This is going to be fun.
Neal wrote:Stitch was more of a wild-child character than we'd seen before, but how is it un-Disney?
Easy. This destructive, rude, cursing in alien language, fish-killing, wacky alien in a wacky violent sci-fi film that even got edited to be family friendly in other countries that, woah, suddenly "becomes good" and "Disney" with the weird rude little girl was not something Walt would have wanted or approved of. This whole alien thing felt
alien to Disney, and it felt alien to me as a Disney film.
Neal wrote:It covered all the core Disney story elements. Absent parents? Check. Young, misfit boy/girl trying to find themselves? Check. Themes of familial bonding? Check. Sanders took the Disney themes and applied them to his own animation sensibilities. It was a break from the Disney formula, but not from the core of a true Disney animated film. Just because it wasn't a fairy tale, fantasy or princess movie doesn't make it so un-Disney.
I see, so if it crosses off a check-list, it must have what it takes, huh? Forget about the spirit of Disney and capturing something that only Disney can capture because it's hard to capture.
I think lots of movies don't have to be fairy tales to be Disney. Dumbo, Bambi, 101 Dalmatians, Lion King. But I couldn't imagine Walt sitting through Lilo & Stitch and approving.
Neal wrote:Frankly, I like when Disney is a little more avant garde, a little different. The problem is that Disney can be pigeon-holed. Should an animation studio really be able to be defined by its own name? "That's so Disney" ... "That's so un-Disney!"
Avant garde is definately not what Lilo & Stitch was. Avant Garde was something more like Fantasia and Sleeping Beauty, or even all the earliest Disney features, or Alice in Wonderland or even the "Sing Sweet Nightingale" or "So This is Love" scenes in Cinderella.
And yea, you should be able to say "that's so Disney" or "that's un-Disney". Otherwise
it could be any other studio. Is that what you want?
Neal wrote:Pixar and Studio Ghibli - while animation styles and core themes remain constant - each new film is very different in characters, set-up, etc. Yamadas is scores different than Totoro. Up is leagues different than Cars.
Haven't seen them all, but from what I have seen there seems to be a feel that all those films maintain. Not everyone can tell, but discerning people look and say "that's Miyazaki" or "that's Pixar".
Neal wrote:I am looking forward to "Reboot Ralph" and hope a project like "Fraidy Cat" is revived. Disney needs to keep re-inventing itself to stay relevant but not lose sight of its core values to remain familiar. In the 70's/80's animators at WDFA kept asking "What would Walt do?" and tried to make "Robin Hood" "The AristoCats" etc. films that Walt would have made. The result of so much self-doubt and trying to live in the past? The films "Walt would have made" ended up stale - a little too familiar.
HAHA! The films that were most Disney were actually all the Renaissance ones, based on fairy tales or what is essentially Bambi with lions, that also had to do with royalty and the magic of the stars. Walt even said if he ever went back to animation he wanted to do Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid. That's what Walt wanted, and that's what they did, and they were the biggest hits for Disney after so long!
Neal wrote:There is a tenuous line between familiar and too familiar that animators and story writers struggle with. You have to capture the Disney essence to the extent someone would recognize it as a Disney film. (And when other films, such as "Anastasia" effectively capture this essence, they are forever mis-labeled as a Disney film.) However, rely too much on the essence and the film will come off formulaic. I believe Stitch built on the Disney essence quite well.
Only undiscerning people like the mass public can't tell that films like Anastasia isn't Disney. The Disney company shouldn't be too concerned with those, they aren't meant to please the least discerning of people, because when you do, you make trailers like the one for Tangled, and the name Tangled. And that's not what Disney really is.
The Disney essence can really only be captured by those trying to be Disney, drawing a Disney character or making something new they want to be Disney. If you don't believe that, whatever, keep calling yourself a Disney fan with that belief that goes against Walt's.
Neal wrote:Disney Animation is the house Walt built, but look at his own projects - Snow White, Dumbo, Fantasia, Pinocchio - his first four out of the gate all quite different from one another. Why, then, should today Disney be so stuck on princess films and fairy tales? It should not. Like Walt 70 years ago - each film should be a departure from the last - preserving core themes and family friendliness, but at the same time trying to offer a completely original story and a different style of animation.
Actually, those films are all about magic. The fairy tale magic mirror and potions, the magic black feather, the scorcerer and
fairies and more, and the Blue
Fairy. And Bambi's about royalty, princes and such.
Neal wrote:Stitch was a refreshing Disney movie. And yes, it was DISNEY. It may have been a little weirder than other Disney films, a little snappier, but it preserved the core Disney themes and that's what matters.
I don't think so! And it is more likely that Walt would think so, either. Or if it did preserve the
themes it didn't preserve the essence, spirit, or feeling of what is really Disney. The Disney magic. That's what Walt was about, making all those magical films.
for Neal. Excellent post.