Disney Becoming Blander?

[Scowling Dragon]

Maybe its just me...But is Disneys Recent output in movies more bland then before?

Now let me preface this: Yes Disney was ALWAYS about making things safe. Aint Gonna have Zeus Turn into a Swan and Hump somebody or nothing.
But its never great to see something that may have been to safe at times become even more....bland.

In part to do with increased artistic Ridgidity in their Artsyle because of 3D (Compare Hercules to Alladin and then Compare Frozen to Tangled...Much more ridgid in style).

But also in Cinematography and execution. I feel like The Hunchback of Notredam made its city feel massive and full of mystery....
But the City of Zootopia despite being literally big, I often felt was just blandly shot or very plain no matter the location or the events.

And often also less...Well Dark. Again, in Relative to its history. Its Artstyle, direction, and writing means that even similar scenarious lack the same Gravitas in my mind.

Compare how Te Fiti works in its Watery world in Moana compared to Mega Ursala in The Little Mermaid. Despite TLM shows its age at times with sound design, the much more intense use of color, and weight applies it a much harsher edge.

Maybe its just me...But I can't help but feel it.

[Zmeoaice]

Seems like the natural consequence from switching form 2d to CGI. It's more ecpensive to make CGI flashy and fluid, plus keeping the faces of every damn princess the same is easier for animators.

[LaZodiac]

It's definitely you, I think.

In all seriousness yeah it's just because 2D art has a specific feel to it that 3D art has a difficulty capturing. They're both really good though.

[Blackhawk748]

Seems like the natural consequence from switching form 2d to CGI. It's more ecpensive to make CGI flashy and fluid, plus keeping the faces of every damn princess the same is easier for animators.

Ok, so that wasn't just me then. Cuz i coulda swore they all looked kinda the same.

[Mechalich]

It's definitely you, I think.

In all seriousness yeah it's just because 2D art has a specific feel to it that 3D art has a difficulty capturing. They're both really good though.

Coco is a Pixar film. Pixar animation is a different studio from Walt Disney Animation Studios, even though the larger Walt Disney Pictures owns them both and distributes movies for both.

In some sense, there's an argument to be made that Walt Disney Pictures has given Pixar more free reign than the more traditional Disney Animation Studious brand. Since 2010 they've released the following full-length films: Tangled, Winnie the Pooh, Wreck-it-Ralph, Frozen, Big Hero 6, Zootopia, and Moana. Seven features in total: 3 Princess films, 3 original stories, and 1 legacy production.

The Princess films are indeed very conservative in their production at all levels - which I think speaks to the influence of the all-powerful Disney Princess brand that they are all tied together into. This is a merchandising juggernaut designed to utilize young girls to sell copious quantities of highly expensive merchandise. They have a formula and it works. As for Winnie the Pooh, well, I don't think anyone's basing any strong opinions on that. So the real question is what you think of the other three films. Wreck-it-Ralph has a very positive reputation and did a bunch of different stuff despite being a nostalgia-fest (for video games and candy at the same time). The other two are less notable for originality.

In any case, it's kind of hard to blame Disney. They've made huge amounts of money this decade through remakes and sequels. The Beauty and the Beast remake is still the top-grossing global film of 2017 and the second-highest (behind TLJ, which Disney also owns) domestically. Coco will make about half as much in gross. They're going to keep this up until audiences tell them to stop.

[Scowling Dragon]

It's definitely you, I think.

First of all thats a Pixar film.
And Second of all in terms of art direction its actually a blander "Book of Life"

As a big fan of skelingtons, I HATED the Coco Skelleton Designs.
Skelletons with EYEBALLS? Are you KIDDING ME? And they way they expressed and inflected was too rubbery. Too much like they had mouths made of playdough.

But again Im not just mentioning art direction. Its art and storytelling as well.

[LaZodiac]

First of all thats a Pixar film.
And Second of all in terms of art direction its actually a blander "Book of Life"

As a big fan of skelingtons, I HATED the Coco Skelleton Designs.
Skelletons with EYEBALLS? Are you KIDDING ME? And they way they expressed and inflected was too rubbery. Too much like they had mouths made of playdough.

But again Im not just mentioning art direction. Its art and storytelling as well.

I disagree, both seem real good. Also I could of swore Moana was also Pixar but given they're basically the same company now I don't think the diferentiation matters that much.

Anyway, the art is different from the art direction how? I also definitely feel it's just you, I don't find the modern Disney movies bland.

[Mightymosy]

I don't know about Zootopia because I haven't watched it, but I'm a huge fan of Wreck-it-Ralph and Moana.
I don't think these are bland at all. If anything, I think they are more progressive (less risk averse) than older Disney movies. Especially Wreck-it-Ralph does quite a couple of things with its characters that are not going the usual basic formula you'd expect from children's movies of the past.
For example: I'd fully expected Felix to be an antagonist - maybe not the big bad, but at least an arrogant prick who Ralph needs to overcome and show how good Ralph is. But they didn't - they turned Felix into a very lovable, understandable character. Yet they didn't just subvert the trope for an easy Gotcha!-moment - they played with it in a way that still made sense, and still left the spotlight on Ralph. In the grand scheme of things Ralph still needed to work his way to become a hero of the story, with Felix being a supporting side character.
Also, I really liked how they did Vanellope. Awesome cartoon character and great story.
And when I watched the movie, the movie world seemed pretty large and interesting to me.
All in all, one of my most favourite movies ever.

Moana was a bit simpler, but did a similar thing with Maui - he underwent a somewhat different character arc than what I expected, yet believable and lovable. The movie was also pretty well animated and left me in a very good mood.

I liked a lot of the old Disney movies. I grew up with them and they shaped my childhood. And I think Wreck-it-Ralph and Moana are both worthy entries into the genre, movies that carry on with the genre and even improve certain aspects, if you ask me.

There was a "middle" time in which I didn't like the style of animations much, though. For example, I never quite warmed up with Toy Story. In my eyes, the art of Toy Story, and even later movies like The Incredibles, just couldn't match up with old Disney movies like The Mermaid, or Lion King, or Aladdin, or Ducktales.
But were Toy Story and The Incredibles even from Disney? Can't remember.

[Scowling Dragon]

I also definitely feel it's just you, I don't find the modern Disney movies bland.

So because you don't feel it nobody does. Despite everybody else here also mentioning it as debatable in some aspect?

I just mistyped myself. Art Direction is one thing, but the execution and the events and the storytelling are definetly safer in the modern ones.

[LaZodiac]

So because you don't feel it nobody does. Despite everybody else here also mentioning it as debatable in some aspect?

I just mistyped myself. Art Direction is one thing, but the execution and the events and the storytelling are definetly safer in the modern ones.

Fair. And I'm not saying it's JUST you as in "only" you I'm saying it's just you as in "it's not that the movies are blander it's that you don't like these films, like some people do as well, which is not bad".

[Tvtyrant]

I don't think so. Obviously everyone's taste is different, but it seems like the ratio of ones I enjoy and ones I dislike is pretty static.

For every Gnomeo and Juliet there is an Up, for every Wreck It Ralph a Frozen. Zootopia was great, Moana was average, and Finding Dory was awful all in a couple of years.

Edit: In fact I would say they are getting more original, as a lot of old disney films are straight up books and legends they bought the rights to/were publicly available. Sword in the Stone, Jungle Book and Black Cauldron for instance.

Edit: On the art direction, this was true at every other point too. Secret of Nim is very close to Snow White in artistic style, Lion King and Hercules share the same orange color palates, etc. Certain styles become popular and then fade. I personally dislike the plastic look of a lot of comic book and game art right now and am hoping something else comes into vogue soon, but that doesn't mean it is bland. I am just sick of it. Hush felt great in that style when it wasn't so market saturated and it matched the intent of the story compared to older noire styles, but New 52 often feels like that is just what they could get artists in.

[Lleban]

IMO the answer is no for the most part. Since Disney is a large multinational media juggernaut its always has, and probably will for the foreseeable future, play it safe without seriously challenging its audience.

If anything I'd argue the opposite having watched Wreck-it-Ralph, Big Hero 6, Zootopia, and Moana. Like a can't imagine an animated movie that's an allegory for the 80's crack epidemic made in the Disney renaissance era.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Zootopia in my opinion had one of the most alive cities ever seen in animation. They even used a special system for it, where the animators would place a tree and the automated systems would make the leaves move in the wind while it past by in the background. I love how much work they put into having people draw bubbles when making The Little Mermaid, I do, but they are taking that to a new level right now. I also loved the art style of Moana. It's much simpler and cleaner than that of Zootopia, but it looks almost like cartoon characters that have actually come alive and escaped into the real world. There are interactions with sand and water and hair and such that are just completely wow. Even in the older movies the newer techniques are often a key ingredient to the magic. The ballroom scene in Beauty and the Beast could be made thanks to 3D animation techniques, the way the camera swirls around the room, that really added something. Try to imagine that scene with a steady camera, just 2 people in an empty ballroom. Not the same. Admittedly, it doesn't always work as well. The 3D-y parts in Aladdin's escape from the cave of wonders do clash a bit with the rest of the animation. And yes, parts of Tangled and even some shots in Frozen do have a bit of a plastic Barbie feel over them. But the lantern scene in Tangled, for instance? I love that ****.

Jurassic park contained maybe four scenes with good looking dinosaurs. Welcome to Jurassic Park, T. rex at car, raptors in kitchen, T. rex bursting in and saving the day. That's it. Five if you count either the oversized brachiosaurus head, the sick triceratops, the spitter or clever girl, but all of those had their problems. But it's a memorable movie because of those few really cool shots. And I think that's worth it. If the new Disney movies look a little less artsy in some less important places but blow me away with the kind of amazing panning camera scenery filled with moving people and even the background comes alive shots that all of these newer movies contained (Zootopia's Try Everything song, Frozen's open up the gates moment), I'm in. Nothing wrong with traditional animation, count me in for that as well, but 3D has definitely proven to be a good addition in my eyes, and Disney uses it well.

[Rogar Demonblud]

But were Toy Story and The Incredibles even from Disney? Can't remember.

Pixar. Honestly, Pixar often has the better stories, (Inside Out, possibly the best movie on the struggle with depression), but Disney art is often preferable.

[Darth Ultron]

Maybe its just me...But I can't help but feel it.

A lot of it is You.

To put it simply, you have gotten older. Years older.

Generally all kidz....and by kids I'm talking age 1 to 25...love Disney. Disney is, and always has been made for kidz. Kidz is the base of the Disney Juggernaut. And Disney does know what it is doing. Ask nearly anyone and they are sure to list plenty of Disney stuff as their favorite things from when they were young.

And a big part of the Disney Success is the Bland or Safe part: Disney makes stuff for all the kidz AND for all the kids parents. Things made by Disney have just enough ''wow'' to attracted all the kidz, while at the same time being perfectly bland and safe. Parents can turn on Disney and not worry about it.

But most kidz grow up. And I don't mean just physically. A human being gets to a point where their mind becomes an Adult. And an Adult needs Spice. Bland is not enough any more.

And that is where you are now.

[CosmicHobbit]

I don't do drawing, but I will second what other people have said: It's harder and more expensive to change the art style for every single movie when you're using CGI compared to hand drawn movies. I personally still like Disney movies, and hardly noticed the sameness until you brought it up.

[Ramza00]

If anything I'd argue the opposite having watched Wreck-it-Ralph, Big Hero 6, Zootopia, and Moana. Like a can't imagine an animated movie that's an allegory for the 80's crack epidemic made in the Disney renaissance era.

What is the 80's crack epidemic movie? Zootopia?

But Moana is what Pochatantus was trying to be, literally almost the same elevator pitch to the executives. See here.

Pixar. Honestly, Pixar often has the better stories, (Inside Out, possibly the best movie on the struggle with depression), but Disney art is often preferable.

I do not know why but I just could not get into Inside Out as much as I could get into other pixar movies.

And I love the subject matter with emotions, neuroscience, having dealt with depression and loss in my own life, etc. For Pete sake I read stuff like this all the time





Yet somehow it was not triggering the pixar level of feels inside of me. Instead it was more of like the disney level of feels when I am distracted and the disney movie is meh.

It is still a good movie, but it was more like an intellectual exercise for me with slight feels, instead of the traditional pixar movie that leaves me a puddle of tears inside a body that is normally stoic.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Generally all kidz... love Disney... And a big part of the Disney Success is the Bland or Safe part... And an Adult needs Spice. Bland is not enough any more.

And that is where you are now.

I'll still take most decent sized children's cartoons over most adult comedies any day. Doesn't matter if it's Disney or not. Babar The Movie, How To Train Your Dragon, Finding Nemo, Zambezia, Rio, Spirited Away, The Land Before Time, they're all good movies and way out of reach of any run of the mill Jim Carry, Eddy Murphy or Julia Roberts comedy. No offense to them, their job is not easy, but even accounting for differences like how a children's movie is allowed a more fantastic and colorful setting it still boggles my mind how well made a lot of children's animated movies are, and I can only conclude that the teams behind them really care.

And let's be honest here, most of them have more spice than adult comedies as well. Sure, they're not all Up or Inside Out, Pixar is particularly out of the field good at this stuff. (Maybe Don Bluth came close at his peak, but apart from him...) But let's not forget that Frozen handled the subject of depression pretty well as well. Zootopia played around with the role of race in society so well that reviewers couldn't make heads or tails of it trying to find a simple allegory and a clear cut message, because obviously a dumb kids movie had to have one. The Lion King borrows heavily from Hamlet. Sure, it's borrowed, but the subject matter is still there. Teenage behavior is handled in a lot of princess movies, Tarzan did adopted children, Mulan feminism, gender identity and the age old being true to yourself but maybe don't just completely disregard your parents because they don't understand you boohoo this time, and so on and so on. And even when the story does not make a lot of sense with half a minute of thought, hello there Beauty and the Beast, Disney can still make an unbelievable good movie out of it, that I thoroughly enjoy watching. And frankly I don't see a lot of change in this. I watched Frozen and Moana differently than I did Aladdin or Robin Hood, sure, but I don't feel like they're blander, or less fun for adults.

And sure, opinions are gonna differ, it's what they do. I'm sure there are elements that have become more the same or more static, and if those are important to you the movies will be blander. The stuff I tend to notice/like/emphasize left me with a different impression.

Most of my favorite movies are rated R. I love The Beast (/The Beast Of War), Cube, Pan's Labyrinth, Soldier and even Starship Troopers (I have no honor!). I love it when things characters do have an impact, when people can be upset about their circumstances, when they have hard choices to make, and yes, also when a guy spends a whole scene stitching his own cheek back together after a single slash with a knife. But in the comedy category (which of course also includes the previously named Starship Troopers, but maybe not really the same kind of comedy), can't go wrong with Disney.

[Kitten Champion]

What is the 80's crack epidemic movie? Zootopia?

But Moana is what Pochatantus was trying to be, literally almost the same elevator pitch to the executives. See here.

Eh, Moana was a celebration of the largely overlooked Polynesian culture and its mythology whereas Pocahontas was mostly about colonialism - in a literal sense - and boiled down to empty platitudes on accepting the Other while sanitizing some awful and bloody history to do it.

It and The Hunchback of Notre Dame are two of the most baffling decisions Disney's made, I have no idea who thought tackling that material was a good idea.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Pocahontas was mostly about colonialism - in a literal sense - and boiled down to empty platitudes on accepting the Other while sanitizing some awful and bloody history to do it.

It and The Hunchback of Notre Dame are two of the most baffling decisions Disney's made, I have no idea who thought tackling that material was a good idea.

Beauty and the Beast had been nominated for best picture at the Oscars. Given that five to ten years earlier Disney had still been a studio with history but currently close to bankruptcy they all felt pretty good about themselves and figured they could and should actually go for that award. Pocahontas was their attempt at Oscar bait. Legend has it that there was heavy competition over who at Disney got to work on this sure success of a feature, and who'd be stick with that other project, The Lion King.

[Ramza00]

It and The Hunchback of Notre Dame are two of the most baffling decisions Disney's made, I have no idea who thought tackling that material was a good idea.

Agreed.

The video I posted, plus the same author doing another video about Hunchback of Notre Dame see here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIIWy3TZ1eI . Well those two videos kind of explain how those 2 movies got made and why they are just messes.

The simple answer is Beauty and the Beast almost got the Oscar / Academy Award for Best Picture, and the higher ups for Disney though they could make a movie that appealed to both kids and adults, and get Best Picture, and do spin offs with toys, musicals (Andrew Lloyd Webber was big back then) and thus they crammed way too much into these two movies and the end result is a chimera movie that just does not make sense, and tonally has dozens of problems.

Hunchback of Notre Dame has some "redeemable traits" in the wreckage after the log cabin of stuff collapsed and it burn itself to the ground. Pocahontas on the other hand has very little that is redeemable.

------

Eh, Moana was a celebration of the largely overlooked Polynesian culture and it's mythology whereas Pocahontas was mostly about colonialism - in a literal sense - and boiled down to empty platitudes on accepting the Other while sanitizing some awful and bloody history to do it.

Moana is a great stand alone movie by itself, and you are right there is 30 to 50% different themes with Pocahontas.

But I can make the argument that Moana is even better for Pocahontas is so painful, that them...them being Disney but with new writers and staff for people and company change over 21 years...but Moana is even better for it does not make the awful mistakes that Pocahontas did.

In some ways Moana the movie is a tale of redemption...plus it is completely and utterly stand alone.

(OMG in my mind I just made the connection that Maui's tattoos is the story of Disney, except Maui is still alive in the present just like Disney is still alive in the present, and they are writting his tale again and again.

Disney's Your Welcome)

[Kitten Champion]

If you've never read Hugo's work - and I suppose wiki-ing these things wasn't possible then - Disney's Hunchback is less wtf I'd imagine. Having Claude Frollo be a Disney villain alongside the likes of Gaston and Jafar is just ****ing trippy.

I wasn't really around for the whole Disney Renaissance thing, going back and watching Disney's animated filmography has been interesting and pretty cheap because most of it's on Netflix at the moment. So much of what Disney's currently doing conceptually/thematically is a direct response to itself from before, I assume those writing the scripts now have ingested a hellavalotuv critique on 90's Disney. So, it wouldn't surprise me terribly if Moana was "we can actually do Pocahontas now and not be a-holes about it".

Still, as to the topic, the only Disney animated movie since Tangled that I'd consider "bland" was Big Hero 6 and mostly because the heart of the story of a boy dealing with loss was an interesting premise for another movie which didn't have to do a Superhero team origin story as well. It tried, sure, and it's a very competently executed movie, but no one but the protagonist got much beyond being a quirky personality and overall it just squanders itself into mediocrity. Wreck it Ralph was entertaining overall but had a somewhat lacklustre third act. Tangled, Frozen, and Moana are all solid, enjoyable movies with some stunning animation that can go unnoticed because of how fluid and well-developed it is while Zootopia is somewhat shocking in its premise and absurdly capable in its execution.

I will say though, they've reached a sort plateau where further technical development in the CG space is less significant than sheer artistry and now have settled on a particular style for how their movies should look with this technology, one that mirrors the Disney style that's gone back nearly a century now and helped establish how animation is approached universally now. They're experimenting more with the narratives and what they can do with Disney as a self-referential meta-textual organism, rather than being a Laika and exploring the craft itself.

[Ramza00]

If you've never read Hugo's work - and I suppose wiki-ing these things wasn't possible then - Disney's Hunchback is less wtf I'd imagine. Having Claude Frollo be a Disney villain alongside the likes of Gaston and Jafar is just ****ing trippy.

Watch the Hunchback of Notre Damn^{by Lindsay Ellis} essay I gave earlier the link to, here it is again. The video essay is really good.



In the essay by Lindsay Ellis (which I am now explaining), she explains how the specific shots and themes of the Disney version of Hunchback is a mixture of the

1) Victor Hugo Original Novel,

2) Victor Hugo La Esmeralda 1836. Note Hugo wrote the Liberto and it was Hugo adapting Hunchback into a play / opera

3) 1923's Silent Film Wallace Worsley / Universal version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame

4) 1939's black and white but spoken William Dieterle version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame

And how the Disney version kept many of the same scenes, themes, and recreates a mixture of these 4 works. For example the Esmeralda Song "God Help The Outcasts" is similar to the 1939 scene where Esmeralda and other people are praying in the Church.

Lindsay Ellis also does other things such as talking about the plot and marketing of the movie and how certain parts of the movie are counterproductive and themes and style step on each other and so on. For example talking about the musical version of Disney's version of Hunchback that came after the movie and the wildly successful non disney Notre-Dame de Paris musical by Riccardo Cocciante and Luc Plamondon.

I can't do the essay justice with this summary and I left some stuff out , just go watch it.

I wasn't really around for the whole Disney Renaissance thing, going back and watching Disney's animated filmography has been interesting and pretty cheap because most of it's on Netflix at the moment. So much of what Disney's currently doing conceptually/thematically is a direct response to itself from before, I assume those writing the scripts now have ingested a hellavalotuv critique on 90's Disney. So, it wouldn't surprise me terribly if Moana was "we can actually do Pocahontas now and not be a-holes about it".

Yes, but you were also right that there are lots of differences between Moana and Pocahontas.

The inner drives and conflict between Moana and Pocahontas are very similar. The external conflict between Moana and the World / History vs Pocahontas and the World / History are very different. For example Pocahontas deals with issues of colonialism and so on that Moana definately does not deal with.

You do have a point.

---

My point thoughis Moana as a Disney Princess has probably the most in common with Pocahontas in much the same way Snow White as a story has a lot in common with Sleeping Beauty, in themes, story, imagery, etc.

Still, as to the topic, the only Disney animated movie since Tangled that I'd consider "bland" was Big Hero 6 and mostly because the heart of the story of a boy dealing with loss was an interesting premise for another movie which didn't have to do a Superhero team origin story as well. It tried, sure, and it's a very competently executed movie, but no one but the protagonist got much beyond being a quirky personality and overall it just squanders itself into mediocrity. Wreck it Ralph was entertaining overall but had a somewhat lacklustre third act. Tangled, Frozen, and Moana are all solid, enjoyable movies with some stunning animation that can go unnoticed because of how fluid and well-developed it is while Zootopia is somewhat shocking in its premise and absurdly capable in its execution.

So Big Hero 6 is a Marvel Property and the movie came out in 2014. (Big Hero 6 is a much lesser known Marvel Property.)

Disney bought Marvel in 2009, aka a year after Iron Man (2008).

Remember Iron Man is a relatively unknown super hero and this movie made more money than the X2 and X-Men The Last Stand and made almost as much as Spiderman 2 and Spiderman 3 (and way more money than the Fantastic Four movies)

Since new movies take usually 4 to 5 years to green-light (2 to 3 years if you rush it) I would not be surprised that the desire to make a marvel animated movie kind of caused Big Hero 6 to be made more than the other way around where someone said I have a great idea, and here is a rough draft screenplay and so on and let me pitch it to my higher ups.

Now of course in hollywood it is a cycle thing where many movies are rewritten and the idea refined at least 3 times but often half a dozen times (if not more) before we see the final product. Case in point is the 1977 version of Star Wars which was saved and made into the classic movie we know today after the shooting / filming in the editing room. Links to another great video essay.

How Star Wars was Saved in the Edit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFMyMxMYDNk

[Darth Ultron]

I'll still take most decent sized children's cartoons over most adult comedies any day. Doesn't matter if it's Disney or not. Babar The Movie, How To Train Your Dragon, Finding Nemo, Zambezia, Rio, Spirited Away, The Land Before Time, they're all good movies and way out of reach of any run of the mill Jim Carry, Eddy Murphy or Julia Roberts comedy.

I'm not saying Disney can't make a good movie. And sure an adult can relax and watch a Disney movie. But Disney will always target Kidz.

Most of my favorite movies are rated R. I love The Beast (/The Beast Of War), Cube, Pan's Labyrinth, Soldier and even Starship Troopers (I have no honor!). I love it when things characters do have an impact, when people can be upset about their circumstances, when they have hard choices to make, and yes, also when a guy spends a whole scene stitching his own cheek back together after a single slash with a knife. But in the comedy category (which of course also includes the previously named Starship Troopers, but maybe not really the same kind of comedy), can't go wrong with Disney.

R rated movies, of course, have lots of Spice. But then that is the point.

Comedy movies have really gone downhill over the last couple of decades. But that is a big culture thing: comedy just about always must be offense to be funny. There is a bit of bland safe kidz comedy...and the rest is offensive at best. Though ''being offensive'' is seen as wrong and has been for years, so you don't see it in many comedy movies. At the most basic, comedy needs to have something bad happen to a character....but if it's anything other then some type of natural force, then it falls under Bulling, or even assault and battery. And Bulling and crimes are wrong...so you can't do that.

It's fine for a cartoon Slinky Dog to trip a toy cowbow....but to have a popular teen girl cheerleader trip a geek girl....nope.

[Chen]

Ok, so that wasn't just me then. Cuz i coulda swore they all looked kinda the same.

This happened with the 2D movies too though. The prince in The Little Mermaid looks exactly like Aladdin with slightly lighter skin (you notice these things aftet watching the movies a billion times with your young kids)

[Honest Tiefling]

Are you possibly cherry picking movies? Hercules had a unique art style...But was never as popular as the others with some critics not enjoying the art style. At the time, it wasn't considered one of the classics. Others seem to have failed the test of time, such as Black Cauldron, Robin Hood and the Sword in the Stone are rarely mentioned, and I don't think anyone has mentioned them in here yet.

So if you are going to compare Disney's output from 1937-1997, you're just going to have way more selection that works than if you only look from 2010 onwards.

[Fri]

So because you don't feel it nobody does. Despite everybody else here also mentioning it as debatable in some aspect?

You open with a hyperbolic question and got offended when someone answered with hyperbolic answer? What answer you're honestly expecting? This is the internet. If you ask "Is it just me" etc you know damn sure it's not you. You can ask "Is it just me who always want my hand to be eaten by a bear" and I guarantee you someone will answer "No, I also always want that."

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Are you possibly cherry picking movies? Hercules had a unique art style...But was never as popular as the others with some critics not enjoying the art style. At the time, it wasn't considered one of the classics. Others seem to have failed the test of time, such as Black Cauldron, Robin Hood and the Sword in the Stone are rarely mentioned, and I don't think anyone has mentioned them in here yet.

So if you are going to compare Disney's output from 1937-1997, you're just going to have way more selection that works than if you only look from 2010 onwards.

I mentioned Robin Hood in this thread, loved that one.

It was made as a way to trace and recycle as much previous footage as possible, but I loved it.

The objectively worst Disney movie I liked was Brother Bear 2. Yes, one of those direct to whatever just give us your money sequels. There are a lot of flaws to it, but there's still something to it. And I didn't even first see that one (or the original) when I was of target audience age.

But that is a big culture thing: comedy just about always must be offense to be funny. There is a bit of bland safe kidz comedy...and the rest is offensive at best. Though ''being offensive'' is seen as wrong and has been for years, so you don't see it in many comedy movies. At the most basic, comedy needs to have something bad happen to a character....but if it's anything other then some type of natural force, then it falls under Bulling, or even assault and battery. And Bulling and crimes are wrong...so you can't do that.

It's fine for a cartoon Slinky Dog to trip a toy cowbow....but to have a popular teen girl cheerleader trip a geek girl....nope.

I think you may be on to something here. One of my favorite (if a little dated) comedies is Fanfare (google "Fanfare (Bert Haanstra, NLD 1958)" and you'll find it on a very unlicensed looking Youtube channel, which I'm afraid is the only way you're ever going to see a minor Dutch movie from 1958, if it even comes across as funny at all with subtitles...), which indeed does contain a certain mix of slapstick and innocence in the setting, like a cartoon might.

[Rogar Demonblud]

You also have to remember that because of the production issues with animation, they are absurdly thought out for a movie. You have to have every shot planned out well in advance so the animators can draw/render it. So a better comparison is going to be to effects-heavy blockbuster fare rather than write-it-shoot-it-rewrite it-reshoot it fare like comedies, most of which are often shooting a page that didn't exist 48 hours ago (or less--Seth Rogen often writes a scene with everyone already on the set, apparently).

[Reddish Mage]

I don’t know if 3D animation can ultimately be called “bland” because of the medium, although closer shots seem the norm when things are shown in theee dimensions with a lot more detail then 2d.

There’s the intimation I’m getting that story is also implicated, but more recent Disney films are among the most creative.

Tangled was earlier than Frozen, and was a first to suggest that Pixar’s Shrek was having an influence. Maybe I need to watch again but I believe the plot has Repuzel tieing up and forcing Flynn to take her to the Kingdom. Then commits a jailbreak, all the while she fights off th witch’s henchmen and guards with a frying pan. This is no traditional Disney princess movie.

Frozen (2013) was even more out there eschewing a traditional set up to focus on the sisters’ relationship and Elsa’s magic. They throw in a more traditional villain almost as an afterthought.

The live action films supposedly don’t vary the plot of the prior animations and are the true bastions of nostalgia and retreads. Also have we discussed what they did with Star Wars? I think we did.

Disney’s animation movies are showing every attempt to push out and revise the formula, not by some cheap out such as being edgy but by really crafting new ways to tell stories.