Writing in the Disney Renaissance
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 มิ.ย. 2020
- Support me on Patreon: / eyebrowcinema
More than its beautiful animation and fantastic music, what made the Disney Renaissance great was the quality screenwriting. These movies built on the traditional stories of classic Disney while also expanding on the themes and characters dramatically. This video analyzes how Disney pushed their writing in the Renaissance, how the era fell apart, and the influence of the era on modern Disney.
Like and subscribe for more film analysis.
Follow me on Twitter: / danpgsimpson
Lindsay Ellis on Hercules: • Hercules, Disney's Bea...
Ellis on Disney Villains: • Are Disney Villains Go...
More Eyebrow Cinema:
Learning to Love Batman Returns - • Learning to Love Batma...
Fan Entitlement and the Quick Fix - • Fan Entitlement and th...
The Godfather Part II - How Coppola Quotes Himself - • The Godfather Part II ...
The Great Bondian Identity Crisis - • The Great Bondian Iden...
Kevin Smith Revisited - • Kevin Smith Revisited
The Death of the American Gangster Film - • The Death of the Ameri...
Silent Films are Like Hard Liquor: A Guide to Silent Movies - • Silent Films are Like ...
The Apartment and How to Write Movies Good - • The Apartment and How ...
Night of the Living Dead and the Prison of Intent - • Night of the Living De...
The Citizen Kane Effect and the Rashomon Test - • The Citizen Kane Effec...
I would like to put that Ariel didn’t sell her voice for a man she was already fascinated with the human world Eric was just the cherry on top.
Exactly! She just wanted to be a human
people love to forget all her interest she previously had for the human world & narrow it down to “she saw a pretty man and left her family behind.” girl fought a shark for a fork!
@@iiamromika EXACTLY, she was willing to go to such lengths to achieve her goals *long* before meeting Prince Eric, and with the amount of treasures we see inside her grotto, one's imagination is allowed to run free on the fantastical adventures and risks she's already taken in the past to amass her collection. *Especially* when you consider her quick-thinking to outwit the shark, as well as how fascinated and unbothered she was compared to Flounder when they were exploring the ship; it was just another day in the life for her. (Something the TV show was able to go more in-depth on). It's one of the reasons I loved her so much as a kid and now consider her a part of my Top 5 princesses as an adult...I found her to be one of Disney's first, truly daring & adventurous princesses. A character who purposefully sought out excitement and experience. Yes, she tended to end up in precarious situations, but it was more so by choice rather than by circumstance. It doesn't necessarily mean she's *above* being scolded for her admitted recklessness, but still, can we really blame Ariel for wanting to be more knowledgeable about a world so close yet so far from her? And in regards to Prince Eric, in reality, she only met him *due* to said fascination with the human world. Originally, she just wanted to inspect the ship he was on because she saw it as a prime opportunity to get up-close and personal with what was essentially her research subject, and only *then* did she happen upon Prince Eric. When she saved him, it circles back to her quick-thinking with the shark. She was willing to risk her identity to ensure his safety back on land, and not only that, but it showed an extension of her compassion and kindness that the Disney Princesses are known for. And when she gave up her voice, it wasn't because of a man; it wasn't even just due to curiosity. It was out of desperation. Think about it: by that point in the story, Ariel felt so disillusioned and rejected by a world that (quite adamantly) refused to understand her goals or her knowledge, so when given the opportunity to leave all that behind and start anew, she took it (after some understandable hesitation of course), hoping the human world would better provide the acceptance and belonging she struggled to find amongst her fellow merfolk. (Because keep in mind, her best friends while living under the sea were all animals. A fish, a crustacean, & a seagull). 🧜♀️
Okay wow I totally didn't mean for this to turn into a miniature essay but here you go I guess. Hope you enjoyed it. 😆
@@DJtheBlack-RibbonedRose i actually enjoyed reading all that! i REALLY hate it when people narrow down Ariel’s story to “she left her family for d!ck” because she did not. she wanted to be human & leave the sea loooonnggg before she even laid eyes on eric. he just happened to be there the day she saw that ship on the surface & she just happened to develop a crush on him.
i’ve noticed that it all comes down to modern day feminism that teaches us that the only way to be a strong independent woman is to kick ass. take cinderella for an example, it was a huge discussion on wether or not it was “feminist” enough for young women. the people who said it wasn’t feminist enough said “she was abused but she didn’t fight back at all and she needed a man so be saved”. they refuse to acknowledge the fact that she COULD NOT fight back to her stepmother & stepsisters because the ONE time she did, she got all the chores quadrupled & she was being tired out. about she “she needed a man to be saved” part, she didn’t even care for him when she arrived at the ball! she was just excited for a day out of the house, hell, she did not even know she was dancing with the prince later until the next day. marrying the prince really was her ticket to freedom, a way out from her abusers so she TOOK it. she even freed HERSELF out of her room to get to downstairs & try on the shoe. the fact that she fell in love with him has nothing to do with it lmfao. i kinda hate how modern day feminism views aspects like patience, love & kindness as “weak” and the more masculine traits (physically fighting back, being harsh with words, sassy) as “strong”. that is downright sexist itself 😭
this turned out pretty long too 🤣 my apologies
@@iiamromika I get your point, I just want to point out that it was the mice that rescued Cinderella from her room. She did not escape herself. I also understand that Ariel didn't originally set out to meet Eric, but still, I can't help but feel that she made a pretty dumb choice when she sought out Ursula, so it doesn't seem like she quite deserved her happy ending.
can you really say ariel sold her voice for eric tho? the point of the i want song is to establish her motivations, and she sang it before meeting eric. she didn’t even mentions love in her song.
even before meeting eric in the song she says “what would i pay to stay a day warm on the sand?” well, her soul.
THANK YOU
Disney reinassance is a spoil of the public eye, we didn't know how good we got it from them, and after it ended we felt the pain of very poor decisions in the mid 2000s
This video came from marathoning through Disney animation and the drop from the 90s to the mid 2000s is so vast. It cannot be overstated how staggeringly low Disney fell.
Fish don’t notice water.
@@blackswan4486 Exactly, they take it for granted. "You don't know what you have untill you lose it".
@@EyebrowCinema But...Emperor's New Groove and Atlantis???
That was my favorite era from Disney
*subtly slides this video onto Bob Iger's desk*
- the protagonists (choices) lead the plot
- want vs need
- evil sometimes more personal
- personal identity
while i have a soft spot for a few titles, the renaissance era, at large, felt more formulaic and "corporate mandated" than anything prior imo.
hard to call that era "progressive" when it was creatively (and from a technical standpoint) kind of underwhelming
Despite its problems I think hunchback is one of the best films Disney has made
You know, your comments on Tarzan and the relationship between hero and villain got me to thinking--Disney really missed an opportunity. In the original novel, William Cecil Clayton was not a villain, but was a cousin of John Clayton, Earl of Greystoke, aka Tarzan. He was also interested in Jane's hand, getting engaged to her although Tarzan eventually won out in the course of several novels. They could have kept this angle in while still keeping him a villain and made his motivation jealousy instead--he's always aspired to the title of Earl of Greystoke and the love of Jane Porter, and now this man is stepping in to grab away both. Instead, they made him a one-dimensional greedy villain only out for money.
I wasn't aware of Clayton's role in the original novels. That sounds a lot more interesting. Missed opportunity indeed.
I love one dimensional villains.
Imo Tarzan was the one of the most overrated Disney movies. I didn’t like how it wasn’t a musical, I didn’t find it funny, I didn’t like the characters that much, and the story itself I didn’t like either.
I'd argue that Maleficent's motivation goes beyond then just "not being invited to a party". Sure she wasn't invited but that's the reason why she cursed the princess, it's because the three good fairies were invited by the King and Queen aka her enemies. I think that is what offended her, the king and queen breaking bread with enemies is a sign they took a side in their war, so she punishes them accordingly.
Disney is my fave Animation Studio and I do love their Handdrawn films. The Renaissance is the perfect era for Disney Animation.
Personally, I think Hercules' arc is well-defined. He initially thinks that being a hero is about gaining attention and fans, but comes to learn the true meaning of it through his relationship with Meg. That being said, I do understand your point about it having elements that don't work together. I enjoy the film as is, but if you watch it with the same expectations you had with The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin, you will be disappointed.
Hunchback is my favorite Disney movie, its an unpopular opinion, but its mine
It's also my brother's favourite so as far as I'm concerned you're in good company.
Hunchback has its good moments in spades, but unfortunately there are a few weights that drag it down. Personally, I think it deserves more credit but I will acknowledge that the film failed when it came to bringing in levity to prevent itself from falling completly into Hugo's natural territory of being les miserables (I'll see myself out for that)
I just wanted to tell you that I've just binged your entire channel. First of all BRILLIANT work Daniel! You have some of the best video's on youtube regarding gangster films. Secondly, you've spoken about great performances and acting in some of your videos and I would love to see you make video on your all time standout performances whilst discussing the acting in more detail perhaps. Again fantastic work and I'm certain this channel will be one of the biggest in this genre in no time. All the best, Luke. Keep killing it.
This is really kind of you to say. Thank you! I'll keep a video on acting in mind and see what I can do :)
Incredibly interesting as always. It would be interesting to hear your take on the ‘Pixar era’ that came shortly after the Disney renaissance and how that changed narratives too.
Thank you! I don't know if I'll return to Disney Animation, but you never know. I do have a Pixar idea but it still needs work.
To me, Hercules was the best movie of the Renassiance era. I loved is' exploration of what makes a hero and so, I think it's more structured than what you give it credit for. And the Tarzan story as a great adventure story. . Those two aspects are what I love about those stories.
While I dont think Hercules is the best, I do think that it (and Tarzan) deserve a lot more love. Tarzan was my favourite movie as a child and as an adult I think Hercules is the best depiction of Superman ever.
@@trequor I feel like Hercules is in the same boat as Hook in that its problems are pretty self evident on the outset and were seen at the time and are basically the reason they didn't perform well or weren't well received upon their initial release, but nowadays pointing out those very flaws - be that Lindsay Ellis or anyone else - the reaction by diehard fans is to just close the ears and go "la la la can't hear you!" I don't hate it but I think the assessment in the vid that Hades is basically the best part of the film - along with a few of the songs that stand on their own - is pretty spot on. That Ron Clements and John Musker even admitted to just phoning it in so that they could go and do Treasure Planet (and we all know how that turned out) doesn't help much. I'm less opinionated about Tarzan but my feeling falls along the same lines that while its by no means bad both films suffered in their execution and I - at the time a kid and thereby part of the target audience - was pretty unenthused with both at the time for those reasons which is probably why I don't see either through nostalgia colored glasses. No way would I cosign that Hercules is the best in terms of thematic structure. Its basically a cult classic...
You missed out on the "surprise but totally not a surprise" villain in Incredibles 2 and Coco. The other component to the surprise villain is the "surprise relative". The moment the homeless skeleton in Coco makes a connection with him, it was obvious (at least to me) that he was probably going to be the true good guy at the end, much like vanellope and king candy in Wreck It Ralph. The reveal was better in Ralph but the current trope of "Set up character X as the heroic ideal in act 1 and then tear him down by Act 3" is tiring and really formulaic.
I was focusing more on Disney than Pixar, but you are correct and seeing the trope though, and I agree, it's very tiresome.
Really terrific analysis here. Forgive me for bumping a 2 year-old video, but I actually want to make a connection between this video here and your recent eye-opening video "No, Superhero Movies are NOT like Westerns". It's difficult in this day and age to think of the Walt Disney Company ever being an underdog, but that's essentially how they started in the 1920s and 1930s (Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was labeled 'Disney's Folly' in Hollywood before its release, and way before Eisenstein himself called it the greatest film ever made), and when you flash forward to the decade and a half prior to the Renaissance, that's what they were again: the underdog.
It's also really easy to underestimate to the influence of Howard Ashman, the lyricist (and essentially storyteller) of The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast (Aladdin had his work completed by another lyricist after his death mid-way through production). I often draw comparisons between him and Stephen Sondheim, because his lyric writing was nearly as endlessly witty, funny, and inventive as Sondheim's. But perhaps more important to note is that Ashman was to the animators of the Renaissance films what Walt Disney himself was to the animators of the Golden Age films (and there are many people involved in the production of these films, including Walt's nephew Roy, who would compare him to Walt): he endlessly challenged and educated the animation studio about what it could be and what kind of work they were capable of producing, and at the same time sold them on the idea that animation and musical theatre were made for one another. For example, there was a point where Jeffrey Katzenberg suggested that they cut "Part of Your World" from The Little Mermaid. Ashman literally said "over my dead body, I'll strangle you." And he was right. If that "I Want" song had been gutted, it would have killed the connection to Ariel, and likely killed people's connection to the movie itself (I've heard a rumor that the animation studio would have closed were the movie not a success, and I'd be willing to bet that if the song was cut, that rumor would have been a reality).
He might have had a bit of a contentious personality to deal with, but he also had a motivation and force that we haven't seen from a single individual at Disney Animation since. When he died in 1991, there was no one to fill his shoes. No one had the kind of mind, artistic vision, and seemingly endless bag of musical theatre tricks that could be applied to animation as he had (I would have no problem saying that the beginning of the end for the Disney Renaissance was Ashman's death; The Lion King is really the curious exception to the rule). Without Ashman, not only would Disney have never made these films, but they would not have made the amounts of money that they do today, to say nothing of the fact that the works are endlessly re-purposed for Broadway, live action remakes, etc.
In your Superhero/Western video, what I found most interesting were the graphs that depicted the several different studios having influence over the box office when it came to those two genres. Obviously, Disney has the strongest threshold over the superhero box office today, but that wasn't always the case. Around the time of Tim Burton's Batman, Disney released The Rocketeer, and that was a flop at the box office, and their attempts at superhero movies prior to their owning of Marvel are almost not even worth bringing up. But thanks to the money that these animated musicals were bringing in (and continuing to do so, thanks to their longevity on home video and Broadway), and to the fact that the public was growing tired of the formula that came with those films, they could afford to re-purpose the money into live-action filmmaking, specifically for superhero films (and for a time, other franchises they acquired or previously owned through the theme parks like Pirates of the Caribbean and The Chronicles of Narnia). The lesson Disney learned long ago is that if you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. Their distribution deal with Pixar obviously turned into them purchasing Pixar outright, and eventually lead to purchasing Marvel, Lucasfilm, Fox, etc. As you say, the homogenization and tyranny of Disney at the box office (in particular through Superhero and Marvel) has nothing to do with the popularity of westerns.
And I don't think any of it would have happened were it not for the efforts of Howard Ashman, and his lyrics still continue to make the company billions of dollars. However, I don't think that he would have wanted any of this to happen, and I think it's unfair to add this to his legacy. He's a far greater artistic figure than practically anyone else who has set foot in the studio since, and if he were alive today, would likely still be pushing and challenging artists to create works that go above and beyond "acceptable", which seems to be the bar that Disney wants to meet today.
The incredibly singable scores of the renaissance sure helped a lot. They harkened back to the 60's Disney animations of my youth. As a child, family vacations featured a cassette tape of "The Jungle Book" to which we all sang along. As a father of two young girls, we travelled with a CD of current Disney hits from the renaissance movies.
i've just discovered this channel and i adore it. maybe the best film channels i've come across in a while
I appreciate that a lot. Thank you :)
Phew! How does this channel not have more views? This is fantastic work!
Thank you for saying so!
Hunchback’s tone problem really comes down to many of the jokes just not being very funny. It’s not like it doesn’t have humor that works, and it’s not like it doesn’t have even sillier humor that works at that! The goofy gargoyles could have even landed better if they were just better. The only example of straight up out of place humor I can think of is the transition from Hellfire straight into the Guy Like You scene. That just should not have happened.
Great analysis of the Disney Renaissance, but also just awesomely constructed. Subbed!
Ariel did have an arch. Her want is to become human and to be with Eric. Her need is to restore her relationship with her dad. It's not very developed because Triton is the one who learns the big lesson of the movie, "children got to be free to live their own lives", quoting Sebastian. But overall, Ariel did come out with the realisation of how much her dad loved her, and the final hug between Triton and Ariel shows they finally understand each other.
I would like to add my hot take on the topic.
The issue is not with Ariel the character, it's really the story for it's hiccups. For her motivation, the story glosses on Eric alot. For her arc, it focuses more on the action and less on story and character development, plus it did felt pretty rushed. So the issue is more like the story for how it can be unfocused or rushed.
Besides, if the movie established that Ariel learned nothing, then we see Ariel:
A. Never apologize
B. Never bother to try and amend her mistake
C. Never noticed that she screwed up
D. Has a temper tantrum for not getting what she wanted (like Cialloiu)
E. Is rude and ungrateful to her friends, and family, and father at the end
F. Make the same mistake at the end of the film.
G. All of the Above
So while not valid, but due to the story's rushed and unfocused moments, it does seem close to being valid surface wise, resulting in people to draw to the conclusion that "Ariel wants a man" or "Ariel learns nothing."
@@jonnyboy4289 It's a good take.
I think that, from a historical point of view, it was during the Disney renaissance that the studios began to rely more on Joseph Campbell's template "the Hero's journey" to create character arcs, which they have followed for most of their films to this date. During Walt's era, protagonists, especially princesses like Snow White, Cinderella and Aurora, didn't have much of a character arc, their stories were more about overcoming adversity and being rewarded for their patience and virtue. The Little Mermaid seems to me as a transition between old Disney and new Disney, in the sense that Ariel also needs to be rescued and be rewarded after being oppressed; but at the same time, she's more proactive in her story, and has a trace of a character arc by making her realise of her mistake and achieve her happy ending only when she reconciles with her dad. Triton has a more traditional character arc, and as the renaissance went on, protagonists had more noticeable character arcs. So to me, it isn't so much that the story is rushed, but that narrative styles and tastes gradually changed, with TLM being part of that transition.
I agree that if Ariel truly had learnt nothing, or if the story was all about getting a man without making herself responsible for her actions, the framing would need to have been different. She would kiss Eric before the 3-days deadline, Ursula loses, Triton realises he was wrong, and Ariel marries Eric still as a mute woman. Which funny enough, that version does exist, in the form of Golden Films knock off "The little mermaid", which is an obvious copy from the Disney version, only that so low-budget that they didn't write a good ending. LOL. Ironically, that cheap version is closer to be what detractors from Disney's TLM often say the latter is.
@@fcv4616 Not to mention, when the film came out, people praised Ariel for being more active than the previous Disney princesses (Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora). And yes, Ariel had always had detractors for giving up her voice for a man or being too motivated by man, but that was based on sexisim, which is not valid because if it were sexist, then we would have something like, "Ariel, you can't do this because you're a girl." Then Ariel would respond, "Okay, Daddy. You're right."
This is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you for the video dude.
Or maybe, just maybe, Hercules is one of the very best Disney Renaissance movies. Up there with Mulan, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, only a lot more cerebral and satyrical and therefore less enchanting.
Maybe. Hercules definitely has a more satirical bent than most Disney movies but I don't know if I'd call it more cerebral.
I’d agree with @EyebrowCinema. I think Hercules is a favorite for those who grew up on it and loved it as a child. But I don’t think it’s one of Disney’s best by any means, and that’s coming from someone who watched it for the first time as an adult, unclouded by nostalgia.
It’s a pretty solid movie, the satire is funny, but I don’t think it’s genius, and I don’t think it’s artistry is breathtaking like many other Disney Classics.
Great Video, would love to see your opinions on the Atlantis, Treasure Planet, Lilo & Stitch, and the Emperor's New Groove.
Do you have Letterboxd? I've written short reviews for all four films there!
Thanks for your kind words :)
@@EyebrowCinema i'll chevk it out, great work!!
This is a really great video, it really deserves more views
I enjoyed this video quite a lot
Good Job dude.
Great video and great use of music! You're at almost 7k subscribers! WOW!
10k by year's end is the goal which should be pretty reachable.
@@EyebrowCinema I'm assuming you will be there before then.
It's strange that you put the essay in this layout, because that's actually how I saw Disney films as a lil' tot in the early-to-mid 90's!! After seeing THE LITTLE MERMAID at home on VHS, I saw my first Disney film on the big screen at age 6 with BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, and to this day, it remains one of the most profound cinematic experiences of my life! I still prefer that one as my personal Top Favorite film of the Disney Renaissance, no matter how many times I watched THE LION KING, which I also loved. However, after POCAHONTAS at age 10 in '95, I stopped seeing the rest of Disney's Renaissance films on the big screen and only afterwards caught at least one screening of some of the later films each on the small screen at other people's houses, usually as part of kids' group activities, and even then I didn't get the same feeling that I did watching the first Disney Renaissance films in theaters. I guess the effect kinda wore off on me before I even knew what the hell was happening. And this coincided with watching DreamWorks animated movies on the big screen during my early-to-mid teens, which were aimed at both kids and adults while delivering elements that we were losing with the later Disney Renaissance films.
Great analysis man. I like your arguments and your points. My only nitpick is that the music you chose is a bit distracting sometimes. Other than that, thanks for the video!
Honestly, Hunchback would have been a perfect film, if not for the gargoyles. I mean, the actors who voiced them are funny on their own, but they don’t fit into the story.
How you have this many subscribes escapes me. Great video!
i like how you're playing the music for beauty and the beast in the background, that music is legendary
You deserve more views!!
I definitely agree that the screenwriting was vastly improved from most of the movies from the previous eras of Disney. The main characters including the heroes and the villains are better fleshed out and for the most part (except for Radcliffe and Clayton) have motivations that make sense according to their characters.
If you're such a fan of Hero/Villain relationships, give us the Treasure Planet movie you coward
Treasure Planet?
*perks up, rubbing fists over eyes obscured by mists of despair*
Are there innumerable chests and casks? Made from teak and mahogany? Do mysterious spices mix with the scent of sweet oils?
This Planet: Are Treasures filled with Serendipitous possibilities, safe to build a dream on? I’ve been waiting for so long...
Great Video!
For the last time Ariel didn’t sell her voice for a man 😭
Ngl in the classic disney movies, the sidekicks are the protagonists. Not the titular or main characters
5:25 Alright I laughed there, well done
How can you say that about hunchback of Notre Dame. You were saying a movie that took place during the Renaissance has no place in the Renaissance?
Alright you’ve got a Disney renaissance video, now all you need is a video analyzing The Office and you’ll shoot straight to the top of Film Analysis TH-cam, 100k bby!!!🥳🥳🥳 (Great video, as always)
*rolls up sleeves
It's time to sell out.
Interesting analysis
In case not everyone knew, these are the films of the Disney Renaissance. This clip forgot one:
The Little Mermaid ( 1989 )
The Rescuers Down Under ( 1990 )
Beauty and the Beast ( 1991 )
Aladdin ( 1992 )
The Lion King ( 1994 )
Pocahontas ( 1995 )
The Hunchback of Notre Dame ( 1996 )
Hercules ( 1997 )
Mulan ( 1998 )
Tarzan ( 1999 )
When the Disney Revival Era films START, there is debate between Bolt ( 2008 ) and The Princess and the Frog ( 2009 ), but not Tangled ( 2010 ). Might want to rethink that. Also, the Disney Revival Era films are as follows:
Bolt ( 2008 )
The Princess and the Frog ( 2009 )
Tangled ( 2010 )
Winnie the Pooh ( 2011 )
Wreck-It Ralph ( 2012 )
Frozen ( 2013 )
Big Hero 6 ( 2014 )
Zootopia ( 2016 )
Moana ( 2016 )
th-cam.com/video/eTO-lVm42l4/w-d-xo.html
Just discovering your channel and I love your content! Subscribed!
I disagree with what seems to be the general consensus regarding Pocahontas. It's certainly a dip in quality from the prior four movies, and I agree with many of your criticisms, but I feel it does offer a few things the other films don't. I also regard Tarzan much higher than you seem to, and actually prefer it to Aladdin. Mulan is, in my opinion, clearly the weakest picture you discuss. Regardless, I loved this video and it provided quite a bit of insight I hadn't considered, and I always thought I considered these films a lot! Thank you!
Even if the later films of the 90s fail to properly execute the Disney Formula among other story problems (which might explain why these films, while still well-remembered, don't get as much recognition as the first half), they still have enough strengths to be considered part of the Renaissance. They all have phenomenal soundtracks and animation. They also have strong theming, and enough entertaining and heartfelt moments to make them impactful. Pocahontas presents prejudice and racial tension from both sides of the fence. The Hunchback of Notre Dame doesn't shy away from presenting the darker sides of society, humanity, and even religion. Hercules is has charming and funny characters, and is ultimately about a hero who comes to know the true meaning of being one. Mulan has one of the strongest female protagonists in a Disney film, where her greatest strength is in her character and motivation. And Tarzan rivals Lion King in its atmosphere and emotion beats. Yes, these films have issues holding them back, but no story is perfect, so long as it leaves an impression.
Really, I'm one of those people who thinks Disney hasn't put out a truly bad film. Even the films that are generally considered their worst I have at least some nostalgia or personal interest for that, at worst, clouds my judgement and, at best, allows me to enjoy them. Personally, I feel that the Disney Renaissance only ended because the 90s era did, and even some of the films that came after, like Lilo and Stitch and Treasure Planet, are still regarded today as some of Disney's best. I also feel that while the Revival Era has it's share of good films, it doesn't hold a candle to the Renaissance Era, simply because so much of it misses the mark.
You were too hard on Pocahontas. She does have wants and ‘Just Around The Riverbend’ exemplifies that.
Honestly, as a kid who even saw lion king in theaters and was Disney's sauron-eye demographic then...the movies that came out prior to pocahontas had a better 'animation quality' that was rarely matched by later generations as Disney went on. I've still never seen pocahontas haha
It's like prior to pocahontas they had different folks behind the scenes and those that came after just wanted to mcdonald's-ify/streamline their movies once they got that $$$$ boost from their good movies. Movies that they've been trying to milk yet again a couple decades later.
It's purely aesthetic yes, but sometimes that can make or break the decision to stare at a screen & watch it for a couple hours, at least for a little kid
90s Disney did it differently but not objectively better. Classic Disney wasn’t focused on plot and that’s not specifically a bad thing.
What is your take on the move away from animation to “live action” remakes?
It fuckin sucks DICK
I would like to add that Ariel in the original Little Mermaid doesn't have an arc because.....she didn't need one. Ariel has a want. Her want to to go to the surface and be with Eric. But, her need is to stay underwater because "humans are bad" according to King Triton. But, in the end.....Ariel was right because the surface is where she belongs and, thanks to Eric saving Ariel in the climax, not all humans are bad. So Ariel wad right and Triton was wrong. Although Ariel doesn't have an arc, she was able to notice that Ursula tricked her and see the concequeces of her actions through her facial expressions of shock, terror, and horror and Ariel was a very expressive character. So, you were easily able to see what she's thinking. Plus, (like what you said) she helped out Eric take down Ursula (and her eels, too).
Does Ariel get saved in the end? Yes. But, Ariel has already shown how active she was (saving Flounder from a shark, saving Eric (twice), and killing Ursula's eels). Plus, Eric saving Ariel was important as it gave Eric a moment to shine and it resulted in Triton to learn that not all humans are bad.
Am I wrong or am I right?
...and the guy who seems like a classic Disney Renaissance villain be a red herring.
Wall-e did the hero death fakeout first and also significantly better.
wow, 700 million for Lion King. didn't know it was that much.
Man, Emperrors new groove was so unique. It tried to be a "comedy" above everything. Even being a modern version of an ancient Meso-american city, and no real 'dark' moments. Other movies stay true to their time period and setting. The protagonist is a right lovable, spoiled asshole, his sidekick goes through so much and is the victim of our heroes business, and regular venture. The villain is defeated, but still alive, and later on they all sort of just co-exist as frenemies in the series that was cut short with Kitt's death. Infact, I'd even say YZMA is very much based on Eartha Kitt, from turning to a cat, to being scarier beyond all reason.
I love hunchback more than god knows, but I agree it has some major tonal problems
Despite those flaws it's among the best films in the Renaissance.
@@EyebrowCinema I agree! I wish the gargoyles weren't there, but for the rest this is one of my favourite Disney movies. I love all characters in it, especially Frollo. He's the best villain in all of Disney's catalogue to me and hellfire is pretty much my favourite villain song, ever.
And now we have Disney in what is probably one of its most UN-creative periods ever -- going crazy with CGI-heavy live-action remakes of previous animated films that people already know the story of. I'll be glad when Disney gets off of THIS trend!
Brom in Ichabod and Mr. Toad has a Gaston complex too
I think it's also important to point out that Howard Ashman had a Major role in all this, and that his passing is almost tied up to the "decline" of the renaissance era since he made The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and a lot of Aladdin.
I’m curious where you think outliers like Lilo and Stitch factor into this.
Better than most animqtion films by Comcast nowadays...
Can somebody please direct me towards the music that is playing around 6:40 minute mark? Thank you.
Ariel did not do that, she loved the land before him
You need more membership!
Personality and love 💕
I don't really care one bit about disney animation of old
But I will watch this since your videos are always good.
Cheers, mate. Hope you dig it in spite of your lack of Disney interest.
Your parents have failed! jk lol
How touching
I realized that Gaston's fall is caused by the lack of love - just like Voldemort.
Also, the original Little Mermaid by Hans Christian Andersen includes a much deeper consequence of her acting, as it ends with her dieing.
The music creeped me out but the video was good
When he spoke about TARZAN, I felt attacked, that's one of my favs 😤
He's right, though 😫
I still love the movie, but if they removed those Gargolyes from The Hunchback of Notre Dame, it would have been a lot better.
Yeah I really don’t like those fake out self sacrifice parts. It’s like in lesser Don bluth films, like pebble and the penguin where we think rocko died but comes back for the climax.
Cartoons have emotions
Always a great scene after the horrible scene
Start with yourself ❤
A lovely 🌹 love story
Tarzan may not be the best Renaissance film, but it has the best soundtrack and the best song in Disney history imo
I think it’s of note that in Frozen and Tangled the act of sacrifice was set up well and the characters “revival” makes sense. In Frozen we already knew about the whole act of true love thing and in Tangled we knew Rapunzels hair had healing powers, so it was very possible her tears did as well. To be honest if doesn’t make since to me why they brought back baymax
I guess the "act of true love" thing in Frozen works best out of those three because it fits into the theme about sisterly love, but I found Eugene's revival in Tangled to be pretty abrupt, and not very well explained in the movie. In fact, it previously showed that once Rapunzel's hair was cut, its magic was lost, so it feels more like Disney wanting to add some drama, but not wanting to follow it through to its logical conclusion. And yeah, bringing Baymax back was pretty unnecessary.
I think the movie that did the "revival" trope the best, without making it too cheesy, was Frozen 2. We actually get to see Anna at her absolute lowest, and it was a moment of character growth for her to pick herself up and "do the next right thing" without the support of Elsa, Olaf, or Kristoff. There's some debate as to whether Elsa should have stayed dead, but I will argue that in order for her to be brought back, something significant plotwise (breaking the dam) had to happen. And yes, Elsa didn't really sacrifice herself willingly, but she revealed the truth about the dam, and her getting frozen was foreshadowed throughout the movie ("Go too far and you'll be drowned").
By contrast, with the other "revivals", nothing really seemed to happen. Character is seemingly dead one minute, then comes back to life the next minute because "true love conquers all", or something like that.
Right now, I'm sorta of the opinion that Raya's sacrifice was more of the latter (dead one moment, revived the next), but it did seem to factor into the plot in a significant way. Maybe it's still to early to be analyzing Raya and the Last Dragon too much, I mean, I've only seen it twice so far.
the unions dig made me laugh 🤣
Let it be sweet 🧁
I'd posit that Pocohontas is a good movie. 😊
Tarzan didn’t have a I want it song! Super important…
Swag Video
Thanks, Keith!
"Like unions" lol
Say welcome 🤗
Well... Lion King was based on Shakespeare´s King Lear sooooo....
*First, Ariel didn't do it all for one man! She liked the outside world before! second, if that were the case, what would be the problem? It's her decision after all! third, how come no one complains about the fact that Aladdin does everything, to the point of risking his life for a woman! How is this not seen as a problem?*
I do regret the somewhat glib writing on The Little Mermaid in this video.
The doggy is good 👍🏿
Magical kingdom
Bambi is sad 😭
More Disney princess in shrek
Don't true love away 😢
Hercules has the best soundtrack of any disney film.
Pocahontas is the only film in this era I did not like, due to its failed attempt at Oscar bait, motivated by Jeffrey Katzenberg’s desire to replicate the moment when Beauty and the Beast got nominated for Best Picture.
Let love❤ lead
Self sacrifice without out true sacrifice cheapens the ending.
You can just make the same video but about marvel
This is Disney
Am I the only person who doesn't enjoy this new Disney twisted villans?
I have mixed feelings. On the one hand things like the King Candy twist in Wreck-It Ralph genuinely took me by surprise, but on the other hand the film doesn't actually do much with the character and the action climax is just kinda perfunctory. I think someone like Bellwether works a lot better, in part because the payoff to the climax is really strong, but the character doesn't resonate nearly as powerfully as the more clearly motivated foes of the Renaissance.
I have mixed feelings. On the one hand things like the King Candy twist in Wreck-It Ralph genuinely took me by surprise, but on the other hand the film doesn't actually do much with the character and the action climax is just kinda perfunctory. I think someone like Bellwether works a lot better, in part because the payoff to the climax is really strong, but the character doesn't resonate nearly as powerfully as the more clearly motivated foes of the Renaissance.
@@EyebrowCinema Indeed, I completly agree with you. What about the villan in Frozen do you consider him to be a good one?
@@Pastel_of_Nate I think Hans works the best out of all the twist villains. His betrayal actually means something thematically, by subverting the whole "love at first sight" trope, and showing the consequence of Anna's character flaw (her naivete, and her desperate desire for love). The other twist villains add virtually nothing to their respective stories.
what I don't like about this video is how archetypal character writing (a hallmark of fairy tales) is presented as an inferior version to the modern style of introspective, psychologically defined characters writing, I don't necessarily think making a character more active or more internally flawed as opposed to external is a kind of "fix", different stories demand different dynamics, I encourage you to read/watch and study more classic works of films and literature and understand the differences as a style choice rather than bad writing
also the music doesn't fit the video at all, definitely one of your lesser works, love your other content