Where did all the great Disney animated films go?

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

Yeah I think the timing of the release and the lack of large scale marketing did Princess and the Frog in, hoping Lasseter learned his lesson on that one.

The lesson, in this case, is, WHATEVER YOU DO, DON'T LET FOX GRAB THAT KIDDY-FILM CHRISTMAS DAY OPENING, like they have for the last six years!!
Disney blinked and wimped out in their game of chicken against the Chipmunks, and they paid the wages of cowardice...Now it's time for payback.

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Tarzan = base on a fictional character raise by apes in Africa
Hercules = the demi-god legends of Greece
Mulan = legendary Chinese characters
Lion King = base on Shake--

--DON'T...even...try it.
(Unless you're deficient in your classic "Silver Age That Only Really, Really Old Studio Execs Remember Growing Up With in The 60's" anime lore, in which case, here: http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Kimba_T...ition/70042454 )
We've got Katzenberg's fingerprints on it, we've got witnesses who fingered him in Japan at the time of the '87 series revival, and enough smoking guns to fill an arsenal.)

Aladdin = middle-eastern tales
Beauty & The Beast = French tale
Little Mermaid = Han Christian Andersen story from Norway

I remember, back around the time David Stainton was allowing animators to indulge whatever half-baked pet projects they liked--and we all thought Lilo & Stitch was so neato because it was so much more "different" than Treasure Planet--the Orlando animation building at the Disney parks used to have tours to Q&A with an animator on break, and I remember rushing to Treasure's defense and saying "Forget Stitch, could we have a classic story back, please??? "

Although--(more Secret Disney History alert)--much of the '93-'03 output was a product of...yep, greedy ol' Jeff again:
They hadn't yet made a Broadway musical of "Beauty & the Beast", but stage musicals of B&B and Pocahontas were doing well in the parks...And with talk of adapting stage shows to NY, the boardroom put out a directive to the animators to concentrate on stories and classic-books that had earthbound humanoid lead characters, like Greek gods or gypsies or Chinese warriors, in them. Easier to adapt for live actors down the road, you see.

(That way, they could do musicals of Hunchback and Tarzan, 'cause, like, there was no way they'd ever be able to do Little Mermaid or Lion King with live actors on stage, c'mon! )

[Briscogun]

Originally Posted by EricJ

(That way, they could do musicals of Hunchback and Tarzan, 'cause, like, there was no way they'd ever be able to do Little Mermaid or Lion King with live actors on stage, c'mon! )

My wife saw Lion King on stage and has raved about it for 10 years! I think the more costumes and creativity the better! People dancing and singing? Bleh! Animals and mermaids dancing and singing? Now THAT'S a show!

[agoofykindasuperman]

Sorry, haven't read through the entire thread, but if it hasn't been mentioned before:

John Lassater came onto Disney last year when Disney acquired Pixar. They placed him in charge of their animation department. He said that he too missed the days of classic hand-drawn animation films and wanted to bring Disney back in that direction.
The continuous, pointless sequels Disney was pumping out would cause Walt Disney himself to roll in his grave. So he decided to put an end to that, and brought back as many of the original Disney animators that he could get to reboot their 2D field.

Best decision Disney has made in a long time. John Lassater is an amazing genius!

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Wouldn't the Pixar movies do equally 'bad' (I don't know if these movies generally bombed, or not) too? They're very American oriented.
I think it has more to do with the 'stigma' that Disney has. They're mostly associated with the princess musicals. The problem is that when they do something different, they get the response that that specific movie isn't Disney enough. So they make something more Disney (with songs, and a princess) and that doesn't work either. I get the feeling that Pixar can't do anything wrong and that Disney can't do anything right at the moment.

It's a good point, it's true that Disney as taken a hit in the past 20 years on the respect level and true that Pixar is high but they have earn it, we to give them that as well.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

Yeah I think the timing of the release and the lack of large scale marketing did Princess and the Frog in, hoping Lasseter learned his lesson on that one.

Too be fair Lasseter join to late to make much of a difference for Princess & The Frog, the project was pretty much all done by the time he took over, there was very little he could do, meaning to bring his magic touch to the project like he as done so many time in the past for other things.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by EricJ

--DON'T...even...try it.
(Unless you're deficient in your classic "Silver Age That Only Really, Really Old Studio Execs Remember Growing Up With in The 60's" anime lore, in which case, here: http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Kimba_T...ition/70042454 )
We've got Katzenberg's fingerprints on it, we've got witnesses who fingered him in Japan at the time of the '87 series revival, and enough smoking guns to fill an arsenal.

Oh I knew all about Kimba, I grew up with that show in the 70's It was call here Le Roi Leo and I remember back in 1994 think how similar it was. I just made the link to Shakespeare cause I think that is more evident for everyone then a little known anime series from the 60's

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Oh I knew all about Kimba, I grew up with that show in the 70's It was call here Le Roi Leo and I remember back in 1994 think how similar it was. I just made the link to Shakespeare cause I think that is more evident for everyone then a little known anime series from the 60's

Well, that's just it, y'see:
The series was being revived in the late 80's (along with other Tezuka series, on the heels of the Astro Boy revival), with a lot of sentimental marketing toward Japanese audiences who remembered it from their childhoods...
Also, keep in mind, this was '86-'87, and most gaijin Americans--especially Disney, as this was ten years before Princess Mononoke--had literally never heard that Japan had a thriving animation industry, except for old fogeys who remembered Speed Racer, or college kids just starting to fan-cult Akira and Robotech.
When Disney was in Japan on some company business...the 80's anime industry was a shock to them too.
(Never mind that Walt had once met with Tezuka in the 60's, and exchanged some mutual-admiration compliments.)

Obviously, US Disney execs seeing new pop-marketed anime images around them wouldn't have recognized Lum or Gundam or Nausicaa or the Dirty Pair--But a certain lil' lion cub being widely re-promoted at the time struck some childhood-sentimental bells...
Disney was into "Americanizing" foreign hits at the time (remember all those Martin Short French-comedies?), and thought it would be a Neat Idea to license an Americanized co-production of one of the characters the execs over here had at least heard of.
And when, unfortunately, Japanese rights negotiation got the better of the deal, Katz announced Disney's "first original" project, "King of the Jungle".
(Well, better a King than an Emperor...)

[Batman1980]

Lasseter spear-headed the movement of the animation genre in Hollywood into CGI, I'm sure he can help Disney regain their footing with hand-drawn features. I miss going to the theatres to see greats like Lion King, Aladdin and Beauty & the Beast. Sad thing is, let enough time pass and CGI will be all we have. This current generation is graphics driven and I'm not completely sure that that's a good thing.

[P@t_Mtl]

Well CGI as received a huge boost because of Pixar. Their movies are incredible. Yes Dreamworks also does a nice killing at the box office but they are nowhere near the quality of Pixar, they wish or might think they are but they are not. So with the traditional animation not being as good in the last decade CGI as taken the top spot. But make a good traditional animation movie with a good story like Pixar as done and it will be popular as well

[Fabio13]

Well, first of all "The Princess and The Frog" was not a good movie.
It was slightly more entertaining than "Atlantis" an "Treasure Planet".
It´s a shame, because I was really looking forward too the next great hand-drawn Disney movie. It´s been a while since Tarzan.

Still, It´s good news that Lasseter is trying to revive the hand-drawn animation. Disneys main problem the last years has been it´s lack of good story writing. That´s also the main problem with the shorter Donald and Mickey cartoons and the CGI movies, like "Chicken Little". "Bolt" is over par, but still not good.
So what they really need to do is clone the Pixar writers, because they almost never seem to go wrong.

I want back the old Disney movie feel.

BTW: The Little Mermaid is a story by Hans Christian Anderson of Odense in Denmark, not Norway.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Fabio13

BTW: The Little Mermaid is a story by Hans Christian Anderson of Odense in Denmark, not Norway.

Yes you are right, sorry about that

[thorthefifth]

In a past life before beginning a degree in Computer Engineering, I wanted to be a hand animator. I loved the tactile feeling that drawing gave to animation and the beautiful lines that come from pencil or ink. I had a dream to be an animator from age 2 until just a couple years ago when I got into computers. I felt a little bit of myself die inside when there were no more hand drawn animated movies being produced. It's why I switched to a focus on 3d animation and found it cold and impersonal and eventually moved to an education in software/hardware engineering.
I miss the good ole days when the next awesome Disney movie was coming to theaters. Now, other than Pixar's beautiful storytelling, I can't go see a computer animated movie in theaters. I have not been to see a Disney animated movie in theaters(other than pixar) in six or seven years.
I was excited when Disney started bringing the classics out of the vault for Blu-ray and then seeing a new hand-animated movie coming really got me excited and I hope for the sake of newer generations that traditional animation comes back with great stories and fine line work.
(Sorry, I have such a grudge with Disney about this that I have been holding that rant in for years)

[Joe Cain]

Originally Posted by thorthefifth

(Sorry, I have such a grudge with Disney about this that I have been holding that rant in for years)

Don't apologize. It was a bad decision.

[Batman1980]

Disney was built on hand-drawn animation, not on direct to video or TV movies. I do wonder if the closing of Miramax will have any effect on Disney's animated features but I doubt it.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

Disney was built on hand-drawn animation, not on direct to video or TV movies. I do wonder if the closing of Miramax will have any effect on Disney's animated features but I doubt it.

Their direct to video sequels were all terrible. It's a cash cow, easy money. Do little stories about characters and stories that you already have, make them 80 minutes or so long, don't spend to much or art or anything and sell them at full price. People will buy cause it's Disney and it must be good.

[BD4ME]

Quality is subjective, meaning that this thread is invalid. But whatever...

I'll add my opinion anyway, I don't think the quality in the official Walt Disney Feature Films (I'll leave DTV's out) has decreased at all. I think they merely took another direction in films, they started making action-esque films in begin 2000's, resulting in failure at the box office; were they bad, no (original story, solid animation, original score). Then 'comedy'-films started popping up afterwards: The Emperor's New Groove, Brother Bear (half comedy/drama) Home on the Range, Chicken Little; were they bad - no; did they fail at the box-office, again the answer would be 'no' - but it wasn't the succes Disney wanted. As a matter of fact the animation in all of the above mentioned films is known for a fact to be better than The Little Mermaid, Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast. In Lilo & Stitch I've only seen one Lilo in the entire film, though I've seen at least 5 Ariel's in The Little Mermaid.

Whether you like it or not these movies are not the definition of bad films - nobody can give a solid reason to why these would be bad, nor can be said that these are worse than everything that pre-dates them. It's always 1) the generally hated upon 2000 films; 2) post-renaissance; 3) different formula/genre; 4) different kind of storytelling; 5) the so-called added 'toilet'-humor. And the list goes on and on, sometimes it seems like people hate these films by default, which isn't really fair.

The Lion King also has some 'toilet'-humor - do people hate it because of that, the answer is 'no'. Beauty and the Beast has sub-par animation - do people hate it because of that, again the answer would be 'no'. Just because something isn't full of diabetes-inducing squeeky talking animals/objects doesn't mean it's not worth watching.

Again the statement ''where have all the 'good' films gone'' is wrong on many levels. You can't say these movies are bad because YOU think they are, or even if 90% of the whole population agrees with you.

I have a few good questions though: what IS the definition of a so-called 'good' film? Does it only involve happily ever afters and princesses? Must it be made in CGI, hand-drawn or stop-motion?

Don't bother answering 'cause there is NO answer.

/Rant over/

P.S. I love Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, Lilo & Stitch, Brother Bear, etc., they were just examples to make a point.

[SpaceDog]

John Lasseter is working hard to revitalize hand drawn animation at Disney. Disney quit hand drawn after a few flops and seeing that CGI animation was taking off. The problem wasn't with the form (hand drawn is wonderful) it was with the quality of the films.

Atlantis, Lilo and Stitch were great. Tarzan was mediocre, and I still haven't seen Home on the Range.

I look forward to seeing Princess & the Frog - and hope they continue with an annual hand drawn release.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

John Lasseter is working hard to revitalize hand drawn animation at Disney. Disney quit hand drawn after a few flops and seeing that CGI animation was taking off. The problem wasn't with the form (hand drawn is wonderful) it was with the quality of the films.

No, it was because the market was being glutted with third-party animateds between '99 and '02, and the not-easily-fooled public wasn't going to see any of them--
And since entertainment columnists don't really pay attention to WHO makes an animated movie, there was a lot of superstitious casting of entrails and chicken bones over "sociological reasons"--yes, I'm quoting--why audiences had gone to see Pixar movies but hadn't gone to see "Spirit", "Hey Arnold", "Road to El Dorado" or "Powerpuff Girls Movie". (Even Disney's own "Lilo & Stitch", which had been a word-of-mouth audience hit, was painted as a "disappointment" because it would've spoiled all the theories.)
Even Disney became paranoid trying to explain why "Atlantis" hadn't made back its budget, and tried to tie it in with Spirit and "Titan AE"'s failures to say "Audiences probably don't like action-animateds". Which caused Disney to try and market "Treasure Planet" as a wacky slapstick comedy just in case, and....if you haven't seen it, people, don't worry, there was more to the movie than just Martin Short.

But I digress: Why did they switch to CGI?
Well, people were still going to see Shrek sequels in those days--No, I can't really remember why, either. But, here was Shrek 2 making all that money just a year after Finding Nemo had (literally) baffled studio execs by making even more money...And then, Jeffrey Katzenberg had to go and say it:
As we later discovered from history, Katz had actually been misquoted: He was trying to pawn off excuses for why "Sinbad" had flopped in theaters, and suggested that the mix of CGI effects with 2-D animation might've confused the audience, and that if he'd had the choice to go with one, "the audience might have preferred CGI". But by the time the analysts had gotten a hold of it, it had been transformed in every Variety headline into the industry-wide proclamation of "Katzenberg Sez '2-D Is Dead'!!"
And Eisner, ironically the man who had kicked the Midget out of the studio a decade ago?...HE had to go and believe him.

[hardcorefrokid]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

CG is animated.

And Wolverine, Bolt was released in 2008 and The Princess and the Frog in 2009 That's not a big gap at all. Or do you mean something else?

I meant cartoons, sir. I thought it was implied.

[QuasidodoJr]

Originally Posted by Fabio13

Well, first of all "The Princess and The Frog" was not a good movie.

Well, I guess 84% on Rotten Tomatoes does not equal a good movie then.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1196..._and_the_frog/