DVDizzy Forum

I was always confused by this some people always leave out titles such as Mulan and Hercules?

Are they not considered part of the great titles that came out of the 90's or are they just not on par what some consider the "fab 4" (yuck).

To me, personally, it seems as though it ended at Tarzan - the rest of the movies after just don't have that "cookie cutter" Disney feel to it.

But what are your thoughts?

I personally believe it begins with TLM and ends with Tarzan, but I've always considered the comeback era or "Golden Age" as starting with TLM and ending with TLK. It's a strange thing.

Maybe in 50 years 1995-1999 will be considered apart of the golden age, too.

I think it started with The Little Mermaid and ended with Tarzan.
And i also think they started a new golden age with Enchanted.

Ariel'sprince wrote: And i also think they started a new golden age with Enchanted.

That's live-action. It's funny because we don't have any live-action golden ages, but anyway. The Golden Ages are just Disney animation. Think of Enchanted as The Princess and the Frog's Who Framed Roger Rabbit?.

UmbrellaFish wrote:
Maybe in 50 years 1995-1999 will be considered apart of the golden age, too.

Maybe the films coming after TLK - up to Tarzan - will be regarded as part of the second "Silver age". The first so-called "Silver age" began with Cinderella.

I really don't like all those labels for a bunch of films, as Cinderella to me is just such a classic as Snow White, but they seem to be unavoidable.

But it's helf animated .

I've always thought that Cinderella began a second golden age. And then wasn't it 101 Dalmatians that began a silver age?


Well, anyway, what it all boils down to is opinion. I also don't think it's a bad thing for certain movies to be recognized above the others.

But it's helf animated .

Yes but for twelve minutes. So, it should be considered a live-action movie, regardless. Or were you joking? I tend to take this movies really seriously. lol

UmbrellaFish wrote:

But it's helf animated .

Yes but for twelve minutes. So, it should be considered a live-action movie, regardless. Or were you joking? I tend to take this movies really seriously. lol

Actually i was serious,i thought this is both live action and animated it can be considered both,but people unsure if it considered animated or live action.
So i suppose the new golden "officaly" will begin with The Princess and the Frog?.

People can have their opinions about the later animated titles, but I think it's safe to say that The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King put Disney animation back on the map, so to speak. And then discussing what's golden, silver or renaissance is basically just a play with words.

"Greatness" can be found in most or all of Disney's animated "classics". But a particular kind of "value" makes certain distinctions and developments quite obvious: Money. After the far-too-expensive Sleeping Beauty, finally completed and released in 1959, cost-cutting was king during the 60s and 70s. Around then they even considered putting animation on the shelf for good.

I hope the Princess and the Frog bring in a new era of hand drawn Disney animation - and the people who did TLM are diong it as well so that gives me high high hopes.

I mean if just 5-6 more animated classics, that would be wonderful!

Really, the "Animation Renaissance" at Walt Disney Feature Animation started with "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" (supervised by the division), then kicked into gear with "The Little Mermaid," (skip "Rescuers Down Under" or not), "Beauty and the Beast," "Aladdin" and "The Lion King" (one might include "The Nightmare Before Christmas" in this group as well, as it was also supervised by WDFA during that period).

The three fairy tales produced with the creative input of Howard Ashman really are the neucleus of this era. He died during production of "Aladdin." And the box office rose across all three of those fairy tale releases and peaked with "The Lion King" in an unpreceedented cash frenzy.

During and after production of "The Lion King" the creative staff changed considerably.

Jeffrey Katzenberg left during production of "Pocahontas" and the story development department changed hands as Tom Schumacher took creative control from "Pocahontas" forward (and animators gradually lost more and more input and the tone of the films changed considerably away from Walt Disney tradition).

After "Lion King," box-office started the gradual downward trend, the DTV sequels began and the spotlight shifted to Pixar. So, for all intents and purposes, "Roger" - "Lion King" was one definitive period within the animation division (a fun and exciting time to be there) and "Pocahontas" - "Treasure Planet" another, very different one (largely stressful period of growth and change).

So by an analogy:
- Who Framed Roger Rabbit = Enchanted
- Oliver & Company = Bolt
- The Little Mermaid = The Princess and the Frog
- The Rescuers Down Under = Rapunzel

Ha! didn't thought of that.
Thought:
Beauty and the Beast=Rapunzel.

God, I hope not I detest "Rapunzel" ever since I heard it's gonna be CG .

Why? you know,it's not really CGI,it's just a way to make it look like a moving painting so it doesn't really matter .

mooky_7_sa wrote:God, I hope not I detest "Rapunzel" ever since I heard it's gonna be CG .

If it's going to look like Toy story, than I can understand your feelings. But I thought it was going to look more like a painting come alive and that might be pretty.

Let's be optimistic: we may be pleasently surprised by the way Rapunzel looks ... or not.

BelleGirl wrote:

mooky_7_sa wrote:God, I hope not I detest "Rapunzel" ever since I heard it's gonna be CG .

If it's going to look like Toy story, than I can understand your feelings. But I thought it was going to look more like a painting come alive and that might be pretty.

It is,it's exactly what I said,it's like a moving painting,not CGI like Finding Nemo or Toy Story.

I wanted it to be flat, even if it's going to look like a moving painting, it's still going to have that extra (unwanted) dimension. But hey, I'll give it a chance .

Ariel'sprince wrote:

UmbrellaFish wrote: Yes but for twelve minutes. So, it should be considered a live-action movie, regardless. Or were you joking? I tend to take this movies really seriously. lol

Actually i was serious,i thought this is both live action and animated it can be considered both,but people unsure if it considered animated or live action.
So i suppose the new golden "officaly" will begin with The Princess and the Frog?.

It's just wishful thinking to proclaim a new golden age in Disney Feature Animation before you've even seen the movies in question!