DVDizzy Forum

I mean, to understand it on a level that you and I might, you really have to put some time and energy into researching it and understanding how the company's branches fit together. On the other hand, one simply has to visit Pixar's website to see a clear, concise breakdown of every film they've made - shorts and features. That's the way it should be, and that's why I think Disney needs to figure their stuff out.

While I agree that would be simpler...you're comparing a company that has been creating films for 70 years with 70+ films (if we're including DisneyToon creations, sequels, etc.) to a studio that has made around 10 movies and has only been open around 2 decades... The Disney branding is complicated because the history is convoluted. I don't think there is an easy to sweep away the issues.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

I mean, to understand it on a level that you and I might, you really have to put some time and energy into researching it and understanding how the company's branches fit together. On the other hand, one simply has to visit Pixar's website to see a clear, concise breakdown of every film they've made - shorts and features. That's the way it should be, and that's why I think Disney needs to figure their stuff out.

While I agree that would be simpler...you're comparing a company that has been creating films for 70 years with 70+ films (if we're including DisneyToon creations, sequels, etc.) to a studio that has made around 10 movies and has only been open around 2 decades... The Disney branding is complicated because the history is convoluted. I don't think there is an easy to sweep away the issues.

Yeah, definitely true. But easy or not, they should at least make an attempt. Right now, the only source of any concrete list or explanation of the history of WDAS Shorts, DisneyToon or Disney TV products is Wikipedia or fan-created pages. I mean, come on.

SWillie! wrote:It just gets so confusing with this movie being produced here but animated here and now the rights to it are here but it's only considered Disney under these circumstances and this one was only distributed by Disney and only seasons 5-7 count and this sequel is part of the official canon but these other ones don't really count yada yada yada.

You do have a point there, especially with the "produced here, animated there" part. However, I doubt that would change even if they were to be grouped together under a general Disney Animation umbrella because that's a cost-saving tactic. The animation for Disney Television Animation, Marvel Animation, DisneyToon Studios is outsourced, and the animation for Lucasfilm Animation (and some for Pixar) is off-shored. And it's only a matter of time before whole sequences of Pixar's films are off-shored to Pixar Canada. Mark Andrews and Ed Catmull are already in talks on how to produce Pixar films faster and cheaper.

What would make sense and would help clear-up some of the confusion is a possible merger between DisneyToon Studios and Disney Television Animation. They used to be a single studio and a lot of the films now credited to DisneyToon were actually produced by DTVA. The earlier sequels, the sequels that served as pilots to TV series, the sequels comprised of episodes etc. Since both studios outsource the animation of their shows, pre- and post-production could easily be handled under one studio. This change would feel more organic because the two studios already share a lot of the same history and product.

Sotiris wrote:What would make sense and would help clear-up some of the confusion is a possible merger between DisneyToon Studios and Disney Television Animation. They used to be a single studio and a lot of the films now credited to DisneyToon were actually produced by DTVA. The earlier sequels, the sequels that served as pilots to TV series, the sequels comprised of episodes etc. Since both studios outsource the animation of their shows, pre- and post-production could easily be handled under one studio. This change would feel more organic because the two studios already share a lot of the same history and product.

I think that might be a very good way to go about it, or at least a good start. 'Disney Home Entertainment Studios', maybe? (Although now that they're releasing stuff theatrically...) That would leave WDAS to their own doings, which I agree is for the best. The only issues I hold with WDAS is that they need to better categorize their shorts, and also they need some way to better include the 'outsiders' - the hybrid films and the stop motion films. Even if it was a matter of giving them an official title of 'Associated Projects' or something along those lines.

All I know is that there is currently no official Disney source where I can go and learn about the history of the studio and its projects, and that just doesn't make sense to me. For a company that is so branding-oriented, they're missing out on the absolute strongest brand they have - Disney Animation!

I know some might say, "why does everything have to be labeled and branded and categorized? Why can't things just be left the way they are?" And my answer to that is fairly simple - in today's age of so much content that is being shoved in the face of everyone, there needs to be a way to make this content easily accessible and easily understandable to consumers, or else they will simply move on to next thing they feel like reading or watching. And that puts those lesser known films and characters in danger of being totally left behind and forgotten. Why would someone today watch a film like The Black Cauldron or some unheard of short like The Little House, when there are so many other things to watch? Well, because it's Disney Animation, of course! And Disney ought to put more weight in that.

I think it would be smart to categorize things. The WDAS is so damn empty, considering it's the oldest animation studio in the world with a rich history. It deserves SO much more respect.

As for DisneyToon... I live in a pretend, parallel universe where they've made only two movies: DuckTales: Treasure of the Lost Lamp and A Goofy Movie. Let's wait and see if Planes is worthy to stand in the shadow of those two films.

PatrickvD wrote:I think it would be smart to categorize things. The WDAS is so damn empty, considering it's the oldest animation studio in the world with a rich history. It deserves SO much more respect.

As for DisneyToon... I live in a pretend, parallel universe where they've made only two movies: DuckTales: Treasure of the Lost Lamp and A Goofy Movie. Let's wait and see if Planes is worthy to stand in the shadow of those two films.

No Tinker Bell? I think the Tinker Bell films are worthy of some praise. But regardless of how awful some of the films are, I think it's important to make information about them available to the average consumer. I don't know what the best way to do that would be, but I think it ought to be done. As I said before, the only place I can go currently to learn about these films and the history of all three studios is on Wiki or other fan-managed sites. I definitely agree about the website (I assume that's what you meant in your first comment?).

I guess for now we have to keep dreaming. Although I'd love to try my hand at exploring what the best form of categorization and organization within the studios might be.

After Disney Germany, Disney Spain follows in announcing Merida's addition into the line. Here, you can download a 2013 Disney Princess calendar featuring Merida.



Source: http://www.disney.es/concursos/baile-princesas/

Such . . . big . . . hair . . .

can just hear her mother

"merida! no bows in royal portraits!"

Source: http://sapphire-zebra.tumblr.com/post/4 ... -at-target

Sotiris wrote:After Disney Germany, Disney Spain follows in announcing Merida's addition into the line. Here, you can download a 2013 Disney Princess calendar featuring Merida.



Source: http://www.disney.es/concursos/baile-princesas/

OMG Rapunzel looks just PERFECT in that image!!!

Merida 2D still doesn't fit for me =(

My problem is that Merida is too big and she's blocking out the rest of Jasmine and Rapunzel's pictures. If she was behind them and she was resized, she would look fine.

disneyprincess11 wrote:My problem is that Merida is too big and she's blocking out the rest of Jasmine and Rapunzel's pictures. If she was behind them and she was resized, she would look fine.

She's the newest, so of course they're gonna have her front and center like that.

Full-bodied clip-art of Merida:



Source: http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/disney-prin ... look-photo




Source: http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/disney-prin ... mage-photo

Sotiris wrote:After Disney Germany, Disney Spain follows in announcing Merida's addition into the line. Here, you can download a 2013 Disney Princess calendar featuring Merida.



Source: http://www.disney.es/concursos/baile-princesas/

I think it's funny Merida dwarfs Rapunzel and especially Jasmine. They look like peanuts.

Sotiris wrote:Full-bodied clip-art of Merida:

Sparkly!!!

How come they didn't give Tiana a new pretty crown like the other girls ? They just kept her usual Frog Princess crown... thing.

enigmawing wrote:Sparkly!!!

Look at her shoulders! They are bear bare!

Sotiris wrote:

enigmawing wrote:Sparkly!!!

Look at her shoulders! They are bear bare!

That was perfect.

Loving that clipart though!

Sotiris wrote:Look at her shoulders! They are bear bare!

Goodness, I didn't even notice!