DVDizzy Forum

Well, esetfan, I see what Disney does today fits what you think Disney would do. I don't agree that Disney should have bought other companies and properties to brand as Disney films, I don't like them eating other companies and turning into something I don't think Disney is, I'd rather they do their own more Disney style forays into super heroes or space operas but that's me.

But as far as Disney animated films, I feel like they should all be of some kind of story with a fantasy hook and, I don't have another way to describe it than "nice" stuff in it. Walt seemed all about "nice", classy, elegant, "decent" things. Yes, of course have darkness, but darkness that doesn't fall into offensive or too weird I guess. And, a sense of being a classic. Stuff like Chicken Little and Home on the Range I haven't seen, but I'm sure they don't fit. Bolt hardly fits for me. Lilo & Stitch doesn't really fit for me but everyone else thinks it fits so I begrudgingly accept it. The Emporer's New Groove is too wacky and like Warner Brothers. And Dinosaur is dire, has live-action backgrounds and is not even made by Disney so it shouldn't even be in there.

Disney Duster wrote: But 101 Dalmatians and Lady and the Tramp are fantasy because they feature talking animals. Also, the question of this thread was what animated films are un-Disney to us, not live-action.

Except the dogs in the films only ever talk to each other or other animals. The humans clearly cannot understand them and there's never a scene where the dogs demonstrate that if they wanted, they could speak normally to humans but they purposefully hide this ability. So I wouldn't call it fantasy at all. Also the title of the thread doesn't saying anything about animated films only and other people have brought up non-animated films like Marvel and Star Wars so I don't think we should restrict Disney to animated films only.

Disney Duster wrote: But as far as Disney animated films, I feel like they should all be of some kind of story with a fantasy hook and, I don't have another way to describe it than "nice" stuff in it. Walt seemed all about "nice", classy, elegant, "decent" things. Yes, of course have darkness, but darkness that doesn't fall into offensive or too weird I guess. And, a sense of being a classic. Stuff like Chicken Little and Home on the Range I haven't seen, but I'm sure they don't fit. Bolt hardly fits for me. Lilo & Stitch doesn't really fit for me but everyone else thinks it fits so I begrudgingly accept it. The Emporer's New Groove is too wacky and like Warner Brothers. And Dinosaur is dire, has live-action backgrounds and is not even made by Disney so it shouldn't even be in there.

The Good Dinosaur had live-action backgrounds but I don't think anyone would dispute that as Pixar/Disney.

Monopolies and Disney stealing every other fictional story out there to mark it as their own aren't good.

But it's also not good that some people suggest the only Disney films should be ones about a doe-eyed waif singing about life. Heck, Disney even does movies like that, Moana, yet people here ignore those films to make the uptenth discussion about how Disney's Cinderella is the second coming of Christ.

JeanGreyForever wrote:Except the dogs in the films only ever talk to each other or other animals. The humans clearly cannot understand them and there's never a scene where the dogs demonstrate that if they wanted, they could speak normally to humans but they purposefully hide this ability. So I wouldn't call it fantasy at all. Also the title of the thread doesn't saying anything about animated films only and other people have brought up non-animated films like Marvel and Star Wars so I don't think we should restrict Disney to animated films only.

Yeah, you're right, they are not really talking human speech, they are talking in dog and we just understand them for the movie. Well, I can't explain what I feel like Walt always did for his animated films. I feel like he...if not fantasy is the word...he always did...what was...not...the real way? Like, he didn't have just dogs barking to each other. He had them "kiss" with the spaghetti. I dunno. I guess you're right. But I still believe there is some kind of Disney Essence.

JeanGreyForever wrote:The Good Dinosaur had live-action backgrounds but I don't think anyone would dispute that as Pixar/Disney.

That is all PIXAR and from what I have heard that movie is all bad! LOL I don't count PIXAR as part of Disney. It's a seperate studio.

thedisneyspirit wrote:Monopolies and Disney stealing every other fictional story out there to mark it as their own aren't good.

But it's also not good that some people suggest the only Disney films should be ones about a doe-eyed waif singing about life. Heck, Disney even does movies like that, Moana, yet people here ignore those films to make the uptenth discussion about how Disney's Cinderella is the second coming of Christ.

Cinderella was always my favorite movie and story ever since I learned of it as a child. I have autism, which makes me very obsessed with it. I have depression, and when you have depression, things you once were interested in, you aren't interested in as much anymore. That means that I have very little interest for things that aren't Cinderella. I just don't have the energy to talk as much about things that aren't Cinderella. I have just enough energy and time to get a little into my other favorite Disney movies, and the few other things I like. I try to limit my talk about Cinderella to the threads, or posts, that are appropriate. No one is forcing you to read my posts about Cinderella, and no one is stopping you from writing and reading posts about non-Cinderella things. So please, for all these reasons, do not complain about posts about Cinderella.

Disney Duster wrote:

JeanGreyForever wrote:Except the dogs in the films only ever talk to each other or other animals. The humans clearly cannot understand them and there's never a scene where the dogs demonstrate that if they wanted, they could speak normally to humans but they purposefully hide this ability. So I wouldn't call it fantasy at all. Also the title of the thread doesn't saying anything about animated films only and other people have brought up non-animated films like Marvel and Star Wars so I don't think we should restrict Disney to animated films only.

Yeah, you're right, they are not really talking human speech, they are talking in dog and we just understand them for the movie. Well, I can't explain what I feel like Walt always did for his animated films. I feel like he...if not fantasy is the word...he always did...what was...not...the real way? Like, he didn't have just dogs barking to each other. He had them "kiss" with the spaghetti. I dunno. I guess you're right. But I still believe there is some kind of Disney Essence.

JeanGreyForever wrote:The Good Dinosaur had live-action backgrounds but I don't think anyone would dispute that as Pixar/Disney.

That is all PIXAR and from what I have heard that movie is all bad! LOL I don't count PIXAR as part of Disney. It's a seperate studio.

Lol talking in dog. I like the way you worded that. I understand what you mean though about the "Disney essence" and I agree that Walt's films have their own flavor and timelessness about them (or most of them anyway). I think Walt was giving relatable human traits to the animal characters while still having them act and identify as animals if that makes sense. That's a tricky balance but something he could easily do in his films and shorts.

Lol, yeah that movie was pretty terrible. Did you not watch it? For me, Pixar is synonymous with Disney because growing up in the late 90s/early 2000s, I always saw films like the Toy Story films and A Bug's Life heavily promoted by Disney and branded with the Disney logo. I knew they were Pixar but Pixar was Disney to me and I think that's true for a lot of the new generations. Then again, I knew this awful girl from my high school who used to brag about how she'd never seen a Disney movie before yet Finding Nemo was her favorite. I told her that was Disney but she responded that Pixar isn't Disney so I just gave up.

Yeah, there is a timeless elegance and enjoyment for all ages that may be the Disney Essence.

Ok, I see why Pixar is Disney for you, and I also know officially, it may be. But for me Pixar is not Disney, nor is the Muppets or Marvel or Star Wars. I only consider what the studio makes themselves to be Disney. That is personally for me, though.

thedisneyspirit wrote:Monopolies and Disney stealing every other fictional story out there to mark it as their own aren't good.

But it's also not good that some people suggest the only Disney films should be ones about a doe-eyed waif singing about life. Heck, Disney even does movies like that, Moana, yet people here ignore those films to make the uptenth discussion about how Disney's Cinderella is the second coming of Christ.

I agree, Disney is more than just princess musicals. And, as I said, I don't believe in the "What would Walt do?" mentality either, but to me there's a line when a studio stops feeling like itself. And they have a great deal ever since WDAS started pumping out PIXAR films.

Sorry for bumping this thread, but I just wanted to praise you for a brilliant topic, Sotiris. Yet it's still a hard question for me (subjectively), since most of the un-Disney films still are overflowed with Disney's trademark Components that are synonymous with Disney, anyways. Even the films from the early millenium (The Emperor's New Groove, Atlantis, Lilo & Stitch) truly fits into that category, despite how all three of them don't feel like classic, fuzzy Disney and does feel like they've could've come from other companies (especially Groove, due to it's Warner Bros-esque execution).

However, if there has been a film that truly felt un-Disney in tone, it was Wreck-It-Ralph. Most people claimed it as being Pixar-production, but personally I've always thought that it was rather DreamWorks-esque in tone. There was something with it's execution that felt it was as DreamWorks (as Megamind, Kung Fu Panda, How To Train Your Dragon and such).

I found the very idea of Wreck it Ralph to be un-Disney. A video game with tons of product placement and a villain who wants to become the hero? Un-Disney.