DVDizzy Forum

Neal wrote:I've heard a lot of negativity about "Treasure Planet" being an Eisner 'vanity project' and not a 'work of art'. I have yet to see TP (eagerly looking forward to soon), but multiple people have cast off TP because they feel it wasn't about being a good movie, it was about being a flashy piece of animation.

I do know the film had a very serious and troubled production. Apparently John and Ron wanted to make this film and was in the plans since their work on the earlier 90s films. Once it was put into production it wasn't easy since apparently the movie kept being changed. Its failure was what caused them to leave Disney.

Which is sad because even if its not one of my all time favorites it did many things right.

pap64 wrote:I'm honestly starting to believe the reason fans don't see Hercules, Tarzan and Treasure Planet as "Disney Classics" is because they didn't do well enough at the box office and Disney doesn't market them as incredible films. They are convinced that just because Disney labels Beauty and the Beast as a classic while ignore Hercules it means one is inferior than the other, which is a load of bull considering the films have a great visual style, great music and great writing.

I also feel that Disney "classics" are movies with princesses in them. I know The Lion King didn't have a princess, but the general "king of the jungle" sort of theme went along with that film. Although those other films were good, they just don't stick like the "classics" do. I think The Princess and the Frog will stick and make its way into the "classics" category!

Wow. I can't even reply to what that person told me about Hercules, because it is the most delusional things I've ever heard. Saying that it's more in depth than Beauty and the Beast??? What movie did you see? I saw a pointless, slap stick, saturday morning cartoon that wasted my time.

As far as not getting past the "Style", the reason has to do with believability. Yes Disney has used several different techniques, but they were all based in realism. Even if they were a few cartoony looking sidekicks.

I don't care how much money a movie makes, I base the title of classic on quality. Something Tarzan and Hercules severely lacked.

It never was pointless to me. But comparing Beauty to Herc is like Apples to Oranges; they both have different flavors. Beast is about looking deeper than skin-deep, and hercules is about doing good deeds for purely selfless reasons.

I'm with netty on this one. DARTH KNITE how long has it been since you've seen Hercules? I think that if you watch it with some of the things netty said in mind you'll see what we mean. One thing I don't agree with is that Beauty and the Beast has a lot less depth. I think it would be better/safer to say that Hercules has as much depth as BatB. I personally love Meg and Herc's relationship. I think they have a much better build towards a relationship that 90% of Disney's past couples.

Treasure Planet is one of the best works to come of Disney and no one seems to realize it or care the notice. First of all, it's visually stunning. It has some of the best computer and hand drawn animation blend, if that's even how you'd word it, that I've ever seen. Second, It hands down has some of the best character development I know of in a animated film ever. The relationship between Jim Hawkins and John Silver is very complex, and I've never felt that anyone could really ever feel sorry for any other disney villain. It's even hard for me to imagine John Silver as the villain, but he is. I think it mostly didn't do well because a lot of people didn't understand it's concept, and perhaps it was a little too gimmicky but once you get past that it truly is a masterpiece and should be regarded as one IMO.

I think for now a lot of us can talk all we want about how good or bad TPatF will be, but in the end it's all about the Benjamin's and if it makes any. Personally, at this point I don't really know how it could fail. There's way too many people who have been waiting to see a film like this. Every single person I've talked to about this film has been relieved to hear about it. I hear, "It's about time" a lot. I'm not saying all those people will go see it, but the buzz is good for it.

Its funny...a day or two ago I posted critiques for both Hercules and Tarzan...and nobody rebutted...or mentioned anything of what I said. Style is not the issue of either, though it does have an effect on people's initial reaction. But if the film is good, word-of-mouth makes up for it and the movies becomes a hit. The issue with those films were story and pacing...

As for what what makes a Disney Classic...its not about princesses. Nobody will say that Jungle Book, or 101 Dalm. or Pinocchio arent classics. But they do. Part of what makes a classic its endurance. If people are still watching Jungle book and loving it 40 yrs later...and it hasnt aged...that does say something. As for the modern classics (IE: Little mermaid and such)....time will tell, but we label them classics because they dont have elements that will age them, and they have made a definite mark in popular culture. And chances are, if we love them now, we will want to show them to our kids, hence making them enduring.

As for Treasure Planet...I do remember hating it. Barely remember it. And I have seen it more than once...and yet I barely remember it. What does that say?
I hated the way the character of Jim Hawkins was introduced, I hated the art direction, I hated the idea of making it in outer space.

Also, what makes Disney Disney is the idea that their films can be enjoyed by adults with their kids. Its supposed to be (fairly) wholesome entertainment. There is a very....detached notion and coldness associated with outer space...not the warmest of settings for a family film. Even Wall-e lost some of its charm once the movie went to outer space...

Again, my two cents.

singerguy04 - I hope John Silver being the villain isn't a big revelation being as I posted just a few replies above I haven't seen TP, and now you've possibly ruined a twist for me. I know the film is a few years old, but still, spoiler warnings would be nice.

Neal wrote:singerguy04 - I hope John Silver being the villain isn't a big revelation being as I posted just a few replies above I haven't seen TP, and now you've possibly ruined a twist for me. I know the film is a few years old, but still, spoiler warnings would be nice.

Did you ever hear the story of Treasure Island? Well if you have then you have already seen Treasure Planet. Treasure Planet is the sci fi version of the old story and follows all the key events of the original story.

I'm sure singer said it because it is common knowledge by now who Silver really is, whether you read the original story or saw the movie.

Nope, I'm really slacking with my Treasure Island knowledge - I own TP, the original Disney live-action Treasure Island, the Muppets version, and the original story.

However, never before have read/seen any of them.

So I don't know the story at all.

Then what are you waiting for? Watch/read one of them, and you'll have the story quite well.

Are they really classics? Or are they only looked at that way because Disney has labeled them "classic" to make it a must for collectors to buy? So the word classic doesn't really mean a thing because Disney execs label them all the same.

DARTH KNITE wrote:Wow. I can't even reply to what that person told me about Hercules, because it is the most delusional things I've ever heard. Saying that it's more in depth than Beauty and the Beast??? What movie did you see? I saw a pointless, slap stick, saturday morning cartoon that wasted my time.

Beauty and the Beast (and I've gone over this in other threads) its incredibly juvenile. There is no depth because nobody makes any sacrifices.

Belle elects to stay at the castle in her fathers place, but its not really much of a sacrifice. We've established that Belle is pretty much an outsider in her village and already feels somewhat of a prisoner. She's even read all the books! She is close to her father, but she'll lose her father either way - either he or she will be imprisoned. There's not even a love interest in the village - Gaston is specifically introduced as (and proves to be) a pantomime villain for us all to love to hate. Imagine if the film presented Gaston as somebody who was a suitable partner for Belle? Not only would her sacrifice for her father have more meaning, but Gaston's attack on the Beast at the end would have more emotional resonance. So at the end of the day, nothing is keeping Belle in the village, so giving it up isn't a sacrifice.

The enchanted transformed staff are pretty irrelevant to the whole plot, and basically just "wobble" about in either a mix of high anxiety or all-knowing wisdom (depending on which character it is). All to national stereotypes (Note: its generally accepted stereotypes are an easy way of defining a character).

The whole story is supposedly about romance, yet there's little romance actually seen - how many "romantic" moments can you actually name? Of course, it doesn't help that everyone automatically "assumes" Belle is to save the Beast - something the enchanted objects do their best to matchmake, without even once worrying about the ethics of such actions (after all, the Beast has anger issues, to put it mildly. Who are they to say the two belong together?).

Of course, whenever Beauty and the Beast is mentioned, everyone keeps going on about how its about "true love", "romance" and "seeing beyond outer appearances". Which is exactly what Hercules is about too (at least, as much as BatB actually is).

It's just Hercules does it in ironically given your complaint, a more realistic manner. Meg's growing love for Hercules is shown much clearer than Belle's for the Beast (and articulated in a wonderful song - for a movie all about "romance" Beauty and the Beast doesn't even have either of the two characters sing about love, its left to a talking teapot. And then you complain about Hercules not having believability). Plus we get Meg's reluctant betrayal as choices from her past haunt her today, and finally we get Hercules making the ultimate sacrifice for Meg, because he doesn't care about her past - he's looked beyond it.

Beauty and the Beast is a thin story where events around the characters have little consequence because its basically presented as destiny. Hercules is a true, "hero's journey" type story. Hercules risks it all, no one in BatB risks anything.

Going back to Princess and the Frog, this is exactly why I think Disney is making a huge mistake making this and Rapunzel. People are so blinded by the received wisdom that the Princess stories are "good" and the other stories are "bad" that Disney are asking for trouble. I doubt any film could actually live-up to the expectations in these princess fans heads. We're already seeing each trailer and each small scrap of information about the film being picked on and repeatedly analysed just from these threads.

I see both films as Disney going backwards, not forwards. And once more I'm frustrated so many people seem to think broadway musical, princess movies are the only legitimate Disney films.

2099net wrote:I see both films as Disney going backwards, not forwards. And once more I'm frustrated so many people seem to think broadway musical, princess movies are the only legitimate Disney films.

I hear you netty, and I think this is a great post.

Going back to Princess and the Frog, this is exactly why I think Disney is making a huge mistake making this and Rapunzel. People are so blinded by the received wisdom that the Princess stories are "good" and the other stories are "bad" that Disney are asking for trouble. I doubt any film could actually live-up to the expectations in these princess fans heads. We're already seeing each trailer and each small scrap of information about the film being picked on and repeatedly analysed just from these threads.

Personally, I think you're being overly harsh here. Every scrap of information would be over-analyzed for any Disney film (even Tim Burton's Alice In Wonderland is being given the same treatment in its thread)--its being a Princess film really has nothing to do with that.

And, yes, I'm a little pissed off that people constantly view Rapunzel and TP&TF as a repeat of past films or, rather, that all the "princess" films are the same. Yes, they have common elements, but do you think of Snow White as the same as Sleeping Beauty? Or Cinderella the same as Beauty and the Beast? I don't think of any of them the same. Just because Disney decided to create a line where they all whore themselves out to make Disney money doesn't mean the films aren't separate and independent of one another. And Rapunzel is one of the few well-known fairy tales left, the fact that it has a princess doesn't make it any less relevant for that.

(Sorry to everyone for helping this thread veer somwhat off topic, but I'm going to anyway)

Beauty and the Beast is a thin story where events around the characters have little consequence because its basically presented as destiny. Hercules is a true, "hero's journey" type story. Hercules risks it all, no one in BatB risks anything.

Although I do love Hercules much more than Beauty and the Beast, I'm not sure this is true. For one, Hercules' story is treated in a similar way to Belle and the Beast's. At the very beginning of the movie, we already have the Fates (and the Muses) telling us that Hercules will eventually save Mt. Olympus from Hades. And, yes, while they leave open that Hades could kill Hercules and fix the problem, B&TB leaves open the fact that Belle could always turn away from the Beast. In fact, it's this sacrifice that Beast makes that results in his happy ending. Belle asks to leave to save her father, and the Beast obviously doesn't expect her to return. Who would return to a Beast? Even the servants are shattered that she left, as they don't expect her to return either and the time's almost up. The fact that the Beast no longer forces her to stay with him shows that it's her choice to love him--he can't make her feel something she doesn't and has given up trying. Where's this story of "destiny" and "no sacrifice" you were talking about? I thought the Enchantress told the Beast he would be human only if he found true love before the last petal fell--not that he would find his true love, see the error of his ways and live happily ever after automatically. It wasn't a guarantee. She wasn't blessing him with a good fate. Whether he ended up blessed or cursed was his problem to deal with. In other words, he made his fate. It wasn't decided beforehand.

As for Belle's decision to take her father's place in Beast's prison not being a sacrifice...are you freaking kidding me? She didn't know what would happen to her with the Beast. He could have killed her, tortured her, ate her, raped her, whatever you could think of I'm sure a young woman being imprisoned by a monster would have thought of. Not to mention she traded her entire life with no hope of finding love, of being happy, of ever having freedom again for her father (with no hope to see him again, or to even say goodbye--"I'll never see him again! I never got to say goodbye..."). If she had stayed free, there was a chance she could eventually leave the village and find a new, better home. Not so in a prison. Which is the whole reason she hated the Beast for the first half of the movie. So, to get to the point, this argument that there were no sacrifices in the film is pure nonsense to me.

And, yes, Gaston is a brute and was never presented as anything other than that. He was supposed to represent the entire regime that repressed Belle in the village. Are you honestly going to hate the film because they didn't give you the character you wanted? What next--hate the Evil Queen because she wanted to kill Snow White because of vanity and not something more realistic/credible (like a psycho-obsession with her dead fetus, as in the Sigourney Weaver take on the story)? Or, really, any of the Disney villains that are fairly one-dimensional.

Also, Belle's growing love for the Beast is also put into a song. "Something There" clearly shows to the audience that Belle is beginning to see something beneath the Beast she sees. I think the romance in Beauty and the Beast is not so clearly obvious because we have the Beast and Belle growing separately as characters while their romance grows as well. For example, the Beast lets Gaston go because he realizes that killing him is only something a Beast would do (which Gaston shows himself to be), instead of Belle stepping in to stop him.

The only thing I can really agree with you on is the servants being stereotypes used to bypass actual character development. I only wish "Human Again" had been able to make it into the original release, so that their point of view had been expounded on more. Although you comment that they try their best to play matchmakers despite the consequences for Belle does kind of show their desperation. Not only for the Beast's sake, but for their own. As for their relevance, I've always felt that they were important because they are an extension of the problem the Beast has to overcome within himself. Being a selfish person doesn't just hurt the person in question, but it hurts those around them as well and the servants are a reflection of that. They were just caught in the crossfire and their happiness is as tied to the Beast maturing as his own is.

You know, it is possible to make your point that Hercules is a classic film equal to its predecessors without trying to tear down another in the process.

You said it yourself. When the Beast lets Belle go, its seems more like he's given up, than he's doing it out of love for Belle. Later on, even the Beast's "death" is about the Beast and Gaston, not the Beast and Belle.

Yes, it's not predestined that the Beast will find true love, but like I say, everybody in the film assumes he will, which leads to the audience assuming it too. Of course, the film would be a master stroke if in the end, true love is not found, but of course that's not an option for a Disney film. So it just plays out as expected.

As for Belle being taken prisoner, yeah, were it real life those things could happen, but I'm not sure we're supposed to really think about stuff like that and consider it as a serious option. For once, I'm going to pull the off-played "its a fairy tale" card which I often despise. If you look at the film, everything leading up to Belle's imprisonment, the decision has narratively all but been made already - everything we know about Belle and the village seems to confirm it.

As for characters and Gaston, I'm just pointing out when possible, the film takes the easy route. Gaston's a bore. End of story. You know, he could still hate the Beast had he and Belle been dating. After all, wouldn't that give him more or a reason to hate the Beast? He would see him as kidnapping his girlfriend and brainwashing her! When the discussion is about "depth" I think its a perfectly valid point to make. Gaston, like most of the characters, is nothing but a thin stereotype, and no attempt is made to give him any depth.

How many characters have doubts or internal conflict? While not exactly being fully rounded, at least the characters in Hercules have doubts, conflict and weaknesses.

ajmrowland - Someday, I will. But I just haven't had time. I only watch movies every once and a while these days, and the ones I do watch are Disney Animated Classics because I'm doing a marathon viewing session with them.

I love Disney marathons! I might have one myself in preparation for the release of The Princess and The Frog!

Good points about BatB. From both sides of the spectrum.

I do have another observation about the movie. Just something random. Here you have Gaston, hunter extraordinaire. He's killed 100s of animals. He uses a freaking elephant gun to kill a goose, but when we get to the end, he brings a freaking little bow and arrow with him to kill something that probably weighs as much as two gorillas. It always struck me as odd. I am guessing the producers felt it was better for the kids to see an arrow sticking out of Beast's back than see him get shot by a gun? WTF?

That's why I did mine - preparation for TPatF. I began with Snow White and have watched every single classic, as well as al the sequels/prequels/midquels/etc. placed in between to create continuities with the original classic films.

I haven't seen a number of the classics, so it was time to.

As for the sequels, etc. For better or worse they are a part of Disney history, so I thought I should watch them, as well.

I'm up to Aladdin now. Began last September.

2099net wrote:

Marky_198 wrote:I absolutely agree with you. People can call it "a different style" but I think the look of tarzan and Hercules is completely unacceptable for a classic. And my fear is that the cartoony, stretchy, slapstick style of TPATF will be exactly like that.

/facepalm

Classic/Smassic. It's only marketing labelling them as classics.

Although, you do know only seven classics do exist? Forget Pinocchio, Fantasia, Dumbo, Lilo and Stitch, Alice in Wonderland, Lady and the Tramp or 101 Dalmatians; Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, Aladdin and The Little Mermaid are the classics. And any self-respecting Disney fan should only look up to them.

Please note, btw, that I'm joking about the "classic" label. I think anybody and everybody should remember that Disney often applies that label to films released six months ago.

And also Marky...I don't wanna seem nitpicky, but there was quite a bit of slapstick goofy mania in The Little Mermaid, Aladdin etc, so I don't understand your disapproval of what The Princess and the Frog could be like (note the use of the conditional tense). And I think that it's safe to say that from what we've seen, it's stylistically got a relatively normal Disney look to it (although almost all Disney films - even, gasp, Tarzan and Hercules - have the slight normal Disney uniformity).

Netty wrote:I see both films as Disney going backwards, not forwards. And once more I'm frustrated so many people seem to think broadway musical, princess movies are the only legitimate Disney films.

What's ironic is that Disney's pretty much scraped the barrel as far as well-known princess fairy-tales are concerned. The end is nigh...