New Disney titles for 2012 (Rescuers Aristocats Pocahontas etc.) !

[anthonyb]

Originally Posted by zoodermin

Disney is not converting its films by seeing which one is more suitable for a 3D conversion but rather which movie is popular with moviegoers. In this case, The Little Mermaid may not be a suitable 3D movie but its a hugely popular film (more than Peter Pan and Fantasia) so people will go and see it regardless of its 3D conversion. It will be more profitable than Peter Pan and Fantasia.

I personally never really understood this whole popularity complex among the Disney films...for instance, Mermaid is more popular than Fantasia? In theatrical gross...no. In video sales...no. In critical reception...no. Then what; in your eyes, what makes The Little Mermaid so endearingly "popular" when compared to others? Maybe it gets more repeat rentals from whining toddlers, but that's all I've got...that and excessive merchandising...

[JavaJulien]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I'm just saying from an artistic standpoint, it makes very little sense.

I agree. Honestly, I'd love if they were to do a Fantasia/Fantasia 2000 double release in 3D. I really want to see those Flying Whales in 3D.

Originally Posted by anthonyb

I personally never really understood this whole popularity complex among the Disney films...for instance, Mermaid is more popular than Fantasia? In theatrical gross...no. In video sales...no. In critical reception...no. Then what; in your eyes, what makes The Little Mermaid so endearingly "popular" when compared to others? Maybe it gets more repeat rentals from whining toddlers, but that's all I've got...that and excessive merchandising...

Little Mermaid was what kick-started the "Disney Renaissance." I like the film a lot, but some of that praise is rooted to nostalgia.

[Lnds500]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Fantasia is one of the highest grossing films of all time, adjusted for inflation. It once held the crown as the best selling home video title of all time (until it was unseated by Aladdin, Snow White, and The Lion King). It's hardly a shrinking violet, and has done very well in theatrical reissues.

I don't want to get into a Mermaid/Peter Pan/Fantasia pissing contest, as I think we all know why Disney is attempting a 3-D conversion for Mermaid...I'm just saying from an artistic standpoint, it makes very little sense.

Anyhoo...if you want to see the grosses for the G-rated Disney films adjusted for inflation, you might find this illuminating vis-a-vis this whole "popularity" business...

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

The film may have been or may is a great home video release, but I know a lot of people who just can't stand Fantasia. Not all of them "get" the experimental look of a great part of the film and a lot of people are baffled by the music-only soundtrack. Also, let's face it, some segments are far more boring than others (Toccata and Fugue in D Minor). Even Disney doesn't support the film as they used to. And what's so great about Fantasia that would make it look better than TLM in 3D anyway (I would love all DAC films in 3D, mind you)?

[anthonyb]

Originally Posted by xmjonny

You seem pretty upset that people would chose B over A. I know there's opinions and all, but c'mon, don't take it so personal. While Fantasia was amazing with the way the music and movies flowed, people probably enjoyed TLM more because of the fact that there was a plot. And I agree, Fantasia would be amazing and beautiful in 3D where-as The Little Mermaid is... questionable. I know what I'd chose. But nostalgia sells - look at how many people shell out to buy Pokemon R/B/G and buy old TV shows on DVD/Blu - nostalgia.

Now just relax man - both are Diamond Editions (well... one WAS supposed to be one; Fantasia's SE release was still amazing) and both are excellent films. Lilo and Stitch is my favorite Disney, but I'm not crying that it's not 3D released Diamond Edition with some 5 Disc uber collection.

It's not that the situation has riled me up, if those are the kind of vibes you're getting for some reason (I'm more prone to such when discussing The Lion King...), nor am I at all crying for a 3D release of Fantasia. I just don't understand the whole "Mermaid would rake in the dough in 3D at the box office, Peter Pan or Fantasia would be left in the dust" rhetoric. To be honest, I only see the new-age Disneys being more "popular", for the most part, with children and as you mentioned nostalgic 30-somethings who were apart of the Disney marketing machine in their youth. It's not that I'm butthurt over contrasting opinions, but it's so-called "facts" being presented without any justification.

[PuppyJonathan]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

If any of Disney's hand-drawn, cel-painted features cried out for 3-D treatment, it would be Fantasia.

Definitley Fantasia, I saw so much depth without a 3D TV!

Originally Posted by Lnds500

I believe they are waiting to see if the rest of the conversions will be profitable. Then they have an already-converted film (Ratatouille) waiting for a release and then Aladdin seems the most obvious choice.

When did they convert 3D, and when will studios realize what SHOULD be in 3D and what SHOULDN'T and if should how to use it PROPERLLY

[zoodermin]

Originally Posted by anthonyb

It's not that the situation has riled me up, if those are the kind of vibes you're getting for some reason (I'm more prone to such when discussing The Lion King...), nor am I at all crying for a 3D release of Fantasia. I just don't understand the whole "Mermaid would rake in the dough in 3D at the box office, Peter Pan or Fantasia would be left in the dust" rhetoric. To be honest, I only see the new-age Disneys being more "popular", for the most part, with children and as you mentioned nostalgic 30-somethings who were apart of the Disney marketing machine in their youth. It's not that I'm butthurt over contrasting opinions, but it's so-called "facts" being presented without any justification.

First of all I never said that if Fantasia or Peter Pan will be released on 3D they would flop. All I'm saying is that Fantasia is a very popular title, the same goes for Peter Pan but we need to account the fact that most people that will go and pay for a theatrical 3D release are parents with children and Fantasia is not a "children" movie per se. Some segments are wonderful but some are a bit dull and the lack of plot may challenge the patience of the little ones. A movie with colorful characters, catchy songs and an actual plot is a more profitable option for Disney than an experimental feature.

[RayCRP]

^^ Darn kids... They're the reason why we didn't get "If I Never Knew You" in the first place, and aren't getting it now!

Passing up this Pocahontas release, by the way. I don't mind the combo pack (I can always print my own cover and pretend the "sequel" isn't there), but without "If I Never Knew You" implemented either outright or as a seamless branching option, and with the sequel and its own bonuses crowding the same disc as the original, I'll hold out for something better... Hopefully it's just around the riverbed.

[celticmoon]

Honestly, I personally don't think comparing the box office of the Disney-era films and The Little Mermaid really works. They were released in very different eras, and I really don't think box office can be used as a fair measure for popularity, whether adjusted for inflation or not. Fantasia obviously came out before home video releases were even thought of, and it benefitted from multiple releases across several decades, many of which were great successes. The Little Mermaid, on the other hand, has only been reissued once so far. But at the time of its original '89 release, it became the highest grossing animated film of all time (unadjusted for inflation of course). The two films were great successes in their own right, and I just don't think a fair comparison can be made.

I personally think that while The Little Mermaid is important in that it was the film that sparked the Disney Renaissance of the 90s, it is overall quite a bit weaker than the other three "Big 4" Renaissance films, and is probably even weaker in comparison to some of the other 90s films as well. In contrast, I think that Fantasia is one of the studio's crowning achievements. It's also obviously one of the most historically significant films by the studio for various reasons.

Still, I think if The Little Mermaid and Fantasia were both re-released to theaters today, The Little Mermaid would easily outgross Fantasia. Something like Fantasia just isn't something that the general audience really appreciates anymore. It obviously has its fans, but I just don't think it has the wide appeal that it once had. On the other hand, The Little Mermaid (and the rest of the "Big 4") has more-or-less stayed culturally relevant ever since its initial release, through things such as merchandising, theme park characters, and hyped up home video releases. I don't really see nostalgia itself as a factor, as the Disney marketing machine has kept the film and the characters alive and current throughout its lifetime.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by JavaJulien

I agree. Honestly, I'd love if they were to do a Fantasia/Fantasia 2000 double release in 3D. I really want to see those Flying Whales in 3D.




Little Mermaid was what kick-started the "Disney Renaissance." I like the film a lot, but some of that praise is rooted to nostalgia.

An American Tail kick-started the Disney renaissance, and the only reason Disney was still in the animation business post-1986 was because of the success of An American Tail. Eisner and Katzenberg seriously considered shuttering the animation division after taking over in 1984. Then An American Tail became a blockbuster, moved millions of VHS units as a sell-through title, sold umpteen zillion soundtrack singles, and scored an Oscar nod to boot. If Universal could do it, so could Disney, and Disney began re-investing in the animation department, resulting in Who Framed Roger Rabbit (which was seen at the time as a huge high-stakes gamble) and Oliver and Co. in 1988. Meanwhile, Disney began to release their crown jewels on home video, leading to new awareness of their films. The trailer for Mermaid was the lead ad on the Bambi sell-through VHS, for instance.

The Little Mermaid did not start the 2nd Golden Age. In ways that I don't think he anticipated, Steven Spielberg sparked the 2nd Golden Age by producing An American Tail and Who Framed Roger Rabbit. The Little Mermaid brought hit soundtracks back to Disney animation, but without An American Tail selling all those singles, Disney wouldn't have gone looking for songwriters to begin with.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by celticmoon

Fantasia obviously came out before home video releases were even thought of, and it benefitted from multiple releases across several decades, many of which were great successes.

Fantasia never earned a profit while Walt Disney was alive. It took Duning's Yellow Submarine to turn young audiences on to Fantasia's concept and visuals (in more ways than one, wink wink), and it was the post-Submarine release of Fantasia in 1969 that finally brought the film into the black. This is why Alice in Wonderland received a re-release in the early 70's after languishing as the black sheep of the Disney family for two decades. Fantasia remained a potent box-office draw -- the 1990 release, in particular, did very well for Disney, leading to a smash home video release in Fall 1991.

[Phil92]

The irony is Walt wanted to originally present Fantasia in Fantavision (3D).

[Lnds500]

Originally Posted by Phil92

The irony is Walt wanted to originally present Fantasia in Fantavision (3D).

source?? that's the first time I've heard of this

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Lnds500

source?? that's the first time I've heard of this

He wanted a wide-screen process but Roy wouldn't have it. Haven't heard of any serious attempt to shoot Fantasia 3D before.

[yumny]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

An American Tail kick-started the Disney renaissance, and the only reason Disney was still in the animation business post-1986 was because of the success of An American Tail. Eisner and Katzenberg seriously considered shuttering the animation division after taking over in 1984. Then An American Tail became a blockbuster, moved millions of VHS units as a sell-through title, sold umpteen zillion soundtrack singles, and scored an Oscar nod to boot. If Universal could do it, so could Disney, and Disney began re-investing in the animation department, resulting in Who Framed Roger Rabbit (which was seen at the time as a huge high-stakes gamble) and Oliver and Co. in 1988. Meanwhile, Disney began to release their crown jewels on home video, leading to new awareness of their films. The trailer for Mermaid was the lead ad on the Bambi sell-through VHS, for instance.

The Little Mermaid did not start the 2nd Golden Age. In ways that I don't think he anticipated, Steven Spielberg sparked the 2nd Golden Age by producing An American Tail and Who Framed Roger Rabbit. The Little Mermaid brought hit soundtracks back to Disney animation, but without An American Tail selling all those singles, Disney wouldn't have gone looking for songwriters to begin with.

Many agree that it was indeed Who Framed Roger Rabbit that started up the new "golden age" of animation that lasted at least until 1999-2002 when CGI took over. I agree as well that the significance of that production should not be overlooked. Also, it must have been quite a kick in Disney's guts that Bluth was producing better Disney movies than they were (honestly, how many of us would wish Land Before Time was a Disney movie? I know I would! It's among my favorite animated movies and that's kind of sad since I ****ing hate Don Bluth.).

But even with all this you can't deny that Little Mermaid was the start of the renaissance for Disney in the very least. It was the first film since 1959 to follow classic Disney formula and work it out well with memorable characters, great songs and a beautifully flowing plotline, along with some awesome scenery and art design. It's my favorite animated movie of all time (although I have nostalgia goggles of course) and even when I try to look at it critically, I still see it as an astounding piece of work in every single field.

It was the success of TLM that drove Disney to go on and produce several more "formula-style", classic Disney movies that have aged magnificently and are still remembered fondly to this day - BatB, Aladdin and The Lion King as the holy trinity of the 90s, but the art direction of Pocahontas, the wit of Hercules, the extraordinarily risky but creative Hunchback, and of course the fast-paced, action packed Tarzan and Mulan also stand out.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by yumny

Many agree that it was indeed Who Framed Roger Rabbit that started up the new "golden age" of animation that lasted at least until 1999-2002 when CGI took over. I agree as well that the significance of that production should not be overlooked. Also, it must have been quite a kick in Disney's guts that Bluth was producing better Disney movies than they were (honestly, how many of us would wish Land Before Time was a Disney movie? I know I would! It's among my favorite animated movies and that's kind of sad since I ****ing hate Don Bluth.).

But even with all this you can't deny that Little Mermaid was the start of the renaissance for Disney in the very least. It was the first film since 1959 to follow classic Disney formula and work it out well with memorable characters, great songs and a beautifully flowing plotline, along with some awesome scenery and art design. It's my favorite animated movie of all time (although I have nostalgia goggles of course) and even when I try to look at it critically, I still see it as an astounding piece of work in every single field.

It was the success of TLM that drove Disney to go on and produce several more "formula-style", classic Disney movies that have aged magnificently and are still remembered fondly to this day - BatB, Aladdin and The Lion King as the holy trinity of the 90s, but the art direction of Pocahontas, the wit of Hercules, the extraordinarily risky but creative Hunchback, and of course the fast-paced, action packed Tarzan and Mulan also stand out.

Roger Rabbit outgrossed the Little Mermaid by a wide margin, and Roger Rabbit allowed teenagers to go see a Disney film without fear of social reprisal -- The Little Mermaid made it clear that there was new creative energy in Disney animation in terms of music, The Rescuers Down Under demonstrated new technical and visual ambition. When Beast came out, the Oscar nod it received seemed to be a validation for what was happening in the studio since 1988, a perspective that gets lost in the fog of hype and PR.

[yumny]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Roger Rabbit outgrossed the Little Mermaid by a wide margin, and Roger Rabbit allowed teenagers to go see a Disney film without fear of social reprisal -- The Little Mermaid made it clear that there was new creative energy in Disney animation in terms of music, The Rescuers Down Under demonstrated new technical and visual ambition. When Beast came out, the Oscar nod it received seemed to be a validation for what was happening in the studio since 1988, a perspective that gets lost in the fog of hype and PR.

Wasn't the entire point of the 90s Disney Animation that teenagers would go to see it? I'm not entirely sure but I have read somewhere that it was somewhat of a negative point that some of the 90s movies didn't appeal to teens.
(I see it the other way around, post-95 Disney seems more teen-oriented than the 89-95 period.)

I love how informative your posts are by the way. Just out of curiosity, were you around when the Renaissance started? I certainly wasn't, so I'm no expert on how these movies were actually received at the time of their release.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by yumny

Wasn't the entire point of the 90s Disney Animation that teenagers would go to see it? I'm not entirely sure but I have read somewhere that it was somewhat of a negative point that some of the 90s movies didn't appeal to teens.
(I see it the other way around, post-95 Disney seems more teen-oriented than the 89-95 period.)

I love how informative your posts are by the way. Just out of curiosity, were you around when the Renaissance started? I certainly wasn't, so I'm no expert on how these movies were actually received at the time of their release.

I was a senior in High School when Roger Rabbit premiered, and my first published article at the University of Texas at Austin later that summer centered on Roger Rabbit while recommending other animation titles (A Salute to Chuck Jones, Pinocchio, The Plague Dogs, Allegro non Troppo, Twice Upon a Time, etc.) I was born in Tex Avery's hometown, so animation's in my blood, in a loose sense.

The 2nd Golden Age came about because of home video profits (sparked by the success of An American Tail as a sell-through title). An entire new market was created, and home video allowed the Disney classics to be seen by a far wider audience than ever before. With the classics selling like hotcakes, they were able to cross-promote the new films, and sell these new films on video, too. Roger Rabbit made it safe for teens to see a Disney film again, after years and years of falling behind the marketplace and relpicating past efforts. The soundtracks also helped promote the films to young audiences, and you wound up with films hitting all quandrants, children, teens, adults, just as they did in Walt's early years. The tragedy, though, is that the studio became a bit greedy, and greenlit subjects that inherently didn't cross all demographics, and they tried to force elements into them trying to appeal to everyone. The result were films that didn't really please anyone. Meanwhile, the majors all started their own animation houses to compete with Disney, and with the advent of the dreaded DTV cheapquels, you wound up with a glutted marketplace. Disney seemed too stubborn or systemically incapable of learning the lessons of Pocahontas and Hunchback, meanwhile classically-trained character animator John Lasseter brought the warmth and story values of classic Disney animation to the computer and showed everyone how it's done.

To return to your question about teenagers, Disney lost them by pandering to kiddos, but notice teens had no issues at all going to a Pixar film. It wasn't just the tech - it was the writing. Disney seemed systemically paralyzed in trying to answer Pixar's wit and fierce story control, as Disney's consumer products division had begun exerting more creative control of the animated features after the surprise wild success of The Lion King. Trashin the Camp in Tarzan, for instance, wasn't an idea suggested by the story unit, it came from corporate and Bonnie Arnold initially resisted it before giving in (the resulting sequence ground the movie to a halt and reinforced the worst stereotypes about Disney animation, undermining everything that came before). This interference hit its nadir with Dinosaur, a financial bloodbath and creative train-wreck of wise-cracking, unappealing characters acting out a stale lesson of community that seemed more at home on Sesame Street than in the wilds of a dying prehistoric world. At turns frightening and cloying, it pleased no one. It scared the pants off of small children, but the dialog and story were pitched to small children, which annoyed teens and adults. Dinosaur and Brother Bear encapsulate how low Disney animation had sunk, because the films no longer had any sense of themselves, or who they were talking to. Films that appeal to everyone are actually very rare, but Disney under Eisner seemed incapable of learning the lesson. Creative malaise, corporate stubborness, cheapquel films glutting the market, Pixar wowing everyone...the Golden Goose was cooked.

[yumny]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I was a senior in High School when Roger Rabbit premiered, and my first published article at the University of Texas at Austin later that summer centered on Roger Rabbit while recommending other animation titles (A Salute to Chuck Jones, Pinocchio, The Plague Dogs, Allegro non Troppo, Twice Upon a Time, etc.) I was born in Tex Avery's hometown, so animation's in my blood, in a loose sense.

The 2nd Golden Age came about because of home video profits (sparked by the success of An American Tail as a sell-through title). An entire new market was created, and home video allowed the Disney classics to be seen by a far wider audience than ever before. With the classics selling like hotcakes, they were able to cross-promote the new films, and sell these new films on video, too. Roger Rabbit made it safe for teens to see a Disney film again, after years and years of falling behind the marketplace and relpicating past efforts. The soundtracks also helped promote the films to young audiences, and you wound up with films hitting all quandrants, children, teens, adults, just as they did in Walt's early years. The tragedy, though, is that the studio became a bit greedy, and greenlit subjects that inherently didn't cross all demographics, and they tried to force elements into them trying to appeal to everyone. The result were films that didn't really please anyone. Meanwhile, the majors all started their own animation houses to compete with Disney, and with the advent of the dreaded DTV cheapquels, you wound up with a glutted marketplace. Disney seemed too stubborn or systemically incapable of learning the lessons of Pocahontas and Hunchback, meanwhile classically-trained character animator John Lasseter brought the warmth and story values of classic Disney animation to the computer and showed everyone how it's done.

To return to your question about teenagers, Disney lost them by pandering to kiddos, but notice teens had no issues at all going to a Pixar film. It wasn't just the tech - it was the writing. Disney seemed systemically paralyzed in trying to answer Pixar's wit and fierce story control, as Disney's consumer products division had begun exerting more creative control of the animated features after the surprise wild success of The Lion King. Trashin the Camp in Tarzan, for instance, wasn't an idea suggested by the story unit, it came from corporate and Bonnie Arnold initially resisted it before giving in (the resulting sequence ground the movie to a halt and reinforced the worst stereotypes about Disney animation, undermining everything that came before). This interference hit its nadir with Dinosaur, a financial bloodbath and creative train-wreck of wise-cracking, unappealing characters acting out a stale lesson of community that seemed more at home on Sesame Street than in the wilds of a dying prehistoric world. At turns frightening and cloying, it pleased no one. It scared the pants off of small children, but the dialog and story were pitched to small children, which annoyed teens and adults. Dinosaur and Brother Bear encapsulate how low Disney animation had sunk, because the films no longer had any sense of themselves, or who they were talking to. Films that appeal to everyone are actually very rare, but Disney under Eisner seemed incapable of learning the lesson. Creative malaise, corporate stubborness, cheapquel films glutting the market, Pixar wowing everyone...the Golden Goose was cooked.

I'm learning so much

I must agree quite a lot that the Trashing the Camp scene in Tarzan was really unnecessary and seemed to be inserted to pander to younger audiences.. and I CERTAINLY agree that Dinosaur was a huge mess with mixed elements for all kinds of ages blended into an unsatisfying product that strayed between genuinely scary and childishly incoherent.

Disney under Eisner.. yep, big truth, it was certainly ruined with Disney trying to appeal more to "modern audiences" with Pixar-esque and Ghibli-esque movies instead of their classic formula which everybody loved.
The problem with Hunchback, Poc and Herc being that the source material was being edited into something "everyone should enjoy" which ended up "pleasing nobody" is also a great sort of truth; while I personally enjoy all three films, they DO seem to have incredible problems when it comes to serious VS funny (Pocahontas has this polarizing issue when most kids under 8 find it too serious and most teens find the funny animals too distracting) although Hercules was mostly a goofball movie and very hard to take seriously anyway, so I'd like to see that one as sort of a parody on the genre, too.

[Indiana Jones]

For those outside the US who are looking at importing 'The Great Mouse Detective' its currently $25.23 delivered at PlanetAxel which beats the Amazon.com price plus PlanetAxel delivery up to 3 weeks before release day.

[PeterSDTully]

Does anyone know if any if not all of the films shown at the beginning of this thread be 'region free'? and does anyone know if there is anywhere that will ship to UK