DVDizzy Forum

I also considered the Golden era from Roger Rabbit to Lion King.

Pocohontas, Hunchback and a few others while still good just weren't quite on that level. I think younger audiences tend to disagree, but for me it came down to did the next movie surpass the last one.

Roger Rabbit ushered in a new era (though time doesn't seem to treat it as kindly as it should), Little Mermaid got Disney feature films back on the map again, Beauty and the Best took it to a whole new level, Aladdin kept going and Lion King was probably the peak both in terms of money, awards and attention. The one's that follow just didn't quite keep that trend up no matter how much we might have liked them or feel they should of.

From around 87-95 Disney was firing on all cylinders. They were producing great movies, the theme parks were making a huge comeback, baby boomers were taking their kids to see movies they loved when they were little, VHS was in full swing, Disney television was rolling (Disney afternoon) and the company was going places.

Around '95 things started to change a little. The follow-ups to Lion King were considered mild disappointments, disney television started cutting corners and slowly things started going south.

It's kind of like climbing a mountain, while still up there, the peak was clearly behind them and the direction was south. I think it really hit the bottom with Atlantis, Treasure Planet and the move towards prequels and stuff.

Disney will be back again but it needs to recapture its creativity a little bit. Probably in the a few years you'll see a boom again because children of the 80's and early 90's (i'd say people born between maybe 78 - 85) are going to be having kids and like the baby boomers they will take their kids to see Disney.

Hmm, short response to all the Roger Rabbit posts: If this is a Disney renaissance thread, how does a Touchstone title (yes, I know it's owned by Disney, but it doesn't have the Disney label, duh) figure into the question.

Is Roger Rabbit a great movie? Yes. Is it part of the DISNEY renaissance. No.

Prince Eric wrote:Hmm, short response to all the Roger Rabbit posts: If this is a Disney renaissance thread, how does a Touchstone title (yes, I know it's owned by Disney, but it doesn't have the Disney label, duh) figure into the question.

Is Roger Rabbit a great movie? Yes. Is it part of the DISNEY renaissance. No.

Agreed.

It is also like saying The Black Cauldron, The Great Mouse Detective, and Oliver and Company were part of the Renaissance because they set the stage for The Little Mermaid.

Another example: The American Revolution was a cause for the French Revolution, yet is the American Revolution part of the French Revolution. NO!

"Roger Rabbit" IS most certainly part of the Disney reinassance. For a long time executives were fighting back and forth as wether to release it as a Disney picture or not. In the end, it got released as a Touchstone picture, but still, in most of people´s minds it was a Disney picture (even magazine articles refered to it as a Disney picture). Besides, most of books on Disney animation have a few pages dedicated to Roger Rabbit, so I think that settles it.

PS: The films from the Pocahontas-Tarzan era are most certainly part of Disney´s latest Golden Age.

The Top 4 (Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin) definetly put Disney back on the map. It wasn't even just because they won Oscars or made the most money, was because they seemed to just take themselves seriously. They were truly amazing films. Awesome characters, great plots. All around great films, and not just DISNEY movies.

actually, the "fantastic 4" are the most close to a real Disney movie

Sendur wrote:I really put Pocahontas into the rennaisance
It was not as big as Lion King, but when you compare it to movies like Hunckback and Hercules, Pocahontas was much more populair
And it also won 2 Oscars

I agree with you a 100 percent. Pocahontas isn't as good as TLK or BATB but that doesn't make it not worthy for the Disney renaissance. Alot of Americans were pissed at the fact that Disney was taking a true story and adding fictional stuff to it. As an American myself, I don't what's wrong with what they did to the Pocahontas story. There isn't much known about the real Pocahontas. In fact, there only about twenty six or twenty seven words about
the actual relationship between John Smith and Pocahontas. The rest is just made up. Imagine if Disney made the movie that stuck to the original story. That would be very boring. I just don't see how Pocahontas is an "insult to American history" as on reviewer on IMDb put it.

I'm not sure if I sould put Roger Rabbit in the Disney renaissance. Don't get me wrong, it's a great flim but the fact it was made by Tochstone makes me ponder about it.

Edge wrote:Disney will be back again but it needs to recapture its creativity a little bit. Probably in the a few years you'll see a boom again because children of the 80's and early 90's (i'd say people born between maybe 78 - 85) are going to be having kids and like the baby boomers they will take their kids to see Disney.

You know, you hit the mark there. I know that some will disagree, but that is a likely possibility. Perhaps Rapunzel or something after that (maybe even a new 2D film, as Don Hahn said that it could make a comeback and Eisner's out, of course ) could help to restore the glory.

i will also consider that Pocahontas as one of the works from the sed golden period,The Lion King was so huge at the time,i still remeber at 1995 Pocahontas still carry the mania of disney,i don't think it just end at the Lion King.
( in fact HUNCHBACK did better than Hercules isn't it ? )

Drawing absolutely sharp lines between the periods is a bit problematic. It takes time to develop any "general situation". The Mouse Detective and Oliver - and we could even mention the Rabbit - showed that good things were happening. Then, by the time of TLM and B&B, it was clear to most people that good things had happened. It lasted for a few years, but I'd say that when Pocahontas came, they started going slowly downhill. But remember, when you're just starting downhill, you're still pretty close to the top.

For those who deal with the science of history - passing the historical judgment takes time. Looking at them individually, I'd say there were quite some good ones of Disney's animated features from the period 1995-2004. But what went wrong? Were they trying too long to do the same thing? They were critisized for following a certain "formula"... Did it help to try to do something different? (Atlantis?) So, eventually, they put an end to the traditionally animated feature.

Maybe it will return some day - we'll see. They considered putting an end to animated features after Walt died.

there are tales and stories than are told better in 2D than in 3D

Prince Eric wrote:Hmm, short response to all the Roger Rabbit posts: If this is a Disney renaissance thread, how does a Touchstone title (yes, I know it's owned by Disney, but it doesn't have the Disney label, duh) figure into the question.

Is Roger Rabbit a great movie? Yes. Is it part of the DISNEY renaissance. No.

As early as '82 (before Touchstone and before Eisner) Ron Miller wanted to do something with Roger, so he has been part of the Disney fold, even though the eventual picture ended up under Disney's more adult label. Disney animation teams, Disney production teams, and Disney executive teams helped make this just as much as Speilberg's crew did, so I would certainly say its part of Disney's move into a golden era of animation.

Roger Rabbit wrote:

Prince Eric wrote:Hmm, short response to all the Roger Rabbit posts: If this is a Disney renaissance thread, how does a Touchstone title (yes, I know it's owned by Disney, but it doesn't have the Disney label, duh) figure into the question.

Is Roger Rabbit a great movie? Yes. Is it part of the DISNEY renaissance. No.

As early as '82 (before Touchstone and before Eisner) Ron Miller wanted to do something with Roger, so he has been part of the Disney fold, even though the eventual picture ended up under Disney's more adult label. Disney animation teams, Disney production teams, and Disney executive teams helped make this just as much as Speilberg's crew did, so I would certainly say its part of Disney's move into a golden era of animation.

All of those points are really moot points because the fact is it's not a DISNEY movie and never will be.

Prince Eric wrote: All of those points are really moot points because the fact is it's not a DISNEY movie and never will be.

Well considering that Touchstone IS owned by Disney, and the fact that WFRR was mostly made at the Disney studios and the fact that Disney considers it one of their "own", saying Roger Rabbit isn't part of the renaissance because it "isn't" a Disney film can be considered a very ridiculous point!

Prince Eric wrote:All of those points are really moot points because the fact is it's not a DISNEY movie and never will be.

Now THAT is a rather strange and... eh, inflexible attitude.

Although RR is not purely Disney - purely animation, it's not like it doesn't have quite a lot to do with it either, like you seem to suggest. "Moot points" is a strangely strong expression is this case.

I suspect Prince Eric has a grudge against Roger Rabbit. Sure you're not actually having a fight over red-haired girls at home in Toon-Town?

Prince Eric wrote:All of those points are really moot points because the fact is it's not a DISNEY movie and never will be.

A name is a name. Touchstone to you may not be considered Disney, despite its Disney origins, but I count every Touchstone movie, WFRR included, as a Disney movie. The Pacifier this year was supposed to be released with the Touchstone banner, before being moved to Disney. Likewise with Hitchhiker's Guide, it was supposed to be under the Disney banner, but was moved to the Touchstone banner instead. Who Framed Roger Rabbit was predominantly produced with the intention of releasing it under the Disney banner, but they decided to give it the more contemporary Touchstone banner instead. Does that make it any less of a movie? No. Does it make it non-Disney? NO. It's Disney with another name.

Escapay

Good to hear my point isn't entirely falling on deaf ears and others agree that Roger Rabbit has his place in animation history.

Eric, you cannot deny that WFRR was made by the Walt Disney Company, and because roughly 55 minutes of that film had some extensive form of animation (layers for shadows, effects, shading, and all done with no computers), RR was clearly an important stepping stone for the future success of the animated film, because people were in awe by it. If people like what they see they'll go back for more, and in this case, it was films with some form of artistic animation.

Roger Rabbit wrote:Good to hear my point isn't entirely falling on deaf ears and others agree that Roger Rabbit has his place in animation history.

Eric, you cannot deny that WFRR was made by the Walt Disney Company, and because roughly 55 minutes of that film had some extensive form of animation (layers for shadows, effects, shading, and all done with no computers), RR was clearly an important stepping stone for the future success of the animated film, because people were in awe by it. If people like what they see they'll go back for more, and in this case, it was films with some form of artistic animation.

Who was denying anything? We're talking about what movies are usually included in the Disney Renaissance. Have the people in this thread are going on and on about "stepping stones." Hello, there's always stepping stones to a paradigm shift. That's kind've a basic point. That's not the issue of this thread. I happend to LOVE Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and am well aware that he's considered a Disney character, much like Jack Skellington, but that doesn't mean his movie is a part of something that it's clearly not. We're talking about what films are included in the Golden Age of Disney. To answer the guys questions, they are the animated musicals from 1989-1999. Those who include anything else have there own agenda they want to promote.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit, through its use of innovative technology blending live action and animation and the use of almost every major cartoon character from that time period, revived a major interest in animation in general. For years animation, especially in the United States, was considered to be only for children. Roger Rabbit made it okay for adults to go see cartoons and laugh like they used to back in animation's golden age.

So, even though it may not be considered a Disney film directly, I would say that Roger Rabbit at least in a small way helped with the so-called Disney Renaissance period, by making it okay for people to go see Disney cartoons even if they didn't have kids.

Prince Eric wrote:We're talking about what films are included in the Golden Age of Disney. To answer the guys questions, they are the animated musicals from 1989-1999. Those who include anything else have there own agenda they want to promote.

From what I've seen, there are people that have different opinions on which films should and should not be included. There is no specific "list" of which film was part of and should be recognized as a "golden goose" for the Disney company. It's all a matter of personal perception, opinion, and speculation.

Therefore, you say the Golden Age of Disney are those that are Disney musicals between 1989-1999. That doesn't mean everyone believes that Disney produced its best work between those exact years....there is bound to be some deviation.

If you want to get into years and all, I think this "Golden Age of Disney" happened between 1988 and 1995 when Katz, Eisner and Wells were all working together and created the following films: WFRR, Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King, and Pocahontas.

That is my perception of the Golden Age. It may not be yours, it may not be Escapays, Timon/Pumbaa Fan's, Maerj's, or whoever else is replying to this thread to give their two cents. It is comments like "Those who include anything else have their own agenda they want to promote" that irk me.


No more for tonight...I have a long day tomorrow. Cheers. _Roger