Disney?

[2099net]

I think all this focus on Cinderella is sort of making this thread veer off-track somewhat.

I have no doubt that people <strike>like</strike> love Cinderella, but just as Home on the Range, Atlantis or Treasure Planet has valid criticisms, so does Cinderella. No film, even a Disney "Classic" is perfect.

But to be a proper critic, you have too look past your preferences and say "is this a good film?" and answer the question honestly.

I personally don't think any of the despised later Disney films fail in that question from an artistic point of view - and in many cases I do think that they are stronger than Walt's earlier classics. Some fail to different extents on the story side.

Much as I adore Atlantis, the climax is both confusing and an ill-conceived.

Ichabod won't thank me for this... but Home on the Range doesn't have enough in it to justify the runtime.

But honestly, does anyone here not think Sleeping Beauty's a little anaemic on content for it's runtime? Is Alice in Wonderland really that great a story?

There is no simple answer to any of these. But in my opinion, there is no Disney "magic" – Snow White has historical significance in film, but isn't automatically a film better than many others just because Walt worked on it. It tells a simple story, and ultimately, if you look at just the script, it does so in a very simple manner. At the risk of upsetting others, so does Cinderella.

With The Little Mermaid and onwards, Disney revisited the fairytale genre, but did so with more conviction- songs became scene stealing show tunes; characters became more defined and had wants, needs and ambitions; villains had clearly defined motivations and schemes… everything was just classic Disney in multiples. They are, simply put, better films.

I find the explanation for shortcomings of the Princess films "it’s a fairytale world" to be nothing more than an excuse – after all, Beauty and the Beast is still a fairytale world, but managed to build story and character much better than the earlier Princess films.

Look at The Lion King. It's far from being one of my favourites, but compare what's in that film to what's in… say Sleeping Beauty or Snow White. There's more story, character, tragedy, danger, excitement, real-world allusions, life-lessons and even humour in the first quarter of The Lion King than there is in probably the whole of Snow White, Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella put together.

It is a better crafted story.

Can the same be said of Home on the Range? No. Atlantis? No. Treasure Planet? No (but I do think the story and script for Treasure Planet is the most finely polished Disney has ever made).

But all of these later films still have more content than Walt's earlier films. Each and every one has something that stands out, just as "magical" as "Disney magic".

[Anthony]

I wonder how long it will be until someone on this forum makes a video like that warning all of us Cinderella H8ers.



I can picture it now.

*wailing* How f****** dare anyone out there make fun of Cinderella? After all she's been through!

She lost her original hair colour, she went through a subpar sequel, she had two horrible sisters whose designs make them look like they're not even part of the same film, her stepmother turned out to be a user! Her world is made up of plot holes where mice can talk and wear clothes but dogs and cats can't! And now she's going through a custody battle to get back the talking mice! And she has the daily struggle of living life with no personality.

All you people care about is viewers and whether or not you can sit through watching her!

She's a drawing!

What you don't realise is that Cinderella is making you all realise how generic she is and all you do is state those abvious facts!

She hadn't performed in a movie for years, her sequel is called "A twist in Time" for a reason, because all you people want to do is have the time back you wasted after watching her being dull! Time TIME TIME TIME!!!

LEAVE HER ALONE

You're lucky she even appears in films, for you B*******! I mean what were the chances of Disney digging her up after all those years and having to give a personality after all this time!

LEAVE CINDERELLA ALONE!

Please! If you keep stating the obvious, I may have to come out of my delusion!

Movie reviewers said that if Cinderella was a professional, she would have exhibited some traits of personality! Speaking of personality, what kind of a personality would bash someone who's has the turmoil wearing a dress that isn't exactly the same shade it was in the original film!?

LEAVE CINDERELLA ALO-O-ONE! PLE-EASE!

*uncontrolable sobbing*

Leave Cinderella alone right now! I mean it!

Anyone who has a problem with her, you deal with me! Because judging by the japanese animation of her in Cinderella III, she's not well right now!

Leave her alone!

Forgive my intrusion on this thread, for I am a little late to the heated debate unfolding. I just wanted to pop in and tell Ichabod that that is the funniest dam thing I've read in a long time! Amazing! Hilarious!

Everyone may now resume their bickering......

[Lars Vermundsberget]

The first post of this thread did trigger quite some well though out replies. Several relevant points have been made - there isn't much of significance that I'd like to say that hasn't been said already.

Nevertheless... In my opinion "greatness" or "magic" is difficult to measure objectively (crazy idea in the first place, obviously).

It's not hard to agree that Snow White is a story told in a simple way - and in some respect probably not all that "great". As if the Art, the craft and being groundbreaking weren't enough? No doubt a classic. Cinderella, several years later, does more or less the same thing - but with less elaborate and less consistent craft and without the advantage of being groundbreaking. Sleeping Beauty has interesting backgrounds, but, well...

We may still love them, but even for fans it shouldn't be that hard to acknowledge that these films aren't necessarily "great" in every respect. But one should take some care not to blame these works for not doing what they may not have been trying to do in the first place. Just like it's unfair and very much beside the point to criticize Hercules and others from the past ten years for not being sufficiently "photo-realistic" and even badly animated when it's quite obviously a question of art and style. (There were interesting artistic choices in some "classics" of past decades as well, by the way.)

I guess I do agree with the first post to some extent, since I happen to be more of a fan of the older works - and I don't consider the overall debate of "magic" and "greatness" finished with this. But take care to know what you criticize when you criticize, although I guess it's easier said than done...

[StitchExp626]

Hi all, I think that the real magic of disney comes from its ability to make you care for the characters. The great old disney movies achieve this in bucket loads, how many felt the tension for Cinderella, locked in her bedroom while the glass slipper was being tried on her sisters below, or felt the reall grief of the seven drawfs kneeling beside the glass case containing Snow White's body.

When we think of the modern movies i wonder how many of you also did not shed a tear when Jimbo and Long John Silver said their goodbyes on the longboats, or remained indifferent when the beast said to Belle "at least i got to see you one last time".

The artwork and the animation does vary from movie to movie and so it should. Be it 2D or 3D, doesn't matter, it is the strength of feeling that we have for the characters themselves, feelings that we carry with us long after the movie is over.

I believe that Disney has had amazing success in creating characters that we have taken to heart. If Chicken Little fails, it is because Chicken Little does not have any major problems, he is a character that is simply misunderstood. Whereas Snow White, Cinderella, Jim Hawkins, and Belle all had to overcome some pretty terrible life events. AND when they do we really rejoice with them and for them.

And at the ending of Chicken Little, a movie is made of hiis adventures and funny though it is, it actually reinforces the reality that Chicken Little is still being misunderstood, although in a positive way, so his character never really changes, the external characters change but ultimately in a way that brings them no closer to really appreciating him that when they thought him the crazy little chicken.

So not every disney film is a classic and a 100% winner but what film studio can claim to have a no miss rate. Lets rejoice that most disney films have given us new friends that we can revisit time and time again. Friends that have enriched our lives and the life of the world.

Stitch

[ichabod]

Also, ichabod, I hope you read what I previously said before this, about how you were saying Marky and people like him were thinking and saying things which he didn't actually say at all.

.

Well, DisneyDuster I hope you read my post. I never accussed Marky af saying those things at all. However as for others, this forum is a testament to the fact that people have and still are saying those things.

Hi all, I think that the real magic of disney comes from its ability to make you care for the characters. The great old disney movies achieve this in bucket loads, how many felt the tension for Cinderella, locked in her bedroom while the glass slipper was being tried on her sisters below, or felt the reall grief of the seven drawfs kneeling beside the glass case containing Snow White's body.

When we think of the modern movies i wonder how many of you also did not shed a tear when Jimbo and Long John Silver said their goodbyes on the longboats, or remained indifferent when the beast said to Belle "at least i got to see you one last time".

I couldn't agree less. The relationships, personality and emotion between Long John Silver is one of the finest in any Disney film. And there is far more tenderness in the relationship that Belle and the Beast have developed than any relationship in Cinderella.

Whereas I couldn't give a monkeys about Cinderella. If I was related to her I'd probably lock her in the attic too, for fear she get out an bore the neighbors to death with a discussion about wash cloths.

To coin an insult from "The Vicar of Dibley", She is cactus woman!

Ichabod won't thank me for this... but Home on the Range doesn't have enough in it to justify the runtime.

Not at all, whilst I have made it clear that I found Home on the Range incredibly charming and gorgeously designed and animated. I have never proclaimed it to be the best Disney film, or the strongest.

The story does have its issues. But in comparison with the story of Sleeping Beauty, Home on the Range looks like a masterpiece.

You see this is what so many posters here just can't do. Whereas I can say "I adore Home on the Range" I can also say "However it does have problems such as ..."

[Marky_198]

Of course it's all a matter of taste.

I think I like the older classics beacuse of it's beauty, feeling, touching, magical feeling. I want to be touched by a movie. I want to cry at the sad moments. Come out of the cinema with a tear and a smile.

The new Disney movies might have more complicated stories, more action, more developed characters, but they just don't do it for me.
Too many jokes etc, for MY taste. Every serious, romantic, or sad moment is ruined by some joke or action sequence.

Anyway,

It's just like several musicals that are out there. The shows I'm really attracted to are the beautiful, haunting story's. Miss Saigon, Phantom of the Opera, etc. I want to come out of the show with a tear and a smile. The more funny, dancing, joke shows like, 42nd street, Chicago etc don't do it for me. Are those better/worse shows? No, it's just a matter of taste.

Some people just don't like true, romantic, haunting, (love) story's.

Some people don't like that kind of draught and are happier with a joke or some well animated action.

Again, a matter of taste.

[Disney-Fan]

Well if it's a matter of taste then I don't think making grand statements like "Walt is probably rolling in his grave" is appropriate. Just my opinion...

[ichabod]

Not only inappropriate but supposedly incorrect.

"Walt's cryogenically frozen head is probably turning in it's fridge" may be better.

[cornelius]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately.
I hate to say this, but I'm pretty sure that Walt is turning around in his grave.

Don't worry about it. Peaks and troughs. It happened when he was alive too you know. It always will. But Disney will be back. Cream always rises back to the top.

In the meantime I guess it might be a little disappointing. Although I must say Meet the Robinsons, which I was a bit lukewarm on initially, seems much better on further inspection and I really believe it has legs.

[Jules]

"Walt's cryogenically frozen head is probably turning in it's fridge" may be better.

It's a good thing candydog isn't TonyWDA, or he'd skin you alive for stealing his idea.

By the way ickybod (yes, I mispelt that on purpose, and for no particular reason), is there some possible way of contacting you? I mean ... do you even use MSN!? Or do you have the link next to your sig just for decorative purposes?

Sorry for the off-topicness, but about 6 months ago you said that you weren't finished with me yet. What happened ... chickened out?

And finally, I want to hear you yelling insults at Steve Jobs for calling Treasure Planet uncreative. That's an order, Mr. A. Willis!

Yours,

Julian Carter*




*Not Julain Carter, nitwits! Get yer typing right!

[ichabod]

"Walt's cryogenically frozen head is probably turning in it's fridge" may be better.

It's a good thing candydog isn't TonyWDA, or he'd skin you alive for stealing his idea.

But, Joan Rivers interviewed Walt's cryogenically frozen head back In 2005.

And spin in it's Jar it did!

do you even use MSN!?

At times

Or do you have the link next to your sig just for decorative purposes?

That link is in no way like my nipples.

Sorry for the off-topicness, but about 6 months ago you said that you weren't finished with me yet. What happened ... chickened out?

As a slack jawed spotty teen proved to me once as I sat waiting in the Grill parking bay of a McDonald's drive thru. Sometimes simple things can take a lot longer than initially expected.

And finally, I want to hear you yelling insults at Steve Jobs for calling Treasure Planet uncreative.

I may die, or at least require 3 years recovery time.

But to give you something to tide you over, let me just say this.

I like to think the world died a little when Steve Jobs became the biggest Disney shareholder.

[Jules]

But, Joan Rivers interviewed Walt's cryogenically frozen head back In 2005.

And spin in it's Jar it did!

Damn, I missed it. But let me guess ... it was a monologue.

At times

Er ... how often?

That link is in no way like my nipples.

And what are you nipples like?

As a slack jawed spotty teen proved to me once as I sat waiting in the Grill parking bay of a McDonald's drive thru. Sometimes simple things can take a lot longer than initially expected.

Who says we were basking in the rays of simplicity? I refuse to believe it (and you do too)!

I may die, or at least require 3 years recovery time.

But to give you something to tide you over, let me just say this.

I like to think the world died a little when Steve Jobs became the biggest Disney shareholder.

Satisfied ... momentarily.[/quote]

[Marky_198]

Well if it's a matter of taste then I don't think making grand statements like "Walt is probably rolling in his grave" is appropriate. Just my opinion...

No.

The movies how Walt made them were the way he intended Disney movies to be. It was HIS taste.

It was his name, his taste, his message, his view on the movies, the way he wanted them to be.

Now that other people took over and made completely different movies with no classic look whatsoever, fart jokes, etc, that have nothing to do with Disney, but only carry the name Disney (his name) I'm sure that Walt is rolling in his grave.

[Marky_198]

And that the new filmmakers have a different taste is another story.
It's their own right, but I wouldn't mind if the whole company got another name instead of "Disney".

Wat you see now is just NOT Disney anymore.
Big money making company's working together. Pixar, cars, action movies, that have NOTHING to do with Disney so please give the company a new name.
The only thing that's left of the original classics is pink plastic bracelets with glitters and a picture of Aurora.

I'm ashamed to tell people I'm a Disney fan nowadays.
And I'm not so sure if I am anymore.

[Disney-Fan]

The movies how Walt made them were the way he intended Disney movies to be. It was HIS taste.

Well, HIS taste is probably wondering around somewhere in the afterlife right now so I don't know what you suggest we do about that.

It was his name, his taste, his message, his view on the movies, the way he wanted them to be.

And the people after him continued his legacy the best they could. They pushed technological boundaries, tried reinventing the animated genre and the way stories are told within it, appealing to the child and at the same time (for us grown ups) to the child within. They're movie makers / managers / animators that tried their best to respect the legacy and improve upon the terrific foundations Walt set, but they're no miracle-workers. And what you, my friend, are expecting is nothing short of a miracle.

Now that other people took over and made completely different movies with no classic look whatsoever, fart jokes, etc, that have nothing to do with Disney, but only carry the name Disney (his name) I'm sure that Walt is rolling in his grave.

You know, I hate potty humor. With a passion. I just can't stand the likes of it. Yet somehow, I manage to enjoy The Lion King and, to an extent, Home on the Range. The world is changing, and people's tastes, likes and dislikes are changing with it. I'm just glad some movies still manage to keep that "classic feel" while still feeling modern and fresh to the modern-age audience. My point being, there's so much to enjoy in these movies. Even the modern age Disney movies still manage to maintain a feeling of nostalgia and classicness that no other studio manages to capture. I think that's really telling about the effort being made to ensure Walt's legacy isn't trampled on.

Moreover, I'd absolutely hate for everything to stay the way Walt envisioned it. Frankly, the songs in some of his movies? Not the best. Some of the scenes are pure filler (yes cat and mouse Cinderella sub-plot, I'm looking at you) and the pacing can be awfully off in some of the classics (Alice in Wonderland, for example, is all over the place in terms of story. In my opinion that greatly affects the pacing of the movie). I'm sure glad the company decided to improve those aspects in later efforts, because sometimes it feels like a chore to go through some of the older movies. I'd hate for that feeling to carry on with the more contemporary efforts.

[Mr. Toad]

Julian's fascination with Ichabod's nipples is freaking me out.

[Marky_198]

[/quote]The movies how Walt made them were the way he intended Disney movies to be. It was HIS taste. [/quote]

[/quote] Well, HIS taste is probably wondering around somewhere in the afterlife right now so I don't know what you suggest we do about that.[/quote]

I truly believe that "his" taste is still all over the world among many people. That's why movies like "Home on the Range" and "Chicken Little" are less successful.

[/quote]It was his name, his taste, his message, his view on the movies, the way he wanted them to be.[/quote]


[/quote]And the people after him continued his legacy the best they could. They pushed technological boundaries, tried reinventing the animated genre and the way stories are told within it, appealing to the child and at the same time (for us grown ups) to the child within. They're movie makers / managers / animators that tried their best to respect the legacy and improve upon the terrific foundations Walt set, but they're no miracle-workers. And what you, my friend, are expecting is nothing short of a miracle.[/quote]

Yes they did. Especially with the area of films like "The Little Mermaid", "Beauty and the Beast" and "Aladdin".
After Hercules it went wrong.

The decided to go in a completely different direction while they knew what the winning formula was. A big mistake, and finally the only solution was to make more crap, like sequels to keep their head above the water.

Funny how they keep making the same mistake over and over again.
Hopefully after all these years they begin a new era again with the Frog Princess and so on. And the "golden years" will be back again.

Unfortunately Alan menken is not attached to this project. The songs of Randy Newman never did anything for me.

[/quote]Now that other people took over and made completely different movies with no classic look whatsoever, fart jokes, etc, that have nothing to do with Disney, but only carry the name Disney (his name) I'm sure that Walt is rolling in his grave.[/quote]

[/quote]You know, I hate potty humor. With a passion. I just can't stand the likes of it. Yet somehow, I manage to enjoy The Lion King and, to an extent, Home on the Range. The world is changing, and people's tastes, likes and dislikes are changing with it. I'm just glad some movies still manage to keep that "classic feel" while still feeling modern and fresh to the modern-age audience. My point being, there's so much to enjoy in these movies. Even the modern age Disney movies still manage to maintain a feeling of nostalgia and classicness that no other studio manages to capture. I think that's really telling about the effort being made to ensure Walt's legacy isn't trampled on.

Moreover, I'd absolutely hate for everything to stay the way Walt envisioned it. Frankly, the songs in some of his movies? Not the best. Some of the scenes are pure filler (yes cat and mouse Cinderella sub-plot, I'm looking at you) and the pacing can be awfully off in some of the classics (Alice in Wonderland, for example, is all over the place in terms of story. In my opinion that greatly affects the pacing of the movie). I'm sure glad the company decided to improve those aspects in later efforts, because sometimes it feels like a chore to go through some of the older movies. I'd hate for that feeling to carry on with the more contemporary efforts.[/quote]

If they can actually improve films with techniques, like they did in Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin, then it's a great thing. But I don't see any form of improvement in the latest movies.

[ichabod]

Yes they did. Especially with the area of films like "The Little Mermaid", "Beauty and the Beast" and "Aladdin".
After Hercules it went wrong.

So what you're saying is that rather than experiementation and creative growth you'd rather they'd have churned out more of the same. Boy meets girl, animals sing, love defeats evil. "Woe is me. I long for a different life, so let me sing to you about it".

The decided to go in a completely different direction while they knew what the winning formula was.

Yes it's called not letting things be stale. What intregrity would they have if they did something just because they knew it would successful. In the current climate we should be grateful that a movie studio took the risk in releasing the "unknown".

If Disney hadn't experimented they would have simply become a parody of themself.

If they can actually improve films with techniques, like they did in Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin, then it's a great thing. But I don't see any form of improvement in the latest movies.

Now that has to be some sort of joke. You're honestly saying you think there has been no improvements or development in technique since Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin?

[Jules]

Now that has to be some sort of joke. You're honestly saying you think there has been no improvements or development in technique since Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin?

Quite right. Quite right. Disney's once virginal animators are now ripe and mature and ready to mate.

[singerguy04]

Honestly I find it absurd to think that Walt had no idea the company would turn out this way. He was growing the company up and even a bit beyond his own limits. The 9 old men have admited that during that last few films 101 Damlatian, The Sword in the Stone, and The Jungle Book that Walt was hardly around because he was working on the theme parks and other films. I think that he knew that the company would go on to do a multitude of things and I think that's how he wanted it. I guess my point is that I don't think he's rolling in his grave.

Another thing is that people have been talking about how disney would hate the newer films, that they wouldn't share his taste (not to pick on anybody). Yet, they'll talk about how films like The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast would fit his taste. Honestly, these two films are VERY different from walt's style. They extend the story and add personality where there was none before. Walt didn't really do that, in my opinion. Walt told the story the way he felt it should be told. I just think it's silly to speak for walt when he isn't alive to give his point of view. None of us knew him, so we can't say what he'd think.