DVDizzy Forum

Dear Disney Enthusiasts,

The Disney Company may be planning to ignore fairy tales, but, someday, when they receive the plans for "Golden Opportunities" and "Two Kingdoms" ("The Princess and the Pea", with some Disney-esque elements), they'll change their collective mind.

Thank you in advance for your replies.

Neal wrote:2) "Hercules," "The Emperor's New Groove," "Tarzan," "The Lion King" - which of these was a 'princess story,' or 'fairy tale'? None. Hercules = Myth. Emperor's = Buddy Comedy. Tarzan = male literary hero. Lion = re-telling of the tragedy Hamlet. And only Lion King was a musical. Which of these was a bad movie? Not one - they were all great. So we don't need fairy tales to have a good Disney animated feature.

Actually, Hercules is a musical, and you could definitely debate over whether or not Tarzan is, as well.

Yeah, not sure why I said Hercules was not - I know better. (final exams week at my college = I have had very little sleep lately.)

But, in the case of Tarzan - this is to me is as much a musical as say Emperor's New Groove or Brother Bear - being as more songs were overlays than sung by characters.

I mean, there will always be new songs in new Disney movies - and maybe one out of three/four/five will be sung 'lip-synced' by a character. But they will probably go the route of overlaying songs more often than not.

"BOLT" for instance had original two songs with "I Thought I Lost You" and "Barking at the Moon" - neither sung by characters.

Neal wrote:"BOLT" for instance had original two songs with "I Thought I Lost You" and "Barking at the Moon" - neither sung by characters.

Exactly Another example, Tangled has some unsung songs, 'When Will My Life Begin' and most of 'I See The Light' while the others are 'sung' by characters.

steven123 wrote:Then what tipped off the article? I mean, something must have happened or been said to have been the basis for the article, right? I hope that Mr. Catmull is not lying!!!!!

Well, I don't think that Catmull is lying with that statement. I can understand them not wanting to get into the princess movie trap, but I think that the article was manipulating a lot of information simply to provide a juicy story. I already criticised it in my original post:

I wrote:As SillySymphony stated, I don't think that we'll be seeing so much a break from fairy tales than we are from princess stories; everybody is getting the two mixed up, I feel. And the article seems to have got two more things wrong concerning the cancellation of the two fairy tale films; The Snow Queen, although shelved in part due to having feminine connotations, has supposedly had ridiculous story problems, and Jack and the Beanstalk was actually shelved (according to a blog Blue Sky Disney) because another studio is making a film version of Jack the Giant Killer. Also, I would say that Winnie the Pooh is closer in various ways to Tangled and The Princess and the Frog than to Reboot Ralph in that it's a musical and a sort of dip back into classic Disney. What am I saying? Well, basically, that article doesn't know completely what it's talking about, so take some of it with a pinch of salt.

The Disney fairy tale films are my favorites...but I want to see them do more different things now.

However, I don't like that they're saying they have all these "new twists" in their new movies. For one, do they mean twists on classic stories, instead of the traditional Disney way? And second, Walt Disney never said he would put twists in their movies, the movies under him never had "twists".

Well, let's see all the ideas they come up with, even very original ones, and then they hopefully pick the ones that are closest to what Disney's about, the "Disney essence", or the ideas that can best apply that essence to it.

Reboot Ralph and Mort, I dunno, but Fraidy Cat sounded good. But what about the poor Snow Queen?

Escapay wrote:I'd rather they let the genre rest for a bit and let it return when they know how to handle the stories better and appeal to a mass audience, not just a specific demographic.

Hey, fairy tales don't appeal to just a specific demographic!

Disney Duster wrote: And second, Walt Disney never said he would put twists in their movies, the movies under him never had "twists".

Jungle Book.

Disney Duster wrote:

Escapay wrote:I'd rather they let the genre rest for a bit and let it return when they know how to handle the stories better and appeal to a mass audience, not just a specific demographic.

Hey, fairy tales don't appeal to just a specific demographic!

Re-read what I said and pay attention to the first half instead of chopping it off to make me look like some anti-fairy-tale boob:

• If The Princess and the Frog and the name change and marketing strategy of Tangled are any indication, I'd rather they let the genre rest for a bit and let it return when they know how to handle the stories better and appeal to a mass audience, not just a specific demographic.

Never do I say that I think fairy tales only appeal to a specific demographic. I'm talking about how Disney handles the marketing of the films. Their marketing of both movies is unrelentlessly geared towards a specific demographic even though they throw out the "it's for the whole family!" line every so often, and I'm saying that they should let the genre rest for awhile so that whoever's in charge figures out how to market it to everyone, not just the specific demographic. That's why The Princess and the Frog failed, that's why Rapunzel became Tangled, that's why Snow Queen keeps getting canceled. Disney's too intent on trying to find one demographic that it will appeal to the most rather than letting the movie speak for itself and advertising it to the general audience. But that's the way all Disney movies have been (animation, live-action, CGI) for the past 15 years, so I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

albert

As long as the stories and characters are strong, does the genre matter? I know the importance and significance of fairytales to the company's history but the new regime seems to have gotten things back on track in animation and, hopefully, that will last.

That being said, Ed Catmull has already said his comments were taken out of context so it's pointless jumping the gun and condemning anyone or complaining about what the article said when everyone has seen just how quickly things can change at Disney in the last few years. Like several people have already said, it wasn't so long ago that hand-drawn animation was dead at Disney so no one can guess with any kind of certainty what the future holds for them.

What Walt Disney would have done or said is irrelevent, as is the "Disney essence". Animation is in very good hands at the minute so let's allow those people to do what they have done for the past fifteen years and make good films.

>>What Walt Disney would have done or said is irrelevent, as is the "Disney essence".<<

To you.

Super Aurora, no, that was not a twist, that was just a different, lighter tone. Even Pinocchio had a lighter tone than the original fairy tale novel. I was talking about a real twist, something like changing the humans to animals, changing the location to something else, or changing the title and whole thing into something else.

Escapay, oh, sorry then. Lol anti-fairy-tale boob.

DisneyAnimation88, yea, um, at Disney, their own essence, what makes their films Disney, matters. And they have not been making good films for the last 15 years, they have been doing so badly they've been thinking they may lose the animation studio! And one thing that may have caused it is their films have gotten less Disney essencey...

merlinjones wrote:>>What Walt Disney would have done or said is irrelevent, as is the "Disney essence".<<

To you.

It doesn't matter to whom it is relevant or not. It is simply not possible to know "what Walt would've done" (that phrase is getting quite annoying). And anybody who *claims* to know what Walt would've done is wrong. W-r-o-n-g. Seriously people, what the hell, it's not rocket science. You can speculate on how Walt would've done something, and surely you're allowed to do so, but you can't put words or ideas into people's mouths (especially people who are not alive anymore).

Disney Essence -whatever that is- is different for everyone. So that is irrelevant too, like DisneyAnimation88 said.

>>You can speculate on how Walt would've done something, and surely you're allowed to do so, but you can't put words or ideas into people's mouths...<

No need to speculate, he was quite clear on the subject:

"Since the beginning of mankind, the fable - tellers have not only given us entertainment but a kind of wisdom, humor, and understanding that, like all true art, remains imperishable through the ages." -- Walt Disney

"To translate the world's great fairy tales, thrilling legends, stirring folk tales into visual theatrical presentations and to get back warm response of audiences in many lands has been for me an experience and a lifetime satisfaction beyond all value." -- Walt Disney

"I think we have made the fairy tale fashionable again. That is, our own blend of theatrical mythology. The fairy tale of film - created with the magic of animation - is the modern equivalent of the great parables of the Middle Ages. Creation is the word. Not adaptation. Not version. We can translate the ancient fairy tale into its modern equivalent without losing the lovely patina and the savor of its once - upon - a - time quality. I think our films have brought new adult respect for the fairy tale. We have proved that the age - old kind of entertainment based on the classic fairy tale recognizes no young, no old." -- Walt Disney

"The span of years has not much altered my fundamental views of mass amusement. Experience has merely perfected the style and method and the techniques of presentation. My entertainment credo has not changed a whit. Strong combat and soft satire are in our story cores. Virtue triumphs over wickedness in our fables. Tyrannical bullies are routed or conquered by our good little people, human or animal. Basic morality is always deeply implicit in our screen legends. But they are never sappy or namby-pamby. And they never prate or preach. All are pitched toward the happy and satisfactory ending. There is no cynicism in me and there is none allowed in our work." —Walt Disney

"Part of the Disney success is our ability to create a believable world of dreams that appeals to all age groups. The kind of entertainment we create is meant to appeal to every member of the family." —Walt Disney

Disney Duster wrote:Super Aurora, no, that was not a twist, that was just a different, lighter tone. Even Pinocchio had a lighter tone than the original fairy tale novel. I was talking about a real twist, something like changing the humans to animals, changing the location to something else, or changing the title and whole thing into something else.

something like changing the humans to animals: Robin Hood

Changing the location to something else: Aladdin, Princess and the Frog.

granted those three happen after Walt, you don't seems have problem with these ones.


With jungle book, they change the story completely different. Not just "lighter" tone. Walt even advise them not to read original source for them to work on it.

Can I ask Disney Duster, do you work for Disney? Have you ever worked for Disney? You seem to know a lot of things about the company and how they make their films that the rest of us do not, especially what Walt would have said and done.

I really don't think "Disney essence" exists. It's all a matter of personal taste, there is no secret formula at Disney that they use to make their films. Usually, the people making the films there (Lasseter, Clements, Musker, Keane) are veterans who grew up loving Disney films, were trained by the legends of the company and care very much about it's heritage and tradition. The "essence" doesn't make the films, people who are creative and care about the company make them. In the last fifteen years they made Lilo & Stitch,Tarzan, Hercules, Mulan, The Hunchback of Notre Dame; are they bad films? They did lose the animation studio but John Lasseter and Ed Catmull brought it back and seem to be doing all they can to get it back on track.

Walt Disney has been dead almost half a century. If they had spent that time thinking "we can only do things we THINK Walt MIGHT have done", there would probably be no Disney. For better or worse, depending on the state you might think the company is in today, Disney has survived and, at times, prospered. True, things have not gone well in recent years but perhaps good times are returning for the company. Relying on a mythical "essence" or pinning their hopes on a theory of what Walt would have done isn't going to bring success to Disney; only hard work and great creative minds can do that.

Super Aurora, I actually do have a problem with Robin Hood and The Princess and the Frog.

But because of the Arabian Nights thing, and because Agrabah is a fictional kingdom in Arabia, that one is at least understandable and not a "twist".

You still are not talking about the kinds of twists Disney today scarily seems to be trying to do.

DisneyAnimation88, no. Just no. The Disney essence exists. Is it something you have to believe in, as a Disney fan? Yes, yes you do. You can choose to be a big non-believing downer and go against the kind of believing in things Walt's films stood for, but I won't.

All I said was for them to be as creative as they want and then see which ideas of theirs they want to make also fit into WHAT THE DISNEY COMPANY STANDS FOR/IS ABOUT, or in other words "the Disney essence", or try to fit them into "the Disney essence".

If Disney has no essence, no identity, then there really is no such thing as Disney other than a name. So then I don't know why you're a fan of them, because that would mean all their past movies have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and why would look forward to anything they make since they can make anything they want and you have absolutely no clue what kind of movie they will make or what kind of movie they should make to fit the company? The answer is that there is more to Disney than just a name, something that is in the best of their movies, and all the Walt ones.

Disney Duster wrote:
But because of the Arabian Nights thing, and because Agrabah is a fictional kingdom in Arabia, that one is at least understandable and not a "twist".

In the original tale, the setting takes place in China...

The way you put it, the "Disney essence" is like believing in something like Santa Claus. It's like saying "you have to believe in Santa or you won't get presents". I don't have to believe anything to be a fan of Disney animation, I am not on a downer and STOP trying to preach what Walt wanted

How does a company progress if it keeps looking back? As I said, there's no doubt the people within the company respect and love it's heritage and it's founder.

DisneyDuster wrote:If Disney has no essence, no identity, then there really is no such thing as Disney other than a name. So then I don't know why you're a fan of them, because that would mean all their past movies have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and why would look forward to anything they make since they can make anything they want and you have absolutely no clue what kind of movie they will make or what kind of movie they should make to fit the company? The answer is that there is more to Disney than just a name, something that is in the best of their movies, and all the Walt ones.

Are you being serious? Don't question whether I like Disney just because I disagree with you. Yes Disney has an identity but they are under no obligation to comply with any kind of "essence" you might believe in. They CAN make anything they want, their one of the biggest companies in the world, if they want to make a film, they can and will.

Super Aurora just disproved you with what he said about the Jungle Book and you can't see it. If that is not a "twist" what is? Disney did away with the source material and did it their way. I love the resulting film but the Disney version was "twisted" to make it into a family film that complied with their image. I love Disney animation, I like every film they've made and I do care so please don't try and tell me I don't.

I already knew about the China thing, my point about the Arabian Nights still satnds.

It's still not a twist. Disney still never twisted anything like they are doing now.

You all know that Disney has changed drastically from how they used to be. Can't they just change a little bit, instead of so much? And how much will they change until they become a completely unrecognizable company, and lose their identity?

Walt Disney's films always preached about believing. Believe in the Disney essence. Or don't, and then so don't believe in what Disney and their past movies were about.

What is there to believe in? Walt Disney was a real person who I respect for not letting his setbacks stop him from being the best he could be. Disney are a real company, built on the hard work of a group of people who revolutionised film making. Walt Disney believed chiefly in making films for all demographics, films that could be enjoyed by every member of a family.

I love all of their past movies. The Jungle Book, Alice in Wonderland and Peter Pan are among my favourites. I don't have to believe in the Disney "essence" in order to believe in anything else. I have my own personal reasons for liking each of the films but I have no problems with the ones that came after Walt's death. The quality might have decreased in some but I personally choose to believe that was because of the transition and uncertainty that surrounded the company. If you have a different opinion, fine I have no problem with that. But I will not believe there is an "essence"; instead I think the quality of film depends on the creative minds who make it. And with John Lasseter, they have the best creative mind in animation today.

Has Disney changed drastically? Yes, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. They have changed to stay ahead of their competiton or when the leadership of the company has changed hands. And, despite all of that, Disney has retained its stature and quality so change has been good for the company.