DVDizzy Forum

merlinjones wrote: We could debate Pinocchio until morning and never really define it (part of the fun), but notice that neither of us debates B&B at all, because there is nothing left to chance or individual interpretation.

Try going to the Beauty and the Beast thread sometime. That film gets debated all the time, and I know I’ve seen it get more attention on these boards specifically than Pinocchio. Just because you yourself decide not to debate B&tB is not very strong "proof."

I agree that the modern films are more unsubtle in what their overall message is, but I find their characters more complex and less likely to be simple archetypes. The only thing ADHD I find about the modern films is the introduction of the side kick figure, who is loud and obnoxious. Yes, the modern films' storylines are more complicated than most older films, but when you consider the base simplicity of most of those films...that isn't saying much. They are still simplistic when compared to most live-action or, some might say, "adult" films. I don't think I've seen any Disney film (except, perhaps, Meet the Robinsons) that I would consider "convoluted."

I agree that characters in the 80s and 90s films were more layered than their earlier film counterparts.

Let's take the two most popular Disney Princesses: Cinderella and Belle. Cinderella was the archetypal pure maiden. She was always lovely no matter what, and her first reaction to distress was to cry in a corner. Belle was a model of the era she was created in, an era where women were still feminine, but were slowly beginning to have a more proactive role in society beyond good looks.

Belle is layered in that she doesn't seem to be a "perfect" woman in the same vein as Cinderella. The fact that she loves to read books says that she spends more time in a fictional setting than in the real world, she might be a tad anti-social because of it and wants something bigger beyond true love. Belle also showed great proactivity regarding the situation at hand. Her father was captured, she goes out to save him. Her father was dying in the cold, she left the Beast to save him. Beast was about to get killed, she goes to the castle. This to people speaks volumes about how far she has come from the likes of Cinderella in terms of how a layered female protagonist is presented.

Yet, even when Disney relied on archetypes for its characters, they were presented in a way that it was really, really good. They may have been archetypes for sure, but these were the absolute best representations of said archetypes ever presented in the media. Take Snow White. She is a very typical princess character: lovely, always romantic, quick to be a damsel in distress when the story needs one and everyone loves her (except for the villain). And yet, she was drawn and presented so well that people quickly grew to love her, either as her own character or because of association.

I think that's why many critics given the earlier Disney films more credit than the other movies: everything was done in an excellent manner, even if the source material and concepts behind the story were in a way "weak".

It also speaks about how sometimes simpler is better in some cases. Let me us Princess and the Frog as a further example. That movie was VERY loaded for a Disney film. You had a main protagonist that was a workaholic trying to achieve the dream of a deceased father in an era in which it would be impossible for her to open a restaurant because of both her culture and gender. Add to this a prince that is a skirt chaser, a bad guy that pretty much deals with hell and loopholes regarding escaping the curse and you can see why some people felt the movie was convoluted.


It looks like the straight forward-ness of the earlier Disney movies made it easy for people to accept them and thus relish them as the best ever made.

LittleUrsula....

You aren't quite getting my point. What you are talking about are the themes and morals of those films, not story points. And I never said that Fantasia wasn't good because it's not a narrative! i meant that it cannot be part of this discussion since we are talking about story, and fantasia doesnt have one!

And it's not that I want to be spoon-fed everything in a film. But filmmaking is a form of communication. it is ok to leave SOME things up to interpretation..., but if too much is left vague, then the filmmaker isnt communicating well, in my opinion.
And not every good feel has to be "up to interpretation"!

And again. THe Disney films have great art direction, great design, great characters, great music, great direction, great editing... but THATS NOT WHAT I WAS ADDRESSING ON THIS THREAD.

And please dont bring Meet the Robinsons into this. I was comparing the films made by Walt, to the ones MADE IN THE 90s, NOT THE 2000s!

Comparing "Pinocchio" against "Beauty and the Beast" ultimately serves little purpose, as these films are both cinematic classics.

The three "modern era" animated films I would never criticize deeply from a story or theme standpoint are "Beauty and the Beast," "The Little Mermaid," and "Aladdin." I think these three did it right in expanding the traditional Disney form with modern edges and complexities, without throwing out the humor, visual fun and fantasy of the Walt legacy, nor the original source material of folklore. They fit the perfect balance -- and audiences have responded in kind by placing these titles in the pantheon of the heart.

To examine the downside of the contemporary animated story, there are dozens of downer films to dissect, sadly, but not those three.

-- As an aside, if anyone would like to see a more poetically interpreted version of "Beauty and the Beast," do catch Jean Cocteau's classic "La Belle et la Bete" (1946), a fabulous live-action fantasy that very much informed the Disney version.

pap64 wrote:It also speaks about how sometimes simpler is better in some cases. Let me us Princess and the Frog as a further example. That movie was VERY loaded for a Disney film. You had a main protagonist that was a workaholic trying to achieve the dream of a deceased father in an era in which it would be impossible for her to open a restaurant because of both her culture and gender. Add to this a prince that is a skirt chaser, a bad guy that pretty much deals with hell and loopholes regarding escaping the curse and you can see why some people felt the movie was convoluted.

I consider those backstories. Yes, the fact that older Disney films don’t have those make the modern ones seem convoluted, but what I really think of as convoluted are shows like Lost, Desperate Housewives, or daytime soap operas, where half the time you can’t even remember everything that’s happened.

I know it's an old post but I wanted to give my perspective. I think what makes Walt films so special is how they manage to really make you care for the characters, you see them in various emotions, when they're happy, when they're sad. You really go through their emotional journey and that makes you connect with them and their story. In some way they are very character-driven stories.

In addition, I don't think they are very dissimilar with the live actions films from back then. Classic Hollywood films used to be very slow paced, focused more on the characters and the writing, and less on action. I think the big five are more episodic because it might have been easier to make them that way after making only shorts. Serialized plot needs to take into consideration consequences from sequence to sequence thus making them less independent from each other. This is only started with Cinderella in my opinion. The 50's films are very much 50's films. Cinderella and Lady and the Tramp are 50's romantic comedies and the 60's were a transitional period for both animation and live action films.

I guess to me "simple" doesn't mean bad. I think a lot can be accomplished with a simple narrative like focusing more on the characters. When films, especially animated films, try to overcomplicate the plot they can turn out a mess, trying to do everything and accomplishing nothing, so to me the classic films are efficient in that way. That and they don't try to add unnecessary things just to have a longer runtime.

Yes, the Walt films are very character-driven. I agree. They really do take you through all their emotions.

But I prefer more narrative I guess, and I think I find something that is equally character and plot-driven makes better movies.

pap64 wrote:Let's take the two most popular Disney Princesses: Cinderella and Belle. Cinderella was the archetypal pure maiden. She was always lovely no matter what, and her first reaction to distress was to cry in a corner. Belle was a model of the era she was created in, an era where women were still feminine, but were slowly beginning to have a more proactive role in society beyond good looks.

I must have missed this before. First of all, Cinderella got angry sometimes. And she even mocked her stepsisters once and was a little bitchy when she said, "Yes, goodnight" to her scheming stepmonster. Also, since when was Belle from an era of women only just beginning to be seen for more than their good looks? If you meant the 90's, that absolutely nuts! Womens' rights had really started to go hugely forward in the '60s, and even before that Feminism actually started in 1848! And if you mean they started to be seen for more than just beauty in the era the fairy tale was written, that was 1740, which was many years after women were seen for more than beauty in things like Cinderella, where kindness was valued in women, and there were many female writers in that time, too!