


Perhaps, animation wise, it's a renaissance, but story-wise it is a revival.Victurtle wrote:I would say that it is more of a renaissance than a revival.
Firstly, you can have more than one renaissance.
Secondly, the films are of a different nature. They look different and are told differently. Revival is more like what happened in the 50s, Disney went back to making films of the quality pre-war. In the last half-decade though, Disney has been learning a new way to make films and been developing new amazing technology to go alongside it. I feel because they are doing things new, it's not a revival of their past glory. Disney is carving out a new image for themselves with CGI films as a leader into the new, rather than their old description of the king of traditional animation.
Which is why this particular time is not a renaissance. Renaissance implies something new, whereas nothing in these films is new. Good, for the most part, yes, but not new. The story isn't told in a new way and the animation is not groundbreaking, both thanks to Pixar having existed for around 2 decades now.Victurtle wrote: Revival is more like what happened in the 50s, Disney went back to making films of the quality pre-war.
We may all look back on The Princess and the Frog, Tangled, and Frozen as the second (or third, depending) Renaissance, and I bet a lot of the generation behind us will have always thought of it that way, not clouded by our nostlagia from the films we grew up with. I am very happy for Frozen making it, and I hope it does finally beat out The Lion King.Ren·ais·sance/ˌrɛnəˈsɑns, -ˈzɑns, -ˈsɑ̃s, ˈrɛnəˌsɑns, -ˌzɑns, -ˌsɑ̃s; especially British rɪˈneɪsəns/ Show Spelled [ren-uh-sahns, -zahns, -sahns, ren-uh-sahns, -zahns, -sahns; especially British ri-ney-suhns] Show IPA
noun
1. the activity, spirit, or time of the great revival of art, literature, and learning in Europe beginning in the 14th century and extending to the 17th century, marking the transition from the medieval to the modern world.
Thanks Albert, I wouldn't have put it better myself.Escapay wrote:It's funny, four years ago, people were so quick to assign an "era" label to The Princess and the Frog before it even came out. Now that enough time has actually passed, I would actually disagree with my 2009 self (who called it "The Age of Overestimating The Success") and say that now is an appropriate time to label this particular "era."
Regardless of what this time period may officially be called in a book printed ten years from now, in my own personal head-canon, I'm calling this The Resurgence. A nice synonym for both Renaissance and Revival, without having the concrete implications of either.
Renaissance, as Disney's Divinity pointed out, implies something entirely new - which Frozen both is and isn't. It could be a Renaissance because of the great strides in animation, but still features a familiar "house style" that's still synonymous with Disney. Nothing to weaken the film, after all, it contains the Disney identity through and through. But for me, it doesn't seem to usher in that entirely new age the way that Cinderella and Treasure Island did in the 1950s, or the effect that Who Framed Roger Rabbit and The Little Mermaid had for Disney in the 1980s.
Rather, it brings it back to the idea of the Revival. It's the storytelling we expect from Disney, the musical stylings that sit comfortably next to the songs of Howard Ashman or the Sherman Brothers. It's a familiar and nostalgic feeling that makes us remember the ages past, even though they've moved forward with their own interpretations. Consider revivals on Broadway. The same story, the same songs, the same book (sometimes). But new actors, new designs, new staging (sometimes). It's familiar, but not entirely, and new, but not entirely.
Thus, Resurgence. It combines what we'd love to see from a Renaissance and a Revival, without implicitly calling it one or the other, especially as both have different connotations, and one is already a buzzword in Disneyology.
Albert
Escapay wrote:It's funny, four years ago, people were so quick to assign an "era" label to The Princess and the Frog before it even came out. Now that enough time has actually passed, I would actually disagree with my 2009 self (who called it "The Age of Overestimating The Success") and say that now is an appropriate time to label this particular "era."
Regardless of what this time period may officially be called in a book printed ten years from now, in my own personal head-canon, I'm calling this The Resurgence. A nice synonym for both Renaissance and Revival, without having the concrete implications of either.
Renaissance, as Disney's Divinity pointed out, implies something entirely new - which Frozen both is and isn't. It could be a Renaissance because of the great strides in animation, but still features a familiar "house style" that's still synonymous with Disney. Nothing to weaken the film, after all, it contains the Disney identity through and through. But for me, it doesn't seem to usher in that entirely new age the way that Cinderella and Treasure Island did in the 1950s, or the effect that Who Framed Roger Rabbit and The Little Mermaid had for Disney in the 1980s.
Rather, it brings it back to the idea of the Revival. It's the storytelling we expect from Disney, the musical stylings that sit comfortably next to the songs of Howard Ashman or the Sherman Brothers. It's a familiar and nostalgic feeling that makes us remember the ages past, even though they've moved forward with their own interpretations. Consider revivals on Broadway. The same story, the same songs, the same book (sometimes). But new actors, new designs, new staging (sometimes). It's familiar, but not entirely, and new, but not entirely.
Thus, Resurgence. It combines what we'd love to see from a Renaissance and a Revival, without implicitly calling it one or the other, especially as both have different connotations, and one is already a buzzword in Disneyology.
Albert
I totally agree! I really think it will beat The Lion King as the highest grossing animated film (however, TLK will be the highest grossing traditionally animated film, though, but that's not the pointAngeldude98 wrote:"Frozen" has reclaimed the #1 spot at the US box office in its 7th week in theaters, and with over $600M in revenue has become the 2nd highest animated Disney blockbuster behind only "The Lion King", and it may actually beat it! It looks like after the dark slump and depression of the 2000's, Disney finally got it right again and went back to its roots with the animated musical fairytale format! I do hope Disney holds on to the current formula and never goes back to the likes of "Home On The Range" and "Chicken Little"!![]()
![]()
The Lion King's original 1994 worldwide gross is going down in a matter of weeks. And $900 million isn't safe either.adamw92 wrote:I'm so glad its doing so well but I'm not sure it'll out-gross The Lion King. I can see it slowing down soon and probably stopping at around $780-800m. I'd love to be wrong but, maybe it will manage it but I'm not expecting it to gross over $900m.
Since the topic at hand focuses more on what a new "era" could/would/should be called, it can stay as is. Frozen is just part of the discussion.DancingCrab wrote:…and why couldn't this have been posted in the Frozen thread?
"Resurgence" sounds most appropriate, in the simple fact that Disney's days of holding a monopoly over animated features are long gone.Escapay wrote:It's funny, four years ago, people were so quick to assign an "era" label to The Princess and the Frog before it even came out. Now that enough time has actually passed, I would actually disagree with my 2009 self (who called it "The Age of Overestimating The Success") and say that now is an appropriate time to label this particular "era."
Regardless of what this time period may officially be called in a book printed ten years from now, in my own personal head-canon, I'm calling this The Resurgence. A nice synonym for both Renaissance and Revival, without having the concrete implications of either.
Renaissance, as Disney's Divinity pointed out, implies something entirely new - which Frozen both is and isn't. It could be a Renaissance because of the great strides in animation, but still features a familiar "house style" that's still synonymous with Disney. Nothing to weaken the film, after all, it contains the Disney identity through and through. But for me, it doesn't seem to usher in that entirely new age the way that Cinderella and Treasure Island did in the 1950s, or the effect that Who Framed Roger Rabbit and The Little Mermaid had for Disney in the 1980s.
Rather, it brings it back to the idea of the Revival. It's the storytelling we expect from Disney, the musical stylings that sit comfortably next to the songs of Howard Ashman or the Sherman Brothers. It's a familiar and nostalgic feeling that makes us remember the ages past, even though they've moved forward with their own interpretations. Consider revivals on Broadway. The same story, the same songs, the same book (sometimes). But new actors, new designs, new staging (sometimes). It's familiar, but not entirely, and new, but not entirely.
Thus, Resurgence. It combines what we'd love to see from a Renaissance and a Revival, without implicitly calling it one or the other, especially as both have different connotations, and one is already a buzzword in Disneyology.
Albert