Are we currently in the New Disney renaissance era?

[Beholder]

In the context of history, I'd have to say Disney (WDW) isn't even close to a renaissance. Disney has abandoned (in most areas) its original intent in exchange for quick money grabs and convoluted schemes to maximize profit and minimize sincere, thematic story telling. Animation isn't having a renaissance either, IMO. Competition, turning away from hand drawn animation, and underwhelming plot lines and story will not put Disney animation on track again as THE creators of CLASSIC films. That designation (for now) belongs to Pixar. When the focus, once again, becomes quality in terms of depth of story and character, then perhaps Disney will enter a "renaissance".

You know, just do things the way they used to.

 

[englanddg]

In the context of history, I'd have to say Disney (WDW) isn't even close to a renaissance. Disney has abandoned (in most areas) its original intent in exchange for quick money grabs and convoluted schemes to maximize profit and minimize sincere, thematic story telling. Animation isn't having a renaissance either, IMO. Competition, turning away from hand drawn animation, and underwhelming plot lines and story will not put Disney animation on track again as THE creators of CLASSIC films. That designation (for now) belongs to Pixar. When the focus, once again, becomes quality in terms of depth of story and character, then perhaps Disney will enter a "renaissance".

You know, just do things the way they used to.

If I get a magicband, will I be able to reserve my next mind blowing Disney animated film experience 60 days in advance?

 

[AndyS2992]

Wreck it Ralph, Tangled, Princess and the Frog, Paperman etc are all amazing so I would have to say yes.

Disney between 1968 - 1988 and 2000 - 2008 was pretty dire.

Theme park wise, excluding Disneyland and Hong Kong Disneyland, all the rest are suffering.

 

[Fox&Hound]

I don't know....I think it's a difficult question because I think age, nostalgia, and time are important factors. The movies produced during the Disney Renaissance were mind-blowing, but maybe that's how kids will view Tangled in 20 years. And in 20 years it will be considered a classic and will be getting a some new E-ticket ride at one of the parks. So, I'm not sure if this is a re-birth but at least we are at a much better place than "Brother Bear", "Home on the Range", "Bambi 2", etc. I will stay optimistic and say that I believe we are headed in the right direction.

As far as the parks are concerned, I'm looking at NFL (once it's done with the new 7DMT) and Carsland and it reminds me of when Splash was added or Tower of Terror. I think Disney is trying to get back to its old roots but with the economy where it is they are focusing a lot more on return investments than stand-alone creativity and that is hurting them to a degree. Then again, maybe Mystic Manor is a good sign that not everything being built has to have a movie tie-in. I believe there is still a lot of hope!!!!!!! Here's hoping D23 will show us that Disney still has a lot of stuff up their sleeves. I mean, 10 years ago it seemed like very little was happening in the parks, now: DCA 2.0 with Carsland, NFL, Mickey and the Magical Map, new Princess Fantasy Faire, over seas building, love and TLC for a lot of the older dark rides, etc. Yeah, we can focus on what they're not doing but I enjoy the optimism of the OP. Yeah, maybe this is the start of something beautiful.

PS-I looooove the new Mickey Mouse cartoon someone posted about. Talk about trying to revitalize the Mouse. I love that they are showing him as silly and mischievous again. When they make him so nice and gosh-golly all the time they leave him little room to grow as a character =) Very cool......

 

[lazyboy97o]

Back to the roots... There's one character that is making his presence known but hasn't fully come to the show yet.... Oswald.


If Disney went and did something big with Oswald, it could change everything. It started with a mouse, let the resurgence begin with the rabbit.

I really do not understand this view of Oswald as some sort of grand origin for the Disney of today. Disney only spent about a year working on Oswald shorts, which followed years of Alice Comedies. Where is the clamoring to see Alice or Julius in anything?

 

[Cosmic Commando]

HOW HARD CAN IT BE TO MAKE THE INCREDIBLES 2?

Root for Brad Bird to fail... it worked for Andrew Stanton and Finding Nemo 2 a.k.a Finding Dory.

 

[bubbles1812]

I really do not understand this view of Oswald as some sort of grand origin for the Disney of today. Disney only spent about a year working on Oswald shorts, which followed years of Alice Comedies. Where is the clamoring to see Alice or Julius in anything?

Yeah I would have to agree. I like Oswald. He's fun. But I honestly don't need him to have a huge presence in the parks or in the media. And it wouldn't make much sense to me as he isn't that well known outside of the hard core fanbase. I'd just like to see them focus on Mickey and the gang. Wouldn't it be nice if they made an actual attraction (dark ride, fast ride, whatever) focusing on him? He's one of the most well known characters in the world, and I've never quite understood why they haven't. (Yes I'm aware they had the Toon Town area but 1) That really was nothing more than a glorified M&G and 2) It is gone now anyways)

 

[Turtle]

I will say this though, as an aspiring animation artist who is studying the basic currently. There's lots of talent brewing at both Pixar and Disney for a future Golden Age in the next 5-20 years.

 

[danpam1024]

Sorry I'm old fashioned.

Disney's renaissance was Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Lion King, etc.

Tangled, Wreck-It Ralph, Princess and the Frog, etc. are entertaining movies but hardly constitute a renaissance.

Old OLD fashioned Snow White, Cinderella, Fox and the Hound, The Rescuers, 101 Dalmations, Bambi

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yeah I would have to agree. I like Oswald. He's fun. But I honestly don't need him to have a huge presence in the parks or in the media. And it wouldn't make much sense to me as he isn't that well known outside of the hard core fanbase. I'd just like to see them focus on Mickey and the gang. Wouldn't it be nice if they made an actual attraction (dark ride, fast ride, whatever) focusing on him? He's one of the most well known characters in the world, and I've never quite understood why they haven't. (Yes I'm aware they had the Toon Town area but 1) That really was nothing more than a glorified M&G and 2) It is gone now anyways)

There was the Mickey Mouse Revue.
I think one of the big hurdles with a Mickey Mouse attraction is that it essentially would have to be an original attraction. There is no set Mickey Mouse narrative or chronology. He has appeared in a lot of stories that take place on a lot of times and places. And a big part of the reason the new shorts are supposedly going back to a more rascally Mickey is because over the years his personality became sort of whitewashed and bland. Everything would have to be established in the attraction, no hoping people have seen some film, and that sort of attraction is not allowed in today's Disney because that's not the point of theme parks.

 

[bubbles1812]

There was the Mickey Mouse Revue.
I think one of the big hurdles with a Mickey Mouse attraction is that it essentially would have to be an original attraction. There is no set Mickey Mouse narrative or chronology. He has appeared in a lot of stories that take place on a lot of times and places. And a big part of the reason the new shorts are supposedly going back to a more rascally Mickey is because over the years his personality became sort of whitewashed and bland. Everything would have to be established in the attraction, no hoping people have seen some film, and that sort of attraction is not allowed in today's Disney because that's not the point of theme parks.

Yeah, I totally agree with what you say... And find it dead depressing at the same time. The "original" stories are what made Disney so unique. Look at Everest, The Haunted Mansion, Pirates... All original, and all beloved. I loved that concept of a Villian Mountain with Mickey battling it out with them. (Yes I know we have something similar in Fantasmic but, that would have been one freaking fantastic ride). I think Mickey's versatility and the fact that he can be put in so many situations and times is exactly what could make him so great in a ride... Even if WDI/TDO doesn't think so.

 

[Thrill]

I'm gonna go no, but we could be getting there.

Good news: new shorts look pretty good, the last few animated movies were (supposedly) good (I honestly haven't seen Tangled or Wreck-It Ralph yet)
Bad news: 2D animation is back on the chopping block

On the Pixar front, three of the next four movies are originals, and Inside Out is particularly intriguing: risky concept directed by Pete Docter and written by Michael Arndt... THAT's Pixar. Not to mention that Pixar was at the top of its game only a few years ago. I've said this before, but the string of Ratatouille, Wall-E, and Up might be the greatest three movies a studio has ever produced consecutively. As much as I like to beat up on sequels, Toy Story 3 was a great movie as well. Pixar might be a year away from starting another huge run of three great originals and a strong sequel.

For parks, I can't even. WDW is a mess at this point. Everywhere else seems to be on the rise, and WDW might finally get a push to move the way Universal is being managed right now. Maybe a renaissance just in time for the 50th the way Disneyland did it?

 

[Magenta Panther]

I think not yet. Wreck It Ralph was a triumph, but the studio still has a way to go. I really hoped that "The Snow Queen" - oops, sorry, "Frozen" - would be that comeback WDA needs so badly...


SPOILERS




but then plans to animate it in 2D were scrapped, Hans Christian Anderson's story was COMPLETELY ignored for yet another PRINCESS tale (not that I have anything against Disney princesses, but come on, do we really need another one?), and that snowman looks like Mater and acts like Scrat. Oh, the Scooby-Doo reindeer doesn't help either. The main character, Anna, sounds like Mulan all over again (she's clumsy, oh, what an endearing character trait!), and there are echoes of "Enchanted" in the plotline as well. NONE of it sounds at all original or clever or worth my 10 bucks. To say I'm disappointed is an understatement. I will not be going to see this.

 

[jw24]

I don't know. For me, I don't think there ever will be a second Disney Renaissance and while some of the recent feature animated films were successes, aside from Pixar, none of them were the big box office hit like the Lion King, Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast. In fact, Tangled, Wreck It Ralph and the Princess and the Frog's domestic box office numbers were all less than Beauty and the Beast or Aladdin's. Keep in the mind the circumstances behind the original Renaissance. After Walt's death and before the Renaissance, Disney were producing movies that were not performing well at the box office. Even with some successes before TLM and possibly, you can stretch it to Who Framed Roger Rabbit even, rival films did much better at the box office when they were released on the same weekend. (i.e. American Tail did better than Great Mouse Detective, Land Before Time over Oliver and Company, etc.) But when TLM did better than All Dogs Go to Heaven financially, that was only the beginning of the Renaissance and BATB, Aladdin and TLK were all big hits. Don Bluth was falling while Disney was rising. Nowadays, there's more competition with Dreamworks, Blue Sky Studios and others.

Above all, there's just something more authentic about those Renaissance films that shouldn't be compared to the most recent films or all of Pixar for that matter. Of course, it's 2D animation with more fluid movements and more appreciation of the scenery and whatnot. But most importantly, they seem to be more authentic and original. They have stronger characters, stronger stories and stronger music. There's a bigger difference in Disney in the 70s and 80s compared to today. At least financially Disney had great successes with Pirates, Pixar, money making theme parks (Though a lot of wish for more originality and authenticity these days, which is 100% understandable.), Broadway productions and have made money from their various TV networks like ABC and ESPN. The 70s and 80s didn't have those things back then. It's true they had Disneyland, Magic Kingdom and Epcot but movies were the main source of profits, I would think. Until I see a big Disney animated hit that isn't from Pixar, I won't buy into a second Disney renaissance just yet. That's just me though.

 

[Zweiland]

I think not yet. Wreck It Ralph was a triumph, but the studio still has a way to go. I really hoped that "The Snow Queen" - oops, sorry, "Frozen" - would be that comeback WDA needs so badly...


SPOILERS




but then plans to animate it in 2D were scrapped, Hans Christian Anderson's story was COMPLETELY ignored for yet another PRINCESS tale (not that I have anything against Disney princesses, but come on, do we really need another one?), and that snowman looks like Mater and acts like Scrat. Oh, the Scooby-Doo reindeer doesn't help either. The main character, Anna, sounds like Mulan all over again (she's clumsy, oh, what an endearing character trait!), and there are echoes of "Enchanted" in the plotline as well. NONE of it sounds at all original or clever or worth my 10 bucks. To say I'm disappointed is an understatement. I will not be going to see this.

It's true that Anderson's story was ignored, but Disney hasn't exactly stuck to the original storylines in the past. I mean, in the original Little Mermaid, after having her tail split in two by the evil sea witch's potion, the mermaid goes upon land and proceeds to bleed absolutely everywhere.

 

[imagineer boy]

In the context of history, I'd have to say Disney (WDW) isn't even close to a renaissance. Disney has abandoned (in most areas) its original intent in exchange for quick money grabs and convoluted schemes to maximize profit and minimize sincere, thematic story telling. Animation isn't having a renaissance either, IMO. Competition, turning away from hand drawn animation, and underwhelming plot lines and story will not put Disney animation on track again as THE creators of CLASSIC films. That designation (for now) belongs to Pixar. When the focus, once again, becomes quality in terms of depth of story and character, then perhaps Disney will enter a "renaissance".

You know, just do things the way they used to.

I agree, as a whole, Disney is not even close to a renaissance sadly. Disney (and all of Hollywood for that matter) is just interested in milking money out of existing franchises established long before them and have no interest in creativity and artistry that could lead to new prospects. And sadly I think this is the same problem with the entertainment industry in general. They're all playing it safe and don't want to take any risks. They just want money, they don't care about creating new and innovative art.

 

[Beholder]

@ imagineer boy, I think that's exactly right about the entertainment industry, but I wonder sometimes if they churn out what they do JUST because of money, or has the general public become less tolerant of new and original things? I don't want to say a "dumbing down" of the average person, but a shift in entertainment values maybe? People want instantly recognizable, easy to understand, and little or no backstory. Perhaps LTE speed phones and on demand movies and tv have hurt our too short attention spans. People no longer want to invest in critical thinking or gathering up the imagination necessary to process certain things? I'm just speculating, but something has changed.

As I've said before, maybe I'm just getting too old.

 

[Magenta Panther]

It's true that Anderson's story was ignored, but Disney hasn't exactly stuck to the original storylines in the past. I mean, in the original Little Mermaid, after having her tail split in two by the evil sea witch's potion, the mermaid goes upon land and proceeds to bleed absolutely everywhere.

True, but in "Frozen", the main characters from the source material "Snow Queen" - namely, the children Kay and Gerda - are jettisoned entirely in favor of yet another princess. Feh! Who needs it?

 

[George1995]

@ imagineer boy, I think that's exactly right about the entertainment industry, but I wonder sometimes if they churn out what they do JUST because of money, or has the general public become less tolerant of new and original things? I don't want to say a "dumbing down" of the average person, but a shift in entertainment values maybe? People want instantly recognizable, easy to understand, and little or no backstory. Perhaps LTE speed phones and on demand movies and tv have hurt our too short attention spans. People no longer want to invest in critical thinking or gathering up the imagination necessary to process certain things? I'm just speculating, but something has changed.

As I've said before, maybe I'm just getting too old.

That's a great point, I never even thought of it like that. A lot of the most recent "original movies" I've seen, most people I've talked to complained about how it took to long to get into the heart of the movie. Maybe it has become more entertaining for people to just dive right into the action of a story they are already familiar with than learning an entirely new backstory.

 

[Thrill]

That's a great point, I never even thought of it like that. A lot of the most recent "original movies" I've seen, most people I've talked to complained about how it took to long to get into the heart of the movie. Maybe it has become more entertaining for people to just dive right into the action of a story they are already familiar with than learning an entirely new backstory.

Part of that might just be bad storytelling, though. It's possible to make an original story without having a boring exposition. To reference it yet again, Up is a great example. The first few minutes of the movie do a great job of introducing Carl and Ellie. By the end of the first 10 minutes, the heart of the movie has begun and you've witnessed 10 of the best minutes of animation ever.
Meanwhile, as much as I love The Avengers, it's kind of guilty of the over-long exposition. The last two thirds of the movie is brilliant, but it takes so long to actually get going.

I think part of the problem might be a length thing. Pixar, for one reason or another, keeps its movies to about an hour and a half, maybe two hours if necessary. A lot of these live action tentpoles run two and a half hours, sometimes pushing closer to three. When that kind of time is available, people use it, and they use it on long, easier-to-write expositions. Pixar is forced into keeping expositions concise, and that's part of why their movies are so good. Of course, they have extremely talented people working for a really long time on these movies, and that's why they are able to pace the movies so well, and the same people write great scripts with great characters and such, but I think the pacing is one of the factors that keeps Pixar successful.