DVDizzy Forum

Describe what Disney is to you in one sentence...

To me, Disney is the very essence of an artistic and creative craft that evokes a message of love and home and dedictation that we all have experienced in treasured memories that live on in our minds and hearts.

A company dedicated to screwing up their own movies.

Seriously, though, to me Disney WAS a company who made quality family movies, and now they are a company who makes crap by the old standards. (save for the Pirates and National Treasure stuff)

Nowadays they're just a machine cranking out two-bit popstars and three-bit cartoons. I want the old pre-1995 Disney back.

Beast_enchantment wrote:Describe what Disney is to you in one sentence...

To me, Disney is the very essence of an artistic and creative craft that evokes a message of love and home and dedictation that we all have experienced in treasured memories that live on in our minds and hearts.

That's what I would have said a long time ago.

Now it's $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

"Look to the name Walt Disney for the finest in family entertainment."

Disney Today: To hell with anyone over the age of 14! It's kid$ today that Di$ney really love$$$$$$.

Disney of the past (pre-1995): What Merlin said. Minus some early 1980s releases which may not be the best examples of "family entertainment" but are good films non the less.

Disney to me: The company which has the ability to present child like fantasies and ideals in an entertaining, emotionally involving, and well themed way both on and off the screen (in a three dimensional environment).

Has the ability, but never actually does that anymore.

Pixar movies are still good... but those aren't really Disney as much as they are independent directors who are paid for by Disney. Narnia wasn't really Disney either... That was Walden Media and again paid for by Disney.

I haven't liked any new Disney movies (after 2000 anyway), with the exception of the National Treasure series and the Pirates of the Caribbean series. Both of those were more experimental and strayed from the traditional Disney format.

Making cheap bucks off crap. (now)

-A company to fund Pixar's films.
-A company that is contracted with Studio Ghibli to release their movies, unedited, over here to America.

A Love/Hate relationship, sometimes I love it sometimes I hate it

i always thought of it as family movies, until some one pointed out to me you can count on 1 hand since the beginning, just how many have BOTH parents in any film. dont know how i missed that one.

I take "family entertainment" though, to refer primarily to the fact that the content is appropriate for, and "targeted" towards, all ages. If you look at Walt's classic films, there is no excessive violence, explicitness, or foul languge. No world-weary cynicism that would chip away at one's innocence or inner-child. Yet, they are not geared exclusively to kids or tweens; the content has appeal to all age groups. Thus, the classic Walt stuff (and newer stuff like the DACs and Pixar films that honors this tradition) have broad appeal for all ages, making them things an entire "family" can enjoy together.

That's the same approach Walt used in the parks. They were not designed to be solely a collection of thrill rides or kiddie rides that would appeal primarily to one demographic, but a collection of magical experiences with broad appeal that families could generally enjoy together.

As far as one parent being missing in many of the stories, that is often because that is how the source material the films are based on was written. It's often a dramatic device that makes the protagonist easy to root for and sympathise with.

Mollyzkoubou wrote:Nowadays they're just a machine cranking out two-bit popstars and three-bit cartoons. I want the old pre-1995 Disney back.

Amen, I couldn't have said it any better.

Beast_enchantment wrote:Describe what Disney is to you in one sentence...

Disney has been sick for the past 13 years and unfortunately they have yet to find a cure.

Albert

"Disney is a diversion, which I am increasingly losing interest in."

Really, the loss of interest is down to Disney's promotion of Tween "comedies" (are any of them actually funny?), Pop "acts" and more, at the expense of it's extensive back catalogue of titles and treasures.

in response to david s over my point, the author of this thread asked what Disney means to ME in ONE sentence. telling me what you think what i said should mean, in several sentences is doing neither. i am not for political correctness or being shouted down from my views, so telling every one what i said as briefly as possible should mean, will not change the fact that my statement is correct. i also do not elevate anybody to be my judge by explaining myself in an argument to them as that is not my agenda (to argue) so shall not be drawn into one. simply, i answered the question asked for this thread, and that is the end of it for me, unless some one wants to start on my spelling, punctuation or whatever. now if you want something to get your teeth into with a good debate, how about we try religion, perhaps world war 3 could start here with anyone scouring these pages looking for an argument, difference of opinion or whatever they may want to call it. wait a moment, how about we let each other have a say on here without the fear of some one being offended over trivial things, aergo getting along together & actually having a fun time, leaving politics where they belong.

What disney USED to mean to me was innocent entertainent, I loved the fact that they never used to make films over a PG rating Until Pirates. (Ironicly, my favourite disney film is the one that ruined disney for me.)

They made all sorts of films above PG, they just didn't distribute them as Disney. They used Buena Vista, Touchstone, and their other companies for it.

Take Armageddon, for example.

But yeah, I agree with Escapay, 2099net, and others. I don't really like any of the new Disney stuff... I liked Pirates of the Caribbean and National Treasure, but those aren't typical Disney movies (you know, with all the singing and happy endings?)

They were going downhill ever since The Lion King. Though I did like movies like Mulan and Atlantis.

They have great films today (Enchanted,Pirates Of The Carribbean,Narnia and more) and Pixar films are great.
Thought today they seems to thinking of making more money (The Princess line for exmaple is the reason why we"re getting films like The Princess And The Frog,otherwise they whould have never made it) but their annyoing labels of films lately (Pirates Of The Carribbean and Pixar films for little boys,Fairies and Princesses for little girls,Mickey Mouse and Winnie The Pooh for preschoolers,Hannah Montana and High School Musical for those in 6th grate) is getting worse and should be stopped.
Anyway Disney for me is magical films.

waltmad wrote:in response to david s over my point, the author of this thread asked what Disney means to ME in ONE sentence. telling me what you think what i said should mean, in several sentences is doing neither. i am not for political correctness or being shouted down from my views, so telling every one what i said as briefly as possible should mean, will not change the fact that my statement is correct. i also do not elevate anybody to be my judge by explaining myself in an argument to them as that is not my agenda (to argue) so shall not be drawn into one. simply, i answered the question asked for this thread, and that is the end of it for me, unless some one wants to start on my spelling, punctuation or whatever. now if you want something to get your teeth into with a good debate, how about we try religion, perhaps world war 3 could start here with anyone scouring these pages looking for an argument, difference of opinion or whatever they may want to call it. wait a moment, how about we let each other have a say on here without the fear of some one being offended over trivial things, aergo getting along together & actually having a fun time, leaving politics where they belong.

I was not in any way arguing with you. I am sorry if you interpreted it that way. Other posters in this thread have refered to Walt Disney as creating "family entertainment", and I was just stating my opinion in agreement with them that by "family entertainment" they are not reffering to how many people in a family are depicted in a movie, but how many people in a family can watch the movie together.

Nor was I looking for an "argument" or trying to bring "politics" or "political correctness" into this thread.

Again, if you took it personally or as an "argument" I apologize, but that was not my intention. I was just expressing my opinion that Walt was creating family entertainment, the same way you expressed your opinion.