I've been spending the last week or so at Disney World and I've gotta say that when I checked out the Hollywood Studios part about the man himself - WOW, am I inspired! I must confess that I really didn't grow up on Disney movies that much and I don't really know what kind of person he was other than what he did for cartoons in general, but it is really amazing. I went to Disney World a couple of years ago, but I wasn't struck the same way I was this time. Anyone else know what I mean, or am I just going a little nuts?
Start publishing on
DD Comics!
Advertise with us
Comic Talk and General Discussion *
Walt Disney = Genius
Well, yeah. Up until recently, Disney as a whole has been a major source of crazy awesome animation for everybody. Even alot of Japanese anime writers and artists as children aspired to work for Disney. I can't say much for what Walt did personally, but the company he established completely revolutionized television and helped to establish animation as a legitimate and popular medium. I can guarantee that almost every single modern cartoonist–in animation and comics alike–owes at least a little something to Disney in one way or another.
Sucks that the company's gone downhill a bit.
Sure, I love the generic character design, samey personalties, and ruining of classic stories.
Alot of them weren't generic at the time–in fact, some major stereotypes were established via Disney. I'd also be highly interested in finding out what classic stories they "ruined"–their adaptation of Cinderella, for example, was acknowledged as the 9th best animated film by the American Film Institute. …And don't even get me started on what credits Beauty & the Beast has to its name. Most of Disney's adaptations–not counting the recent ones, again, as Disney's gone down the tubes as of late–are highly praised and thoroughly enjoyed by crazy ridiculous numbers. If you consider making applauded and often award-winning adaptations to be "ruining," then I really can't dispute your opinion.
Every character has the same personality as every other character of the same role. Sure, there are bits added on or taken away sometimes, but they're defined by their role in the story, none of them have their own voice. The same goes for their design, it's like they just pick bits out of a drawer and glue them together, and the drawer only contains about three parts. You've got the generic boy design, which doubles as the generic girl design if you stick a dress on it, and then there's the classic princess and prince, wacky sidekick, and wacky mentor.
The reason people like the Disney versions of classic stories is because most people haven't read the original stories, they have nothing to compare them to. Besides, Disney stories are nice and simple, there's nothing scary like plot twists or, god forbid, three dimensional characters to get the audiences poor little brains in a twist.
Nice 'evidence' there by the way, a bunch of numbers is totally indicative of quality. You sure showed me.
The reason people like the Disney versions of classic stories is because most people haven't read the original stories, they have nothing to compare them to. Besides, Disney stories are nice and simple, there's nothing scary like plot twists or, god forbid, three dimensional characters to get the audiences poor little brains in a twist.So Childrens movies aren't deep enough for you? lol!
———
Disney is awesome yes :) My only complaint would be the lack of normal female heroines, mainly because they make the characters so well rounded when they do have them.(mulan, lilo from lilo and stitch)
They're usually just romance fodder formulas. Even in that(rather awful) movie chicken little the quirky girl turned into it at the end.
Isn't disney being hounded for not having black characters right now?
Of course, it all makes sense now. The American Film Institute, the former folks responsible for Golden Globe nominations and the Academy Awards, and Roger Ebert have never read the original stories. You certainly know better than everyone else that's paid to review, criticize, and award movies, and quite a few people on Broadway I might add (since several of these were deemed worthy of retellings via the stage).
How silly of me to bring a bunch of numbers to combat your… uh… view point. The opinion of the majority and of field professionals certainly don't mean anything when you don't like the movies.
Damn straight. I know everything and the sooner you people figure that out, the better off the world is going to be.
So Childrens movies aren't deep enough for you? lol!
It wouldn't bother me if it was just children praising them, the reason I'm mad is that Disney's tripe is getting awards when there's people out there with more talent in their fucking hair than the entire company could ever have.
So your target audience absolutely must be adults before you can be credited for anything? Nobody should be rewarded for focusing on the kids?
Disney makes children's movies–extremely good children's movies. If you can name someone that makes better children's movies, then by all means–in the meantime, Disney was better in its prime at making children's movies than any other single movie company is at making … well, alot of things. Just because Disney doesn't sit down and make movies just for you doesn't mean they're bad movies, and it certainly doesn't make for bad adaptations. Really, your argument seems a bit confusing–did Disney somehow dumb down the role of the Evil Stepmother? Was there some magical character depth in all the old stories that Disney somehow destroyed?
Disney took what it had to work with and made a long series of classic children's movies that most people can appreciate, at a time when such movies were in extremely short demand. It's easy to look back from today's standpoint, with all the crazy movies we have, and act like Disney makes boring movies–at the time, though, it was hot stuff. It's silly to pretend that Disney didn't do anything for the animation industry overall, they practically built it with their bare hands.
While the animated movies may be going downhill of late, I think they've been kicking their live-action stuff up a few notches. But Disney as a GUY was incredible - he poured everything into his love for cartooning. I totally understand what he built is amazing!
On a side note, my mom makes a really interesting case for him being a butt fetishist.
It's silly to pretend that Disney didn't do anything for the animation industry overall, they practically built it with their bare hands.
I'm not saying that, that's about the only valuable contribution Disney have ever made for society.
So your target audience absolutely must be adults before you can be credited for anything? Nobody should be rewarded for focusing on the kids?
Disney makes children's movies–extremely good children's movies.
No, Disney make terrible kids movies. Why should a kids movie win anything, they're never any good.
That's another thing that pisses me off, why do people, like you, assume that children can't seem to handle decent entertainment? I hated Disney since my age was a single digit and no amount of whining is going to change my mind.
No, Disney make terrible kids movies. Why should a kids movie win anything, they're never any good.
That's another thing that pisses me off, why do people, like you, assume that children can't seem to handle decent entertainment? I hated Disney since my age was a single digit and no amount of whining is going to change my mind.
Again, name me some better kid's movies from the era. I'd love to know what kid's movies should have been picking up those kudos instead of Disney. I also like that not complaining about Disney getting other peoples' awards is suddenly whining.
Everything you say is whining, for I declare it so.
Did I say there was anything better than Disney? Did I say they were at the bottom? No, Disney were the best, but the best sucked like a pile of rancid shite. Childrens entertainment is just generally bad, and that's a terrible thing.
Everything you say is whining, for I declare it so.
Did I say there was anything better than Disney? Did I say they were at the bottom? No, Disney were the best, but the best sucked like a pile of rancid shite. Childrens entertainment is just generally bad, and that's a terrible thing.
So basically, you can't say "I never saw the appeal in children's movies" without going "BAAAW WHERE'S THE PLOT TWISTS. DISNEY RUINS FAIRYTALES." Just wanted to make sure this wasn't anything deeper than that.
One thing that bothers me about Disney movies (and yes, I've watched my fair share as a kid) is the weakness and simplicity of the female characters. Even the ones who are arguably the "strongest" (eg Belle and Mulan) aren't happy until they settle down with a man. It's like Disney tried a little bit to make them heroines, but still made them ultimately weak and in need of male rescue. On a different note, Jasmine has always struck me as a sex object, which has turned me off from Aladdin even though I otherwise like the story. Disclaimer: I'm 20 and I still watch Beauty and the Beast occasionally. But I'm still critical of it, especially since discussing it with a prof and having her scoff at the "feminism" in the film.
Disney definitely simplifies and cleans up the stories. I guess you could argue that that's appropriate since they're designed for children, but so were the original fairy tales. That same prof said that in the original B&B, Belle is raped by the beast.
Explain to me then, why childrens movies can't be deep. Just because they're children, it doesn't mean they're stupid.Kids actually can't get 'deep' movies unless it's explained to them, they aren't stupid, it's just your brain develops the ability to think abstractly(beyond what you see) in the early teens and onwards, little kids don't have that part developed yet.
Little kids see the movies for what they are; fun adventures to watch with a moral lesson ingrained(i.e. do what's right, or looks aren't everything) but they mostly just see a cute talking lion who has the same troubles they do and laugh when he has to eat grubs with a meerkat and warthog.
hakuna matata~
@saryn11
Well i'm glad they clean the stories then, belle being raped by the beast would have encouraged furries everywhere and god knows Disney already has a huge market to them.
Disney definitely simplifies and cleans up the stories. I guess you could argue that that's appropriate since they're designed for children, but so were the original fairy tales.
True, but the original "fairy tales" were written very long ago when things were quite different. Life was more of a struggle and thus a bit more grim (no pun intended) back then. As society developed and people felt safer, they wanted their children's entertainment to have happy endings and not make the little rugrats sad.
Just my two cents.
There are quite a few animated Disney movies I love and just as many I don't care for. Aladdin and Hercules remain my top favorites. I love that Megara never joined the ranks of the over-comercialized over-girlified Disney toys. Mulan was a good one too. I didn't much care for any of the fairytale movies that were injected with talking animals and didn't attempt any character depth for protagonists or antagonists.
Their original stories are also fun, and the subcompanies that they bought/own are really very good – like Pixar and Henson. (I'm a pretty big fan of the Muppets.)
I think my big gripes are not the films themselves but the nauseating commercial crap surrounding them. Too many straight to DVD sequels (or worse, PREquels … to fairytales? Ugh), too much cheap plastic MacDonalds crap. No, Disney, not EVERY movie needs a video game, an animated series, and its own line of linens and furniture. And the very word "princess" gives me a nice little mini-stroke as it warps the minds of little girls all over the world. – Although, there are plenty of other children's toys that cause me the same rage. No matter how advanced society gets, we continue to encourage little girls to be shallow, fashion-obsessed princesses and little boys to be hardcore, violent, truck-loving soldiers.
I'd have to agree with what both Lothar and Custard say about what was done to the traditional stories that Disney used to establish his franchise.
I don't think it was done cynically… I suppose they just wanted some classics, well out of copyright, and decided to re-jig them just for kids in a very conservative post-war puritan, right leaning, American sort of way. And so you end up with what they brought out. For some strange reason they continued to follow that model pretty closely. …Which they didn't really need to do and don't have much justification for anymore. Possibly they just see it as the style that their company should follow :(
And that's why the Japanese carry the baton now: not so hung-up on story style, theme, subject matter etc.
The animation was excellent though. Technically and aesthetically artistically they are still very impressive :)
Advertise with us
DDComics is community owned.
The following patrons help keep the lights on. You can support DDComics on Patreon.
- Banes
- JustNoPoint
- RMccool
- Abt_Nihil
- Gunwallace
- cresc
- PaulEberhardt
- Emma_Clare
- FunctionCreep
- SinJinsoku
- Smkinoshita
- jerrie
- Chickfighter
- Andreas_Helixfinger
- Tantz_Aerine
- Genejoke
- Davey Do
- Gullas
- Roma
- NanoCritters
- Teh Andeh
- Peipei
- Digital_Genesis
- Hushicho
- Palouka
- Cheeko
- Paneltastic
- L.C.Stein
- Zombienomicon
- Dpat57
- Bravo1102
- TheJagged
- LoliGen
- OrcGirl
- Fallopiancrusader
- Arborcides
- ChipperChartreuse
- Mogtrost
- InkyMoondrop
- jgib99
- Call me tom
- OrGiveMeDeath_Ind
- Mks_monsters
- GregJ
- HawkandFloAdventures
- Soushiyo