DVDizzy Forum

Recently I've been watching a lot of the bonus discs that come out with the classics on dvd nowadays. It's interesting to see what happened to the animated classics from 1937 till now.

Snowwhite was a huge success. The world loved it.
Disney couldn't match that success with the next movies like Pinocchio.
After Snowwhite things went downhill for years and although some of the other movies might be considered reasonably "successful", Cinderella saved the company in 1950. If Cinderella wasn't the huge success it was, the company would be adjudged bankrupt. The world loved Cinderella and the company was saved.
Same thing happened later, there were movies like 101 Dalmatians, The sword in the stone and the Rescuers, they came with "the Little Mermaid", this movie was given credit for breathing life back into the animated feature film genre after a string of critical and commercial failures.
The company was saved again.
Beauty and the Beast was a huge success, Aladdin was a success, but after the Lion King things went downhill again.
Unfortunately the past didn't open the company's eyes, and they tried to keep their head above the water in different ways. Working together with other companies. 3d movies, pixar, etc.
It's going down hill again. Now they're making "The frog princess" and I predict it will be called "Disney's comeback" again in the press.
Hopefully that will happen. It well could be that the world is tired of the crap Disney produced the last few years and lost interest in the company and see "The frog princess" as just one of the products out of the disney money making cannon. Because even I, as a Disney fan, couldn't name the last 5 movies they produced.

Unfortunately they don't realize what their REAL successes were, and the only thing that's left of them is what people see in stores. Pink bracelets with glitters , pink purses with a drawing of Ariel/Snowwhite that doesn't even look like Ariel/Snowwhite. A simple, childish image that has nothing to do with the masterpieces they are. But I believe there is another topic about that........so I'll stop talking about that.

Anyway, there would be no Disney without the princess movies and they proved over and over again that that is what the world wants to see.

Well, a lot is riding on "The Princess and the Frog". To me, the hugest is that it's Disney's return to 2D animation. If TP&tF does "poorly" (who knows what that means anymore, though), then will Disney continue making other traditional films? I mean, Michael Eisner is gone, so it's not like he can say people wouldn't like it because it's traditionally animated.

TP&tF does happen to be a princess story, and I wonder if Disney chose a princess story to introduce its first African American main character, since princess stories are "safe".

There's something in the idea that 'princess stories' are the saving of Disney. Call it superstition, but maybe it's because a princess story is the one that started it all.
If it is executed well, TPandTF might mark the beginning of a new flowering of Disney 2D.
Such stories have worked for ages, let's trust in the 'magic'.

BelleGirl wrote:There's something in the idea that 'princess stories' are the saving of Disney. Call it superstition, but maybe it's because a princess story is the one that started it all.
If it is executed well, TPandTF might mark the beginning of a new flowering of Disney 2D.
Such stories have worked for ages, let's trust in the 'magic'.

The classic archetypical fair damsels and/or heroines end up being saviors in more than just literature for a reason. Hm.

Prudence wrote:

BelleGirl wrote:There's something in the idea that 'princess stories' are the saving of Disney. Call it superstition, but maybe it's because a princess story is the one that started it all.
If it is executed well, TPandTF might mark the beginning of a new flowering of Disney 2D.
Such stories have worked for ages, let's trust in the 'magic'.

The classic archetypical fair damsels and/or heroines end up being saviors in more than just literature for a reason. Hm.

Giselle and the Disney Princesses are not damsles,or you are not talking about them?.

Ariel'sprince wrote:

Prudence wrote: The classic archetypical fair damsels and/or heroines end up being saviors in more than just literature for a reason. Hm.

Giselle and the Disney Princesses are not damsles,or you are not talking about them?.

.....
I could ask what planet you are from, but I won't give this a real explanation. Let's leave it at this:
A) I said fair damsels and/or heroines.
B) Do you even know what a damsel is?

Prudence wrote: A) I said fair damsels and/or heroines.

Oh,okay.

Marky_198 wrote:After Snowwhite things went downhill for years

It wouldn't be fair to say that after Snow White it was downhill for Disney. To say "downhill" makes it sound like a dip in quality, when it was far from it. Remember, just because a film wasn't profitable doesn't mean it was bad. After all, World War II came along and they lost the European viewing market/revenue as well as animators to the draft. Coupled with the government commissioning them to make educational war shorts, Disney had to scale back/postpone on projects that would have otherwised been produced. Stuff like Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland, and even Cinderella. And of course, in the post-war years, the company had to literally rebuild from what was left over, resulting in the quick "meat and potatoes" pictures like Make Mine Music, Fun and Fancy Free, etc. Most so-called Disney fans dismiss the package features, without even taking into account that they are essentially the foundation for what would become the 1950s "Golden Age".

Marky_198 wrote:Same thing happened later, there were movies like 101 Dalmatians, The sword in the stone and the Rescuers,

Aside from The Sword in the Stone, the other two actually did well financially for the company. 101 Dalmatians was one of, if not the, highest grossing films if 1961. The Rescuers turned a surprising profit, something which was pretty good for late-1970s Disney.

Marky_198 wrote:they came with "the Little Mermaid", this movie was given credit for breathing life back into the animated feature film genre after a string of critical and commercial failures.
The company was saved again.

If you want to consider the company saved, go back about 5 years to 1984 when Eisner, Wells, and Katzenberg came. Disney would have been bought out and split up among other companies if not for the reshuffling of the powers that be. Yes, The Little Mermaid brought "life" back to animated features, but it didn't really "save" the company the way Cinderella did. If anything, it was the catalyst for a renewed interest in Disney animation among the viewing public. The 1980s was a time of transition (much like the 1940s), which provided quality animation, regardless of the critical/commercial reception. Saying one picture saved a company this time wouldn't really be accurate. After all, The Rescuers Down Under, Beauty and the Beast, and I think even Aladdin were already well into production (with Aladdin, possibly development) and would have come about (albeit, probably with a few changes) regardless if The Little Mermaid was a hit or a flop.

Marky_198 wrote:Beauty and the Beast was a huge success, Aladdin was a success, but after the Lion King things went downhill again. Unfortunately the past didn't open the company's eyes, and they tried to keep their head above the water in different ways. Working together with other companies. 3d movies, pixar, etc.
It's going down hill again.

Aladdin had a bigger box office intake and critical/commercial response than Beauty and the Beast (despite it getting an Oscar nom and Golden Globe), and if anything, The Lion King simply road on the coattails of their successes and pulled in an audience who were expecting every next picture to be better and better. Of course, Pocahontas was misuderstood by the same audience, and The Hunchback of Notre Dame was innovative and mature but didn't fit a general public's misconceived notions of a Disney film. But just because every film post-Lion King didn't make Lion King box office numbers, it doesn't mean the company went downhill. You're making it sound like Disney was in danger of closing because their films aren't being received well at the box office, without taking into consideration the millions of $$$ they get back in merchandise, theme parks, television, etc. Don't confuse personal distaste in recent films with a company on the brink of collapse.

Marky_198 wrote:It well could be that the world is tired of the crap Disney produced the last few years and lost interest in the company and see "The frog princess" as just one of the products out of the disney money making cannon.

CRAP? Are you judging their animated films based on their own merits, or how they compare to the company's earlier successes and your own personal tastes? I'd have to guess the latter.

Marky_198 wrote:Because even I, as a Disney fan, couldn't name the last 5 movies they produced.

Then I have to ask, are you really a Disney fan? Or just a Princess fan?

Marky_198 wrote:There would be no Disney without the princess movies and they proved over and over again that that is what the world wants to see.

I can't even dignify this with a response.

Plus, you haven't even touched upon Sleeping Beauty, which the world apparently didn't want to see in 1959.

Jack Skellington wrote:I don't think that those movies saved the company because they were based on fairy tales, I think it's because of the romance that is present in these movies that made them famous because romance is a universally appreciated genre, I guess you can say that's why even after 400 years people are still reading books like Romeo and Juliet and Pride and Prejudice,

I totally agree. Well-stated, Jack!

Jack Skellington wrote:whereas books like Animal Farm aren't as appreciated because the politics behind that movie was important ages ago only.

I think the politics of Animal Farm are just as timeless and important now as it was when it was first published. After all, the concept of some being "more equal than others" is still to be found in our society, even if we don't want to admit it.

Prudence wrote:I could ask what planet you are from, but I won't give this a real explanation.

I love you, Prudence.

Scaps

Prudence wrote: B) Do you even know what a damsel is?

In case anybody doesn't know hehe...It's a family of marine fish that consist of several species. They are most commonly seen in salt water aquariums like at Rubios & stuff

Oh damsel is also a word for a fair maiden...which is why you often hear the term "Damsel in Distress"...oh we MUST be talking about the Disney Princesses! Since someones always saving they're pretty little selves...Pardon me.

I don't particularly think the Princesses "saved" Disney...but I think they help the company...especially how they're seen everywhere...even at 99 cent stores. Lets not forget how Sleeping Beauty was a big flop, but interestingly enough its gain massive popularity a la "platinum edition". Oh yes and I think even after The Lion King Disney still did moderately well, it wasn't until the 2000's where they started going downhill with they're 2-D movies.

So with The Princess and the Frog coming up...I'm not really looking at it as a "Princess Movie" just as another Disney movie...that hopefully will be good, I'm hoping it will have somewhat of a Little Mermaid/Beauty and the Beast vibe to it...

jeremy88 wrote:
Oh damsel is also a word for a fair maiden...which is why you often hear the term "Damsel in Distress"...oh we MUST be talking about the Disney Princesses! Since someones always saving they're pretty little selves...Pardon me.

They are not damsles,they are heronies.
Damsle in distress is a girl who gets kidnapt every 5 seconds,the Disney Princess gets kidnapt? no,they are no damsles.

My buddy Ariel's Prince...I was being sarcastic...which is why I used a giant MUST and nice words like pretty little selves. Of course we all KNOW that they are not damsels in distress...maybe damsels but far not in distress...oh maybe when Auroras asleep...perhaps even snow white in her coffen...Ariel when shes on the bottom of the sea floor with all the water going all circly around her...I wonder what would have happend if Eric didn't jab ursula in her big stomach?? Seems like they have distressing moments...lets not forget how they do have their shining moments in their movies though

jeremy88 wrote:My buddy Ariel's Prince...I was being sarcastic...which is why I used a giant MUST and nice words like pretty little selves. Of course we all KNOW that they are not damsels in distress...maybe damsels but far not in distress...oh maybe when Auroras asleep...perhaps even snow white in her coffen...Ariel when shes on the bottom of the sea floor with all the water going all circly around her...I wonder what would have happend if Eric didn't jab ursula in her big stomach?? Seems like they have distressing moments...lets not forget how they do have their shining moments in their movies though

Allright,they might get saved once but they arn't not damsles in distres,take for exmaple Fiona from Shrek or Princess Peach-do they do anything exept get kidnapt and be resuced? no,and that's what they are-damesles in distress,the Disney Princess are heronies,they get rescued once,yeah,but every character get rescued (even Hercules get rescued by Meg).

Ariel'sprince wrote: Allright,they might get saved once but they arn't not damsles in distres,take for exmaple Fiona from Shrek or Princess Peach-do they do anything exept get kidnapt and be resuced? no,and that's what they are-damesles in distress,the Disney Princess are heronies,they get rescued once,yeah,but every character get rescued (even Hercules get rescued by Meg).

Go play Super Smash bros Melee. She arguebly the strongest character in the game.

Super Aurora wrote:

Ariel'sprince wrote: Allright,they might get saved once but they arn't not damsles in distres,take for exmaple Fiona from Shrek or Princess Peach-do they do anything exept get kidnapt and be resuced? no,and that's what they are-damesles in distress,the Disney Princess are heronies,they get rescued once,yeah,but every character get rescued (even Hercules get rescued by Meg).

Go play Super Smash bros Melee. She arguebly the strongest character in the game.

Exept that-does she does anything else then get kidnapt? no,she was born with a blackmail letter.
What's like to break up with her?.
"Peach... you're a nice girl,but...".
"But...?".
"You allways get kidnapt,i can't live like that".
"That's not true!".
"It is".
"Mmmmm! Mmmm! Mmmm!".
"See?".
"Mmmm!".

Ariel'sprince wrote:

Super Aurora wrote: Go play Super Smash bros Melee. She arguebly the strongest character in the game.

Exept that-does she does anything else then get kidnapt? no,she was born with a blackmail letter.
What's like to break up with her?.
"Peach... you're a nice girl,but...".
"But...?".
"You allways get kidnapt,i can't live like that".
"That's not true!".
"It is".
"Mmmmm! Mmmm! Mmmm!".
"See?".
"Mmmm!".

You wanted a example of time she doesn't get kidnapped and need be rescued. I gave one. In fact there is a whole game on her rescuing Mario and Luigi instead.

You wanted example where she not in that situation, I gave you two.

Of course, Pocahontas was misuderstood by the same audience,

Escapay,

I'm going slightly off-topic here, but what is it that this 'same audience' misunderstood about this movie? I hope I didn't misundertand it.

BelleGirl wrote:

Of course, Pocahontas was misuderstood by the same audience,

Escapay,

I'm going slightly off-topic here, but what is it that this 'same audience' misunderstood about this movie? I hope I didn't misundertand it.

Essentially what I meant was that over the short span of 6 years (from 1989-1995), the success of the alleged Fab 4 had already sown the seeds in the general moviegoing audience's* minds that every subsequent Disney animated film would follow a successful "formula" (The Rescuers Down Under excluded). When Pocahontas arrived in June 1995, it easily fulfilled the expectations of the Disney "formula" (the heroine sings an "I want" song, she and the hero have their "meet cute", dramatic elements are thrown in, the love ballad is sung, and there's a satisfying ending, all the while, plucky comic relief is on hand to induce humor.) Of course, during the time of TLM, BATB, Al, and TLK, it wasn't considered a "formula" yet, as the audience was putting the pieces together. But by the time Pocahontas came, the general audience knew what to expect, thus dubbing it as formulaic. Hence, misunderstood.

Scaps

*when I say "general audience", I often mean casual moviegoers, and not Disney fanatics like us. While we're usually more critical of Disney films, we're a minority compared to the throngs of Joe Sixpacks and Jane Soccermoms who likely see the movies because they equate Disney with family or children's entertainment. It's not necessarily knocking their feelings/opinions for the film, since they're just as valid, but more of a criticism of the factors they take/don't take in when forming their opinion. For example, if someone simply says, "I don't like Movie A because it wasn't like Movie C" or "I don't like Movie A because I didn't like Movie B", I can't take the opinion seriously.

Escapay wrote:

BelleGirl wrote: Escapay,

I'm going slightly off-topic here, but what is it that this 'same audience' misunderstood about this movie? I hope I didn't misundertand it.

Essentially what I meant was that over the short span of 6 years (from 1989-1995), the success of the alleged Fab 4 had already sown the seeds in the general moviegoing audience's* minds that every subsequent Disney animated film would follow a successful "formula" (The Rescuers Down Under excluded). When Pocahontas arrived in June 1995, it easily fulfilled the expectations of the Disney "formula" (the heroine sings an "I want" song, she and the hero have their "meet cute", dramatic elements are thrown in, the love ballad is sung, and there's a satisfying ending, all the while, plucky comic relief is on hand to induce humor.) Of course, during the time of TLM, BATB, Al, and TLK, it wasn't considered a "formula" yet, as the audience was putting the pieces together. But by the time Pocahontas came, the general audience knew what to expect, thus dubbing it as formulaic. Hence, misunderstood.

Scaps

I've always considered Pocahontas as a diversion from earlier efforts, despite obvious 'formula' elements. The tone and feel of the movie is wildly different from TLM, Aladdin, B&TB, TLK, which all work toward happily-ever-after endings. Pocahontas however, IMO is pervaded with a sense of melancholy not seen since The Fox and the Hound.

BelleGirl wrote:I've always considered Pocahontas as a diversion from earlier efforts, despite obvious 'formula' elements. The tone and feel of the movie is wildly different from TLM, Aladdin, B&TB, TLK, which all work toward happily-ever-after endings.

Oh definitely. It's one of film's strengths (not "following" the formula despite containing now-considered formulaic elements), but at the same time is a weakness. After all, as sweeping as the love story is, the fact that it's based on history makes their parting inevitable. And if we forget about Pocahontas II entirely, makes for a very uplifting, if bittersweet ending.

BelleGirl wrote:Pocahontas however, IMO is pervaded with a sense of melancholy not seen since The Fox and the Hound.

I agree. There's so much heavyhanded melodrama mixed with obvious and/or subtle symbolism that the whole film can be a very melancholy viewing experience, even among otherwise-jovial songs like "Just Around The Riverbend" (which essentially asks us, "What are we, where are we going, and why?") and "Mine, Mine, Mine" (the perfect example of the human's need for greed). But still, it's one of my favorites and has always ranked in my top 10 Disney Animated Classics, mainly because of those reasons. Pocahontas serves up mature and timeless themes in the same vein as The Hunchback of Notre Dame, but does so in a more family-friendly manner.

Scaps