How does everyone feel about Disney these days?

[Jpcase]

my childhood Disney experiences include the likes of The AristoCats, Bedknobs & Broomsticks, Pete's Dragon, Herbie Goes Bananas .. that's where my bar of 'Disney mediocrity' was forged ..

I've never actually seen Pete's Dragon or Bedknobs & Brromsticks. I would consider myself a committed Disney fan, but there are some areas like that, where I've failed to keep up. The AristoCats is a really fun film though. Even Robin Hood has lots of appeal. And while I can't say that I know exactly when the Miller era ended (again, my Disney knowledge is nowhere near where I would want it to be ), The Rescuers and The Fox and the Hound both rank fairly high for me. Of course, all of these films came out more than a decade before I was born, so nostalgia inevitably plays a role in shaping my judgement.

I get that releases were a lot more sparse back then, and that must not have been much fun. Still, I can't help but feel that everything Disney and Pixar have done these past four years has been beneath their talent. They might be a step above the other established studios right now, but I find myself preferring the odd film by lesser-knowns (e.g. Tintin, The Lego Movie, and certainly stuff being done outside the US).

Lately I've just been thinking about how I (or the general public) could tell the difference between a Disney film and a Pixar film these days. And I honestly can't.

I've been having the same thoughts for a while now - there's hardly any distinction between the two studios anymore. There might be some potential benefits as you said, but...I wish that Disney would just go back to traditional animation.

[EricJ]

Home on the Range is one of those movies that went through multiple massive changes of staff and story throughout its development -- emerging completely different in tone from what it had started-out to be (a phenomenon which has seemingly only become more common at many studios, in recent years). Still, the film has to be judged for what it 'is', rather than what it 'might've been' .. and it is a good deal of fun to watch. The cartoony drawing style allows for humorous expressions and over-the-top action. Buck the horse is a great supporting character, and Alameda Slim ranks pretty highly among Disney's 'silly' villains (up there with McLeach in The Rescuers Down Under, IMO). Plus, Slim's hypnotic yodeling tune features some insanely surreal imagery, evocative of "Pink Elephants on Parade".

Brother Bear was thread-bear, and Chicken Little, like its character, was the loud, shrill, hyperactive voice of PANIC.

But I'm convinced that half of the murderous baseball-bat clubbing of Home on the Range are psychological DNA-memory traces left over from the troubled 00's, when we were all in love with Lilo & Stitch, thought Treasure Planet "got what it deserved", and were furious at Disney for not staying down, playing dead, and going bankrupt like after that like they were "supposed" to so they could put Chris Sanders in charge of the studio. (When Range came out, I never heard a single mention of the movie that wasn't in the same sentence as reporting that the studio had had a big flop with The Alamo the same month. NOT. ONE.)
We're a little calmer these days, and it's not a bad movie--It may be a bit Stainton-gagged up, but it's far from the obnoxiousness of ToonStudios direct-videos: Like we didn't expect David Spade to be funny or sympathetic in Emperor's New Groove, or Sarah Silverman in Wreck-It Ralph, nobody expected Roseanne to make a funny or likeable Disney character, but she did it.
The songs (and not just Slim's) are catchy, it's got a good sense of humor about itself, and yes, even Cuba Gooding Jr. isn't as painful as he is in his other films.

my childhood Disney experiences include the likes of The AristoCats, Bedknobs & Broomsticks, Pete's Dragon, Herbie Goes Bananas .. that's where my bar of 'Disney mediocrity' was forged ..

I've never actually seen Pete's Dragon or Bedknobs & Broomsticks. I would consider myself a committed Disney fan, but there are some areas like that, where I've failed to keep up.

Bedknobs, which started out as a Walt project, feels like the last "classy" big-budget gasp of Bill Walsh & Robert L. Stevenson (although not the last, which was "One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing")--It's not as Mary Poppins as it wants to be, but it sure knows how to try.
Pete's Dragon, OTOH, wants to be one of the "great Disney musicals", but hasn't the faintest idea how, and comes off as more of an Apple Dumpling Gang comedy with Helen Reddy songs.

That was '77, and anything after that (and after Walsh) was bankrupt mediocrity--The Ron Miller era officially ended in '82-'83, with Night Crossing considered the last "in-house" Disney movie (although Midnight Madness legendarily gets all the credit), Tron considered the last movie with a "Disney feel" and Never Cry Wolf and Something Wicked This Way Comes the first movies of the "new" regime.
As for "The last good Ron Miller movie of the 70's", most pick Return From Witch Mountain or Black Hole out of nostalgia, which were both pretty bad, but somehow I always put the cutoff mark at "The North Ave. Irregulars": One of the last times their goofy 60's-sitcom humor actually seemed harmless.

[Ben]

Robert L. Stevenson?

Really?


(And Dinosaurs is arguably not the last: Stevenson's next and last film, the Shaggy DA was rooted in Walt's original Shaggy Dog film and indeed the premise had been around the studio since those days.)

The Miller era ended with, ironically, the smash hit Splash! (everyone forgets that it was Ron's idea to make the film and invent Touchstone Films, as it was then, to put out "older" Disney fare) and The Black Cauldron, which although released the year after Eisner/Katzenberg/Wells took over, was well and truly of the previous regime's time, as it had been "on and off the boil" (haha) for over ten years.

Never Cry Wolf and Something Wicked had already been released, in '83, long before the "new regime", so I don't get how or why you say that. The first major films from the Eisner crew were My Science Project, which marked out the new direction Touchtsone would take in the 80s, Baby: Secret Of The Lost Legend, and The Great Mouse Detective, which was a *very* conscious decision to make something so super-Disneyfied that people would remember what they loved about the company in the first place.

The Miller era ran from 1967 until 1984, while Eisner and co came in the end of that year but didn't have their thumprints on *anything* released until 1985 at the earliest.

(And Pete's Dragon is one of the last two "classic" musicals - it too was actually a Walt-era idea, originally being written as a two-parter for his TV show before it was a musical with an animated dragon.)

Ahh...he (think he) knows so much, but knows so little...

[Jpcase]

That was '77, and anything after that (and after Walsh) was bankrupt mediocrity--The Ron Miller era officially ended in '82-'83, with Night Crossing considered the last "in-house" Disney movie (although Midnight Madness legendarily gets all the credit), Tron considered the last movie with a "Disney feel" and Never Cry Wolf and Something Wicked This Way Comes the first movies of the "new" regime.
As for "The last good Ron Miller movie of the 70's", most pick Return From Witch Mountain or Black Hole out of nostalgia, which were both pretty bad, but somehow I always put the cutoff mark at "The North Ave. Irregulars": One of the last times their goofy 60's-sitcom humor actually seemed harmless.

Well, if we're going to discuss Disney's live-action films, then I'll really be in over my head, haha! The only films in those two paragraphs that I've ever seen are Tron and Black Hole. Concerning animation, how far does you "bankrupt mediocrity" statement extend? The Renaissance? The Great Mouse Detective? Because I have to say, I really am a fan of The Fox and the Hound. I even named my dog Copper!

[Ben]

I actually don't think Disney ever had a "mediocre period". Sure they had a time when the live-action films were as not well made as they might be, and *some* of the animated films were not as memorable as some of the classics, but they were all of their time and all made for valid reasons.

Don't forget that Disney found itself out of favor in the 1970s. Those films were made for budgets that would mean Disney could keep going. Whatever their strengths, merits and otherwise, without them the studio would have folded and we wouldn't be having this conversation!

[EricJ]

(And Dinosaurs is arguably not the last: Stevenson's next and last film, the Shaggy DA was rooted in Walt's original Shaggy Dog film and indeed the premise had been around the studio since those days.)

I know, but it didn't have Walsh on it and wasn't a period-set spectacle--
Like One Dinosaur, and Blackbeard's Ghost in the 60's, DA was more of Stevenson's talent to make even their goofy comedies charming, which is why Herbie Rides Again was one of their better 70's movies, and the "other guys'" Herbie Goes Bananas/Monte Carlo weren't.

Never Cry Wolf and Something Wicked had already been released, in '83, long before the "new regime", so I don't get how or why you say that. The first major films from the Eisner crew were My Science Project, which marked out the new direction Touchtsone would take in the 80s, Baby: Secret Of The Lost Legend, and The Great Mouse Detective, which was a *very* conscious decision to make something so super-Disneyfied that people would remember what they loved about the company in the first place.

Before the official changeover, the new idea was to abandon the in-house "studio system" that no other studios were using anymore, let outside talent produce and direct, and all their movies from '82-83 on wouldn't look as cookie-cutter as their TV productions. (Which Midnight Madness did in '80, even though they took the studio name off of it.)
Wolf and Wicked were their first "art" films by outside directors, and that was as much the gateway of change for the studio as any of the corporate shakeups.

Concerning animation, how far does you "bankrupt mediocrity" statement extend? The Renaissance? The Great Mouse Detective? Because I have to say, I really am a fan of The Fox and the Hound. I even named my dog Copper!

Fox & the Hound (by future Black Cauldron and Swan Princess director Richard Rich) is a bit of a mess, but Great Mouse Detective has been rediscovered by fans as "the true first Renaissance movie", three years before Little Mermaid--
Like Oliver & Company, Detective's got an anachronistic Miller-70's look to it, but it was the first co-directed feature with John Musker & Ron Clements on it, and you could already see a new boost to the humor and action. One year after the "Disney funeral" of Black Cauldron, Detective came on like a thunderbolt, and things were about to get a LOT better...

[Ben]

Herbie Goes To Monte Carlo is its own kind of genius, directed by Vincent McEveety, another veteran Disney director.

Bananas may not hold up as well for newcomers today, but there's a huge number of kids who still call Herbie "Ocho"!

[droosan]

Okay; I regret speaking-up in this topic.

I really regret naming particular titles .. because -- regardless of my own opinion -- any film is likely to be someone's 'favorite' (or at the very least, a fond memory).

I have tended to avoid such threads elsewhere online, for the better part of 10 years. The attitude that "everything about 'X' sucks so badly now, it used to be so much better" --whether it's in regard to a particular studio, or movies in general -- is just tiresome to me.

It simply isn't necessarily so.

I get genuine enjoyment out of just about anything I choose to view .. and even if there are flaws in one aspect or another of a particular movie, the glass is often far more than 'half-full' when it comes to that film's good qualities; so, I tend to focus on the things I'd liked.

Crazy, I suppose .. but it works for me.

[Jpcase]

Okay; I regret speaking-up in this topic.

I really regret naming particular titles .. because -- regardless of my own opinion -- any film is likely to be someone's 'favorite' (or at the very least, a fond memory).

I have tended to avoid such threads elsewhere online, for the better part of 10 years. The attitude that "everything about 'X' sucks so badly now, it used to be so much better" --whether it's in regard to a particular studio, or movies in general -- is just tiresome to me.

Sorry to hear you feel that way. I hope that I haven't come across in a negative manner. My intention when starting this topic wasn't to bash any one film or to suggest that everything about Disney 'sucks' right now. I have my favorites. You have your favorites. Ben, and Eric, and everyone else here have their favorites. I get that. The main crux of my original post was essentially to see how Lasseter's performance in leading Disney and Pixar has so far compared to your original expectations for him when he first took over the two studios. And I've mentioned my frustrations with some of their specific films, but I never expected anyone to agree with everything or even most of what I've said. I just wanted to know if anyone shared my general feelings that Disney has yet to make a true comeback.

[droosan]

It was more the tirade(s) apparently sparked by my comments that brought-about my regret; not the topic itself.


My personal (hopefully non-inflammatory) opinion on the subject is: I think Disney has been doing pretty well since the Pixar merger .. though, (as I'd said) even in the years immediately prior, I wasn't of the opinion that they'd 'fallen' quite so far as most seem to think they had.


Carry on; I didn't mean to discourage discussion .. like I'd said, usually I avoid these threads as a matter-of-course. I guess I'd forgotten why .. but I certainly remember, now.

[Jpcase]

My personal (hopefully non-inflammatory) opinion on the subject is: I think Disney has been doing pretty well since the Pixar merger

Don't worry - I totally respect your opinion. I can't say that I agree with it. But I respect it.

Carry on; I didn't mean to discourage discussion .. like I'd said, usually I avoid these threads as a matter-of-course. I guess I'd forgotten why .. but I certainly remember, now.

If you choose to leave the topic, then I'll understand. But I appreciate that you've taken the time to share your thoughts.

[Randall]

I like the way droo thinks!

I agree, too. I try to enjoy everything that I view, and do revisit ALL of the Disney films. (Except Chicken Little. I will someday, but... that is one I really didn't like when I saw it in the theatre. I really should give it another look, though.)

EVERY film has talented artists and storytellers working on it. And there is always something in there to appreciate. The 1970s Disney films may seem a little bland, and there is a degree of "repeating the hits" with Robin Hood and Aristocats, but they still come off as darn nice little films.

And, here's something else... I actually prefer a lot of 90s films over some of Disney's older classics. But every era has its own charm. And I do think that the Lasseter era is right up there with any of 'em. (And I have to agree with the comment about the end of Meet The Robinsons... I felt immense hope for the studio when those final scenes played out.)

And y'know... though I find Home on the Range kind of bizarre.... I do really like it.

I do think that Disney is stuck "having to be Disney" to an extent. In a way, there is not a lot of drive to be innovative. I don't think Disney is going to be the place to look to for groundbreaking stories (though I do appreciate the twist that Frozen gave the old "true love" angle); but, right now, NO American studio is willing to go too far out there. As I've said in another thread, the genius work that appears in "Art of" books for today's American animated films seems tragically watered down once the final product hits the screen--- homogenized, Pixar-style puffy humans and 3D puppet-looking animals. (There are a few exceptions; I don't think Madagascar gets enough credit for bringing some actual cartooning to CGI films, amidst the mad dash to photorealism.)

Still, while we may need to look to Europe and Japan for "different" or progressive animated films, this is a golden era for having quality American animated product out there. It's just that "product" has become the key word. There is too much same-ness among the majors in the USA, all fighting to be Pixar.

[Jpcase]

I'll admit it. I'm generally a glass-half-empty kind of guy. Droo and Randall - you're right though. All of Disney's recent films have had things to appreciate. Sometimes I get so bogged down in my disappointment with a film, that I lose track of its positive qualities. So thanks for reminding me!

As I've mentioned, there are things about Frozen that I LOVE. I even remember sitting in the theater during its first act, thinking, "This film deserves to get nominated for Best Picture."

And even though Big Hero 6 very well may be my least favorite WDAS film since Lasseter got involved (I'll have to revisit Meet the Robinsons), there were lots of little things that I enjoyed about it. The San Fransokyo setting was really neat. Baymax was a great character, and I liked Hiro as a protagonist. His team members were all well-designed, well-acted, and their basic character outlines were quite good, even though they were in desperate need of more development. The film was already starting to bore me by the lab scene, but -

- when Hiro ordered Baymax to kill Callaghan, it started to draw me back in. Disney's willingness to explore such a dark, emotionally honest area of Hiro's grief, combined with the genuine sense of fear that I saw on Callaghan's face impressed me in a big way. I started to lose interest again after that, but the film really had me there for a moment!

Also, as I mentioned back in my first post, I thought that the whole first act of the film was pretty great.

I wish that I enjoyed these films more, and yeah, I probably would call them mediocre. But there certainly were many things to appreciate.

Randall is right in my book about the overall state of Western animation right now (even though I'm less enthusiastic than he is about it). And since "product" isn't what I'm looking for, I'll probably have to look toward foreign films to find what I want. Not giving up on Disney. But I hope that I won't have to wait too long.

[Jpcase]

As an aside, I just watched Rise of the Guardians and have to say, I'm shocked by the negativity that surrounds the film. It might actually be my favorite film by any of the Big 3 (Disney, Pixar, DreamWorks) since Tangled. Go figure.

The most defining aspect of a great film for me, is typically how well written the supporting characters are. If the characters are strong across the board, then I'll usually like the film. But if the movie really only focuses on the protagonist, villain, and a love interest (or maybe a main "buddy" role), then odds are, I'll be left feeling somewhat underwhelmed - even if the jokes are funny and the visuals are dazzling.

I think the character who impressed me the most was the Easter Bunny. It seems rare for an animated film to present a character who dislikes the protagonist, but is all the same, a good guy. I kept expecting his character to join in cahoots with Pitch, or for him to only start liking Jack after something melodramatic happens (e.g. Jack saves his life). But Peter Ramsey understands that you can have a character in whom both bad traits and good traits are merged, and that said character doesn't need to be "redeemed" through learning some big lesson. (And yes, there was a moment where he and Frost start getting along, but it was much more understated than I would have expected).

Pitch Black was one of my favorite animated villains in recent years. He was kind of like a great marriage between the scariness of a classic Disney villain (something that the studio has been sorely lacking since Tangled) and the sympathetic motivations of a Pixar villain.

The Sandman was an excellent character both in his design and his silent calm; the tough, tattooed take on Santa would have been fun in-and-of-itself, but the film rises to a higher level by giving the character a genuine sweetness underneath (sure, "the giant with a heart of gold" is hardly an original idea, but its more characterization than any of the teammates in Big Hero 6 got); and even though The Tooth Fairy seemed a little dull compared to the others, she had a really nice moment when she voiced her regret of not seeing any children in person for several hundred years.

I was inspired to watch the film after reading comments (I think in the "Will Disney buy DWA?" topic) stating that it was devoid of DreamWorks' typical pop-culture refs and desperate attempts to be seen as "hip" and "edgy". It certainly didn't disappoint in that respect. Something that I never would have expected though (and am immensely grateful for) is the complete lack of a goofy sidekick.

Santa's elves could have very easily been turned into "Minion"-type characters, and that would have annoyed the heck out me (never could stand those guys). A similar approach could have been taken with the yetis. And most directors I feel, would have cast some sassy, pre-teen Disney channel actress as one of the little fairies. But thankfully, Ramsey had the restraint to avoid these ideas. Quite frankly, I have no idea how he managed to make such a good film under the DreamWorks banner. I mean, surely the studio's bent toward mediocrity has more to do with corporate meddling than a lack of talent on the creative side, no? - I'm guessing here, as I haven't followed behind-the-scenes elements of most animated films' production histories as closely as a lot of you guys do; but it seems more likely that Katzenberg is at fault for the studio's weak output, rather than the writers and directors.

[EricJ]

As an aside, I just watched Rise of the Guardians and have to say, I'm shocked by the negativity that surrounds the film. It might actually be my favorite film by any of the Big 3 (Disney, Pixar, DreamWorks) since Tangled. Go figure.

Guardians isn't a hated DWA film like Turbo; it's one of the better ones, that just gets mentioned with the other money-losers because it was over-budgeted, under-promoted and got lost in the November theater shuffle.
It shows some good ideas (like Guillermo Del Toro's influence turning the Easter Bunny into Hellboy), and the fact that Jack Frost isn't the usual "Pathetically optimistic picked-on self-deceiving loser" we get in the other 90% of DWA movies.
Which is one of the reasons Monsters vs. Aliens and Dragons are considered two of the "better" DWA entries. The better DWA movies that are considered to be "as good as Disney/Pixar" are the ones that, almost by accident, hit on D/P's idea that we have much more sympathy for a main protagonist character when the movie doesn't spend the first half of the story dumping his books in the hallway.

And personally, thought the Elves were turned into the Minions at the last minute, but that was just usual studio-envy.

Pitch Black was one of my favorite animated villains in recent years. He was kind of like a great marriage between the scariness of a classic Disney villain (something that the studio has been sorely lacking since Tangled) and the sympathetic motivations of a Pixar villain.

I kept thinking he looked like Star Trek's Odo.