DVDizzy Forum

Doesn't matter. It's still a big downgrade.

ajmrowland wrote:It's still a big downgrade.

No, it is not!

End of story.

I might chang my mind if they start showing Avatar, but until then.........

WDWLocal wrote:Enough with the Disney Channel-bashing already!

Geez, people can be so goshdarned cruel and insensitive...

Well, those people don't like the Disney Channel of today. What would be the solution for them? Sure, just bashing something doesn't get any place, but what else could they do?

Every time period, and every generation goes through it’s trends and fads. I was born in 1989. Around that time Disney had entered the VHS market. My parents were big on the new technology, and they started buying me the Disney classics on VHS. If it wasn’t for that I would not be typing here now. I grew up with ‘Darkwing Duck’ and ‘TaleSpin’. The children of today have ‘Mickey Mouse Clubhouse’ and ‘Little Einstein’s’. My teen shows were ‘All That’ and ‘Lizzie McGuire’. Today it’s 'Hannah Montana' and the 'Jonas Brothers'. For some of you it was Annette, or ‘Dumbo’s Circus’ or ‘Mousercise’. What is the friggen difference? Every generation has different things. We, however, seem to get fixated on our nostalgia of what we grew up with. We consider what we grew up with “classic” and “true Disney”. The children of today will look at ‘Mickey Mouse Clubhouse’ the same way I look at ‘Ducktales’. But none of this changes anything. Everything has always been, and always will be, a way to market characters, sell merchandise, and create new brands. That’s the truth.

This is an old thread, I know, but I wanted to comment on this.

You missed the point. When people talk about DuckTales and TaleSpin nowadays, it isn't so much about nostalgia, but rather those series had a high level of quality and heart that has been absent from Disney in the last 15 to 20 years. A lot of it has to do with the fact that most of the creative teams involved with Disney during that time period LEFT in the 90s in disgust over what the execs failed to do.

Disney was the KING of comedy-adventures from Carl Barks' Scrooge McDuck comics of the early 1950s to TaleSpin (their last true comedy-adventure) in the early 1990s. That was what Disney was known for in that time period and what was profitable to them. Nobody came close. The stories appealed to all ages, not just the 7-12 age bracket. Disney could take these Indiana Jones type stories, turn them into a cartoon, and make it appeal to anyone.

But around 1993 or so, Disney abandoned the comedy-adventure route and went through this "me too" mentality of trying to replicate everything other animation houses were doing, such as Warner Brothers and even Spumco (creators of Ren & Stimpy). Those companies could do a much better job than Disney in those particular style of cartoons, and thus the quality at Disney declined. Goof Troop was pretty forgettable (I couldn't watch it personally), Quack Pack was absolutely terrible, the Schnookums and Meat Funny Cartoon Show was a blantant Ren & Stimpy rip-off, and even Gargoyles, which was one of the few good Disney series in that period, came from the archetype of Batman: The Animated Series.

If Disney took care of quality work and stuck with what they did best, the profit would roll in automatically. But if they are going to churn out disposable crap like Quack Pack just to sell some t-shirts, no thanks. What's really bad is that when Disney released some of their cartoon classics on DVD recently, they didn't even care enough to add any commentary from the creative team and they did a half-ass job putting together the menu screens. They almost feel like a VHS release. Why should I care about Disney projects if they don't even care enough about them themselves?

What's even more, I can get all 65 episodes of the Adventures of Teddy Ruxpin on DVD (a non-Disney series in which the rights to which have been juggled for years by various companies) yet Disney hasn't even finished releasing all the episodes from their own series in that time period.

Disney did a piss-poor job at merchandising their series, which is a fault of the execs at the time. I couldn't even FIND merchandise for any of those series within five years of their release at the Disney Store, and these are series that Disney spent millions of dollars to develop. I felt like I was abandoned as a consumer. Combine this with their "let's make inferior clones on what everyone else is doing" mentality of the mid 90s, Disney no longer inspired any real brand loyalty. It's hard to get attached to any of their products under those circumstances.

That's one of the main reasons why several members of the creative team left Disney around that point. Before, they took ideas like DuckTales and TaleSpin and RAN with them, creating timeless series that appealed to all ages. These creators actually cared about their series; they weren't pulp quality like what Disney produced a few years later. These shows were a sandbox for the creators to play in, creating stories with a wide range of emotions in which anything was possible and presenting them in these beautifully colored, cinematic panoramas.

Then they were reduced to making one-dimensional characters for inferior clones of series produced by other animation houses.

I recently several episodes of TaleSpin, which I haven't seen in over ten years. A couple of them were so emotional that I actually shed a tear or two. The only other time that has happened to me was during the ending of "Field of Dreams." There's one episode in particular in which the weakness of the main character (Baloo) is ruthlessly exposed and he becomes extremely depressed and withdrawn by it, and it takes the unconditional love of the other character (Kit, the orphan he takes care of) to redeem him. I generally don't find a live-action series with that much emotion and heart, much less a cartoon. That's why TaleSpin struck a chord with me, not because it happened to come out twenty years ago when I was a kid. There isn't a cartoon on TV today with that much depth.

TaleSpin had strong, complex characters and the plots are still fun for me to watch as an adult. I can watch DuckTales as well as an adult (although it hasn't caused me to shed any tears) simply because it also has the comedy-adventure angle to it that makes it fun to watch regardless of age. Timeless quality that appeals to all ages... that's what big, live-action movie studios like to produce. I generally can't watch any other cartoons as an adult except for South Park if that counts.

If I grew up with Mickey Mouse Clubhouse or Little Einstein's, I seriously doubt I'd be able to sit and enjoy an episode 20 years later and I doubt it would make me emotional like that TaleSpin did. If DuckTales and TaleSpin had came out today instead of back then, I'd still enjoy them the same way. So no, when people talk about DuckTales and TaleSpin, it isn't revolving around nostalgia. It's about the quality they represented, the quality Disney had for years and lost, and the appeal of comedy-adventures.

Nowadays, instead of being a company that continuously keeps me entertained and showing goodwill to me as a consumer, I see Disney as a company just trying to make a quick buck. Roy O. Disney agreed with me when he ran out Michael Eisner for turning Disney into a "soul-less company."

Regarding the above Disney Channel comments:

Here in Australia on Foxtel, I think the closest thing I have ever seen to animation on our Disney Channel is The Emperor's New School & Lilo & Stitch: The Series, and even they are rarely on in the repetitive mix of Hannah Montana, Suite Life of, Witches of... et al.

I can see what people are saying about Disney staying relevant to the current generation and turning a profit, even if it is somewhat them turning their back on their adult or older teen fans. At the same time, for example though, I'm 24, but can appreciate animation from the past (Disney shorts, Looney Tunes, Flintstones etc.), so why can't the current generation?

The closest thing I have ever experienced to my ideal version of the Disney Channel was at Hong Kong Disneyland Hotel, where they had Chip 'N Dale, Talespin etc playing.

PS. Sorry to swing off topic, but is there something preventing a House of Mouse DVD release (maybe general public disinterest)?

@ mrbones:

I agree with everything you said, except your trashing of Gargoyles. Yes, the Batman animated series was an inspiration for creator Greg Weissman, but that's also were all similarities stop. Gargoyles is a unique show, and it has the heart and the emotion that you seem to priase in earlier Disney tv shows. It had rich characters, adult storylines and didn't pander to kids. You should enjoy it.

Other than that, I'm in complete agreement with you and I get tired of the 'nostalgia'-argument, too.

MelancholyEcho wrote:I can see what people are saying about Disney staying relevant to the current generation and turning a profit, even if it is somewhat them turning their back on their adult or older teen fans. At the same time, for example though, I'm 24, but can appreciate animation from the past (Disney shorts, Looney Tunes, Flintstones etc.), so why can't the current generation?

I guess people don't think that Disney is a business, which it is. They think that it's one thing for a company to be a business, but another to ACT like a business, which is what some people are accusing Disney of doing.

PS. Sorry to swing off topic, but is there something preventing a House of Mouse DVD release (maybe general public disinterest)?

I guess that may be the case. If they ever did do a DVD release, I bet some people would probably pick up. And when I say "some", I really do literally mean "some", that only serious Disney fans would want it.

mrbones wrote:even Gargoyles, which was one of the few good Disney series in that period, came from the archetype of Batman: The Animated Series.

Only similar thing both had was the more darker undertone. The story and such are completely different.

Besides, Gargoyles have one of the most badass "villain"-

David Xantaos: The man who can plan to plan a plan that's so well-planned the planning of the plan plans a plan that's so well-planned.

Big Disney Fan and mrbones => I support you 100%
I think the exact same things, and I keep telling this everywhere.

Yes, the main problem at Disney currently is that they're making things for SPECIFIC age/social categories, when they used to make things for EVERYONE. That's a huge difference. And the only reason they're doing this is money, not to make good quality creations. (and their nowadays creations are not! Don't coming telling me that Hannah Montana, Mickey Mouse Clubhouse or *things* like those they've planned are good!)

And it pains me very, very much when I see Princess & The Frog making such low audiences when, for once, they're doing the right thing!

And as for the nostalgic effect : this is RUBBISH.
One example? I only discovered the Disney Afternoon series a few months ago, and I'm 25. (I didn't watch cartoons much when I was young, and I thought the Disney series were nothing near the quality of the animated films and were only for kids - boy was I wrong!!!)

It's pretty interesting that you mention Talespin, because it has become my favorites TV series of all time, and I have made a fansite dedicated to Talespin which is gaining progressive popularity!

Steetboris, mrbones, etc., please stop bashing the current Disney. It's not healthy.

Just because newer shows are not from your generation does not automically mean that they're bad.

People do know what they like and what they don't like.

WDWLocal wrote:Steetboris, mrbones, etc., please stop bashing the current Disney. It's not healthy.

Please, stop making insane non-sensical posts.

WDWLocal wrote:Just because newer shows are not from your generation does not automically mean that they're bad.

That's not what they said.

WDWLocal wrote:People do know what they like and what they don't like.

Where did they say anything to contradict that?

"It's not healthy"??!! Did you ACTUALLY just say that??!!

I think David Koenig probably put it best in his book "Mouse Under Glass". In his section in the book called "Disney Diluted":

Whenever anything grows too popular and becomes a national phenomenon, those who don't care for it are polarized against it.

More importantly, a little later, he writes that people have always argued about what was appropriate or not for anything Disney (movies, theme parks, TV shows, anything), but now they took it more personally. As worried as they were about what they wanted their children to see, they were even more worried about themselves. As David put it:

Like Mickey Mouse, who grew so popular animators could no longer have him do anything outrageous for fear of offending his legions of fans, Disney animation and theme parks as a whole became subject to the expectations of canonization.

And he concludes by saying that "people know Disney is a business. They just don't want it to act like one."

I wish the Disney Channel had more of a balance in terms of it's target audiences.

I would like them to have time slots for all demographics. I would like a Vault Disney slot back and I would like a theme for each day for the Vault Disney time slot each representing a different era and/or medium.

Bashing the current shows in this context is an overdone occurrence and serves no purpose. The real issue is the lack of variety in demographics. I find nothing wrong with the current shows and I personally enjoy them. I would like the Disney Channel to represent and showcase it's entire body of work. That's what I expect a Disney Channel to be.

steetboris wrote: And it pains me very, very much when I see Princess & The Frog making such low audiences when, for once, they're doing the right thing!

Apparently, the general public, who has become spoiled by 3D/computer animation, has viewed 2D animation as too "old hat" for them.

Here's a thread that I feel probably has a similar theme to this thread:

http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... highlight=