Reading the Gnomeo and Juliet thread, which has some very pro-Pixar anti-modern Disney posts in and equally some posts kind of on the other extreme, I've developed a need to ask a question; what elements do we all think would make the perfect Disney animated film? I know that we're all going to say things like good animation and lack of boredom, but what less common things do we also think are important?
Originality
This isn't necessarily an original story; one could take an old fairy tale, change it slightly and call it "an original story". What I mean is to have some strong distinguishing point somewhere in the movie between other films (and not necessarily due to the idea that they are all different stories). Animation styles, plot twists and structures are examples of what could be used differently. Make films where stories come alive in books (Sleeping Beauty, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh), another where a character narrates the tale as though they were past events (Pinocchio, The Great Mouse Detective). For films based on well known source material, slight changes are also welcome, as they can breathe life into worn out material (example: the glass slipper crisis at the end of Cinderella adds excitement to an old story).
Defeating some of the problems of the original source material
This will only relate to films based on source material, but as a good number of Disney features are based on previous books, I may as well put this down. There are bound to be problems making very faithful adaptations of pieces of source material all the time, and defeating problems within the source material is a virtuous thing that Disney has done, whether it's creating related-to-the-main-story subplots and characters to pad out a thinnish tale (Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast), compressing the action of too many years for a film into action for just one day (Sleeping Beauty) or strengthening very unrelated events into a normal plot around a character's behaviour (Mary Poppins). As a kid, on reading the original tales, I wondered why Disney would "bastardise" the classic stories. Now I see why, and I support it.
Supporting elements that suit the tone of the main story being told
The voices, art direction and animation have to suit the story being told. For example, if a story is cartoony and comedic, make use of characatures and odd voices. Don't have overly cute characters residing in very serious stuff like The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I hope you get my drift by now.
What would make the perfect Disney film?
-
Wonderlicious
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:47 am
- Location: UK
- Contact:
-
Disney-Fan
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3381
- Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 8:59 am
- Location: Where it's flat and immense and the heat is intense
- Contact:
-
I Am Clark Kent
- Member
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 10:14 pm
- Contact:
Yeah they do that!
Most people who are disney fans, don't know this.
But Walt Disney himself created the seven dwarfs. In the original Snow White story, Snow white encounters four men instead of seven dwarfs.
The dwarfs themselves we're just another marketing idea that Walt and his team created for the enjoyment of the fairy tale. Because in the original fairy tale, Snow white really isn't a strong protagonist.
Every single fairy tale was written with certain points behind them at the time in which they we're written. The endings are vastly different, and have details in them which aren't acceptable to western society.
Don't you all realize that you've been manipulated since birth!
But Walt Disney himself created the seven dwarfs. In the original Snow White story, Snow white encounters four men instead of seven dwarfs.
The dwarfs themselves we're just another marketing idea that Walt and his team created for the enjoyment of the fairy tale. Because in the original fairy tale, Snow white really isn't a strong protagonist.
Every single fairy tale was written with certain points behind them at the time in which they we're written. The endings are vastly different, and have details in them which aren't acceptable to western society.
Don't you all realize that you've been manipulated since birth!
-
Disney-Fan
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3381
- Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 8:59 am
- Location: Where it's flat and immense and the heat is intense
- Contact:
-
Timon/Pumbaa fan
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3675
- Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 4:45 pm
-
Lars Vermundsberget
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 1:50 pm
- Location: Norway
I guess there could be more than just one "original" Snow White story.
I am pretty sure that there is a pre-Disney Snow White story that does include the Seven Dwarfs. But Disney created seven dwarfs with seven distinct characters and personalities.
As for perfect Disney film, I guess it's hopeless.
When they tried to stick to "the formula", that was critisized. When they tried to change the formula, that was also bad. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...
I am pretty sure that there is a pre-Disney Snow White story that does include the Seven Dwarfs. But Disney created seven dwarfs with seven distinct characters and personalities.
As for perfect Disney film, I guess it's hopeless.
When they tried to stick to "the formula", that was critisized. When they tried to change the formula, that was also bad. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...
-
Escapay
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 12562
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:02 pm
- Location: Somewhere in Time and Space
- Contact:
Using both Wondy's examples and bambifan's list (though I didn't do Director and merged Originality with Characters), here's what I think would help make a perfect Disney film
Animation
Animation should be smooth, flowing, and visually attractive. Each character should have their own unique look, even minor characters. Cookie-cutter designs are fine when you've got a whole mess of people in a crowd, but each character should have a distinct look that marks their personality. You *know* Jafar's the villain because of his smug face and his stark posture. You *know* that the Dwarfs are the lovable sidekicks because of each of their designs. You *know* that Chicken Little is the lovable little protagonist because of his size and his mannerisms. Animation should have a life of its own beyond what an artist does with a pencil and paper. It should breathe.
The backgrounds must be realistic, but at the same time look to actually be within the 2D world. Some of the best background animation I've seen came from Bambi, Lady and the Tramp, The Black Cauldron, Beauty and the Beast, Hunchback of Notre Dame, and Tarzan. Some of the "lesser" Disney films may have had great character animation, but the backgrounds were pitiful and stoic. Robin Hood, The Emperor's New Groove, Dumbo. Robin Hood especially, it's just forest after forest after forest. There's no life to it.
Originality
Sure, there's that thing about how there's only 6 original stories in the world and how every story is a variation of those. But with the right writers and storypeople, you can turn an everyday well-known story like "The Little Red Hen" and turn it into something unique, something that separates it from other children's stories. Give the characters an edge, but don't go so far as to make them something they're not.
Villains should never be one-sided. They should be given a personality, a cause, and an understanding for their cause that makes the audience sympathize, maybe even agree with them. But ultimately, the villain should still be "mean" or "evil" or "anti-hero" enough for the audience to still root for the protagonist. When you find your audience rooting for the villain, something must be wrong with your hero.
Heros, heroines, the good guys, etc. shouldn't always be perfect and pure. Nobody's perfect. Give *them* an edge that moves them beyond a brave warrior, a damsel in distress, what have you. No one in real life will ever be as patient or as calm as Cinderella, and no one in real life could ever have as much courage and strength as Tarzan. BUT people are easily able to relate to Aladdin, a guy who gets himself in a mess but everything turns out okay, or even Ariel, a girl who want so much for something else that she even has to rely on an enemy to get what she wants (and learns her lesson in the end). These characters are so clearly defined and grounded in reality, despite their fantastic journeys they take. And that's why the audience loves them. That's why more people would root for Ariel and her prince to get together as opposed to maybe Aurora and Prince Phillip. They can't feel emotionally connected to Aurora, simply because she's too perfect, the cookie-cutter princess.
Quality
At one time, there were two different animation genres: Disney and Everyone Else. These days, you've got a lot of competition, that Disney sometimes sacrifices their homegrown family-friendly quality just to keep up. I'm not saying that Disney should simply restrict themselves to family-friendly fare that worked in Walt's days.
Rather, Disney should at least uphold the quality of the story and characters that made them successful in the first place. Going back to originality here, but Disney knows/knew that at one time "A Walt Disney Picture" meant fun for everyone. Not every adult will enjoy Chicken Little, and not every kid will enjoy Hunchback of Notre Dame. There's the gray area in between those two extremes that Disney should aim for. That's where pictures like Peter Pan, 101 Dalmatians, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, even Oliver and Company have been made. It's a balanced blend of kiddie-fare and contemporary adult themes that make those gray area pictures worth watching with the whole family.
Musical Score
Not every Disney film will have a memorable score, but if they ever do, the score should reflect on the themes of the picture, match what you see.
Pocahontas has a very sweeping orchestral score, with recurring themes and powerful notes. It reflects the story as well, one of prejudice, judgement, and overcoming them. The film itself may not always be considered one of Disney's greatest, but the musical score is some of Disney's best.
On the other hand, you've got a film like Robin Hood, made at a time when the company still was trying to figure out how to live post-Walt. So what's the score? A very simple one, with a few songs that could only fit within the picture. There's no attachment to the music. You don't see people going around whistling "The Phony King of England", though ask anyone what the dwarfs sing, they'll belt out (incorrectly of course) "Heigh-ho, heigh-ho, it's off to work we go!" (as all of us know, the real words are "it's home from work we go!").
The score is another character in the film. If it's not as well-defined as the characters singing them or the event that it's setting the music to, it's ultimately forgettable.
Actors
For the love of god, just because an A-list actor is popular with his face doesn't mean his voice will get the same reaction. How many of us cared that John Smith was voiced by Mel Gibson? Or that Michael J. Fox was Milo Thatch? Many celebrities who suddenly do a voice for a cartoon ultimately make the character they voice remembered simply as "Oh yeah, I remember such-and-such. Such-and-such-actor did his voice."
The best voicework from A-list actors comes from actors who can separate their face from their voice. The ones who can manipulate their voice so it's the *character* that stands out, and sometimes you forget who the actor is. Robin Williams as Genie, Joan Cusack as Jessie and as Abby Mallard, Patrick Stewart as the Great Prince. These actors are able to differentiate their voices to support the character even more.
Escapay
Animation
Animation should be smooth, flowing, and visually attractive. Each character should have their own unique look, even minor characters. Cookie-cutter designs are fine when you've got a whole mess of people in a crowd, but each character should have a distinct look that marks their personality. You *know* Jafar's the villain because of his smug face and his stark posture. You *know* that the Dwarfs are the lovable sidekicks because of each of their designs. You *know* that Chicken Little is the lovable little protagonist because of his size and his mannerisms. Animation should have a life of its own beyond what an artist does with a pencil and paper. It should breathe.
The backgrounds must be realistic, but at the same time look to actually be within the 2D world. Some of the best background animation I've seen came from Bambi, Lady and the Tramp, The Black Cauldron, Beauty and the Beast, Hunchback of Notre Dame, and Tarzan. Some of the "lesser" Disney films may have had great character animation, but the backgrounds were pitiful and stoic. Robin Hood, The Emperor's New Groove, Dumbo. Robin Hood especially, it's just forest after forest after forest. There's no life to it.
Originality
Sure, there's that thing about how there's only 6 original stories in the world and how every story is a variation of those. But with the right writers and storypeople, you can turn an everyday well-known story like "The Little Red Hen" and turn it into something unique, something that separates it from other children's stories. Give the characters an edge, but don't go so far as to make them something they're not.
Villains should never be one-sided. They should be given a personality, a cause, and an understanding for their cause that makes the audience sympathize, maybe even agree with them. But ultimately, the villain should still be "mean" or "evil" or "anti-hero" enough for the audience to still root for the protagonist. When you find your audience rooting for the villain, something must be wrong with your hero.
Heros, heroines, the good guys, etc. shouldn't always be perfect and pure. Nobody's perfect. Give *them* an edge that moves them beyond a brave warrior, a damsel in distress, what have you. No one in real life will ever be as patient or as calm as Cinderella, and no one in real life could ever have as much courage and strength as Tarzan. BUT people are easily able to relate to Aladdin, a guy who gets himself in a mess but everything turns out okay, or even Ariel, a girl who want so much for something else that she even has to rely on an enemy to get what she wants (and learns her lesson in the end). These characters are so clearly defined and grounded in reality, despite their fantastic journeys they take. And that's why the audience loves them. That's why more people would root for Ariel and her prince to get together as opposed to maybe Aurora and Prince Phillip. They can't feel emotionally connected to Aurora, simply because she's too perfect, the cookie-cutter princess.
Quality
At one time, there were two different animation genres: Disney and Everyone Else. These days, you've got a lot of competition, that Disney sometimes sacrifices their homegrown family-friendly quality just to keep up. I'm not saying that Disney should simply restrict themselves to family-friendly fare that worked in Walt's days.
Rather, Disney should at least uphold the quality of the story and characters that made them successful in the first place. Going back to originality here, but Disney knows/knew that at one time "A Walt Disney Picture" meant fun for everyone. Not every adult will enjoy Chicken Little, and not every kid will enjoy Hunchback of Notre Dame. There's the gray area in between those two extremes that Disney should aim for. That's where pictures like Peter Pan, 101 Dalmatians, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, even Oliver and Company have been made. It's a balanced blend of kiddie-fare and contemporary adult themes that make those gray area pictures worth watching with the whole family.
Musical Score
Not every Disney film will have a memorable score, but if they ever do, the score should reflect on the themes of the picture, match what you see.
Pocahontas has a very sweeping orchestral score, with recurring themes and powerful notes. It reflects the story as well, one of prejudice, judgement, and overcoming them. The film itself may not always be considered one of Disney's greatest, but the musical score is some of Disney's best.
On the other hand, you've got a film like Robin Hood, made at a time when the company still was trying to figure out how to live post-Walt. So what's the score? A very simple one, with a few songs that could only fit within the picture. There's no attachment to the music. You don't see people going around whistling "The Phony King of England", though ask anyone what the dwarfs sing, they'll belt out (incorrectly of course) "Heigh-ho, heigh-ho, it's off to work we go!" (as all of us know, the real words are "it's home from work we go!").
The score is another character in the film. If it's not as well-defined as the characters singing them or the event that it's setting the music to, it's ultimately forgettable.
Actors
For the love of god, just because an A-list actor is popular with his face doesn't mean his voice will get the same reaction. How many of us cared that John Smith was voiced by Mel Gibson? Or that Michael J. Fox was Milo Thatch? Many celebrities who suddenly do a voice for a cartoon ultimately make the character they voice remembered simply as "Oh yeah, I remember such-and-such. Such-and-such-actor did his voice."
The best voicework from A-list actors comes from actors who can separate their face from their voice. The ones who can manipulate their voice so it's the *character* that stands out, and sometimes you forget who the actor is. Robin Williams as Genie, Joan Cusack as Jessie and as Abby Mallard, Patrick Stewart as the Great Prince. These actors are able to differentiate their voices to support the character even more.
Escapay
WIST #60:
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion?
WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion?
WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?
-
TheSequelOfDisney
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5263
- Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:30 pm
- Location: Ohio, United States of America
The original ending was quite sad............... Why couldn't she live happily ever after with the guy she was supposed kill with the big scary knife. Oh yeah, and it had her mother in it too. Maybe she will be in the upcoming The Little Mermaid III!!! 
The Divulgations of One Desmond Leica: http://desmondleica.wordpress.com/
-
Just Myself
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3552
- Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:08 pm
- Location: Pawnee, IN
- Contact:
Chuck Norris...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jackie Chan...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
....And a nannying job for Brooke Shields.
Only one gets the job. The loser will have to settle on a job at Chuck E. Cheese. The winner will be the nanny for Brooke Shields. They will battle to have the title of...
THE NANNY
...But I think the name might already be taken.
Read it on another forum, thought it'd make a great follow up to The Pacifier.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jackie Chan...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
....And a nannying job for Brooke Shields.
Only one gets the job. The loser will have to settle on a job at Chuck E. Cheese. The winner will be the nanny for Brooke Shields. They will battle to have the title of...
THE NANNY
...But I think the name might already be taken.
Read it on another forum, thought it'd make a great follow up to The Pacifier.
Cheers,
JM
JM
-
Escapay
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 12562
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:02 pm
- Location: Somewhere in Time and Space
- Contact:
Zoltack wrote:I'm called Zoltack not bambifan.Escapay wrote:Using both Wondy's examples and bambifan's list (though I didn't do Director and merged Originality with Characters), here's what I think would help make a perfect Disney film
Escapay
Color me stupid...I skimmed and saw a bambi icon, and assumed it was bambifan, don't know why, lol.
Escapay
WIST #60:
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion?
WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion?
WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?
-
lord-of-sith
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 7:03 pm
- Gender: Male (He/Him/His)
Well, I think there are a few things that could (or so it seems) easily be do to make Disney Films better:
* 2D animation must return!
* Let's make a 2D film starring humans that isn't a flat-out comedy!
* Some actually good gags when they do occur
But, for some more detailed insight:
Story/Plot/Theme
I can't go to a theater without seeing a trailer for a CG animal-based film. I'm truly sick of them. I think, if they could get a fairy tale (even if they have to make it up!) and use these things called humans as their main characters, we could have something here. Home on the Range clearly showed us that jokes need to actually be thought out. Chicken Little also showed us this ("Hey look, a penny!" erm.. not funny!). And I would love for a more complex and more adult plot, not this kiddy fluff we've been treated to lately.
Villains
After Scar, all of the villains we've got have been the stereotypical villains. There hasn't been a really interesting villain. And I despise it when a truly bad villain just ends up a good-guy in the end, it shows no threat to the hero. The most recent villains have been hunters, government officials, and the like. A villain is a truly key part of a good story. And without a good one, the story fails to have any great threat. Frollo has really been the best villain since then. He was good because you could really understand where he was comming from, and wasn't just an evil guy, but he also was very shallow and eventually had evil intentions. Maleficent, Jafar, Ursula, and Cruella DeVil are also great villains as there is a past with them and the main characters that you aren't really clued into.
* 2D animation must return!
* Let's make a 2D film starring humans that isn't a flat-out comedy!
* Some actually good gags when they do occur
But, for some more detailed insight:
Story/Plot/Theme
I can't go to a theater without seeing a trailer for a CG animal-based film. I'm truly sick of them. I think, if they could get a fairy tale (even if they have to make it up!) and use these things called humans as their main characters, we could have something here. Home on the Range clearly showed us that jokes need to actually be thought out. Chicken Little also showed us this ("Hey look, a penny!" erm.. not funny!). And I would love for a more complex and more adult plot, not this kiddy fluff we've been treated to lately.
Villains
After Scar, all of the villains we've got have been the stereotypical villains. There hasn't been a really interesting villain. And I despise it when a truly bad villain just ends up a good-guy in the end, it shows no threat to the hero. The most recent villains have been hunters, government officials, and the like. A villain is a truly key part of a good story. And without a good one, the story fails to have any great threat. Frollo has really been the best villain since then. He was good because you could really understand where he was comming from, and wasn't just an evil guy, but he also was very shallow and eventually had evil intentions. Maleficent, Jafar, Ursula, and Cruella DeVil are also great villains as there is a past with them and the main characters that you aren't really clued into.
-
bambifan56
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 483
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 4:33 pm
- Location: Kansas
I personally enjoy when they don't show some of the things in the film, they let the viewers imagination do the work, because what people can imagine always has a stonger impact than anything they could show on screen. An example would be Man being hidden in Bambi, it makes him much more eerie and give suspense in that you never know he is coming, EXCEPT for the music (This is the exact same for the shark in Jaws). In fact, Disney himself even said the fear of what you could see is never as great as what someone could conjer up in their mind.
I am not saying you don't have to show the villian, but there needs to be some parts for the audiance to figure out/decide for themselves, it adds a certain something to the film.
Disney also says there has to be some seriousness to a film for the audiance to take it, you can have a film where they crack up the entire time, but they won't remember it or think it's great.
I am not saying you don't have to show the villian, but there needs to be some parts for the audiance to figure out/decide for themselves, it adds a certain something to the film.
Disney also says there has to be some seriousness to a film for the audiance to take it, you can have a film where they crack up the entire time, but they won't remember it or think it's great.
"There is another who is over us all, over us and over man"
-Bambi (Novel)
-Bambi (Novel)
-
slyslayer3000
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 284
- Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:58 am
- Location: Hard-Boiled Wonderland
-
Roger Rabbit
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 3:40 pm
- Location: Upstate New York, USA
"Perfect" is subjective any way you slice it, but I think the one thing that would work the most is to go back to Walt's day and age....where you had people working on the stuff who were not "big name" money makers if you simply heard it. That's what made some of those classics we all like work--is because there were no popular names attached to characters, so that the actor's name becomes more important than the character.
To me, that would be a good step to a "perfect" Disney film.
To me, that would be a good step to a "perfect" Disney film.
<b>You were born original and unique; don't die a copy.</b>
-
Karushifa
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 363
- Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 6:49 am
- Location: Chapel Hill, NC
I agree that the villain can really help to make or break a film. If you have a weak/boring villain, then there can be significantly less reason to root for the protagonists, and that of course leads you to question why you should care about the movie in the first place.lord-of-sith wrote:Villains
After Scar, all of the villains we've got have been the stereotypical villains. There hasn't been a really interesting villain. And I despise it when a truly bad villain just ends up a good-guy in the end, it shows no threat to the hero. The most recent villains have been hunters, government officials, and the like. A villain is a truly key part of a good story. And without a good one, the story fails to have any great threat. Frollo has really been the best villain since then. He was good because you could really understand where he was comming from, and wasn't just an evil guy, but he also was very shallow and eventually had evil intentions. Maleficent, Jafar, Ursula, and Cruella DeVil are also great villains as there is a past with them and the main characters that you aren't really clued into.
As much as I adore Mulan, I must say that Xian-Yu as the lead villain was not executed well. Although there are some nice touches (the scouting mission before the raid on the village gives me chills), he is overall a very one-dimensional villain whose only objective is to conquer for the sake of conquering. We are never told a reason why or even some hints at his personality; all we get is yet another bloodthirsty barbarian, whose actions, while brutal, are quite predicatable.
What makes a villain like Frollo far more interesting is that you can see the inner conflict that defines his actions, as well as his descent deeper into madness even as the film progresses. In esssence, Frollo is very much a classic tragic villain in that he tries to justify his actions with "good" intentions, but in the end his persuance of a single goal drives him to self-destruction. He reminds me a lot of Macbeth, who managed to destroy both himself and most of those around him in an insane effort to force the world to fit his narrow view of how it "should" be.
Oh, I'm sorry, you're all standing...here, let me make you a chair!
Karushifa's Random Top 5 of the Week: US National Parks/Sites:
1) Yosemite N.P.
2) Caribbean Nat'l Forest (Puerto Rico)
3) Death Valley N.P.
4) Cape Lookout Nat'l Seashore
5) Sequoia N.P.
Karushifa's Random Top 5 of the Week: US National Parks/Sites:
1) Yosemite N.P.
2) Caribbean Nat'l Forest (Puerto Rico)
3) Death Valley N.P.
4) Cape Lookout Nat'l Seashore
5) Sequoia N.P.
