Disneytelling - the current situation

[Alcazam]

What bothers me right now is that the Disney’s latter efforts have turned out to be more or less eye-candy with little substance. Of course, beneath the nice looking layers of Brother Bear and Atlantis: The Lost Empire, there are stories trying to progress. But the story material here seems underdeveloped, and the themes are told much more effectively in past movies.

A story can contain often told themes and still be successful. Themes that are the very foundation of our lives will always be used in storytelling across all art forms, and trying to escape these in order to be original, sound like an impossible task. The real challenge should be Identity. To pick the right themes for a story and an environment for it to thrive is important. And then to discover an angle that includes the certain qualities you think is relevant, without playing it too safe. Even original ideas should be questioned. Well, these elements have to come together and go to bed. After a slightly sweaty process, they stork will hopefully bring us a little charming thing called Identity. And hopefully, it will do all the difference.

The market seems to appeal more to the kids nowadays, and thus Disney keep things simple. And people grow, so, in a few years when the old fans have gone fishing other not-so-cute fruits in Garden Earth, new kids are looking in awe at movie screen. Well, then it won’t hurt to not only deliver the same material as before, but in worn out packages as well. But, hey, they say recycling is good for the environment.

It was somewhat inspiring to view Pixar’s new outburst, The Incredibles. It feels more mature, with not only tongue-in-cheek comedy, but also along with more mature elements. When I find it surprising to see a mugger in silhouette obviously kicking his victim down in a back-alley, and Helen dragging Bob into the house, suggesting that also cartoon characters get horny from time to time, I think that the animation business haven’t really evolved much in terms of story in the last couple of years. The Prince of Egypt contained some strong scenes. Then again, being based on religion, it automatically enables a little more freedom of movement. Well, Disney movies have also been dark and scary, both in the very first years of feature animation, but also in the early nineties.

The problem with movies like The Hunchback of Notre Dame is that the Disney formula keeps the story from going as far as it could or even should. I am not asking for more blood or graphic violence. I want to add that I think that the Disney formula really works in some movies, while suppressing the critical storytelling process at other times. Too often Disney is tempted to moralize over the characters’ choices in a story, and inevitably, the story suffers.

What if Disney one of those bright days would decide to disturb its boss in the middle of his coffee break, suggesting splitting the Feature Animation into separate departments for family movies and adult oriented movies? Would Disney still be able to make magic?

[PatrickvD]

I think it's good to question where and when a story does or doesn't work, but I think you're taking it way too seriously

[Wonderlicious]

Sadly, I too must admit that recently Disney has churned out some of its all-time worst. I loved Brother Bear and Lilo and Stitch was also a lot of fun, but aside from some nice animation and art direction, I'll agree that Treasure Planet and Atlantis had poor stories. The former was just uninteresting to me, and the latter felt lost, trying to provide an interesting tale and please kids with vulgar jokes at the same time, with dire consequences. It's actually annoying me how many family films have so much fart gags etc in them. The films I remember from my childhood (aka the films of 10/15 years ago) had little if any toilet humour in them, where as family films these days do and still get a U (British equivalent of G rating). I must admit I liked the Shrek films, but I was annoyed that with so much potty humour in them actually got a U rating in England when they should have gotten a PG.

Anyway, back on topic, I don't think that it'd be a good idea if Disney tried to concentrate on one specific audience. I think that they should just try and forget the target audience, as then the film will end up looking like a manufactured piece of plastic. Just make a fun, clean film with a nice story and some songs and voila, great Disney movie.

[Loomis]

You make some very good points there, but I feel that you are being a little too over-simplistic in your analysis of "modern filmmaking" in some regards. In others, you are spot-on.

Of course, beneath the nice looking layers of Brother Bear and Atlantis: The Lost Empire, there are stories trying to progress. But the story material here seems underdeveloped, and the themes are told much more effectively in past movies.

I have to disagree with your critique of Atlantis. I loved the film, and I think that it succeeded in what it was trying to be - a big old fashioned adventure film. If the characters were considered stereotypes as a result of that, then so be it. It worked within the context of what it was trying to achieve. It is a shame that the TV series didn't get picked up, as this would have dove-tailed nicely into an ongoing set of adventures.

The market seems to appeal more to the kids nowadays, and thus Disney keep things simple. And people grow, so, in a few years when the old fans have gone fishing other not-so-cute fruits in Garden Earth, new kids are looking in awe at movie screen. Well, then it won’t hurt to not only deliver the same material as before, but in worn out packages as well. But, hey, they say recycling is good for the environment.

That is true of the film industry widely. Studios seem to have an idea of what a "family" is, and what a "family" wants more than the actual families do. At least, that is what they have convinced themselves of. The danger is, has and always will be that if you try to appeal to everyone, you end up appealing to nobody. If you try and limit that target audience a bit - i.e. kids - you have more of a chance of making a solidly entertaining film on one level, which might appeal to adults on another level. It is difficult to do, but it can be done. Dreamworks doesn't seem to have learned the art - they try to add another layer with pop-culture references and celebrity voices. I still think Disney is far more skilled at this than any other company, and Pixar does it incredibly well too.

The Prince of Egypt contained some strong scenes. Then again, being based on religion, it automatically enables a little more freedom of movement. [...]The problem with movies like The Hunchback of Notre Dame is that the Disney formula keeps the story from going as far as it could or even should. I am not asking for more blood or graphic violence.

Funny that you should put it that way, as I see it the reverse. I think the religious themes of Prince Of Egypt stopped it from being a truly great film. Not because I am anti-religious (which I can be more often than not), but because I think the film was trying to be so politically correct that it wound up offending nobody, but not really thrilling anybody either. It was as boring as reading the bible from cover to cover.

Hunchback, on the other hand, did do something different. I really enjoy Hunchback, because it isn't your typical Disney film. I agree with you that it wasn't dark enough - and yes, I also would like to see a truly "adult" Disney film - but I also like the fact that the film exists. It isn't just a flat adaptation of the original, it is the "Disney Version". Stories grow and develop through constant adaptation and redevelopment.

It was somewhat inspiring to view Pixar’s new outburst, The Incredibles. It feels more mature, with not only tongue-in-cheek comedy, but also along with more mature elements.

See, I wasn't all that impressed with The Incredibles. I always find it amusing that the same people who complain Disney have hit a rut, find Pixar to be "pushing the envelope". Let's face it - they have done the buddy comedy 5 or 6 times, and a thinly disguised Fantastic Four-based comedy. Now, don't get me wrong - I love each and every one of those films. But I find it funny that you equate Pixar's "most mature" film with the one that was also the most violent (in a comic book way). Admittedly, the relationships between Bob and Helen were more real than most films, as was Bob's frustration with his hum-drum life, the cruel uneventful state of apathy as it were. These elements pushed it above most animated films of its ilk, and you are right - it is very encouraging.

I think it is far too easy to romanticize the past and say "It ain't as good as it used to be". Of course it isn't - it is different. No way will Chicken Little be as groundbreaking as Snow White, as there is not as much ground left to break. Every generation laments their lost childhood or films of the past, but again - it is too easy to ignore the fact that good films are being made, they just aren't the same as the films of days gone by. And that's a good thing!

However, your central point - regarding story development - does hold. But rather than try and fill the stories with more complex ideas, I think they need to be stripped right back. The best storytelling has simple plotting, and great characters, which you kind of said anyways.

[DreamerQ18]

Anyway, back on topic, I don't think that it'd be a good idea if Disney tried to concentrate on one specific audience. I think that they should just try and forget the target audience, as then the film will end up looking like a manufactured piece of plastic. Just make a fun, clean film with a nice story and some songs and voila, great Disney movie.

Here Here you know I truly believe its when you dont have a clear visions on what you want the oputcome to be the best work is done. I think that if Disney didn't over think everything so much and just focused on making the best characters and even story they could and just develope the movie will turn out great and the Audience will just come, but thats just me I could be wrong in my theory.

[ichabod]

I have said this a million times before, so I won't go into depth, but I have LOVED every single one of the 2000s films! I think all of them are brilliant. I think all of them have a unique edge whether it is in terms of content, artistry and I feel all of them have been original! I cannot say the same about any other decade though!

Something else I've said before, is that moviegoers to day have not taste! They would rather watch Shark Tale or "Dreck" 2 than a good film like Treasure Planet or Brother Bear! I think that in time all of these films will be sccepted more and valued for what they are!

[Alcazam]

Thank you for providing an interesting points, loomis.

I have to disagree with your critique of Atlantis. I loved the film, and I think that it succeeded in what it was trying to be - a big old fashioned adventure film. If the characters were considered stereotypes as a result of that, then so be it. It worked within the context of what it was trying to achieve. It is a shame that the TV series didn't get picked up, as this would have dove-tailed nicely into an ongoing set of adventures.

I agree with you in that Atlantis is an old fashioned adventure film. And I really love the visual style. When it comes to story, it is often a good choice to leave questions unanswered. And certainly it is in an adventure like this one. But too much information left out, and I easily feel that the story is being rushed and underdeveloped.

Hunchback, on the other hand, did do something different. I really enjoy Hunchback, because it isn't your typical Disney film. I agree with you that it wasn't dark enough - and yes, I also would like to see a truly "adult" Disney film - but I also like the fact that the film exists. It isn't just a flat adaptation of the original, it is the "Disney Version". Stories grow and develop through constant adaptation and redevelopment.

Considering that a film like Nightmare Before Christmas was put under the Touchstone banner for being too dark (well, that's what I've heard), I think that Hunchback actually did fairly well. Just by looking at all the negative reactions from parents, it wasn't really your average bellboy comedy. Hunchback did include some comedy, and while it felt out of place and even compromising at times, I think it was a nice idea. I think The Fisher King (starring Jeff Bridges and Robin Williams) is brilliant, partly because of the somewhat rough blend of moods. Life is not all about soft transitions.

See, I wasn't all that impressed with The Incredibles. I always find it amusing that the same people who complain Disney have hit a rut, find Pixar to be "pushing the envelope". Let's face it - they have done the buddy comedy 5 or 6 times, and a thinly disguised Fantastic Four-based comedy. Now, don't get me wrong - I love each and every one of those films. But I find it funny that you equate Pixar's "most mature" film with the one that was also the most violent (in a comic book way). Admittedly, the relationships between Bob and Helen were more real than most films, as was Bob's frustration with his hum-drum life, the cruel uneventful state of apathy as it were. These elements pushed it above most animated films of its ilk, and you are right - it is very encouraging.

Even Pixar cannot go on forever with buddy comedy. But I think character development in this film is at least as good as in their other films. Just look at the family members' special abilities. They really fit the personalities. The shy girl, for instance, can become invisible and create force fields. I think the film has a lot going for it story wise, while still leaving much room for action sequences.

I think it is far too easy to romanticize the past and say "It ain't as good as it used to be". Of course it isn't - it is different. No way will Chicken Little be as groundbreaking as Snow White, as there is not as much ground left to break. Every generation laments their lost childhood or films of the past, but again - it is too easy to ignore the fact that good films are being made, they just aren't the same as the films of days gone by. And that's a good thing!

I think nostalgia can be a positive thing. As I've said before; "Go back and be inspired". But I agree with you -the wheel's still in spin, things have changed. And that is a good thing. Simplicity enables the important twists and enjoyable turns to come forward, rather than being overlapped by flashy signposts. But it is still room for experimentation and variation.

[Kenai]

Yeah, I mean, as said before, Pixar's great at what they do, but they're not exactly pushing any envelopes, as far as I'm concerned. It's the same plot twist done in different styles, I see no "new" type of anything that's groundbreaking in their films. I mean, even Cars, which looks cool, isn't breaking any new ground either. Disney done stuff like this years before with similar things like The Love Bug/Susie the Blue Coupe.

And as for 2000's films, they've been great. Emperor's New Groove should've been a smash, it deserved to be. I thought that film broke some new ground (while it was a buddy-based comedy, sure, but it offered more). And movies like Lilo and Stitch and Brother Bear were hits in both aspects, and were known for either thier creativity and their lush artistry (both were hits,too, Lilo did great in the domestic box office and Brother Bear made over 200 million worldwide).

Disney knows what they're doing. It's the public that doesn't want to give some or all of these movies a chance (and that's what gets me).