DVDizzy Forum

Many people have said that "Little Mermaid" brought on disney's 2nd Golden Age (the 1st being in the 1930's/40's). But looking through Disney's list, I consider the Golden Ages to be:

1st: Snow White-Bambi (late 1930's/early 40's)
2nd: Cinderella-101 Dalmatians (1950's/early 60's)
3rd: Little Mermaid-Hunchback (late 1980's/mid 90's)

I just think that all the movies of the 1950's (Cinderella, Alice, Peter Pan, Lady and the Tramp, Sleeping Beauty, 101 Dalmatians) deserve to be part of the golden age.

Anyone else have thoughts on that?

And I think that Disney needs to go back to its roots and do a good old-fashioned romantic fairy-tale to usher in a 4th Golden Age. How about doing Rapunzel? Start and end the movie with the familiar ornate, gold-engraved storybook, have a beautiful herione, fantastic songs, and a happily-ever-after ending? Anyone else for Rapunzel? C'mon people:

SAVE 2-D ANIMATION!!!!! GIVE DISNEY A WELL-DESERVED 4TH GOLDEN AGE!!!!!

Maybe that could be my new signature...

Well, Disney will get its high point soon, it makes sense... companies have the high times... then the low...

and as for the golden ages... I believe the first one was from Snow White-Jungle Book.

Then little Mermaid - Hunchback...

2004 seems like it might be starting something to come... So maybe '05 will start to rise and be good like it has been!

the term golden age, as associated with film and animation, refers to the classic time period of the 1930's - 1940's. i dont think there can be a "second golden age" as it essentially pertains to this historical time frame and not on the actual quality of animation.

for the record, i think the little mermaid lacked substance in comparisson to many of Disney's other classic features. i think it gets more credit than deserved, it was good but certainly not as good as many of disneys other feature lengh works.

i also think that if there ever was to be another established archetypal stretch of historical signifigance in terms of Disney animation, this certainly would not certify as such. while that time frame did bring about some of the better features of modern years. such as beauty and the beast, aladdin and the lion king, it's success pretty much ended abruptly after that where as earlier films such alice in wonderland in 1951 (though not publically accredited) did follow though with a more consistent and innovative progression. i would consider this age of emphasis to have just continued on throughout the 50's and 60's.

I'd be quicker to include Oliver & Company and The Rescuers Down Under among your Third Golden Age than Pocahontas and Hunchback.

i love pocahontas and hunchback!

I've always hated 'movement' approaches in music or film talk.

That is, I hate people referring to a certain period being referred to as 'golden', 'silver' or 'bronze' or even 'dark age. Styles and tastes change, different people look at different things at different times.

And look at what you are comparing! Snow White v The Lion King. Both are technical masterpieces for their day, but both have very different stories and demographic appeals.

When you start getting into that, and comparing one age to another, you are really only comparing the films, and THAT you can't really do. I love Hunchback, other people hated it. Doesn't make it a good or bad film. The 80s are considered a dark age, but I love the Black Cauldron and Oliver & Co. To me, then, it is not a dark age but a golden age.

If we look at it in terms of box office, then you are once again comparing things that really shouldn't be compared, what with different economies and all. So are we therefore defining good Disney in terms of money?

Anyways, I'm babbling. I am really just sick of this 'are we having a dark age'/'which one was the golden age?' shit coming up every two weeks.
We all like Disney right? So when you say"SAVE 2-D ANIMATION!!!!! GIVE DISNEY A WELL-DESERVED 4TH GOLDEN AGE!!!!! ", are you basically saying that we should ignore the virtues of 3D and all the good work Pixar has done, while at the same time saying we have had crap for the last few years? If that was truly the case, we wouldn't still be here.

Ok, soapbox over. Read what you will into that jumbled mess. I'm all thumbs and toes today.

it seem like the golden age for sequals 1990's-20..

Well, I would argue that the second golden age (or whatever) actually started with Basil. Box office aside (and as we all know, box office doesn't validate or dismiss quality) Basil had all the trademarks of the 'next generation' Disney animators who made The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King et al.

I think that there is a general trend for people to accept so-called "accepted wisdom" and end up parroting other people's opinions rather than their own. I'm just as guilty of this as other people, but I have been slowly reassessing my Disney collection.

I think most people, if asked to voice their own opinions would admit Disney animation lost its way slightly in the mid 70's to mid 80's. But even then these films will be sombodys favorites - every film is sombody's favorite, and we would do well to remember that. (As would Disney when they decide the contents of the DVDs they put out!)

So perhaps the question isn't really about golden ages, but a brief dip in quality for a brief period of time?

Even then, the Disney films were batting a greater number of hits than the animated films from other studios before or since.

Good points Loomis and 2099net. I guess it's all about opinions...

I've realized that I own a lot of Disney DVDs that have audio commentaries that I haven't heard yet, so I've decided to take care of that problem. Yesterday I listened to the audio commentary on Peter Pan and Roy E. Disney referred to Cinderella as the beginning of the second golden age.

I think Disney's officail opinion of when their high points were would be....
1.Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs - Bambi
2.Cinderella - The Jungle Book
3.The Little Mermaid - Tarzan
and I would have to agree with them but as 2099 said every animated film from Disney is someones favourite.

Disney will have another high point but I fear it wont be for a while yet. Hopefully Brother Bear and Home On The Range will have around the same success as Lilo and Stitch had to make Disney realise that 2D animation isn't dead and then they can work on something really special (Rupunzel or something) and it will be a hugh success.

Disney realise that 2D animation isn't dead and then they can work on something really special (Rupunzel or something) and it will be a hugh success

But Rapunzel is being mooted as a CGI film.

2099net wrote: But Rapunzel is being mooted as a CGI film.

I know but hopefully by the time it comes out (2007?) Disney and the public will have changed their minds about 2D animation and will make it 2D instead.

Matty-Mouse wrote:hopefully by the time it comes out (2007?) Disney and the public will have changed their minds about 2D animation and will make it 2D instead.

that would be confusing.

2099net wrote: I think most people, if asked to voice their own opinions would admit Disney animation lost its way slightly in the mid 70's to mid 80's. But even then these films will be sombodys favorites - every film is sombody's favorite, and we would do well to remember that. (As would Disney when they decide the contents of the DVDs they put out!)

So perhaps the question isn't really about golden ages, but a brief dip in quality for a brief period of time?

This is pretty much the way I view it. Overall, Disney has a pretty good track record. But there certainly are times when quality (in the storytelling) has declined, I'm not worried about technique quality, for example I love the xerox look started 101 Dalmatians, though others criticize it, and it is not used to the detriment of the storytelling.

At times the Disney team seems to be scraping the bottom of the creative barrel; for example the love fantasy in Snow White (seen on the DVD) was scrapped because it seemed a bad idea, yet the same type of love fantasy pops up in the Bongo Bear segment. This segment is endless and stops the story dead on its tracks.

Sometimes the stories can get repetitive elements from earlier films, including story elements or even the same voice actors. Ever seen a marathon of Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Little Mermaid, for example? This is not an indicator of the films quality, but it can certainly affect you perception of later films if you keep comparing them to earlier films.

Don Bluth, for example keeps using the idea of counterfit mice in A LOT of his films. As much as I might like the individual films (Mouse Detective, Fievel and then Fievel again), instead of seeing this as a reocurring theme, it bugs the hell out of me and makes me wonder, can't he tell a different story every once in a while, for Crissakes?

Other times bad judgement has prevailed, resulting in flawed films or badly conceived films. How about The Black Hole or The Watcher In The Woods?. These two films, for example, were apparently filmed without the writers knowing what exactly they were about or even how to finish them.

Maybe a well sampled popularity poll, and then an analysis of the timeframe of the films would show the "golden ages" better, but it certainly wouldn't be an objective thing. That would be impossible to create.

Matty-Mouse wrote: Hopefully Brother Bear and Home On The Range will have around the same success as Lilo and Stitch had to make Disney realise that 2D animation isn't dead and then they can work on something really special (Rupunzel or something) and it will be a hugh success.

Actually, I read an article over at imdb.com yesterday where the president of Disney animation was actually defending 2D animation by saying that Lilo & Stitch did pretty well at the box office. That surely is a good sign!