DVDizzy Forum

For me The Black Cauldron is the start of the newer movies mainly becuase that's the first animated movie Eisner worked on.

Really?? Interesting fact.

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:For me The Black Cauldron is the start of the newer movies mainly becuase that's the first animated movie Eisner worked on.

I don't mean to be cheeky, but I must correct you there; The Black Cauldron was only released in Eisner's reign. The Black Cauldron was pretty much completed before Eisner became the new Disney CEO. Eisner had hardly any control over the making of that movie, I believe.

I definetly prefer the newer Disney films.

I have seen most all of the older films (like Snow White, Bambi, Sleeping Beauty, 101 Dalmatians, Lady and the Tramp, etc.) and although there are very good they tend to loose my interest after awhile. I dont know what it is but there a little boring.

The newer movies are wonderful though (Fab-Four, Mulan, Tarzan, Hercules, Hunchback). They are very adventurous with well developed stories and characters that keep you interested.

I think Disney hit it right on the nose during the 1990s and early 00s. Maybe this is because these are the movies I grew up with but I really think its because they are far more better!

Wonderlicious wrote:

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:For me The Black Cauldron is the start of the newer movies mainly becuase that's the first animated movie Eisner worked on.

I don't mean to be cheeky, but I must correct you there; The Black Cauldron was only released in Eisner's reign. The Black Cauldron was pretty much completed before Eisner became the new Disney CEO. Eisner had hardly any control over the making of that movie, I believe.

I knew that, but I just said it the way I did because more people would understand it better the way I said it! However Eisner did have little controll. The crew and some people were talking about making the movie less dark and lighter. But the directors wouldn't allow it. So that's why I said made, not because he made it(does he really "make" any movies?)but because he released it and had some say on it.

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:I knew that, but I just said it the way I did because more people would understand it better the way I said it! However Eisner did have little controll. The crew and some people were talking about making the movie less dark and lighter. But the directors wouldn't allow it. So that's why I said made, not because he made it(does he really "make" any movies?)but because he, like you said, released it.

Well, it was mostly in production before Eisner became the CEO of Disney, what I meant by the Eisner made films was that they were in a good deal of production while Eisner was in charge (Cauldron had pretty much been completed as Eisner came to power, and though it was released in his reign, it's a doubtful case if it is an Eisner-era film or not for reasons previously pointed out). If we were to say that every Walt-era film had to be made by Walt, then it's debatable that 101 Dalmatians and The Sword in the Stone were Walt-era films as Walt had little to do with them; they were just made and released while he was the boss.

I really love many of both the old and new Disney films(Disney has the best quality animation I've ever seen),but I prefer the newer films.....story-wise,the newer films just seem a little more mature,and I like the songs more...

My faves of the new...

Mulan
The Lion King
Lilo and Stitch
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Pocahontas

My faves of the old....

Sleeping Beauty
Cinderella
Peter Pan
Snow White
101 Dalmatians

and of course,there are a few of each I dislike....

new...
The Great Mouse Detective
Home on the Range
The Black Cauldron

old....
Pinocchio
The Sword in the Stone
Robin Hood

If we're going to categorize the animated features in "older" and "newer", I think it would be fair to see the Fox and the Hound (1981) as the transition point. Everything from the beginning and on through the 70s were made mainly by Walt's own people, while the later ones were made by the new generation.

We could also have three categories and see the post-Walt titles (after Jungle Book) up until the renaissance marked be the Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast as the "Middle Ages".

I think there is much to enjoy in all of these "ages", but I certainly prefer the old ones. I try not to see myself as part of a "modern audience". I rather strive to see them all in their historical context. In that light, I acknowledge the older ones as masterpieces.

It only contained a couple of years-the fab four and a handful of others like Pochantas. Once the sequels started coming, Disney fell apart.

I prefer the newer ones, and as someone said before, the older movies were of course full of magic, but they did lose my interest after a while as well. There are exceptions like 101 Dalmatians and The Three Caballeros, for example. But I prefer the newer Disney movies.

chaychay102royal wrote:It only contained a couple of years-the fab four and a handful of others like Pochantas. Once the sequels started coming, Disney fell apart.

As much as I dislike the sequels, I can't say that Disney totally fell apart. People still like Disney, and films like Lilo and Stitch have an audience.

Also, what I meant by the new films starting with a renaissance didn't mean that we were still living in the same renaissance; I agree that it ended a while back, as there weren't as many break-throughs. I was simply lumping both renaissance and post-renaissance films together to put things simply.

The thing I have never got is than how couldbe possible that the same person who gave us movies like Aladdin and BaTB is now giving us total crap movies like home on the range

what happened?

I prefer the older features. I was born in 1968, so when these "Fab-Four" cartoons (before this particular discussion topic, I'd NEVER heard these termed as "Fab-Four!"), I was probably beginning to work as a teenager (read: busy), and just not caring for the subject manner: I was a male teen.... Sure, I appreciated "The Little Mermaid" as a cartoon, but c'mon -- it was a show for my sister to like! And, I enjoyed "Beauty and the Beast" and marvelled at the computer-generated ballroom, but even then, I preferred the older classics.

Basically, my perspective of Disney's best-- and this probably goes for a lot of us -- comes mainly from what I enjoyed in my formative years. And now, at this point in my life, I look at the Disney catalogue with nostalgic enjoyment.

I delighted in Disney cartoons and movies as a youth, and wish to own them so I can watch them when I can. The latest version of the Disney Channel avoids the older elements -- not just from Walt's era, either... why can't we watch "The Rocketeer," "Treasure of Matacumbe," "The Black Hole," etc. on Disney-owned channels? We must tune in to The Hallmark Channel to see movies-- if our cable outlet offers it.

Wonderlicious wrote:

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:I knew that, but I just said it the way I did because more people would understand it better the way I said it! However Eisner did have little controll. The crew and some people were talking about making the movie less dark and lighter. But the directors wouldn't allow it. So that's why I said made, not because he made it(does he really "make" any movies?)but because he, like you said, released it.

Well, it was mostly in production before Eisner became the CEO of Disney, what I meant by the Eisner made films was that they were in a good deal of production while Eisner was in charge (Cauldron had pretty much been completed as Eisner came to power, and though it was released in his reign, it's a doubtful case if it is an Eisner-era film or not for reasons previously pointed out). If we were to say that every Walt-era film had to be made by Walt, then it's debatable that 101 Dalmatians and The Sword in the Stone were Walt-era films as Walt had little to do with them; they were just made and released while he was the boss.

Good point! I loved how you brought up Walt in this! But I doubt he did absolutly nothing with films like 101 Dalmatians and Sword in the Stone. He probably just checked how animators were doing, and did a few things, I don't know but I doubt he did nothing. As for Eisner, he could've just said "No, no way you going to remake that film completly." But he released it anyway, he ignored Roy Disney and Jeffer Katzenberg's consernes for the movie and I'm pretty sure he did just some small stuff with the movie. I said Eisner worked on the movie, I didn't say he worked on it alot.

I've just realized: the discussion title says "movies."

I don't think anyone is talking about live action films.

I'm not an authority on Disney era classifications, but I'd say one could break down the Disney fare this way:

Walt's era
The Ron Miller era ('tween Walt and Michael Eisner)
Eisner era

Regarding live action movies, each era has strengths and weaknesses.

Wonderlicious wrote:Well, it was mostly in production before Eisner became the CEO of Disney, what I meant by the Eisner made films was that they were in a good deal of production while Eisner was in charge (Cauldron had pretty much been completed as Eisner came to power, and though it was released in his reign, it's a doubtful case if it is an Eisner-era film or not for reasons previously pointed out). If we were to say that every Walt-era film had to be made by Walt, then it's debatable that 101 Dalmatians and The Sword in the Stone were Walt-era films as Walt had little to do with them; they were just made and released while he was the boss.

While it's true that Walt was not fully involved in every movie the studio put out, he was intimately involved in all the animation projects including The Jungle Book which was released ten months after his death.

As far as the dividing line between the old and the new, maybe this could be taken into consideration: In the 1970s Disney's nine old men of animation were nearing retirement and the studio decided to bring on new talent to be apprenticed by the nine old men before they left the studio. "The Rescuers" was the first film that the new guys began to learn on. "The Fox and the Hound" was animated with old and new working side by side and it was the last feature for the nine old men. "The Black Cauldron" was the first feature to be made by the young guys on their own.

C3PO wrote:I've just realized: the discussion title says "movies."

I don't think anyone is talking about live action films.

I'm not an authority on Disney era classifications, but I'd say one could break down the Disney fare this way:

Walt's era
The Ron Miller era ('tween Walt and Michael Eisner)
Eisner era

Regarding live action movies, each era has strengths and weaknesses.

Now, call me silly, but who is Ron Miller? What did he do at Disney?

chaychay102royal wrote:

C3PO wrote:I've just realized: the discussion title says "movies."

I don't think anyone is talking about live action films.

I'm not an authority on Disney era classifications, but I'd say one could break down the Disney fare this way:

Walt's era
The Ron Miller era ('tween Walt and Michael Eisner)
Eisner era

Regarding live action movies, each era has strengths and weaknesses.

Now, call me silly, but who is Ron Miller? What did he do at Disney?

CEO during the 70's I think. Surprisingly he was worse than Eiser!

Ron Miller married Walt's oldest daughter, Diane. Now, I don't know when Ron came into the Disney "world" -- Did he meet Walt first, or Diane? Someone here in UltimateDisney.com may know the whole scenario.

Ron produced WD movies, as far as I know, after Walt had died.

Again, someone else can paint a much more complete explanation than me.

C3PO wrote:Ron Miller married Walt's oldest daughter, Diane. Now, I don't know when Ron came into the Disney "world" -- Did he meet Walt first, or Diane? Someone here in UltimateDisney.com may know the whole scenario.

Ron produced WD movies, as far as I know, after Walt had died.

Again, someone else can paint a much more complete explanation than me.

Well I guess I was wrong about him being CEO. I don't know too much about the 70's Disney because that was such a down-time for Disney. I study more of the successful times of Disney!