The Disney Essence: Fact or Fiction?

[Escapay]

Speculate.

albert

[SpringHeelJack]

It's real. Trust me on this. It's hidden in Uncle Walt's cryogenic mausoleum under Space Mountain. It's a pain to get to, though, because you have to get past, like, gatekeepers with riddles and mythical beasts and Gilbert Gottfried to find the location. I've tried countless times, but I usually run out screaming when Gilbert performs his one-man production of "The Mikado." That's why so many Disney movies today don't seem to have it, see?

Legend also tells that a hideous man-mouse hybrid with the head of Michael Eisner is the final boss, but I cannot comment on this.

[Disneyphile]

It's a new perfume, and it smells like a cinnamon churro.

[Atlantica]

Yes I feel there is a Disney essence ... but I'm not entirely sure how to describe it !

It's what separates them from other animation studios, and other theme parks .... its a quality that maybe defeats explanation ?

[Margos]

Yes I feel there is a Disney essence ... but I'm not entirely sure how to describe it !

It's what separates them from other animation studios, and other theme parks .... its a quality that maybe defeats explanation ?

Yeah, that's how I feel, too!

[Disney Duster]

OH, THANK YOU Atlantica and Margos. THANK YOU, THANK GOODNESS!!!

I feel like I should be saying this in private to Escapay, but...

The Disney essence is one real thing, it would have to be, because if you said it depended from person to person, then it wouldn't be a real thing, because it depends.

HERE is the reason the essence cannot "change depending who has it": Because if it can change into something else, it isn't what it was before. That would mean Disney would turn into something it wasn't before. That would mean it could turn anything, it could be anything. It would have no TRUE IDENTITY. It would keep becoming something else. We wouldn't have Disney anymore, we would have something else.

But many people can come up with different descriptions for it, or what it means to them. There may be many definitions that fit to it, but it's still all one thing. Like, there can be many different reviews that say many different things about one real movie, for instance.

[Duckburger]

I always believed there was, but then I stopped sniffing all the glue bottles in my arts and crafts class, so there goes that theory.

No, but in all seriousness, current Disney doesn't care whether something has the "Disney Essence". They'd put their name on a turd, if it could make them enough money. In fact they have, I believe it's called Miley Cyrus? Nah, just kidding. Sort of. Not really, though. Nevermind. Definitely kidding. No.

[yamiiguy]

No, there isn't and there never will be. Disney is a company, nothing else. Sure, it's made some of the best films ever and there's probably not a person in the world that doesn't know the word Disney (must check North Korea...) but at the heart of it Disney is a company.

[Super Aurora]

I think it's called Marketing. Ypu might want to check on that one. Disney Essence=Marketing.

This thread is a bait thread for Duster so Escapy can laugh at the delusional thinking process he release from his mind.

[Lazario]

What it really is is nostalgia. But... They made strong, heady fantasy films and that kind of thing lends itself well to a magical nostalgia haze. The slowness to Bambi and Fantasia (many other examples but these two should spring first to anyone's mind), the pretty colors, the sweeping music with chanting choruses, scenes of fairies and different beings who make magic happen. All those things help create an essence. But I call it magic. It feels like atmopshere, though.

[Chernabog_Rocks]

I think someone's been snorting too much Disney Essence again.


Disney Essence is obviously a drug that results in many of the other Poll choices.

[Wonderlicious]

I'd say that the "Disney essence" is a form of powerful nostalgia, which leads to heavy and somewhat demanding/restrictive expectations. It will depend on what one expects from Disney; for example, a fan of Vault Disney would probably be more partial to saying the live-action films of the 60s and 70s, whereas Disneyland aficionados would go straight for the theme parks, but I'll focus on the most regular form of "Disney essence", which has to do with fantasy and musicals. Disney has always been associated with fairy tales and fantasy, but I think that, at least for my generation (children born sometime in the 80s or early 90s - a large basis of the current adult Disney fan base), the impact of The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin really helped shape their "Disney essence". These were many of my generation's first movies, they came out in reasonably rapid succession, and they helped form an image of what a Disney film should be: Broadway-style musicals, pretty much exclusively based on fairy tales and classic stories, featuring princes and princesses. Coupled with established Disney imagery from past decades (made prominent in their lives by flashy first-time video releases), and the "Disney essence" evokes images of castles, fairies, royals and romance, all set to the tune of "When You Wish Upon A Star" or "A Whole New World".

One can't deny that the word Disney probably evokes such thoughts to nearly all of us, but I think that some people have become so obsessed with this "Disney essence" as being what Disney really is about, that they have become quite narrow-minded with it, unable to accept anything that isn't a lot like any of the 80s/90s musicals. I can understand their disdain for the DTV sequels (though there have been far worse films, I believe that they were/are for the most part simply childish cash-ins and overall just not all that great), but I feel that much of the hatred from these fundamentalist fans for the likes of Home on the Range, Treasure Planet and Lilo and Stitch is based around their expectations from their pre-conceived notions of what a Disney film should be, which is generally lifted from what was prominent to them as a child.

They can easily make claims that a Disney film shouldn't have potty humour, and that Home on the Range fails because of this, while they don't make objections to any of the scatology in The Lion King, or to Geppetto's spanking clock in Pinocchio. They can easily say that Walt wouldn't approve of a "violent" sci-fi film like Treasure Planet or Lilo and Stitch, when one of Walt's biggest triumphs was 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, and one of the prominent sections of Disneyland is Tomorrowland, a place concerning science fiction and the future (and of course, one shouldn't assume how Walt would have felt, since we never knew him). They are essentially using the "Disney essence" as a façade for their bias, and it comes across as narrow-minded. Nobody would go to see Warner Brothers movies because they're made by Warner Brothers, or go to see a Paramount film as they're a huge fan of the Paramount studio, so it should be the same for Disney. One should really judge a Disney film more for being what it is as a film, and not because of what it's not.

[Goliath]

Is there such a thing like 'Disney essence'? Hard to say, but I believe there is. It's hard to define exactly what it is, but it isn't "nostalgia". That's a lazy, and somewhat degrading, explanation. The 'Disney essence' can be found in many of Disney's (animated) classic films or cartoon shorts.

What makes the shorts typically 'Disney' is that they tell stories and the gags spring from the story and characters; meaning the gags are a direct result of the way the story evolves and how the characters are. To contrast: in the Looney Tunes cartoon shorts, gags spring from placing two characters against each other and let them have a conflict. That's the basic plot of any Looney Tunes short. I'm not saying that's bad or unfunny, but it's very different from Disney. Disney uses stories and adds gags to them to make them funnier. Warner Bros. is about gags, and coming up with a frame to place the gags in. Disney is about telling a story and then try to make it as funny as possible. (Yes, I know this doesn't go for the very early black-and-white Mickey cartoons, but they evolved soon enough.)

The same goes for Disney's animated feature films. It's the story and characters that count. Most other animated films (the Shrek franchise, for example, or Ice Age) are all about the gags and the pop-culture references. But Walt Disney always felt story was most imprtant. He also wanted the films to be realistic, not 'just cartoons'. Some people (like animation historian Michael Barrier) feel this was a mistake, because the animation stopped being 'cartoony' or 'imaginative' and it started to look like rotoscoping (the human characters). But Disney kept the essence of combining true heart and warmth with well rounded characters (yes, there were definitly good vs evil battles, but still...) and most of all, a strong story. Another important, typical 'Disney thing' is that the music always had to move the movie forward.

Now, not all Disney films have that 'Disney essence'. All the direct-to-dvd sequels don't have them. They're made just for the quick money; not because the stories needed to be told. What's on Disney Channel doesn't have it. A lot of Disney's animated tv series don't have it, because they tried to copy Nickelodeon or Cartoon Network and forgot what made Disney unique. Even some Disney Classics don't have 'the Disney essence'. I'm thinking of Home on the Range, The Princess and the Frog, The Aristocats, The Sword in the Stone, Saludos Amigos and The Three Caballeros, Robin Hood etc.

Clear examples of films that do have the 'Disney essence': Lady and the Tramp, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, The Little Mermaid, The Jungle Book, Lilo & Stitch, The Rescuers. Mary Poppins, Pinocchio.

[Flanger-Hanger]

Wondy, you've said it all. What a shame that the "millennials" batch of current Disney fans you mention in your post (born between '85 and '95) will likely miss out on some of Disney's best stuff (20,000 Leagues, Swiss Family Robinson, The Rocketeer*) because it contradicts with their opinion of what "Disney" should be.

* Well, IMO

Edit: Do people believe that the "Disney essence" extends to their live action product, outside of Mary Poppins for example?

[Lazario]

Is there such a thing like 'Disney essence'? Hard to say, but I believe there is. It's hard to define exactly what it is, but it isn't "nostalgia". That's a lazy, and somewhat degrading, explanation.

Gee, I didn't mean it that way. (Though I have been known to be lazy)


Again, I'm a bit rusty on The Aristocats, but I'd say the original Disney essence (I still just call it magic- lack of a better phrase) died somewhere around 1970. Or, shall we say- it changed form? The greatest moments from 1937 to 1986 all have their own special, unique power I think- somewhat apart from Disney and their essence. I say this because movies to come later may have borrowed them or tried to copy pieces but they never could (Beauty and the Beast took a moment from Great Mouse Detective's "World's Greatest Criminal Mind" - you know which one, and God we all know there are many dozens of examples of the same between other movies).

But here's one for you, G - what separates the Disney essence from other animated films? What made the Disney essence it's own essence and no one else's? It couldn't be an ideal thought or philosophy.

Edit: Do people believe that the "Disney essence" extends to their live action product, outside of Mary Poppins for example?

Not sure this was for everyone, but... I do. I've never liked westerns or those farmer type families-in-cabin movies / shows, but I loved Old Yeller. Hitchcock's older (pre-Birds) movies bore me to tears, but I adore The Moon-Spinners. I can still feel that Parent Trap mood. It's a real mood. They didn't just point a camera and shoot- they caught a kind of character of the places (at least on the California side, if not the Boston scenes).

[Goliath]

Again, I'm a bit rusty on The Aristocats, but I'd say the original Disney essence (I still just call it magic- lack of a better phrase) died somewhere around 1970. Or, shall we say- it changed form?

I think films like The Aristocats, Robin Hood and The Fox and the Hound tried too hard to copy Walt's formula, and failed because of it --the same way other companies fail when they try to copy Disney, instead of coming up with their own unique ideas. The Black Cauldron failed because it tried too hard to be different. It's a fine line to walk. But Disney did succeed in capturing the 'Disney essence' of story, characters, humor and drama with films like The Rescuers, The Little Mermaid and Lilo & Stitch.

But here's one for you, G - what separates the Disney essence from other animated films? What made the Disney essence it's own essence and no one else's? It couldn't be an ideal thought or philosophy.

I thought I explaind that already, but maybe I wasn't clear enough. It's the focus on story and character above anything else. Write a story that needs to be told and try to make it as funny as possible, without compromising the integrity of the story. Most studio's do it the other way: they put the gags before story. Ironically, Pixar is the one studio nowadays that has the 'Disney essence' --Disney itself didn't have it since Lilo & Stitch. Princess and the Frog didn't have the 'essence', because it was a shallow imitation of their own 1990's work.

I've seen too few live-action Disney films to judge about them, but the general impression I have from their films from the 1950's, 60's and 70's is that they're very corny and have not stood the test of time at all.

[Escapay]

I feel like I should be saying this in private to Escapay, but...

Why? I made a thread because I wanted to know everyone's answer, not just yours.

This thread is a bait thread for Duster

No, it's not.

I created the thread to learn of everyone else's thoughts on the "essence" as well as if it's an idea that can exist beyond the Disney fandom (and the limited perceptions of what Disney fandom is). Is "Disney Essence" really just a fan construct that they use to say why one film is better than another (simply because of the name or studio) or is it a legitimate style and technique only found in Disney films?

Like the Lubitsch Touch or the Hitchcock Style, except expanding to the entire studio rather than one director. I want to see other members' thoughts on whether or not the "Disney Essence" is really a style of filmmaking exclusive to the studio (as well as a style of filmmaking that is imitated by "wannabe" studios) or is it just a fan-created buzzword that is misused to say "This is MY idea of true Disney, if you have a different one, you're not really a Disney fan!" Or, as one of the options suggested, was it something limited solely to films made during Walt's lifetime and with his input?

If one thing's for sure, there will never be a singular fan-agreed definition on "Disney Essence", no matter how ardently any fan believes their definition is the right one. So it's interesting to read the different ideas of what "Disney Essence" is and drawing one's own conclusions.

I really like Wondy's post. He gets a pink elephant.



And Wire Hanger gets Mickey Mouse Cookies for mentioning The Rocketeer.



albert

[Elladorine]

Where may I purchase this mysterious (and undoubtedly over-priced) perfume at? It would be perfect to wear while hitting the latest Disney film at the theater. The scent is light, right? It won't ruin my appetite for popcorn and Milk Buds, will it?

[Escapay]

Where may I purchase this mysterious (and undoubtedly over-priced) perfume at? It would be perfect to wear while hitting the latest Disney film at the theater. The scent is light, right? It won't ruin my appetite for popcorn and Milk Buds, will it?

It's actually a reasonable price, $15 a bottle. But it's only available in the year 1997, so if you want it, you'll need a time machine to get it. Wilbur Robinson is charging $75 per person for rides to 1997. But the in-flight popcorn and Milk Buds are complimentary! And that's good because popcorn and Milk Buds have no adverse affects when consumed whilst wearing Disney Essence.

The only caveat is people can only wear Disney Essence when watching a Disney movie. If they try watching a non-Disney movie whilst wearing Disney Essence, they'll hate the non-Disney movie.

Other studios have banded together to try to create their own essence perfumes, but failed miserably because they didn't hire a middle-aged mustached guy to appear on television in the 1950s and 60s.

albert

[DisneyJedi]

In a way, yes. I do believe that Disney Essence does exist, in most of their movies.

Some movies, however, are somewhat lacking of this essence you speak of. However, I really don't see how Princess and the Frog didn't have it. Okay, perhaps I'm being a little biased about it, but as a person who grew up watching Disney's 90s films, I really thought PatF stuck out among most of the mediocre Disney stuff, save for Bolt and Enchanted; even if the latter had only 10 minutes of animation. Mainly because it made me feel like a kid again, and it reminded me of the Renaissance films. So... yeah. And by the way, I'm not gonna let you get to me this time, Goliath.

But yeah; that Disney Essence could exist. Disney just needs to prove themselves by giving their films solid stories, lovable characters and (this part being optional) spectacular songs, including showstoppers. Of course, I believe that Bolt and PatF did put Disney on the right track again with what I mentioned. I can only hope that Tangled will help further Disney down the right path that it has begun to go back down.