DVDizzy Forum

This seemed too big an issue to be stuck in the million-page Tangled thread. UD Member Tangled posted this link in the Tangled Thread:

After Tangled, Disney Animation is closing the book on fairy tales

Your thoughts?

Personally, I'm not too saddened by the news. If The Princess and the Frog and the name change and marketing strategy of Tangled are any indication, I'd rather they let the genre rest for a bit and let it return when they know how to handle the stories better and appeal to a mass audience, not just a specific demographic. There is more to the Disney name than "fairy tale", so it's not like this is a death knell for Disney animation. Of the 49 animated features they made (50 if you count Dinosaur), only 7 can actually be considered fairy tales anyway (as in, their storytelling roots/elements directly relate to fairy tales, or the tale itself is at least in the Aarne-Thompson classification system).

Besides, Lasseter won't be in charge of WDAS forever. Surely the next regime will have different plans for the studio.

albert

The end of the Shrek series didn't have to make fairy tales no longer 'in'.

(I know there's a Puss in Boots movie coming next year. )

Other than the price tag for Tangled ($260 million???), they're making a bigger deal out of this than it needs to be.

This is certainly not the first time Disney has taken a break from fairy tales. They had to for their package features during the 1940's. Their most famous break was from 1959 to 1989, thanks to the initial underperformance of Sleeping Beauty and the shrinking animation market during that period. Their last break was in an attempt to build up on the success of their Renaissance movies without repeating every single step. Really, their recent challenge to find a broader audience has been going on for at least the past decade.

They'll do fine as long as they commit to innovative (or at the very least, entertaining) storytelling.

What?! $260 million to make Tangled?! Where'd you get THAT info?!

By the way, one thing I'd like to add, if Michael Eisner hadn't come work for the company, Disney wouldn't be in such a damn funk! It's his fault Disney's a piggy bank and it's HIS fault for global warming!

Well, that kinda sucks. But what has more of wider appeal than a fairytale?!?! I mean really, we had to wait since Mulan (which isn't quite a fairytale, but I'll count it) until Enchanted....

I would still love to see The Snow Queen and of course, that darn Enchanted sequel!

Poody wrote:Well, that kinda sucks. But what has more of wider appeal than a fairytale?!?! I mean really, we had to wait since Mulan (which isn't quite a fairytale, but I'll count it) until Enchanted....

I would still love to see The Snow Queen and of course, that darn Enchanted sequel!

They had better NOT scrap the Enchanted sequel!!

If only Roy were still around....

Escapay wrote: There is more to the Disney name than "fairy tale", so it's not like this is a death knell for Disney animation. Of the 49 animated features they made (50 if you count Dinosaur), only 7 can actually be considered fairy tales anyway (as in, their storytelling roots/elements directly relate to fairy tales, or the tale itself is at least in the Aarne-Thompson classification system).

1. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
2. Cinderella
3. Sleeping Beauty
4. The Little Mermaid
5. Beauty and the Beast
6. Aladdin
7. The Princess and the Frog
8. Tangled

???

Ok, TLM is a literary Fairy Tale, but come on!

BTT: I'm very excited for Rapunzel, because I REALLY believe, this movie will be great. Nevertheless, I'm happy Disney is trying to find a new, fresh route and new kinds of story telling. I understand why many people are bored by the safe (repetetive) way Disney used the whole 90's, by recycling one recipe for success more and more. Let's hope the Pratchett-rumour is true and that Disney is really trying to make things different than the last 70 years.

It seems to me that it's not-so-much a break with fairy tales as it is princess stories. Bad/good move, I can't say.

And if Tangled is a huge success, the next movie put into production will be a fairy tale.

But if that is not the case, then I'm fine. These couple of years Disney's almost been relying on fairy tales as a crutch and it's time for them to get over that. It's damaged the brand badly.

DisneyJedi wrote:By the way, one thing I'd like to add, if Michael Eisner hadn't come work for the company, Disney wouldn't be in such a damn funk! It's his fault Disney's a piggy bank and it's HIS fault for global warming!

Really?

I'm kind of torn about this. As much as I like animation films like Up and How to Train Your Dragon, I already feel as if they have a formula. The humor in CG animation has been the same ever since Shrek has come out.. and while that's funny, it's already getting old. Not to say I think Disney will only being doing films like that, but I hope that isn't where everything is going. Disney's movies have lost that "classical" feel and been replaced with quick humor and sassy sidekicks. I hope there will be a time sooner rather than later that Disney can return to a more serious film with short bursts of comic relief. And of course, make a really nice happy ending princess flick.

I'm glad that this is the case. We've already had three fairy tale/princess movies in the last four years (Enchanted, Frog and Tangled) so I think it's time to take a break. There's never been a time where four fairy tale movies were produced roughly one year after another in Disney history anyway.

Article wrote:Indeed, Catmull and Lasseter killed two other fairy tale movies that had been in development, "The Snow Queen" and "Jack and the Beanstalk."

I hate them.

I can understand wanting to do other things for a change (I've loved many Disney films that aren't fairy tales), but to nix movies just because they happen to be fairy tales? Yes, that pisses me off a little. Especially Snow Queen.

Also, is it just me, or is Reboot Ralph a way worse name than Joe Jump?

Article wrote:In an effort to give the Rapunzel story a more contemporary feel, Catmull and Lasseter pushed the reset button in 2008 and brought in a new directing duo who had both worked on Disney's animated movie "Bolt." The Rapunzel film underwent a "total restart," Catmull said: All the prior work was scrapped and the movie was reconceived as a musical with five songs by Disney's veteran, multiple-Oscar-winning composer Alan Menken.

The only surviving elements, Catmull said, were "the hair, the tower and Rapunzel."

An animated musical is "fresh" and "contemporary"? Wasn't that what the article just said they were trying to get out of? Quite a creative reset for Rapunzel that was, then.

Article wrote:Disney instructed Menken to depart from the heavy Broadway musical-type scoring he made famous in "The Little Mermaid" and "Beauty and the Beast." So the composer borrowed from leaner singer-songwriters of the late 1960s, including Joni Mitchell.

So that must be why the song reviews haven't been so great. Thanks again.

Article wrote:Catmull acknowledges that Disney has a lot riding on the success of "Tangled." The film faces several challenges, not the least of which is that it opens five days after what is expected to be the biggest family event movie of the season, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1." The stakes are particularly high for "Tangled," which by some estimates cost more than $260 million to produce, including six years of development costs.

"On an emotional and morale level," Catmull said. "We really want this to do well and really want the public to like it."

Really? Really?

I know it's not a very reliable source, but Rotten Tomatoes has Tangled listed with 100% FRESH. It's guaranteed to change when it actually comes out, but it's good news, even if it's only 7 people.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/tangled/

Disney's Fairy Tales

1. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
2. Pinocchio
3. Cinderella
4. Sleeping Beauty
5. The Little Mermaid
6. Beauty and the Beast
7. Aladdin
8. The Princess and the Frog
9. Tangled

Pinocchio actually belongs on there more than The Princess and the Frog, which is based on the story "The Frog Princess" by E.D. Baker, not directly from the fairy tale "The Frog Prince". It's more like a distant cousin to the fairy tale. I almost feel PatF should be classified more with Enchanted than the classic fairy tale line-up.

$260 Million? That's a ridiculously long development full of sidetracks for you...

I'd class myself as reasonably indifferent to the whole thing. As SillySymphony stated, I don't think that we'll be seeing so much a break from fairy tales than we are from princess stories; everybody is getting the two mixed up, I feel. And the article seems to have got two more things wrong concerning the cancellation of the two fairy tale films; The Snow Queen, although shelved in part due to having feminine connotations, has supposedly had ridiculous story problems, and Jack and the Beanstalk was actually shelved (according to a blog Blue Sky Disney) because another studio is making a film version of Jack the Giant Killer. Also, I would say that Winnie the Pooh is closer in various ways to Tangled and The Princess and the Frog than to Reboot Ralph in that it's a musical and a sort of dip back into classic Disney. What am I saying? Well, basically, that article doesn't know completely what it's talking about, so take some of it with a pinch of salt.

Anyway, I agree that Disney basically needs to avoid the pretty princess stories for a while (a good five or ten years, anyway). Granted, there aren't many truly popular fairy tales left that feature princesses in primary protagonist roles, and I've always wished that Disney would actually tackle some of the fairy tales and classic fantasy stories not featuring princesses and royalty (since there's a good deal of interesting stories still left untapped, basically). Disney should also use this moment as an excuse to gradually retire the Princess merchandising line, which really undermines a lot of the artistic integrity of Disney. I don't in theory mind them putting out merchandise relating to the films or the princesses, but packaging and selling the characters almost as a toy line is detrimental to Disney's image and to the reputation of the films considered, especially when so much of it is so generic and tacky. With the fiasco surrounding the profitability of The Princess and the Frog and the whole Tangled name change and marketing campaign, I think that it can be confirmed that Disney needs to pause when it comes to the whole Disney Princess connotations. It's depressing that they've decided to make this statement in the first place, as it makes them look like a factory and not an actual studio; when Sleeping Beauty came out and didn't set the world on fire, did Walt make an official statement saying that the studio would only make certain types of animated films?

Needless to say, I hope that Disney doesn't continue to brand itself as a factory specialising in mass-audience pap, as I really hope they've learnt the errors of their way. I also hope that this isn't an excuse to stop making musicals and to exclude original songs, what with the connotations of musical and "classic Disney". And featuring fantasy, even that of the fairy tale type, should always remain welcome. Fairy tale and fable should not be synonyms for princess story; Pinocchio, Peter Pan, Bambi, The Jungle Book and many more are examples of classic stories with lots of universal appeal with no tiara in sight. The Disney studios should just make excellent films and not try and ostracise their audience by attaching it to a toy label the moment it comes out.

DancingCrab wrote:Pinocchio actually belongs on there more than The Princess and the Frog, which is based on the story "The Frog Princess" by E.D. Baker, not directly from the fairy tale "The Frog Prince". It's more like a distant cousin to the fairy tale. I almost feel PatF should be classified more with Enchanted than the classic fairy tale line-up.

Although I'd put Pinocchio in the fairy tale genre (along with Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland, for that matter), do remember that the original story is not a traditional folk-based short story but an actual novel. And The Frog Princess (the book) is indeed a version of the traditional tale, so including The Princess and the Frog on such a list is fine by my standards. I can see why you compared it to the likes of Enchanted (especially since the characters are aware of the fact that the original fairy tale exists).

Oh, and one could consider Chicken Little to be a fairy tale, depending on what your point of view is.

Films and genres do run a course. They may come back later because someone has a fresh take on it...but we don't have any other musicals or fairy tales lined up.

Disney did bring back the pirate genre (and are pretty much the only ones doing that...?)...and surely they'll make more fairy-tale films (whether based on existing or new stories) in the future...As I'm typing this, I reread the above quote, and it just hit me that it says musicals. But Winnie the Pooh is a musical. While I do enjoy the DACs that aren't musicals, the vast majority are musicals, and I can't imagine Disney movies that aren't musicals. Or are they defining musical as having 7+ songs? Because, while the Pixar films aren't musicals, some of them do have a few songs in them...???

Is Disney trying to be too boy-centric now? Bolt, Reboot Ralph, Pixar? The only female I can think of that is "in charge" at all is Darla Anderson...they need more women. It's a shame Brenda Chapman is gone.

If you say to somebody, 'You should be doing fairy tales,' it's like saying, 'Don't be risky.'

That's bull. You can be safe with any story, and you can push the envelope with any story. I think that they should be putting their own spin on existing stories, for movies that will use existing stories. Like with any of their fairy tales, though, they put their own spin on them. It's a goal of mine to do, but I haven't gotten far, to read stories that the Disney films are based on. I've read the fairy tales and The Hunchback of Notre Dame...but surely for every single story that Disney has adapted, they've put their own spin on it. I think that making Flynn a thief, for example, or making Tiana a waitress with a dream, have been great modern spins that break away from the past. They can continue doing that...

By the time they're 5 or 6, they're not interested in being princess.

I'm 25, and I still want to be a princess...

wafflenugget, in the [i]Tangled[/i] thread wrote:I think it's silly that they're deciding to close the door on fairy tale adaptations. If they have a great story, they should go with it regardless of whether it's a fairy tale or not.

I completely agree. Were they having story problems with The Snow Queen, or they just didn't want a female-centric story again? Do John Lasseter and friends hate women?! I mean, have some stories with male leads, have some stories with female leads. Will we not have any films with females in the lead role anymore, or until their moratorium on fairy tales ends??????????? Wait and see, I say.

What if other studios start making "princess musicals" and then Disney jumps on that bandwagon???

RyGuy, in the [i]Tangled[/i] thread wrote:As of late, Disney seems to make movies that are relatable to just one demographic

I think that Disney is at least marketing films that way. I mean, Bolt has something for everyone, as does Treasure Planet, as does The Princess and the Frog. I think people just need to give the films a chance and not write them off as "girl films" or "boy films".

singerguy04, in the [i]Tangled[/i] thread wrote:My HUGE disappointment is that the idea of a musical seems to only be attached to fairy tales. Since when did a musical have that kind of limitation?...Why not keep musicals alive? IMO, it's something that sets Disney apart from Dreamworks and Pixar completely.

I agree. There are so many non-fairy tale musicals in the DAC canon...everything from Pinocchio, Dumbo, and Bambi to 101 Dalmatians, The Sword in the Stone, The Jungle Book, The Aristocats, to The Great Mouse Detective and Oliver and Company, to The Lion King, Hercules, Mulan, and Tarzan, to Brother Bear and Home on the Range!!! I mean, Disney has a huge tradition of non-fairy tale musicals! Why stop now!!!!!?????!!!!

[quote="Disney's Divinity, from the Tangled thread"[/quote]On the one hand, I want Tangled to do well, just because it's Disney. But I have a feeling that if it does, we'll get a huge dose of Lasseter smugness and Pixar superiority about how they saved Disney animation. Topped with a "3D must just sell better" mind-set[/quote]
Lasseter's always smug, I feel. :/ And Pixar always feels superior, but the public fuels that one. Ugh. I feel the same way. I want Tangled to do well, because we know by now that it's an excellent film, but, and the traditional animaition lover in me can't help but feel this way, the suits will think that it's success (if it is successful) will be based on the fact that it's a CG film... :/

And as far as the budget goes, I don't know what the budget is...the $80 million being thrown around, maybe that's just on since it's been Tangled??? I mean, this film has been in some form of production for over a decade!!! Surely the $260 million or whatever figure is more accurate for the whole length of being in development, since its Rapunzel Unbraided days...?

SillySymphony wrote:It seems to me that it's not-so-much a break with fairy tales as it is princess stories. Bad/good move, I can't say.

I just hope it's not a break in love stories...I mean, you don't need a fairy tale to have a love story, and Disney has some of the best love stories...

"By the time they're 5 or 6, they're not interested in being princesses," said Dafna Lemish, chairwoman of the radio and TV department at Southern Illinois University and an expert in the role of media in children's lives. "They're interested in being hot, in being cool. Clearly, they see this is what society values." . . . I know this wasn't said by anyone at Disney, but this is the mentality that bothers me the most.

I think it's fine that Disney's taking a break from fairy tales. Or is it "princess" movies in disguise? But it's sad they obviously have so little faith in the film they're currently releasing and feel the need to basically announce, "don't worry guys, this is the last one, we promise."

On one hand I think this is sad news but on the other it's not.

I would rather have non-fairy tale movie than one that makes fun of itself.

I do think they need to give Disney princesses a rest for a while. We don't need a new Disney princess every year.

I don't think it's sad at all. Disney needs to show that they too can make great movies, without being based on fairy tales and/or made into musicals. Handdrawn movies can be great, but the audiences won't see that if they keep seeing the same old stuff over and over again.