide) rather trivial character like Maleficent can win a UD Countdown. If anything, it proves all these people who continue to say "the story is what's important" wrong.
I wasn't really trying to explain why Sleeping Beauty is so popular today...I actually can't say, since it's not a film that I would put in my top echelon of Disney works. I'll give props to Maleficent because she can turn into a dragon, but beyond that, I dunno. So, as you might ascertain, I was agreeing with you on that point, that Sleeping Beauty was and still is a bit weak in most aspects except for visual style. I know the tone of this thread has been rather combative lately, but I don't like picking fights and would rather add to someone's point when appropriate and back up mine without insulting someone else's taste.
Not really an attack or anything...just wanted to let you know where I'm coming from
2099net wrote:And you say recent WDFA films have been lacking character development, but I honestly cannot see that. Some have been a little bland, such as Fish Out of Water (comic relief), Kenai (who basically became a straight man, but still had an "arc"), and Pacha (who again was basically a straight man, but it was a role/character type needed for the film).
Personally, character "blandness" goes a long way for me towards how I perceive a film. If I can't care about what happens to the lead characters, regardless of the animation, goofy sidekicks, or whatnot, then I'm not going to see the film as a complete success. This doesn't mean I would necessarily hate the film in question (indeed, only a very few animated films have gone this far with me), but I would not exactly run out and buy the DVD or see it multiple times in the theater. And this sort of sentiment, multiplied a few thousand or million times, can go a long way towards determining a film's staying power.
2099net wrote:Outside of those, I think we've had some of the strongest character development from Disney yet - from say Mulan onwards. Mulan was the first film which took the time to actually craft a multi-dimensional character to the main character. Compare Mulan with Aladdin and there's a world of difference.
Again, I agree with you here and would count Mulan as one of my favorite Disney films of ANY era. I think this is a good example of appropriate balance of visual style (which was inspired in part by Asian art, but didn't go to great lengths to be flashy) and writing successes such as an original plot and very strong leads. I would consider the songs to be its weak spot, and Xian-Yu as a villain is a bit too one-dimensional for my taste (but appropriately dark and maniacal), but everything else, I feel, makes Mulan deserve to sit alongside the Disney elite that a lot of people here seem to want a return to.
2099net wrote:All the films since (except
Fantasia 2000 ) have strong leading characters, yes, even
Atlantis. That film's biggest failing character wise is Princess Kida. Buy Milo is a good character who visibly evolves as the film progresses. Vinny and the Mole are wonderful creations, and even Rourke betrayal is nicely played (and unexpected). How can you say
Atlantis had no character development. It had, more development than most other Disney films up to that point. People grow, decieve others, turn on each other. And yet there's still room for comedy creations. I accept the Mole, for example may grate with some people, but, you know, I never really liked Robin Williams as the Genie in
Aladdin. I just kept waiting for him to shut up for a few seconds. He was great in small doses, but way too exposed in the film.
I personally expected more of Kida's character given the way that Disney has developed its female leads since The Little Mermaid, i.e. making them the foci of their respective films even when they weren't the stars (think HUnchbakc of Notre Dame). I just don't think she was fleshed out as well as some of the previous Disney heroines who were received well by a good number of movie-goers and Disney aficianados alike. As for Milo, he would be a fine character except that he spends a good portion of the first half of the film being over-shadowed by the villains. But, for people who like the villains more anyway, perhaps this isn't a bad thing
2099net wrote:You can't mistake Kuzco with another Disney character, or Chicken Little, or Maggie from Home on the Range. They are all unique, different and clearly thought through.
As for Treasure Planet is has the best scripted, most emotive and multi-dimensional "villian" of them all in John Silver. And talking of villains, Yzma is just as strong - if not stronger - than the bulk of Disney Villains, as is Hades. Clayton and Alameda Slim maybe smaller villains with smaller goals, but at least their goals are defined and logical.
If anything problem isn't lack of character development, it's too much character development. I find, as with a lot of things, people don't really want what they ask for. They're just throwing using the words because they sound good. As an older viewer, I find it all very dishearting and too some extent depressing. In not picking on you Karushifa, but I'm talking about in general.
Believe me, I for one don't just throw out criticism or suggestions unless I'm willing to back them up or actually want them to be responded to. When I say I want better "character development", I mean that I want to see more dynamic characters that I can actually feel for and connect with their stories, to use a slightly cheesy term. This, to me, involves more than just making a character stand out with snappy one-liners. And as much as I enjoy a deliciously evil villain (although I also appreciate more dynamic ones such as John Silver or Lady Eboshi from Princess Mononoke), I also want to at least care as much about what happens to the protagonist as what happens to that fascinating villain. Since a "bad" ending with the evil side winning is pretty much verboten in mainstream American animation, then the inevitable happy ending isn't going to mean much to me if I wasn't rooting for the folks who actually won.
2099net wrote:They say they want good stories, but they reject complex plots, character interplay and revelations like Atlantis, and settle for rehashes of the generally familiar. Atlantis isn't the greatest film ever, but it's by far the worst. It tries something new, and succeeds and fails at the same time. If you compare it to a "Summer Blockbuster", which is basically what it is - just in an animated form - it compares incredibly well with the vast majority of similar releases before, and since. As champions of animation as an art form, we should have been supportive... and who knows, learning from Atlantis, Disney's next attempt at an animated adventure could have been outstanding.
I'd MUCH rather see Atlantis than the usual live-action summer action fest, by far, especially given the rather horrible live-action films that studios are capable of. And again, I wouldn't wholesale call it a failure by any means. But I do believe that somewhere in the rush to create a stunning visual and stylistic work, something in the writing department was neglected a bit. I hope you don't misconstrue that as a call to burn all prints of the movie and label it an abomination, but it's simply put a film that I like, but do not love. A lot of that is intangible and I try to make sense of my misgivings, and in the process I try to guess at what did not allow the movie to really thrill me as others have. Really, that is what I always do when I encounter a film like that, and I'd like to think that I muse over these things more than the people who didn't see movies like Atlantis at all.
2099net wrote:They say they want character development, but turn away from Kenai's development from lazy human to responsible "parent", saying "it misses something". I'm not picking on Monsters, Inc., but did Scully or Mike actually change at all during the film? The only development we got was a short lived falling out. Other than that, Mike was the likable by wacky one, and Scully was the likable but sensible one (aka. the straight man).
In Monsters, Inc. (which is my favorite Pixar film, BTW), there is an important subplot that human children are toxic to monsters, which if you think about it was a lie fabricated to keep the scaring mosters distant from their "prey", because (as Mike says) once you become attached to a child, you find that you can't do your job and scare it, and thus The Company fails. Now, the leads obviosuly overcome what seems to be a long-standing stereotype, and to me they do it in a more effective way than does Kenai with his hatred of bears. Why? Because, instead of going the "Dances With Wolves" route of submersing the protagonist in the world of the enemy and pushing a somewhat heavy-handed message of brotherhood and understanding (which has been done in other films as well), the producers of Monsters, Inc. accomplished the same goal in a more subtle, less preachy way, with a single "feared" creature who has almost no dialogue with the leads. Perhaps it's a personal thing with me, but I tend to prefer this less obvious approach of putting the audience on the same moral page as the protagonist by film's end.
2099net wrote:As for originality, the demand most people want, they turn away from it, even before seeing the film in question. How many people automatically decided they didn't like
Home on the Range before seeing a single frame? "A film about cows capturing a criminal for the bounty to save their farm? How stupid. Disney must be on drugs."
HOTR isn't the only example though.
Treasure Planet ("Treasure Island in space? WTF?") is another. (although I think "Robin Hood with animals?" is a much bigger WTF concept myself). As is too some extent
The Emperor's New Groove was rejected by the public too. (No doubt because of its Disney ties. I'm positive the film would have been more successful had it been a Dreamworks film for example).
True,
Home on the Range was a huge disappointment (sorry Ichabod) but there's a reason for that, beyond even the sad sorry story of management tinkering behind the scenes. It's because originality is always fine balance between hitting or missing. If originality was always such a winner for the studios, why do we have to suffer from endless remakes, reimaginings and sequels?
So when people say they want a good story, they appear to mean a fresh retread of an old one. When they say they want character development, they want funny characters who don't really change but have witty conversations with each other, and when they say they want originality, they mean the same as what they want for a good story.
So how can Disney win? Rehash too much and they get slammed for doing the same old thing. Do something new, and they get slammed for not making a "Disney" film.
Disney have been trying to please their critics. They have been trying to genuinely expand the genre of animation. They have been trying to travel down different paths. Last time Disney was in competition, they resorted to their musical roots (so much for originality eh?), this time, rightly or wrongly, they have attempted to have another form of ressurection.
Perhaps rightly, because even now some critics lambast Disney for making films to similar to their biggest hits. I mean, was
Brother Bear really a copy of
The Lion King at all? It was totally different, their wasn't even a villain in
Brother Bear but lots of critics still accused Disney of "copying their highest grossing film for easy money"
Or they complained about Phil Collins doing the songs again, after
Tarzan. Odd, nobody complains about Randy Newman at Pixar. Doesn't they tell you how hard Disney has to work to come up with something acceptable?
I can see that you're frustrated quite a bit with the general movie-going public, but in their defense, I don't really think that the exact same people are making ALL of these complaints. Some people want the "safe", same old movies, which is why Disney has done so many princess films. Some want a more bold approach, and would probably receive a film like Atlantis better than, say, a Rapunzel film. Some people want fresh, stand-up style humor while others want broader gags. And others don't mind if something is all flash and no substance: if they are most entertained by shiny eye candy, then that is what they will flock to see. And critics...geez, who EVER knows what critics want? As mentioned on another thread, Roger Ebert has panned films such as An American Tail and My Neighbor Totoro, which both general audiences and animation fans seem to admire a great deal. Critics may have some clout by virtue of the fact that they watch and analyze a great deal more films than most people, but that doesn't make them those who must always be obeyed.
I tend to listen the most to people who I feel genuinely CARE about animation craft, as opposed to just their enjoyment level at the theater. Some people DO want well-balanced films that try new things yet include some old reiable elements; have characters who are funny when appropriate but ultimately sympathetic and deep; have plots that are inventive but not overwrought; and animation that is visually pleasing but not the glaring focus of the film. Like I said before, I believe that it is not impossible to make such films, but the more that Disney or any company tries to pander too much to a specific group or point of criticism, the less likely they are to make films that can be widely admired and respected. They may be trying to please everyone, but they're doing so one complaint at a time, which is only going to earn them more grief.
2099net wrote:I see you like Studio Ghibli films. As good as they are, do you think for that a Western audience would repond positively to a Disney animated Spirited Away or, heaven forbid a Disney animted Grave of the Fireflies? I would wager that they wouldn't - even if the story and the characters were exactly the same. The Disney name just has too much baggage, history and expectations.
They are, quite frankly, in an impossible situation, and nothing will please the critics.
Obviously, the theatrical response to Studio Ghibli films in America has been atrocious, this I cannot deny. But the most unfortunate thing about this is that they are such unknown quantities that people are obviously unwilling to give them a chance even if there is something in each that they SHOULD like. Kiki's Delivery Service, for example, is a very good rendition of the over-hashed and often much blander "teen angst film"...it just happens to be Japanese in origin. Now I chalk this kind of response mostly to, as you stated, the difference in expectations between Disney and Studio Ghibli audiences. To broaden this point, I would extend it to the differences between Japanese and Western audiences. Westerners are not as accustomed to seeing genres besides children's films rendered in animation, and mostly at this point have a hard time in taking more mature animated films seriously. Even Spirited Away, which was targeted in part to ten-year-old girls, can't attract the attention of Western girls who would prefer Raven or Amanda as peers over Chihiro, the "cartoon girl."
Now, how to overcome this sort of cultural difference...I think a very positive thing that has happened to the Ghibli catalog has been its broadcasting on American TV. Those with cable have had the opportunity to view some of Ghibli's best at no cost to them other than in time, and hopefully some of them stumbled upon something unexpectedly wonderful. Time will tell.
