Ah, Disney is the 90s........

[EPCOT Explorer]

Fantasia 2000 was released on December 31st 1999 or January 1st 2000 (depending on how you look at it). The Emperor's New Groove was released in December 2000. Agreed on Tarzan, Explorer, I 'aint to big on Phil Collins either so that didn't really help.

I actually REALLY like Collins...But I dunno, Disney needs "Broadway/Musical" music...Not rock.:lol:

Also, the story telling seemed off...So did the acting. (Rosie:zipit::hurl

Mulan was the last great Animated Feature for me.

 

[DisneyYorkian74]

The Lion King got re-released to theaters in Christmas 1994 because of how successful it was during the summer.

Please check your facts before posting.

The Lion King never received a re-release in the Christmas of 1994.

As proven here: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=lionking.htm

The Lion King stayed in theaters from June of 1994 to February of 1995 during its initial release.

It received somewhat of an very minor expansion when it gained 16 more theaters in the 2nd weekend of December. (which qualifies as a single release)

But as the link shows The Lion King actually lost over 300 theaters during the Christmas weekend of 1994.

 

[DisneyYorkian74]

what variables come into play besides the inflation of how much a movie ticket costs?...

Time, economy, population, alternative entertainment, home video, internet downloads, etc...

All those variable are not accounted for when creating the adjusted for inflation list.

Fair enough, but I thought we were talking about straight numbers, not if it was re-released or not.

Snow White definitely has a huge advantage over The Lion King when it comes to time and re-releases.

I'm not debating that it's the highest grossing 2D animated movie in actual dollars

The statement that The Lion King is Disney's highest grossing 2D animated movie of all-time is still true whether you like it or not.

If it makes you feel better to know that Snow White sold more tickets thanks to its many, many re-releases, then that's good for you.

But that doesn't make my statement above about The Lion King any less factual...

The crux of my counterpoint to your argument was really the fact that just because a movie makes more money doesn't make it necessarily better than another.

Well that's something that you created in your head and need to get over because I never said that.

 

[wvdisneyfamily]

The Merchant of Venice.






:wave:

Nope. Hamlet.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Please check your facts before posting.

I'm sorry I paid attention to the Lion King bonus features where they mentioned this and showed a holiday themed poster for the movie.

In the link you provided, you failed to notice the gap between September 18th and November 18th of 1994. Implying the film was pulled from theatres by distributes and then put back by Disney because of popular demand. Or Re-released, as can be done to a film in the same year (though rarely ever planned like in the case of 1776)

also notice this link: http://www.moviegoods.com/movie_product_static.asp?cmio=&sku=133170&master_movie_id=10264

The holiday season begins in November for most companies, no?

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Nope. Hamlet.

I think he knew judging from the faces. :lol:

 

[AREM]

Boys! Boys! Let's calm down here! LOL

I didn't realize that this thread would cause such a heated debate! LOL

Honestly, I don't see how people don't see that OVERALL the 90s were the most successful time for Disney. When you take into account ABC, the park's success, the STUNNING success of the movies during that time, the sales of merchandise, and the quality of the Disney Channel at that time.

That is what I feel like the 90s OVERALL were; Quality. True, there were some misses and some things in the 90s that was not Disney at its finest. But, overall, they had a high quality. Honestly, 90s Disney made Disney what it is today. It introduced Disney to a whole new generation, and created several generations of Disney fans, long to come. All because of The Little Mermaid, Beauty and The Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King, Pocahontas, and more.

Face it; Disney would be near dead today if it hadn't been for the animation renaissance in the 90s.

 

[WDW1974]

I was running late to a dinner party and didn't finish my thought correctly.

I will agree that DAK's overall potential is one of the few things Disney did right in the 90s. The architecture, the theming, the innovative animal exhibits—DAK is truly incredible. And when its expansion plans go through, I think DAK will give Epcot some serious competition as the #2 park at WDW.

But when it opened, it suffered from multiple budget cuts and it showed. Disney actually counted a boat ride around the Tree as a major attraction. It had plenty of stores, though. Plenty. You could spend as much money as you wanted on the exact same stuffed animals.

Anyway, I don't think DAK was a failure AT ALL, and I'm sorry my blunt comment looked that way. My remark was aimed at the condition the park was in when it opened, not the park itself.

Ah, that makes quite a bit more sense, although I loved DAK from the first day I walked in it (which was about nine months prior to soft openings). The level of detail rivals the absolute best Disney has done anywhere (EPCOT Center, TDS, DLP etc ...)

You, and I 'm sure you personally know this I'm speaking in general, have to factor in the fact Eisner and Co. pulled roughly 35% of the budget the park was supposed to have. And considering it opened with a price tag of $750-800 million (which didn't include Asia at all or anything that's come since) you're talking a large chunk of change.

Even the Discovery River Boats that you mention were supposed to be so much more than just a ride in a boat around the waterways ... there was supposed to be animatronics and effects and show scenes that got budgeteered out of the equation. We all know what happened with BK as well. We got a character meet-greet-and-grope area instead.

DAK is absolutely amazing. And adding things like Forbidden Mountain (Everest's orginal name and one it should have kept, IMHO) and Nemo: The Musical and Yak and Yeti all only make the place a fuller, richer experience.

If we could only get Rivers of Light back from the dead and get that little (or should I say REALLY BIG) model into the building stages, DAK will easily be the world-class park that Joe and his team intended.

It's really close already!

 

[AREM]

If we could only get Rivers of Light back from the dead and get that little (or should I say REALLY BIG) model into the building stages, DAK will easily be the world-class park that Joe and his team intended.

It's really close already!

Bravo. DAK, IMO, will one day take its place as the number 2 park in WDW, passing Epcot. Dare I say it, it might even begin to reach MK-type numbers. It really is, IMO, what a modern Disney theme park should be. It has some of the best story telling of ANY of the parks, and some truely spectacular rides. The theming is world class, and I honestly think that with a few more years of care and growth, it can EASILY overtake Epcot.

 

[WDW1974]

I'm absolutely fascinated by the varying responses on this thread. It's great to see so many different opinions come out.

Personally, after much thought, I've decided that there is no one "golden age" for Disney. Each decade has brought new and fantastic achievements. Because of Disney's nature as an industry leader, there will always be new attractions and films that will make history in their own right. Granted, things have been rough for the Mouse House lately in terms of creativity in the parks in my own opinion, but there's always the prospect of coming up with the attraction that's the next Space Mountain, Pirates of the Caribbean, Haunted Mansion, or Splash Mountain. It all depends on the ideas of the people who work there. Personally, I don't want to establish a "golden age," because it means that Disney's peak of success has come and gone, and believe me, the best is always yet to come..

...again, I've probably said too much.

I don't know if I agree the best is always yet to come. ... Although if it ever gets a deal done with the Chinese (A HUGE IF ... take it from someone who lived there this summer and talked with people involved in the process) Shanghai Disneyland will be one amazing place!

But I doubt you were referring to that either.

As to labeling eras 'Golden Ages' ... there's a reason behind that ... and that's because they were.

In animation it's very easy to tell when Disney's first one was ... began with Snow White (where it ended is debatable but I defer to the film critics on that one because I'd certainly put things like Peter Pan and Jungle Book right up there and they happened after the first GA ended). The second one began with Little Mermaid and ended with Lion King (regardless of how good some of the following films like Hunchback and Mulan were).

In WED/WDI annals, it's easy to point to first the opening and first 15 years of DL as Era 1 ... and the 1976-84 period when EPCOT and TDL were conceived of, designed and created as the second ... and the first decade of Eisner and Wells as the last (DAK was created and largely designed in that period as well as some amazing parks that never got built like Disney's America, Disney-MGM Studios Europe and Port Disney) ... of course ... these aren't as neat and defined ... but you can tell when the creativity machine was making the most magic and, likewise, you see the periods where not much got done too (early-mid 70s, late 90s, early part of this decade).

Just some thoughts ...

 

[ChrisFL]

You, and I 'm sure you personally know this I'm speaking in general, have to factor in the fact Eisner and Co. pulled roughly 35% of the budget the park was supposed to have. And considering it opened with a price tag of $750-800 million (which didn't include Asia at all or anything that's come since) you're talking a large chunk of change.

I don't have all of the figures but I don't think $700-800 Million is that much for building a Disney park actually. I know Epcot was about $2 Billion (adjusting for inflation) and I've heard estimates that DCA was about $600-700 Million (anyone know for sure?).

IOA was over $1 Billion to build.

 

[WDW1974]

I'd go so far as to add that "immersive storytelling" works because it is based on legendary times in history, and those sorts of attractions will always trump rides and shows based on the modern era.

Disney excels at timeless storytelling, not at pop culture. IMO, that's a big problem with the Disney movies from the mid–late 90s; they generally used pop soundtracks that didn't fit the movie themes, and now the films seem grossly outdated. Add the politically correct/social overtones, the formula storylines, and the insistence on turning everything into a "message" film, and Disney's animated features from Pocahontas onward were doomed to never reaching the heights of Snow White, Cinderella, or The Little Mermaid. Heck, even The Black Cauldron is now considered a good film that was simply ahead of its time. Do you think people will ever look back at Home on the Range that way? :lol:

I don't think so ... but I only saw Black Cauldron and Home on the Range once each when they opened and honestly remember very, very little about either of them.

I think TBC likely has gotten better with age because of something people accuse me of having too much of -- nostalgia!

The fact Disney kept it hidden in the vault for so long helped too ... much the same as Song of the South, which really isn't that good of a film but because it is taboo makes people romanticize it more.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

]

Bravo. DAK, IMO, will one day take its place as the number 2 park in WDW, passing Epcot. Dare I say it, it might even begin to reach MK-type numbers. It really is, IMO, what a modern Disney theme park should be. It has some of the best story telling of ANY of the parks, and some truely spectacular rides. The theming is world class, and I honestly think that with a few more years of care and growth, it can EASILY overtake Epcot.

I don't think so. DAK is missing one huuuuge factor for me that it might just never have. Nostalgia.

Without that it's stuck in the number 4 spot to me.

 

[WDW1974]

If we were discussing any other entertainment company, I would agree with you 100%. But I believe that the purchase of ABC diluted Disney's valuable brand and was damaging to the company overall.

ABC hasn't diluted Disney's 'brand' at all ... what has is the constant lowering of standards and putting out crappy products (be it in theme parks, movies, consumer products or TV).

WalMarting Disney had nothing to do with buying ABC. It was one of the things that Michael Eisner got very right.

 

[WDW1974]

74 has been on Soarin' and the point he's trying to make is it (along with Philharmagic) and largely based on film. You can argue that they are more than films but you can't argue that the film makes up 3/4 the experience and without it you'd just be sitting in a big hammock sniffing oranges. the enormous add on building is also meant to house the giant screen.

I like Soarin', but I do understand where 74 is coming from. My only complaint is that in this day and age could we not get a good digital projector for the ride?

Yeah, you might say I was on Soarin ... I actually was on it as a guinea pig before it came close to opening at DCA. And I am not in any way degrading it.

I love the attraction.

But at it's heart it is simply a giant film that you are lifted over with some very cheap special effects thrown in.

Film-based attractions have limted 'ride by' dates stamped on them.

They simply don't age well.

 

[AREM]

I don't think so. DAK is missing one huuuuge factor for me that it might just never have. Nostalgia.

Without that it's stuck in the number 4 spot to me.

What you have to remember, is that young kids that have been visiting Disney since the late 90s-early 00s find ALL the parks 'nostalgic', including DAK. Honestly, with the way kids are today, most of them wuld find DAK MUCH more appealing than Epcot. I'm not saying that DAK is better or worsethan Epcot, its just that DAK has alot more to offer kids than Epcot. Kids love animals. And, they have alot of kids rides.

I honestly feel like DAK will, within 5 years, beat out AT LEAST DHS. I still feel like DAK can, someday, overtake Epcot.

 

[WDW1974]

I actually REALLY like Collins...But I dunno, Disney needs "Broadway/Musical" music...Not rock.:lol:

Also, the story telling seemed off...So did the acting. (Rosie:zipit::hurl

Mulan was the last great Animated Feature for me.

It all comes down to opinion and taste.

I enjoyed Tarzan ... liked Mulan more but enjoyed them both. They both were financial successes, though, which is what Disney cares about most.

And I don't think you should ever confine Disney to a certain genre of music or a sort of storytelling in its films. That's how you get staleness in your product. That's why people stayed away.

Look at Pixar instead. Other than Toy Story (and with good reason) all their films are very different in look and storytelling and that's why they've all been huge financial and creative successes.

 

[WDW1974]

I don't have all of the figures but I don't think $700-800 Million is that much for building a Disney park actually. I know Epcot was about $2 Billion (adjusting for inflation) and I've heard estimates that DCA was about $600-700 Million (anyone know for sure?).

IOA was over $1 Billion to build.

That's fair enough ... you're entitled to your opinion. But it isn't your money being spent.

DCA was roughly $650 million. EPCOT was $800 million (a billion with Horizons).

 

[WDW1974]

]
I don't think so. DAK is missing one huuuuge factor for me that it might just never have. Nostalgia.

Without that it's stuck in the number 4 spot to me.

You have to get past nostalgia ... how will you ever appreciate places like DL? DLP? TDL? TDS?

Nostalgia is nice and has its place. But you need to see other places and grow.

I've spent more time at WDW than I care to recall, but if it wasn't for EPCOT (which we all know isn't what it once was) and DAK, I don't know if I'd be in my 26th year of owning an AP!

The MK and The Park Formerly Known as The Disney-MGM Studios aren't enough of a draw to me anymore in their WalMarted states.

And not when I can and do frequent Disney's resorts in California, Paris and Hong Kong (and Tokyo coming in 2009!!!!!!!!!)

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

What you have to remember, is that young kids that have been visiting Disney since the late 90s-early 00s find ALL the parks 'nostalgic', including DAK. Honestly, with the way kids are today, most of them wuld find DAK MUCH more appealing than Epcot. I'm not saying that DAK is better or worsethan Epcot, its just that DAK has alot more to offer kids than Epcot. Kids love animals. And, they have alot of kids rides.

I honestly feel like DAK will, within 5 years, beat out AT LEAST DHS. I still feel like DAK can, someday, overtake Epcot.

I won't argue bout the new nostalgia thing...BUT where are these rides you speak of?

DAK is the only park that does not have a omnimover...or a calm dark ride.