DVDizzy Forum

I have been thinking about this a lot lately.

When I watched the Muppets movie from 2011 today, I realized how much impact it has when a character actually sings his heart out. The song "muppet or man" for example. I feel the same way about all the DAC's where the characters actually sing a beautiful song.

The classics where the characters actually sing, always seem to be more successful too (Snow White, Cinderella, The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, Aladdin)

compared to the ones where the characters don't sing beautiful songs, but only use songs as background music/voice overs:

the Rescuers, Tarzan, Brother bear, Lilo & Stitch, Home on the range, The emperor's new groove, Atlantis, treasure planet, etc.

They stopped with singing characters after Mulan for almost 10 years, until TPATF and Tangled.
And right away those films were more successful than any of the films in the 10 years before.

For example, I would have loved if Tarzan or Brother Bear had some good character songs, instead of the pop-songs in the background. I mean, if Aladdin was made today, would they use the pop version of "a whole new world" in the background too, and would we just see the characters not moving their mouths, because they assume that that is a better approach? As for Tarzan, a song as "Strangers like me" would work much better is it was sung by Tarzan himself.

Music is a key element of any film, and I think that songs in particular can add a certain extra dimension to storytelling. That said, not every film has to be a full-out musical, in my opinion. I think that singing characters and anonymous background singers work well depending on the context. Character-specific songs work best generally speaking when sung by the character. "Strangers Like Me" would have worked better if it were Tarzan who was singing and not Phil Collins. However, sometimes songs that relate to a character but aren't any characters' voice can work well with an anonymous singer singing it. Examples that spring to mind here would be "Someone's Waiting For You" from The Rescuers or, for a non-Disney example, "Optimistic Voices" from The Wizard of Oz. If it has something related to the story but isn't really character-specific, then background singing can work really well. Examples would include "Little April Shower" (describing a sensation), "You've Got a Friend in Me" (a general summary of the film's theme) and a lot of the Hawaiian music from Lilo and Stitch (helping build a mood for the area).

Yes, you are right. "Someone's waiting for you" works very well.
Some films contain both, for example the Lion King, Circle of life is such a song, while other songs are sung by the characters.

I guess the point is, why didn't they have character songs for almost 10 years after Mulan, while they did use the songs in the film. Why did they make the choice of not having the character sing it, while it clearly would have worked better in many cases. "When somebody loved me" is another example.

Marky_198 wrote:I guess the point is, why didn't they have character songs for almost 10 year after Mulan, while they did use the songs in the film. Why did they make the choice of not having the character sing it, while it clearly would have worked better in many cases. "When somebody loved me" is another example.

I suppose it was simply because the animated musical based on the Menken/Ashman model had basically been replicated so much (by Disney themselves and by other studios) that there was some real pressure to move away from it. As a result, different types of stories were told (i.e. a variety of original stories as opposed to adaptations of classic stories and legends which all featured strong elements of romance), and the songs were used as in most live-action films (i.e. as incidental music, end credit music).

Pocahontas, The Princess and the Frog, Hunchback and Hercules had characters singing 'beautiful songs' and they weren't nearly as profitable as several non-musical features like One Hundred and Hone Dalmatians, Tarzan or Lilo & Stitch. Your logic is silly.

Audiences and critics just care whether the film is good or not. Characters singing songs has little to do with that.

I think Disney is pretty good at deciding whether the movie should have singing or be sung over.
Personally, I couldn't really see Tarzan as an all out musical; it works as it is, with the music used in the way it was. A few (two I think?) songs sung on screen then the rest by Phil Collins. Works perfectly that way. Though I do have to admit I do not care for his music throughout the movie, along with Brother Bear. The Rescuers was a lovely way to do it; such melancholy songs suited the pitch of the film; it could have bordered on twee to have Penny singing to herself when she was alone; it worked better as her inner thoughts in narration.

I think the romance between Tarzan and Jane doesn't work at all in the film, because they miss a special moment together. In the way the film is now, it's not very logical that she decides to stay with him forever.
Basically, they miss a song together And also the song "stangers like me" should have been sung by Tarzan. I think Disney does it right most of the time, but definitely not in this film.

PatrickvD wrote:Pocahontas, The Princess and the Frog, Hunchback and Hercules had characters singing 'beautiful songs' and they weren't nearly as profitable as several non-musical features like One Hundred and Hone Dalmatians, Tarzan or Lilo & Stitch. Your logic is silly.
.

Pocahontas and Hunchback were much more profitable than 101 Dalmatians and Lilo & Stitch.

Pocahontas: $346,079,773
Hunchback: $325,338,851

Lilo & Stitch: $273,144,151
101 Dalmatians: $215,880,014

Marky_198 wrote:I think the romance between Tarzan and Jane doesn't work at all in the film, because they miss a special moment together.

So what you're saying is, you haven't seen the film...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnYNlzsESD8[/youtube]

Marky_198 wrote:Pocahontas and Hunchback were much more profitable than 101 Dalmatians and Lilo & Stitch.

Pocahontas: $346,079,773
Hunchback: $325,338,851

Lilo & Stitch: $273,144,151
101 Dalmatians: $215,880,014

You do realize 101 Dalmatians was made for $4 million, right? That was 1961. Lilo and 101 Dalmatians were merchandise monsters for Disney. Stitch is still a big merchandise character. Both films have had remakes, sequels, spinoffs, TV shows etc etc etc. Other than a pre-planned DTV sequel, Disney never invested further in Pocahontas or Hunchback.

Pocahontas as a character may have found a second life through the Disney princess franchise, but neither it nor Hunchback compare to the financial success of 101 Dalmatians or Lilo & Stitch. Anyone can google Box Office grosses, but not everyone can read and or understand them. The key-word is merchandise and you can't tell from Box Office receipts.

PatrickvD wrote: So what you're saying is, you haven't seen the film...

If "meeting" is enough for you to spend the rest of your life with someone, you surely are a big Disney fan. So am I, but at least in the other classics there are some songs the characters sing so we can actually grow to that moment as the film continues. The "romantic ending" of tarzan comes as a complete shock. I didn't know they had any feelings.

Marky_198 wrote:

PatrickvD wrote: So what you're saying is, you haven't seen the film...

If "meeting" is enough for you to spend the rest of your life with someone, you surely are a big Disney fan. So am I, but at least in the other classics there are some songs the characters sing so we can actually grow to that moment as the film continues. The "romantic ending" of tarzan comes as a complete shock. I didn't know they had any feelings.

Again, which film did you see? He saved her life, they shared an intimate moment, through a freaking song montage we see them spend lots of time together, she teaches him about life outside the jungle, he brought her flowers to win her affection, she felt terrible about going back to London. Their romance is among the more defined in Disney's films. I strongly suggest you pop in the dvd and come back to this discussion later. You're just grasping at straws to support your argument. Just because they don't sing to each other doesn't mean they're not in love. If the ending came as a shock to you then that's probably just a you problem.

I think merchandise has not much to to with the actual film.

If you are saying that Lilo & Stitch is a more profitable film than Pocahontas you are not talking about the film itself.

Marky_198 wrote:I think merchandise has not much to to with the actual film.

It's the reason a film even gets the green light nowadays. And you began the thread using the term 'succesful', so I'm just saying merchandise is the biggest factor in this. Box office only comes once, merchandise goes on for years. And that's what drives up Disney's stock and defines what we see in the Disney store and the parks.

PatrickvD wrote: Box office only comes once, merchandise goes on for years. And that's what drives up Disney's stock.

I think the Cinderella merchandise ruined the public image of the film, and that it has cost Disney a lot of money. Imagine what they could be making had they preserved the pristine image the world had of the film.

About Tarzan, I still think the film focusses on too much aside from the supposed "love" between the two.

Marky_198 wrote:I think the romance between Tarzan and Jane doesn't work at all in the film, because they miss a special moment together. In the way the film is now, it's not very logical that she decides to stay with him forever.
Basically, they miss a song together And also the song "stangers like me" should have been sung by Tarzan. I think Disney does it right most of the time, but definitely not in this film.

Dude, Tarzan and Jane are the most sensual couple in a Disney movie yet.




He took her to the parrot world



Speaking as a girl, if a guy did that for me, ah, I'd stand no chance.

Yeah, but even if they don't do well, the films that have songs in the background can still be good. Look at Bambi, the choir sings the songs, none of the characters sing, and yet it's one of the most successful and most beloved films ever made. Love it.
Tarzan and Brother Bear: I'm okay with what it turned out. It's subtle enough for what it was given.
What I'm saying is... f*** the amount of money or success a film makes depending on how the song is used. It's the film itself that counts more, and whether having the characters sing or the background singing is subtle depending on the nature of the subject of the film.

I think the Cinderella merchandise ruined the public image of the film, and that it has cost Disney a lot of money. Imagine what they could be making had they preserved the pristine image the world had of the film.

I agree, cause when I revisited the film years later, unlike the sequels that came later on (mainly the second film. The third... actually isn't that bad), I was surprised on how well done and how tolerate the film was. It's today's marketing that's ignoring the original film's integrity that it provided in the past. What everyone's forgetting is that had it not been for Cinderella, Walt Disney would not have continued making films, and his studio would be nowhere. Those who have been ignoring this film thanks to the marketing Disney provides on this character: give it another chance.

Tarzan and Jane are the most sensual couple in a Disney movie yet.

For the last Renaissance film, it was a bit deep... for a "G"-rated family flick! Huzzah!