DVDizzy Forum

"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 fomurla and never goes back to the likes of "Home On The Range" and "Chicken Little"!

I agree that Frozen deserves every success there is. But I think this new era is a "Revival" of the Disney we all know and love is back, not exactly a "Renaissance".

I also think this is more of a revival as in my opinion, there will never be an era called Renaissance as that era is over. I think if this is the start of something new, it needs to be called a different term than Renaissance. I do like the term revival

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.

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.

Perhaps, animation wise, it's a renaissance, but story-wise it is a revival.

Victurtle wrote: Revival is more like what happened in the 50s, Disney went back to making films of the quality pre-war.

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.

Jmo, since I like 3 out of 4 of their new films.

I'd call it a Renaissance. I feel it is new in animation and story. For one thing they tried to make CGI more like hand-drawn, even hand-drawing over the CGI. Oh, and about this whole let's call it a revival and not a renaissance thing, dictionary.com has something to say:

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.

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.

Duster, the reason why not everyone is leaping up and calling 2009-present a "Renaissance" is because the films, while really good/great films to us, is not revolutionary. TPATF, Tangled, and Frozen still use a bit of the storytelling devices that were used during the 90's while not enveloping us in it all over again. I think Divinity could explain it better than I could...

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

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

Angeldude98 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"!

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 point ). I really thought that Tangled began this revival period in Disney animation. Frozen just strengthened the idea that Disney is back for business. IMO, Tangled was kinda like The Little Mermaid in the 2010s, and Frozen was like Beauty and the Beast (and Winnie the Pooh was like The Rescuers Down Under).

…and why couldn't this have been posted in the Frozen thread?

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.

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.

The Lion King's original 1994 worldwide gross is going down in a matter of weeks. And $900 million isn't safe either.

DancingCrab wrote:…and why couldn't this have been posted in the Frozen thread?

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.

(and thanks, Musical Master & disneyboy!)

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

"Resurgence" sounds most appropriate, in the simple fact that Disney's days of holding a monopoly over animated features are long gone.

The field is much wider, in terms of competition, than its ever been before. Along with Disney's own studio, as well as Pixar, there are SIX main competitors releasing films each year that make more money than most live-action features. Disney has struggled to catch up for a while, but they HAVE been improving with each of their CGI efforts, which no one would've counted on with Chicken Little. Frozen is putting Disney in the money-making neighborhood of Pixar, and has already made more than Monsters University, which means that while the studio hasn't yet made a long-term impact like the last three upswings (Snow White from the 30s, Cinderella from the 50s, or Little Mermaid from the 80s/90s), they have finally found their footing in this new medium.

Yeah, I agree, Resurgence sounds just about right, as this was their comeback in a sea of competition. Also like the term "Disneyology".

Regardless of what the current period in WDAS history should be called, it can't be denied that there are a lot of similarities with the 1990's era, as interest in Disney films has obviously been reignited by the last 4 films (The Princess and the Frog, Tangeld, Wreck-it-Ralph and now Frozen) as the fab 4 did back then (The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King). There's even a good less sucessful film in the mix with Winnie The Pooh as compared to The Rescuers Down Under! And both eras were preceeded by a very dark time of hits and misses, followed by a huge revival. It's a roller coaster, really! I do hope that this current period lasts longer and that Disney will not stray from the proven formulas for success again. On both dark eras the downslide began when the new generation of animators strayed from the formula and started experimenting. It's good to let the creativity of newcomers grow, but if they want to stay sucessful they better be careful of not letting that creativity loose to the point of completely straying away from what the public expects of a Disney film.

For years, I've resented The Lion King's success and hoped I'd get to see it knocked off the top spot. Now that that's actually a reality, I'm a little disappointed to see it happen. Especially by a film as weak as Frozen. The Lion King has a lot of problems, but, holy hell, Frozen has about a dozen more. What'll be interesting to see is if Disney starts hyping up Frozen and comparing everything released after it negatively to it. Will they learn the lesson that they obviously HAVEN'T learned in the 20 years since TLK's release that NOT EVERYTHING IS COMPARABLE TO THAT FILM? Or will they, over the course of the next 20 years, continue the same, tired trend of seeing everything as a 'failure' in light of the unforeseen, runaway success of Frozen? It's going to interesting to see.

I also wonder if, because of its success, Frozen will be the first 'modern' film to be ushered into the 'Diamond Edition' line-up. One thing is for sure, we're going to see A LOT more Frozen merchandise in the coming years. That's for damn sure.