Big Disney Fan wrote:This thread is about something interesting: the Top 10 Disney Oddities (which came from David Koenig's book "Mouse Under Glass"). Here is Oddity One:
#1: Prince Charming Disease
For some reason, the prince seems to always be the blandest character in Disney movies. Snow White's Prince Charming was so boring, his previously-planned action scenes were deleted, and after a brief hello, he disappears until the closing scene. Cinderella's, Aurora's and Ariel's respective princes are no more exciting. As a result, while you can be sure of seeing a mess of little girls dressed in various princess outfits (like Snow White's or Cinderella's), you won't see too many little boys sporting Prince Charming's tights. And nor will you see too many actors at the Disney parks in prince costumes.
Maybe it's just they're overshadowed by the marvelous Disney villains who typically steal the show. Or maybe it dates by the archetypal Disney nice guy, Mickey Mouse himself, who became so popular during the 1930s that the Disney staff became more and more restricted in what the public would allow them to do with their hero. So while Donald and Goofy were getting into all kinds of incredible adventures, Mickey was content to just sit on the porch and read the evening paper.
Makes you wonder if maybe Aladdin lost his edge after he married Jasmine.
In Walt's defense, I believe the princes in both Snow White & Cinderella were intended to be more developed characters but he had so much difficulty doing so without causing the story to slow down that he had no choice but to let these characters fall back in scale. I'd let it go in the case of Snow White because back then characters in cartoons (even in Disney cartoons) werent intended to be fully developed or with personality. Snow White plays more as an extended cartoon short than an actual animated feature the way it was directed, IMO.
Big Disney Fan wrote:
#2: The Pluto Syndrome
It all started with Pluto, Mickey's faithful pet and the first major Disney character who is unable to speak. While it's true that talking animals are common in the animated features, those same pictures also include animals who can't speak. Like Pluto before them, they invariably end up as pets, servants or beasts (i.e., Max the sheepdog from The Little Mermaid, Toby the dog from The Great Mouse Detective, Nero and Brutus the alligators from The Rescuers and the bear from The Fox and the Hound), whereas the talking animals assume more humanized-type roles and typically wear clothes.
You have to pity poor Pluto, who can't speak and thus is banished to a role of mere domesticated servitude, when even his annoying foes Chip 'n' Dale could talk. Then again, maybe Pluto could speak until he heard the ridiculous intonations of Donald and Goofy, after which he thought better of it.
#3: The Curse of Cats
Legend has it that Walt Disney despised cats. Or maybe it's because his most famous characters are mice (cute and harmless) and dogs (man's best friends), the mortal enemies of cats (mysterious with sharp teeth and claws). But whatever the reason, cats normally received a bad rap in Disney movies. Starting with Mickey's Steamboat Willie foe, Peg-Leg Pete, if they're not downright evil (i.e., Lucifer from Cinderella), then they're villainous (i.e., Gideon from Pinocchio), devilish (i.e., the Cheshire Cat from Alice In Wonderland, the Siamese cats from Lady and the Tramp), scrawny (i.e., Sgt. Tibs from 101 Dalmatians) or at the very least tormented (i.e., Figaro from Pinocchio). Meanwhile, entire movies were devoted to how wonderful dogs and mice are. It wasn't until after Walt passed away that felines started to receive more decent roles in the films (i.e., The Aristocats and Oliver and Company).
Well Walt did greenlit The Aristocats before he died so he couldnt be all that spiteful towards cats.
Also in the case of Pluto syndrome would the bear in The Fox and the Hound be as villainous or scary if he was capable of talking. I think it was good decision as far as suspense. Besides, he was only on for like 2 mins of screen time anyway.
On an interesting note (if anyone cares): the one type of animal in Disney films who seems to fall victim to Pluto Syndrome more than any other is in fact the horse. When you consider that horses appear in about 80-90% of the WDFA canon only three horse characters have ever been known to have talked. They are: the Captain from
101 Dalmations, Frou-Frou from
The Aristocats, and Buck from
Home on the Range
Big Disney Fan wrote:#4: The Clonus Factor
Maybe it's because there are only so many ways to draw a hound dog or because all big tigers appear much the same, but many Disney animated characters sure look alike. As proof, have you ever seen Prince John and King Leonidas (from Bedknobs and Broomsticks) in the same room at the same time? Or Tramp and Dodger (from Oliver and Company)? Or Baloo, Little John and the Fisherman Bear (from Bedknobs and Broomsticks)? In fact, Disney's big bears look so identical to each other that the same mold is actually used to produce their respective costumes for the Disney parks.
Perhaps it's the claim that some of the similar-looking characters were separated at birth which has lead recent movies to feature more exotic players, like a meerkat or a warthog or a frilled-neck lizard.
This oddity though can be considered irrelevant because many of his examples center around the Disney Dark Age when it was faster, easier and cheaper to reuse and recycle animation than to come up with new ideas.
Big Disney Fan wrote:
#5: The Superwoman Complex
For years, critics have assailed Disney for its heroines, claiming that they were all just passive and helpless characters whose sole concern was finding a man to marry, and that the only dynamic females were villains. In direct response, starting with Belle from Beauty and the Beast, Disney deliberately set out to turn such a convention on its ear. From Belle to Jasmine to Pocahontas to Esmerelda to Meg to Mulan and so on and on, each heroine has become more and more aggressive, independent and heroic (and strangely enough, more endowed with a bigger chest). Could you picture any of these women doing housework? Now the hero merely stands back in awe and watches her perform daring-do feats. The age of the fair princess is long gone; get ready for misunderstood mud wrestlers and biker chicks.
Awesome! I'm not the only one who gets tired with this typical affair and I'm a girl. I'm not a big fan of tomboy girls (especially if they're princesses). The way I see it it's okay to be feminine and a bit helpless as long as you have some form of resourcefullness to balance it out.
I'm more annoyed when a movie sets up a girl as being an action girl all along. Now let's look at the case of Mulan. Clearly she knew nothing about fighting when she first joined the army and it really showed. She had to work and train to be an action girl. I prefer seeing that kind of character being develop over seeing it as just something natural. Let's face it girls, it aint.
Big Disney Fan wrote:
#6: Problems of Perspective
A mouse as big as a duck as big as a dog? Mickey may be a mouse, but he is still nevertheless drawn of comparable size to Donald Duck and the other co-stars, regardless of what animal they really are. The animals are designed in more believable sizes in the feature films; it's their features that are altered. Early on, Disney discovered that to instill innocence and sympathy into his characters, he could make them look like babies, whose heads are bigger in proportion to their bodies than those of adults. Sympathetic characters were drawn with big heads and even bigger E.T.-sized eyes. The bigger the eyes, the cuter and more vulnerable the character. The smaller and beadier the eyes, the more evil the character. Critics noted that one reason why Pocahontas was more realistic is due to the fact that she was the first Disney heroine who eyes didn't take up half her head.
All perspective is thrown out the window where the costumed characters at the Disney parks are concerned, mainly due to the limited size of the available workforce. Chip 'n' Dale standing nose-to-beak with Donald Duck? Jiminy Cricket the same height as Pinocchio? Mushu as tall as Mulan? The mice rubbing shoulders with Cinderella? Redesigned costumes now team Snow White with the Seven Men of Average Height.
Um...yeah.
Big Disney Fan wrote:
#7: Near Death Experiences
The Disney wizards also many other surefire methods to gain sympathy for their characters and few are more effective than pretending to kill them off. Although sometimes "knocked off" early on (i.e., the runt Dalmatian, Chief from The Fox and the Hound), for maximum dramatic impact, most almost die just before the end of the movie. If the victim can't be the star (i.e., Snow White, Pinocchio, Oliver from Oliver and Company), then the best buddy will do just as well (i.e., Tinker Bell, Baloo, Gurgi from The Black Cauldron).
Fear not. Nice Disney characters are immortal. No matter how hermetically sealed their fate may appear, they will be quickly revived by either natural (John Smith shakes it off; Esmerelda was only resting) or supernatural means (i.e., Ariel, the Beast, Meg). Or, if everyone has given up all hope, they merely show up at the finale unscathed (i.e., Trusty from Lady and the Tramp, Robin Hood, Basil).
This friends, is what is known on TV Tropes as the Disney Death and I do agree it gets pretty damn annoying. In the case of "Chief" from The Fox and the Hound it was unintentional. "Chief" was intended to die but there was concern that this would be too much for kids to deal with so this had to be changed.
I say it works about half the time. You know the worst take on this approach was in Bambi 2. They actually did a Disney Death moment w/ Bambi and I'm sitting thinking WTF? Do people not watch the original Bambi or even realize that this is a midquel?
Big Disney Fan wrote:#8: The Parent Trap
It's the toughest gig in show biz: the Disney mom. From Snow White to Lewis (from Meet the Robinsons), most of the animated heroes were brought to life on the big screen without a natural mother. And even the few cartoon stars who do have mothers usually lose them, either being instantly orphaned or just separated from them for the duration of the picture.
Disney fathers normally don't get much meatier roles. Despite often being powerful figures who should have more important things to worry about (like ruling a kingdom), they spend much of their screen time doting on their restless offspring. Yet the overprotective Disney dads are futilely out of touch with younger generations... and sometimes out of touch with reality.
Even worse are the stepparents and guardians. Whereas in reality, the goal of Child Services is to place the parentless with the best possible parents, Disney orphans invariably wind up adopted by the most overbearing , degenerate, psychopathic waste of space in town. However, Mowgli and Tarzan fared better than most; they were taken in by animals; Mowgli by wolves and Tarzan by gorillas.
Maybe it's because orphans instantly have our sympathy, or maybe it's due to the fact that if animated youngsters actually had parents that were intelligent, practical and breathing, the youths could be quickly rescued or at least assisted through their challenges - which would cause the movie and the adventure to be severely shortened. According to feature animation executive Tom Schumacher, in the idealized concept of the single unit nuclear family, if you have a mom and/or a dad, all the security questions should be answered for you. That being damaged causes you to become more independent. An orphan has to mature more quickly. If Belle had a mother who could sit her down and explain to her that even though Gaston looks good, he's bad, and that although the Beast isn't really interesting to look at, he's a nice guy inside, she wouldn't have to find out for herself.
And while we're on the subject of kids and parents...
#9: Family Breakups
Disney's genius was in crafting high quality family entertainment, appealing to "kids of all ages". Specifically, when Walt was dreaming up Disneyland, he said his desire was to create an amusement where adults and children could have fun together. Consequently, every attraction on opening day did accommodate every age in the whole family. But now, increasingly, new attractions are being introduced with age and height requirements. The Indiana Jones Adventure, the Twilight Zone Tower of Terror and California Screamin' are just a handful of examples of the attractions that disallow small children, while many Toontown offerings ban adults. Wasn't the whole idea to create attractions that wouldn't separate parents from their children and vice-versa?
The movie division apparently is headed in a similar direction, with each successive kid movie seemingly becoming more and still more juvenile and each adult movie becoming more adult. Lines of separation are even drawn within the movies themselves. The central character grows older and the theme more mature, but there are still a handful of precocious sidekicks to keep the children entertained and keep them connected to the storyline. In the past, from the Seven Dwarfs, Jiminy Cricket, Timothy Mouse, Thumper and Flower to Abu, the Magic Carpet, Timon and Pumbaa, although they probably played comparatively minor roles, they were active participants in the story. Kids still love Pocahontas' Meeko, Flit and Percy and The Hunchback of Notre Dame's gargoyles, but these characters cavort on the sidelines, operating separately from the plot, making it easier for children to lose interest in what's really going on.
Skipping #8 since it's being discussed in another thread.
#9 However I agree it's become a growing problem and good points have been made in regards to the kid friendly characters and their roles in the story.
Big Disney Fan wrote:
#10: Synergytis
Cross-promotion makes business sens, with different divisions each promoting the other's products. However, it doesn't always make for the best in entertainment. It started inconspicuously enough, with notations to visit Disneyland at the bottom of newspaper ads and even posters for Disney movies playing at theaters, but now it has gone berserk. During a Disney Afternoon Live promo, Disneyland was dressed up quite gaudily with cut-outs of characters from the company's syndicated afternoon TV lineup.
"Synergy is very important for Disney," explained Imagineer Tony Baxter. "Divisions have to promote each other. So Disney Afternoon Live and Gadget's Go Coaster were to please that division. Unfortunately, as soon as the shows are off the air, no one may recognize them. In fact, Chip 'n' Dale (Nut House) aren't for the cartoons you and I know them for; they're only for Chip 'n' Dale Rescue Rangers."
Now it has come to overkill. While the initial video release of The Little Mermaid in 1990 had only the movie, the initial video release of Pocahontas in 1996 has a full eight minutes of commercials for Walt Disney World and upcoming movies, videos and an interactive CD-ROM storybook. For movie theaters, Disney put so many key scenes in its previews of coming attraction that you may feel as though you've already seen the entire movie before its release. Even the fuzzy little animal characters seem increasingly designed with "plush toy" in mind and the major caravan sequences with an eye toward "theme park parade".
And as Disney continues to grow and acquire other business types, who knows what scary combinations may await us, further diluting the Disney name: A rap album by Winnie the Pooh? Or a dark ride themed to ABC's Roseanne at Disneyland? How about the video-only release of Bambi Joins the Mighty Ducks?
Was this book written before the Pirates and Princess franchises took over? Anywho my view on this is that if Disney wants to market ridiculous garbage like Hannah Montana. It's fine. HOWEVER, if that kind of garbage is being place in the forefront of what Disney stands for then it's a whole nother story entirely. Disney animated films alone should stand firm as the central focus behind Disney marketing. Everything else should remain second fiddle.
Okay I apologize for this massive reply but I was having too much fun here.
