Phases

I asked this question last summer... Are we going through a new Disney Renaissance? Or not? At the time, I felt... Yes. We are, and that it started with The Princess and the Frog. That was then, what do I think now?

Come to think of it, I think the term "Disney Renaissance" is kind of flawed. Of course, the real Renaissance referred to the great art movement in Europe, an era of innovative art, new ideas and many other great things. It was all at a time when it was big, when it was popular. The Renaissance was called what it was because it spread like wildfire all across Europe. Likewise, there was a renaissance in  rock music in the 1960s: Experimentation, growth, success, new ideas that were unheard of in music. Now, the "Disney Renaissance" refers to the period when Disney animation became popular again. It was really a product of a greater happening in film history - The Second Golden Age of Animation, which began before The Little Mermaid was even put into production or green lit.

It is true that Disney animation grew in popularity at a rather rapid rate at this time. The Little Mermaid's $84 million take in 1989 was impressive for an animated feature and it was good for a film in general, but Beauty and the Beast sat alongside 1991's giants, Aladdin topped them all and The Lion King became 1994's biggest film at the worldwide box office and still one of the biggest of all time. You could say the 1989-1994 period was a Renaissance...

In technical terms, you could say it was a Renaissance as well. The Little Mermaid made use of computer generated imagery, but so did the three films before it. Mermaid's biggest innovation was perhaps the first ever use of CAPS, but The Rescuers Down Under was the real breakthrough here. It was the first film done completely in that format, and it allowed the animators and creative team to bring back effects like the multiplane camera. It did more with pure CGI, trying to mesh it with hand-drawn animation unlike what we saw in films like The Great Mouse Detective, Oliver & Company and The Little Mermaid where the animators traced over photocopies of the computer-generated images.

However, in The Rescuers Down Under, the traced over CGI (such as McLeach's monstrous bushwhacker truck) looks better than the pure CG imagery (New York City skyline, the Sydney Opera House), but this was an admirable first attempt to combine pure CGI images with hand-drawn art without making them look hand-drawn. Beauty and the Beast took these ideas further, with a dazzling Rococo ballroom that meshes almost perfectly with hand-drawn Belle and Beast. Aladdin's Cave of Wonders produced mixed results, but The Lion King has the incredible stampede sequence. The use of CGI and the integration of it continued to grow and go through its ups and downs, even after Tarzan... But most of the advancements were being explored during this period.

Quality? Well here's where I get iffy about the whole "Disney Renaissance" label (even though I use it from time to time)... The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King are all very good films, but do they really try anything new? As far as I'm concerned, The Little Mermaid is a hark back to the Golden Age films like Snow White and Cinderella, but at least its story isn't a complete retread of those films' ideas. Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King however, are a bit on the formulaic side. Walt's films weren't, they were all unique and different. Some were even radically different than others (Fantasia is certainly no Cinderella, and Cinderella is definitely no Bambi), the 1990s Disney films feel like they are basically following Mermaid's basic template:

#1. Broadway/pop chart-topper musical numbers that consist of the love ballad, the villain song, the showstopper tune and the "I Want" song...

#2. Good vs. evil story with a love story.

#3. Has to have a cutesy sidekick in it, just for the sole purpose of making the films appeal to toddlers and selling Happy Meal toys. See the behind the scenes woes of Pocahontas for a good example of this. (hint, "If I Never Knew You".)

Not a terrible thing, per se, but certainly a far cry from what Walt was doing. It'd be okay if Disney used this formula for a film every once in a while (minus the pandering), but using it for film after film wasn't the risk-taking Disney should be associated with. The model was to make one film a year, but Jeffrey Katzenberg went about this in a flawed manner: Faster and cheaper. Cheap shouldn't apply to big event Disney animated films, though the budgets got bigger starting with The Lion King.

I also feel that the 1990s films, like example #3 of the formula, try too hard to please children. Walt's films didn't do that, as they took the audience seriously. I think the three rules of the formula are what deflated the Renaissance/hot streak. Adults are a big audience for these films, contrary to popular belief (kids are not the "target audience" of a Disney animated film, and never were), and films like Pocahontas, I believe, scared them off. At the same time, I think people just got tired of same ol' same ol' by that time. Hercules certainly didn't feel any different from the films that preceded it. It became cool to knock Disney for their formula, and it's part of the reason why Shrek was such a big hit. (Ironically, that Disney formula is a thing because of Jeffrey Katzenberg.)

Anyways, the "Disney Renaissance" is simply that time when Disney was huge and popular. Of course, when that supposedly ended in 1999, other animation studios became popular: Pixar, DreamWorks, Blue Sky... The Renaissance for Disney was said to end before the millennium even started...

So, a new "Renaissance"? Well, I don't necessarily think it's a new "Renaissance" per se... I consider the old Renaissance to be a "big era" of sorts. I would say Golden Age, but I usually use the term "Golden Age" to refer to all animation, not just Disney, but you can say 1989-1999 was the studio's own little Golden Age. But see, I think differently. From The Little Mermaid to The Lion King, it was a streak of good films. To me, Pocahontas ended that, but Hunchback was great! But then there was the enjoyable Hercules and the problematic Mulan, but the pretty good Tarzan followed that. The post-1999 films were certainly more experimental, regardless of how they all turned out. It was overall a good and successful era for them. I think Disney had their own Golden Age from 1928 to 1942, but that's another story.

I think this era is a new Golden Age for Walt Disney Animation Studios. When did it begin? In 2008, with Bolt, the first film completely produced under John Lasseter, the first from the fixed studio...

Of course, I have a great deal of respect for Meet The Robinsons. Lasseter did what he could with that film, as it was going to be an absolute disaster. Thankfully, half of it is great, focused and certainly not misguided. He literally steered the ship away from a whirlpool, and firing Chris Sanders from American Dog was an unfortunate happening... But from the way I see it, it had to happen. Bolt is essentially a building block to a better future for Walt Disney Animation Studios. Their reputation was rock bottom after Chicken Little, and Lasseter felt that Sanders' ambitious film couldn't go through at that rate.

It's a very rocky issue with the animation community, but I think Bolt is fine for what it is. Yes, I would love to see American Dog in any possible way, but I understand that the film was most likely riddled with issues and it would've perhaps been an unwise business decision to start production on it with the state that the story was in. Delaying it wouldn't have helped either. That being said, I take Bolt for what it is and I understand why we got this instead of Sanders' film. Lasseter was trying to rebuild Walt Disney Animation Studios reputation, and he had to sacrifice riskiness for the time being for the 2008 release, and then the two films that would follow. I'm sure that Lasseter probably would want something like American Dog to be made, but the timing just wasn't right.

That being said, Bolt may have been on the bland side in terms of the presentation, but it packed a very solid story with a great amount of heart, memorable characters and the good mix of laughs, emotional parts and pure fun. It was a laid-back road movie, and it may not have taken any great risks, but it on its own terms, it's a delightfully well-made film. However, I personally see sheds of what's to come in that film... The Bolt television show sequences are action-packed, reminiscent of the The Incredibles' great action sequences. They're pulled off well, and there's a brief bit towards the end with alien spaceships. Now those were designed well and I can see Disney doing an entire space film like that... In fact, they are!

The Princess and the Frog and Tangled are based on fairy tales, so I think Lasseter had a plan all along... I call this Phase 1 of the new Golden Age. Consider...

Lasseter turned the risky American Dog into the safe Bolt, and followed that up with two fairy tale adaptations that were not far removed from Disney's other fairy tales for a reason, methinks. He basically wanted to win audiences back, audiences who were left cold by Walt Disney Animation Studios' last couple of efforts, and the salvaged Meet The Robinsons most likely wasn't going to start bringing the crowds back in. (Though if you ask me, the bland paint-by-numbers marketing kind of held that film back from doing well at the box office.)

Phase 1 ended with Winnie the Pooh in my eyes, that project was gap filler. A new film based on the character had to be made for some rights reason, so Lasseter had Walt Disney Animation Studios make a good Pooh film rather than have DisneyToon make a bad cash-grab film. (Like we needed another film like Piglet's Big Movie or Pooh's Heffalump Movie?) Plus, 2011 was empty at the moment with King of the Elves set for fall 2012, and Reboot Ralph in spring 2013. Of course, we all know that didn't exactly happen.

But to me, Bolt, The Princess and the Frog and Tangled tread familiar ground and don't take any wild risks. Lasseter's game plan was to make a string of easily marketable films that would do well in the long run (i.e. Frog and Tangled being about princesses, merchandise), and Walt Disney Animation Studios did not slack off in that department. All three films were met with critical praise, Bolt and Frog did decently at the box office while Tangled was the big hit Disney Animation has been waiting for.

So now... We are in Phase 2. (Yes, Marvel is most likely in your right head now...)

Wreck-It Ralph, as I've said many times before, is more akin to something like Atlantis: The Lost Empire or Treasure Planet. It's not a fairy tale nor is it something you'd expect from a Disney animated film. It's about video games, it features settings that you wouldn't expect from a Disney film and in terms of the presentation, it's just different and a real breath of fresh air. That was one of the main reasons I was so stoked about it early on. But the writers and crew married these ideas to a very strong story that barely missed a beat, and one that packed the usual Disney heart and humor. On the other hand, Atlantis and Treasure Planet were risky and ambitious, but they were botched by suits who knew nothing about animation. Wreck-It Ralph gets to be what it wants to be, and as a result, it's such a fantastic film. It was a critical hit, audiences liked it, its loss at the Oscars even inspired a massive albeit misguided backlash. Disney Animation was finally allowed to make the great, risky film they wanted to make a decade ago.

Now, this autumn, Disney goes back to fairy tales once again with Frozen. Many skeptics argue that they are trying to recreate Tangled, which is something I myself was concerned about very early on. But having learned about the story itself, I don't think that'll be the case. Instead, I think it'll resemble Tangled in the way Cinderella resembles Snow White. Cinderella is not a rehash of Snow White, it's just a great story in the vein of Walt's first film. Plus, they are both fairy tales, of course there will be similarities. I think Disney will make fairy tales every once in a while to keep things going. Fairy tales are associated with Disney, so while experimenting, they can still give audiences the familiar fix with films like Frozen and Giants. It's like their top meal on the menu, they can't just stop doing that. At the same time, they look to entice audiences with new kinds of stories. Maybe one day, people will associate big action films - among many others from adventure films to thrillers to dramas - with Disney Animation, rather than just fairy tales and animal stories.

But the good thing is, they don't want to follow a formula. It's not like the 1990s anymore where the writers and artists had to obey the rules. The Princess and the Frog and Tangled are very different in tone, and their stories and structures are both different too. Frog has a big bad villain who toys with dark magic, Tangled has less powerful one that's manipulative. Frog is mostly classical in its dialogue and mood, Tangled is a little more modern and snarky. One involves a lot of magical elements, the other doesn't as much. Frog's musical numbers are big and Broadway-esque, Tangled's are quieter and small. I'm sure Frozen will be similar to both, but different at the same time. The basic plot is already different.

On the other hand, Disney will be trying something new with every other film. Big Hero 6 is something I probably would've never expected them to do ten years ago, adapting a Marvel comic (a lot of good came out of that acquisition, now did it?) that's very much like a manga. Imagine Disney doing a computer animated film that resembled Japanese anime... We're in for a real treat with this one, and Disney will have no problem marketing it since it'll automatically appeal to the demographic that the suits have been chasing for the last five years. It won't be an ordinary superhero film, as the film's team consists of a robot and a man who can transform into a Kaiju. It's set in a stylized city that's an already clever mix of Tokyo and San Francisco, and will probably have lots of sci-fi and action elements. This won't be a diet Incredibles, that's for sure. It's looking to be Disney Animation's first ever anime. That only hints that we'll see even more experimentation in the far future.

Zootopia will take us to a world where it's inhabited by human-like animals only, an extension of that trope that we've seen in countless animated films and cartoons - from Disney's own Robin Hood to DreamWorks' Kung Fu Panda. The concepts and ideas revealed at D23 earlier this month already show the gargantuan amount of potential that this film has, plus the whole framing story leading to a giant conspiracy plot already sounds intriguing. This ain't no Beauty and the Beast! Moana will take us to a Polynesian setting, and its story will most likely enthrall and intrigue. I like it when Disney attempts to look into different cultures for fantasy stories. Films like Pocahontas and Brother Bear, even if the finished films didn't turn out too well. At least there's great ideas there, from Pocahontas' "one with nature" aspect (which I felt should've really been explored) to Brother Bear's great spirits elements (which I felt they went all out with). Disney should do more with this kind of thing, but apply it to an excellent story. Maybe Moana will do just that.

If King of the Elves ever gets back on track, which I'm sure it will in the future, I can see that being a very big, epic fantasy with a touch of quirkiness. Big Hero 6 and Zootopia already seem different and out of Disney's comfort zone, and again, Disney Animation manager Andrew Millstein said that risk-taking is now a go thanks to Wreck-It Ralph's success, and that film's director Rich Moore added that the next slate films will open people's minds up to what a Disney film can be. That statement alone excites me. King of the Elves can be something like The Black Cauldron, except better. I think Disney Animation can pull off something big like The Lord of the Rings, something with compelling fantasy worlds and epic battles. Here's hoping director Chris Williams can get it off the ground soon.

Dean Wellins has had that "teenage space race" film - as Honor Hunter of Blue Sky Disney puts it - in the works for a while, and I can only imagine why it hasn't gotten off the ground yet. Disney Animation and an outer space, sci-fi setting would make for something truly amazing. I just hope that can get the greenlight soon, Honor Hunter seems to think that it'll be the studio's fall 2018 release. The Mickey Mouse film that Burny Mattinson confirmed a while back could be that as well, since Mickey turns 90 by that time... A Mickey Mouse movie would have to really deliver on all fronts as well, since it's the first proper feature-length film based on him. He's an icon, so they'll probably go all out with something amazing.

Now aside from the storytelling of these films, what about advancements in technology and the medium? Well, Bolt was the first Disney film to experiment with a new kind of computer animation - the painterly look. Bolt's art direction had the feel of a painting, and the computer animated characters and objects themselves blended with that. Tangled took this even further, as that had a traditional animation-style coating to it. Frozen is an extension of that, and Giants is rumored to take that style even further.

Then you had Paperman, which was pulled off with Meander. This shows that traditional animation really is alive and well at Walt Disney Animation Studios, and it's been rumored that Moana will be the first feature-length film done in this style, unless Giants does it first. It'll take computer animation to new heights while also differentiating the studio's work from the competition, so maybe people will stop calling Disney's computer animated films Pixar productions. And best of all, it'll keep hand-drawn alive in some form.

Going back to Millstein's "uncorked" comment, I think Wreck-It Ralph started Phase 2 for a reason. Unlike the four films before it, it was the big risk. The test to see if audiences would go see a Disney animated film that wasn't like the usual, and boy did it pay off. Now the game plan is to keep trying new things, like Walt would've done, whilst also visiting the Disney traditions every once in a while.

In all, I think we are going through a new Disney Golden Age. You can call it a Renaissance, but looking back on the Renaissance, I see it as more of a period of good, successful films. Just a solid Golden Age. If I did consider it a Renaissance, then I'd consider this a Renaissance as well. Of course, this opinion may be radical, but I consider this era that's coming to be the real Disney Renaissance in addition to just being a Golden Age. The so-called "Disney Renaissance" to me was just a successful Golden Age for them in terms of their success and their consistency of delivering good to above average films. But this coming era looks like Walt-era Disney reborn with a bite.

Nowadays, Disney is making films with great writing, but will also tackle different genres, themes, settings and stories much like their Emeryville comrades have. The Lasseter era of Disney has only gotten warmed up in the last 5 years, and now with Wreck-It Ralph behind them, they can truly take off.

Bringing Back the "Event" Status

When's the last time a release from Disney's legendary animation house was a big event? A film that was thrown out there as a big gun... A tough competitor in the cinema world... There was a time when a new Disney animated film was a big event... A massive event at that. The Little Mermaid more than launched this new status for the studio's output, after a few years of successful films that weren't necessarily "event pictures". Pictures that weren't as big as the Golden Age classics.

When I say event, I mean something like the size of Beauty and the Beast or Aladdin. Even after The Lion King's record-breaking run, Pocahontas still managed to be a big hit. It grossed around the same amount of money as Beauty and the Beast. Despite what some will say about the post-Lion King Renaissance films, some of them were undoubtedly big at the box office. You could definitely call Mulan and Tarzan big hits. Sure, they didn't gross as much as the year's biggest films of their respective years or something like Aladdin, but they were still blockbusters nonetheless.

Now, that event status has been held by Pixar since the release of Toy Story. Every film of theirs was a hit, and the studio's critical track record (up until the release of Cars 2) was perfect. Audiences anticipated every coming Pixar film because the ones before a certain film delivered on all levels. Even if audiences or critics felt a bit let down by Monsters, Inc. or Cars, that didn't hurt films like Finding Nemo and Up. Almost every Pixar film since 1999 has opened with over $60 million at the domestic box office, impressive for a single studio let alone an animation company. Ratatouille is the sole exception, but that still opened with $47 million, great for an animated film back then. No 3D and no big competition outside of DreamWorks and Blue Sky. Even after the disappointment of Cars 2, Brave still managed to open big last summer. That shows that they have box office power, and they rightfully earned it making great films.

While Pixar deserves to be trusted as a studio who makes "event films", Disney needs to be seen that way as well. Why's that? Disney has been making good films for the past six years. Films that adults, children and everyone else can enjoy for decades to come - unlike misguided films such as Brother Bear, Home on the Range and Chicken Little. Ever since 2006, Walt Disney Animation Studios has quickly improved their output and produced modern-day classics like The Princess and the Frog, Tangled and Wreck-It Ralph. However, I don't sense much love for these films from the company themselves; they may have been successful but they don't seem to come off as big events anymore. Just hits... That is all...

Let's look at Tangled for example. The film was first released in November of 2010. When did the first theatrical teaser show up? June. Just a few months before the film's debut. The teaser was awful, suggesting that Disney had no faith in the film's heart, story or better qualities. Disney went super-cynical with this film and made it look like an attempt to one-up one of the earlier DreamWorks films. In the process, they made a lot of animation fans worry. But what worked out in the end? The promotion was everywhere. Can't say the same about The Princess and the Frog. It was given a better release date with plenty of time to breathe, unlike the awful date Disney chose for Frog. The result? A film that took in nearly $600 million at the worldwide box office, their biggest hit since The Lion King. People also loved the film. All that aggressive marketing (no matter how bad the film looked) ensured a good-sized opening, and the word of mouth did its business from there.

With that film being a success, you'd think they'd milk it, right? Well you'll see Tangled in various promotions, and merchandise is all around. To someone who doesn't take interest in the animation industry, the film exists like The Lion King. A film that's well-known by your average moviegoer. But again, it wasn't marketed like an "event". It was marketed like another animated movie, the marketing only sold the film. It should've done more... It should've really hyped it up as a big event that will be treasured. The same goes for The Princess and the Frog and Wreck-It Ralph.

Wreck-It Ralph's marketing campaign was good. It was certainly effective. People went to go see the film. But the marketing didn't make it look like a big, grand entertainment event. Again, Disney should've made this look like a must-see film, not a "go see" "hit of the week" film. You'd think with the runaway success of Tangled, they'd go back to their 1990s marketing roots and trumpet the film as the next big classic from Disney. It was a hit no doubt, you could say it was a blockbuster... But it was essentially another successful animated movie that came and went. That's where competition factors in.

Between 1991 and 1998, no non-Disney animated feature film stood a chance against the Mouse at the domestic box office. $100 million back then was a real benchmark for an animated film, or a film in general. Disney only missed it once during this time, with Hercules, but that managed to gross $99 million so it was very close! Most of the big hit films grossed between $100-200 million, and your biggest blockbusters (or successes that came out of nowhere) grossed above $200 million. $300 million back then was sky-high. No film would cross $400 million at the domestic box office (in its first run) until Titanic came out in 1997. In short, anything above $120 million was darn good for an animated film. Disney had that top dog status, no one else did during the 1990s except Pixar.

Flash forward to this decade. DreamWorks, Blue Sky, Illumination and Sony Pictures Animation have films that normally gross over $120 million domestically. Disney would have to make films that gross over $250 million like Pixar's to reclaim the "top of the mountain" status. A lot of people saw Tangled and Wreck-It Ralph, but a lot of people also saw The Lorax and Hotel Transylvania. It isn't the same anymore with all this competition. Disney films are essentially doing what other animated films, sometimes highly inferior ones, are doing. Plus, with films easily passing the $400 million benchmark each year, these films are seen as big hits... But not as earth-shattering blockbusters. Or events...

So box office and competition have done this, but marketing can break that. If Disney were willing to promote their next animated feature, Frozen, with a big aggressive marketing campaign that makes the film look awesome (unlike the self-conscious trailers and commercials for The Princess and the Frog or Tangled's intentionally misleading marketing), then they'd have a huge hit on their hand that audiences will be raving about. The film to go see amidst the competition. Think Lion King big. Disney can definitely relive those glory days, just because they happened twice doesn't mean they can't happen again.

However, the reason I bring this up is because Disney might shift the "event film" focus to their new hot properties... Marvel and Lucasfilm.

Understandably, Disney wants to strike gold. They have two massive companies in their hand and they're going to milk that. That's fine, but I fear that Disney will put all the love and focus towards the upcoming Marvel films, the next Star Wars trilogy and the numerous Star Wars spin-off films that they have recently announced. Also, if they were to acquire another big company in the next couple of years, then expect the attention to go to that property as well. I feel that their animated films will just be ignored and given "enough" promotion just to ensure that it will break even at the box office. Disney should want more than that for their animated films - one of the very things their studio is based on.

From where I stand, Disney is all about Marvel at the moment. Monsters University's promotion has been slow, unusual for a Pixar film. It's only picked up speed now, with a new trailer and a couple of clips. Frozen probably won't appear until this summer, since Disney waited the till summer before both Tangled and Ralph in the years they came out to unveil trailers and promotional materials. Oz the Great and Powerful has gotten a suitable amount of marketing, The Lone Ranger is getting a lot because it cost them a fortune and it may bomb. I fear that this may continue into the next couple of years, since the Marvel Cinematic Universe is greatly expanding and Star Wars Episode VII is on the way.

Now I'm not against the Marvel and Star Wars expansion, I'm anticipating both. All the upcoming MCU films excite me, and I'm eager to see how the J. J. Abrams-helmed Episode VII will turn out. I'm all for that. I just hope that Disney doesn't give all the attention to those two things, whilst leaving their animated output in the dust. The animated films need love. They need to put them front and center, and ultimately have them be the big thing when they come out. I mean, it should be everywhere. I just fear that the new things Disney has latched onto will overshadow these animated films, and even Pixar's to some extent.

What's a marketing campaign that could hype up the current Disney animated films as events? Well, for starters, they should try very hard to help casual moviegoers tell when it's a Disney film. Tired of hearing people accidentally calling Bolt or Wreck-It Ralph Pixar movies? Well maybe Disney ought to do what Pixar does for their computer animated films.

Trailers for Wreck-It Ralph, for a recent example of course, should've done what the trailers for the 1980s and 1990s Disney films did: Remind audiences of Disney's achievements over the years. Pixar trailers normally say something like "From the creators of Finding Nemo". Why can't a trailer for a Disney animated film make mention of the studio's legacy?



Now look at that... This trailer not only briefly reminded audiences of Disney's past efforts, but it also did a better job at explaining the film's story, making time for jokes and making the film look exciting in less than two and a half minutes... We just don't get animated film trailers like that anymore...

What I'm saying is, what if a Wreck-It Ralph trailer began with a brief montage of the classics and even show the recent ones? Have an announcer or title cards saying, "For over 70 years..." and so on. Maybe they could even have the trailers say "From Walt Disney Animation Studios" instead of just saying "Disney".

Disney also won't put something like "From the creators of Tangled" in a trailer for something like Ralph, given the marketing department's paranoia over what young boys want to see. (Again, Disney, quit focusing on one particular fraction of your audience!) But if they took the time to showcase the best Disney classics in a trailer for every upcoming animated film, then there would be no problem and thus... No confusion. People will know it's Disney. Not Pixar.

In the 1990s, people knew when it was Disney, because the animated competition came and went. Plus Disney made it clear that it was by them. You knew it was Disney when you heard announcer Marc Eliot's voice excitedly hype up the film. The Disney logo was recognizable, while trailers for other animated films had the logos of their distributors (Fox, Warner Bros., Universal). Today, Disney's computer animated films are now swamped in a sea of successful computer animated productions. Again, they don't have that special position anymore.

But another problem with today's trailers and TV spots is that they go by so quick. Literally everything races by. Remember the days when TV spots would often end with the announcer slowly saying "Coming soon to a theater near you" and/or "check your local listings"? Nowadays: Film Title -> Rated PG -> Opens in Theaters Friday. All very quickly. It just isn't the same. Likewise, the trailers for these newer Disney films just say "Disney", and rather quickly too. That's not enough.

Aside from reminding audiences of Disney's past efforts, these trailers need to make these films look like serious, must-see events. My problem with a lot of trailers for animated films today is that they follow a routine: Jokes, bits on the story, jokes, action sequence, jokes... Trailers, even the ones for Pixar films, tend to focus heavily on comedy and less on the story. The best trailers for Disney (and Pixar) films today are the marvelous Japanese ones, which value story and heart over constant jokes. They use humor when it is needed. I can't say that about most trailers for Disney or Pixar films, and trailers for any animated film really. Disney needs to move away from that formula in order to separate their work from everyone else's. That way, it would be unique amongst the competition.

It would be nice to see Disney's recent and impressive output get the treatment it deserves. The likes of Frog, Tangled and Ralph are just as important as those Renaissance super-hits and the first Golden Age greats. This is coming from someone who also thinks that the not-so-popular Disney films deserve care. I mean, Disney needs to quit acting like The Rescuers or Treasure Planet don't really exist. But if any of their films deserve lots of love, it's their recent ones. These are the new classics coming out during a new Golden Age. They should be more than just hits. They should be more than just profitable little things for the company...

They should be events...

Parallels

Disney animation is currently about to enter a new Renaissance, or in many ways, has already entered it. When? Why have they entered a new Renaissance, though? Why isn’t there much hubbub over this?

The last few Disney films, despite any box office performance, are critically successful. In fact, Disney’s slow rebirth is no different from their rise to glory in the late 1980s...

Before The Renaissance

Years before the Disney Renaissance began, Disney’s animated output was problematic to say the least. As I had explained in my three-part series “The Dark Ages?”, it wasn’t necessarily absolutely terrible times for the studio, but tough nonetheless. There was only one flop, The Black Cauldron, which wasn’t as a big as a bomb as Disney and others made it out to be. The Rescuers and The Great Mouse Detective were certainly good, while not great by any means due to other problems. Oliver & Company is dated, relying on what was big in the 80s that made it the box office success it was. The Fox and the Hound has a great central theme, but it’s plagued with sloppy storytelling and a lack of a consistent tone. The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh is merely a compilation feature more than anything, though the individual short subjects are great. The only true post-Walt/pre-Renaissance clunkers are The Aristocats and Robin Hood, films with lazy storytelling and equally unimpressive animation, yet those two films were highly successful.

Likewise, before this new era of Disney (the Lasseter era), the Disney output was flawed. After the Renaissance, there were three real gems: Fantasia 2000, The Emperor's New Groove and Lilo & Stitch. The rest of the films were all messy or lacking in something some way or another, and this is all thanks to the executives, who stuck their spoons into the broth and found a way to ruin each big budget project. Treasure Planet was screwed by its attempts to be teen-friendly, despite already having a good heartfelt story and a lot of ambition. Atlantis: The Lost Empire suffers from a story that immediately loses direction after its first act, being more of a visual showcase than a story-driven experience. Brother Bear has excellent animation, but the film is too talky and riddled with 2003 talk and "hip" dialogue. Dinosaur was planned as a silent film, but again, the executives had the characters talk, and in awful modern dialect. Home on the Range was bland and badly written, and on top of that, offered nothing new. Chicken Little? That was a product of Michael Eisner’s rush to compete with DreamWorks’ pop culture joke-laden schlockfests.

Then we look at the few films that came before the Disney Renaissance, namely The Great Mouse Detective, and we see a small path to improvement. Oliver & Company on the other hand was a step backwards in terms of storytelling, but was a big hit nonetheless since it was hip and cool with the 80s audience. It was nothing more than a test, to see if Disney could re-enter the animated feature business and compete with Don Bluth.

However, the two films released between Chicken Little and The Princess and the Frog show a striking amount of improvement. Meet the Robinsons was half late Eisner-era caffeinated flick, half Lasseter Pixar-esque story that was heartwarming and touching. While not a big success, it wasn’t a flop by any means. Critics were generally positive in their reviews as well. At least it didn’t get the mixed to negative reviews that Brother Bear, Home on the Range and Chicken Little received. This was followed by Bolt, which boasted very good storytelling though it was a bit too familiar. Despite some safer elements, it was a deserved critical success and was a slow burner at the box office, but not a big blockbuster.

The New Renaissance

This is where your mileage may vary. When do you think the new Renaissance started? Did it start with Tangled? The Princess and the Frog? Bolt? Or do you think it hasn’t started yet? Be sure to tell me what you think, by voting in the poll.

Remember not to confuse this with a Golden Age, I separate the two. For me, a Golden Age equals the amount of films being produced and the fact that they’re all successful and high quality. Renaissance, to me, means an era films that are advancements of the art form regardless of how they do at the box office. The Little Mermaid and The Rescuers Down Under certainly live up to that title, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King are good works of storytelling though they have their shortcomings.

Personally, I believe the second Disney Renaissance has already started. It started with a fairy tale adaptation, The Princess and the Frog. There’s a pattern with Disney. Disney’s feature animation legacy started with a fairy tale adaptation. After World War II cut off profits from the following films (with the exception of Dumbo), Walt Disney turned to cheaper endeavors in the package “anthology” features. While they were successful for the most part, what got the Disney studios out of that temporary slump? A fairy tale adaptation. None other than Cinderella. No more cost-cutting anthology films came after that, all original single-story films like Peter Pan and Lady and the Tramp.

Then it gets tricky when you say The Little Mermaid saved Disney from a slump. It didn’t, The Great Mouse Detective and Oliver & Company already did, plus Who Framed Roger Rabbit really did a lot too. But... The Little Mermaid was the first “great” Disney animated film in a long while. The Princess and the Frog is also the first “great” Disney animated film in nearly a decade, and one that arguably gets right what many of the butchered post-Lion King films got wrong.

Why is this? During the start of the Renaissance, Disney was run by Michael Eisner and Jeffrey Katzenberg, plus a barrage of executives who felt that animation was only a way to make more money and create more franchises. The films would be altered, and many times, watered down for the sake of entertaining everyone in the audience. Something Walt Disney would’ve NEVER done...

With that, the Second Golden Age and Renaissance quickly deflated after the runaway success of The Lion King when films like Pocahontas displayed Disney’s biggest weaknesses. The whole idea of when this Renaissance ended can be a bit contradictory. Pocahontas was a bump in the road, but The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, Mulan and Tarzan were above average. People usually say the Renaissance ended with Tarzan, box office wise. But what about Fantasia 2000? Like The Rescuers Down Under, that was a good, above average film. After Fantasia 2000, we had Dinosaur, Atlantis: The Lost Empire, Brother Bear, Home on the Range and Chicken Little going against The Emperor's New Groove, Lilo & Stitch and Treasure Planet. When did the Renaissance end? That's up in the air, for me, I'd say it fell apart starting with Pocahontas and ended with Fantasia 2000. Disney entered the "inconsistent era", where it wasn't a string of critical successes.

We all know what ended it. Executives had their way with each of the films, even with something very risky like The Hunchback of Notre Dame, with its unneeded comic relief. Audiences got tired of the same old routine too, as every Disney seemed to repeating itself over and over: Big musicals, big bad villains, annoying sidekicks and sassy dialogue. It frustrated audiences, who began turning to alternatives. This is why Pixar took off early on, because their films avoided this. Toy Story, A Bug's Life and Toy Story 2 were all fantastic films that weren’t products of executive meddling. No reliances on what focus groups said, or what marketing research firms showed. Pixar’s crew wisely ignored that and just gave audiences what they needed, not what they exactly “wanted”. Good films...

The Princess and the Frog is free from all that executive meddling and focus group nonsense, and on top of that, it was a great film. It returned to an art form that ignorant executives singlehandedly pushed to the wayside, while also trying new things with the art form. Critics praised it, word of mouth got it ahead of that awful opening weekend performance, and it did very well on home video. Bolt was free of these problems, too, but I felt it was a stepping stone to the Renaissance since it wasn’t a spectacular film by any means. It was more like The Rescuers, a film made between Walt’s death and The Little Mermaid that happened to be significantly better than the rest of the Disney output at the time. Bolt is far superior to several of the post-Renaissance films, but did it kick off the Renaissance? You could say it did, given the quality of the film.

I am also tempted to say it did, but The Princess and the Frog really set things in motion like The Little Mermaid did compared to the last couple of films. I could care less how much money The Princess and the Frog made compared to Tangled (though it would've been great to see it perform like gangbusters), to me, this little film was what kicked off this new Renaissance that we are currently going through. Tangled tried new things with computer animation, as we all know, it attempted to look like a traditionally animated film. Oddly enough, I consider Bolt superior to this film, but I still believe it didn't kick off the Renaissance. Despite the fact that is a very good film that also made use of the new painterly look that Disney is currently experimenting with, I still see it as more of a modest effort. One to bring audiences back to "good Disney" after years of hit-or-miss films, just like The Great Mouse Detective did back in 1986. The Princess and the Frog is much more ambitious, and visually, Tangled is too. It's a bit contradictory from here, I'll admit, but I still see Bolt as a sort of Mouse Detective project while Frog and Tangled are more in line with Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast. Kind of like fuel to the start of the Renaissance, that and Meet the Robinsons.

After Tangled came Winnie the Pooh, which was gap filler, but very good gap filler! Next comes Wreck-It Ralph. I've raved about it many times, but how does this look innovative? Story-wise, it’s unique. It’s no fairy tale or musical, it’s not a talking animals comedy or anything. It’s an action-comedy about video games. Many will complain about this, but Disney NEEDS to leave the comfort zone. They can’t just make fairy tale after fairy tale. Not every movie they make has to be something familiar. If that were the case, then they'd just be on indefinite loop. People complain that Disney repeats themselves, but then they try something new, people still complain.

Walt Disney made all kinds of films: Fairy tales, adventure stories, mystery stories, experimental epics like Fantasia, films that had contemporary settings, dialogue-driven comedies without much action. He never repeated himself, though he would do more than one fairy tale or fantasy story. But he would also do something like Lady and the Tramp or Fantasia. Post-Renaissance Disney did so as well, with films like Atlantis and Treasure Planet, but those two aren’t given enough attention. Lilo & Stitch luckily did well, and remains one of the most unique post-Walt films. Which is why Wreck-It Ralph will continue this Renaissance. It’s not a repeat of something Disney already did many times before, it’s something completely different!

Then there’s Frozen, which is yet again another fairy tale. That said, The Princess and the Frog and Tangled aren’t the same movie. Tangled is not a rehash of what we saw in Frog. Beauty and the Beast, on the other hand, had no trouble taking cues from The Little Mermaid. Aladdin and The Lion King did so too, then it got to the point where it became stale. Frozen will most likely be something different, and not a rehash of Frog, Tangled or any of the other fairy tales. Well at least I hope it won’t be, but knowing Lasseter and the crew, it should not be.

Big Hero 6 is obviously way out of Disney’s “comfort zone”, which makes it all the more exciting. I’m really anticipating this for several reasons, since it will be a stab at the action film genre and get an even wider audience for Disney animation and rival Pixar and DreamWorks.

After that, we get the untitled Ron Clements and John Musker project, which is confirmed to be a hand-drawn film that might be done in the same style as John Kahrs' short film, Paperman. I’ve raved about that before, and from the stills we’ve gotten over the months, it’s already the signal to the next frontier in animation. There are also rumors floating around about a third Fantasia film, and there are numerous possibilities there. Tons of scrapped projects are laying around too, from King of the Elves to My Peoples to Fraidy Cat to Don Quixote to Antonius.

All of this happening right now is why I believe we are already going through the next Renaissance. Frog and Tangled already tried new things in some way or another while being good films, Ralph, Frozen, Big Hero 6 and the untitled Ron & John film should do the same... As long as they are very good films. Then you have the short films, which are also quietly fueling the Renaissance. How To Hook Up Your Home Theater was a return to the short film format for Disney, and hand-drawn animation. Safer shorts were training vehicles for younger animators, like the successful Prep & Landing shorts and Tangled Ever After. Two shorts remain out of reach, Glago's Guest and Tick Tock Tale, but at least we are getting Paperman before Wreck-It Ralph this autumn.

After that, one can only imagine what we’re going to get. If Disney’s upcoming slate is already loaded, there are so many possibilities on the horizon. Films that can keep the Renaissance going, longer than the first one and perhaps an extremely long time. Walt Disney Animation Studios is bursting like fireworks now since they are free from the clutches that held them back, with Bolt, The Princess and the Frog and Tangled behind them. Fulfilling Uncle Walt’s dreams? It’s going to happen...