Finding the Island

Big news! Walt Disney Animation Studios news to be specific!

Concept art and plot details for Ron Clements and John Musker's next film, Moana, have been found!

Animation Heroine obtained a lovely piece of concept artwork!

The top piece has a charming simplicity to it, and a great sense of atmosphere. I also love the use of color in it. If the finished film indeed uses technology that seamlessly combines hand-drawn and computer animation, then I think we'll be in for one of the best-looking Disney animated films to date, a visual marvel.

Brendon Connelly of Bleeding Cool, as expected, got the plot details...

"[Moana's] an epic, or even mythic, adventure set around 2,000 years ago and across a series of islands in the South Pacific.

The lead character, Moana Waialiki is the only daughter of a Chief in a long line of navigators. She’s really a bit of nerd, but a nerd about sea voyaging, and when her family needs her help, she sets off on an epic journey. Some of the other characters are demi-gods and spirits drawn from real mythology."

Connelly mentioned that the artists are working with technology that's very similar to Meander, which was used for Paperman. It's been rumored for a while that Ron and John's film would essentially be Paperman: The Movie in terms of the visuals, and it seems like it'll be true. However, Connelly says that the tech will be similar to Paperman's tech, but is notably different... So if it's like Paperman but different, then color me intrigued.

The plot sounds great, and it seems like the story will go all out with exploring the folklore and mythology of the setting. (Something Pocahontas should've done, something Brother Bear did - except  poor writing hurt that film.) Also, it seems like it'll be nothing like the last couple of Walt Disney Animation Studios films and nothing like Frozen, Big Hero 6, Zootopia and Giants. I like that Disney is trying not to repeat themselves, and Moana looks to be something different, fresh and unique.

My excitement for the project has skyrocketed...

The (Brief) Unveiling...

Well unfortunately, yesterday's exciting Walt Disney Animation Studios news had to be taken down. Honor Hunter of Blue Sky Disney broke the news last night concerning titles and plot details for three of the four untitled upcoming films that are being released between March 2016 and November 2018.

/Film posted the information shortly after Honor had to pull the original Blue Sky Disney article. Honor had to pull his article because The Walt Disney Company requested him to do so, and they had /Film take down their article. A real bummer...

Just like how DreamWorks Animation had the first images of How To Train Your Dragon 2 pulled, Disney felt the need to conceal this news from us... But we all know the details!

There's no need to pull them at this rate. That goes for you too, DreamWorks! Everyone has seen the Dragon 2 images and have gone gaga over them. Likewise, people have gone nuts (in a good way) over this Disney animation news, and it's only drummed up more excitement for their upcoming slate. I mean, there was already a lot of excitement over Frozen and Big Hero 6, but this piece of news only told us how awesome Disney Animation's upcoming slate of films is going to be. People need to get more excited about their future, and this news did just that!

Hopefully we'll get official announcements on these great new projects over the next couple of months, or maybe at D23... and maybe something on Pixar's untitled mystery films! Of course, we all can say... "Um... We knew that for months..."

The Secret Project

Remember that shareholder meeting that happened a few days ago? Remember how Disney CEO Bob Iger said that no hand-drawn animated features were in development at Walt Disney Animation Studios? Well, it was obvious that he was wrong. Either he has no idea what's going on at the Burbank building, or he made an assumption given the company's recent films being computer animated. Or he wanted to make us think that none were coming, and then... Surprise!

Well, Indie Wire reported that Ron Clements and John Musker's formerly super-secret project is a fresh new take on the Rumplestiltskin story titled The Name Game. Disney had been planning a Rumplestiltskin adaptation for a while, so it makes a lot of sense that this is going to be the dream team's next big film. Last summer, Ron and John's project was announced by Disney's Animation Research Library (the link is now defunct) and it was stated that it would be a hand-drawn feature. We then heard some things about a research trip to the South Pacific and how the film will possibly be done the same way Paperman was.

Rumor has it that Ron and John's new take on Rumplestiltskin takes place in the South Pacific and the legendary fairy tale character is a tiki carver. This definitely is an interesting and neat new spin on the classic, since the duo did the same for The Princess and the Frog. It's nice to see Disney going about fairy tale adaptations in a different way, as seen in that sterling film and the impressive Tangled. This year's Frozen is looking to be that way as well. That way, they can keep doing fairy tales adaptations but they're at least trying something new with each project.

I'll be a bit disappointed if it turns that this film won't be a hand-drawn or a hybrid, because Paperman is essentially the starting ground for the future of Disney animation: Keeping the tradition alive while looking forward... Just like Walt would've done. It would be nice to see an all hand-drawn film, but I'll be very happy if The Name Game is Paperman in feature-length form. The story? I have no doubt that it'll be good. After all, everything from Meet The Robinsons up until now boasted strong storytelling.

What will the release date be? Probably 2015, since it was announced for a 2014/15 release and the fact that Big Hero 6 is now Disney Animation's 2014 release. Also, I think it has a better chance at bringing back hand-drawn than The Princess and the Frog because it doesn't seem as risky, plus Disney probably won't have it open against a massive four-quadrant film while backing it with lackluster marketing... Well, they better not...

Time to bring back traditional animation to Disney feature animation... For good...

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...

Buried Treasures

After the end of the Disney Renaissance, the then-troubled animation studio released two animated features that are similar in many ways: Atlantis: The Lost Empire and Treasure Planet...

Both films were a break away from the Disney formula that had dominated the films the studio released in the 1990s during the much-heralded "Renaissance". However, both of them didn't turn out to be as successful as the studio had hoped. Audiences were tired of the formula, yet one would think these kinds of films would introduce audiences to a different side of Disney, a different direction. The perception is that both of these films bombed at the box office. Critical reception on the other hand was different. Atlantis: The Lost Empire received mixed reviews, whereas Treasure Planet got more positive reception while still not getting unanimous praise. Ask your friends if they have seen them, chances are they’ll just say no or... They’ve never heard of them or don't remember...

There are plenty of Disney animated films that you could call overlooked or underrated. Some say the films released in the 1970s and early 1980s need more attention. Others point to post-Lion King films like The Hunchback of Notre Dame, given hogwash generalizations like "Disney hasn't made a great film since The Lion King..." Atlantis and Treasure Planet, however, are two films that show us the ambitious core of Disney, the story team and animators who wanted to make something that only the animation medium could do...

~

Atlantis: The Lost Empire is a film that’s riddled with story problems and it ultimately shows that the executives had their way with this, as they had had their way with the animated films prior to this. An excellent cast of characters keeps everything afloat, despite the muddled story. The lead is instantly likable, the passionate Milo J. Thatch, who is voiced perfectly by an exuberant Michael J. Fox. A worker in the Smithsonian’s boiler room, he dreams of finding the lost civilization of Atlantis, but everyone he knows writes it off as a myth. His boss, Fenton Q. Harcourt, tries to convince him not to throw away his job chasing silly dreams.

All of a sudden, he’s whisked into a team of explorers from around the world thanks to the eccentric millionaire, Preston B. Whitmore. Whitmore was close friends with Milo’s father Thaddeus, who was also searching for Atlantis. Whitmore gives Thatch the Shepherd’s Journal, the book which could help him. He gets to meet the explorers on the voyage to Atlantis, all of which is told very briskly without ever plodding. It gets off to an incredibly quick start, even the animation and the editing more than show that.

The different explorers accompanying Milo on the journey are all very unique and most of them are hilarious, such as the fast-talking Dr. Joshua Sweet and the absent-minded former wagon train chef, Jebidiah A. Farnsworth, whose nicknamed “Cookie”. There’s also the feisty Puerto Rican mechanic, Audrey Ramirez, who is one of the few that vocally doesn’t take a liking to Milo at first. One of the funniest characters in the group is explosives the Italian expert Vincenzo “Vinny” Santorini, but then there’s the French geologist, Gaeten “Mole” Moliere. He comes off as this very weird character who is obsessed with dirt and fears being clean. However, the writers restrict the character to toilet jokes and they don’t do much with him, thus he pops in and out like an annoying comic relief character. Commander Lyle T. Rourke leads the expedition alongside his second-in-command Helga Sinclair, who is the first of the crew which Milo meets early on in the film.

Their journey to find Atlantis pits them against several perils, the first of which is an encounter with a seemingly mechanic lobster-like monster called the Leviathan. Atlantis: The Lost Empire immediately begins to take off after we are quickly introduced to the characters, as the film doesn’t want to make audiences wait. Well-edited, exciting as all hell and loud, it’s proof that Disney animation can definitely pull off explosive spectacle and rival action-packed summer blockbusters. That’s the only big action set-piece we get until the film’s climactic battle, and once the team gets to the city, the story begins to fall apart.

With these great characters and a strong first act, you’d think the story would only get better. Once they get to Atlantis, we are introduced to the Atlanteans and Princess Kida. Unfortunately, the Atlanteans aren’t very interesting characters and there isn’t much chemistry between Milo and Kida, though the writers try with their might since this film isn’t attempting to be a love story. Then why have a relationship like this in the first place? All it does is waste time, and it never pays off at the end. In fact, the film doesn’t really tells us enough about the Atlantean’s culture and why their misuse of technology sealed their fate, only the first two minutes imply this. Also, why do the Atlanteans not know how to use the power crystals? They’ve been there for how long, and yet someone from above figures it out for all of them?

Some of the writing is very contrived in the second act of the film, which ultimately feels like a setup for the second and final action set-piece, the film’s climactic aerial battle inside a volcano. Rourke and Helga turn out to be mercenaries who are just after riches, and sadly enough, Rourke is not a very convincing antagonist. James Garner’s voice work is excellent, but the character is your typical greedy head honcho who is going for the gold no matter what. It was already unsuccessfully done in Pocahontas, so here it doesn’t work. The villain has undefined motivations, he’s just a greedy man. That’s all.

Give most of the flamboyant and rather generic villains from the 1990s films credit, they at least had some form of motivation. Rourke on the other hand, not so much. He’s a stock antagonist, just looking for riches. The final battle is certainly exciting and intense, but with all of the meatless bones of the second act that came before it, the action scene is ultimately half-hearted. We root for the crew, but the Atlanteans, they just seem like extra help but without any defined personalities. Fortunately, the action scene doesn’t pull any punches. The body count is high, there’s explosions everywhere and Rourke dies a pretty painful death, though we don't see what happens to Helga, we are only told that. Nice move, Disney. They're okay with clearly showing a crystallized man getting chopped up, but they can't show debris falling on someone? Come on...

Atlantis: The Lost Empire really can’t find a direction to go. Early on, its a character-driven film with an action-packed plot. Later on, it’s all about a culture that we don’t really get to know much of, along with a forced romance story. The third act is just pulse-pounding action and a conclusion that feels like an afterthought. The screenplay on the other hand is a bit better, holding everything together like glue as much as it can given the great characters. Early on in production, the film was going to be different. While the writers didn't have a third act before this story was retooled, executives balked at the lengthy project. The second act was loaded with monster battles, but the entire trip to Atlantis is condensed to a few montage scenes of the convoy and the campfire scene. Perhaps if the crew had more time to solve the problems, Atlantis could've had a much stronger story. Disney films had to be completed by a specific release date. If you missed that date, you were in trouble. (See Kingdom of the Sun)

What makes Atlantis: The Lost Empire stick out from most of the Disney films is not that it is an action film as opposed to being a fairy tale or love story, but it also looks much different. The animators and artists were heavily influenced by the artwork of Mike Mignola, and thus the film has a very comic book-like look to with its heavily stylized explosions, art direction and character designs. It certainly didn’t look like a Disney animated film at the time. At the same time, it doesn’t feel like a Disney, not because of the look or the feel. It’s because the film truly lacks heart, or some form of pull. There is some to be found in the film’s first act, particularly with Milo hoping to fulfill his dream. It’s all overshadowed by the second and third acts. When a film can’t decide on what it’s going to be, then you have a big problem.

That said, Atlantis: The Lost Empire is not a big mishap. To its credit, it is very risky. It is a lot more violent than most Disney animated films (it earned a PG), there’s some edgy humor in it that works for the most part, and the film does boast some pretty epic visuals. The characters are wonderful for the most part, but the very flimsy story takes everything into a nose-dive.

Ron Clements and John Musker's Treasure Planet, much like Altantis, is Disney attempting to do something more action-oriented. It has a sci-fi flavored story, lots of action, it aims for the PG rating and it has some incredible visuals. By contrast, it has a much more consistent and defined story, and a believable emotional core. Young Jim Hawkins, despite being a mopey delinquent, is a rather torn character who has daddy issues. Jim Hawkins bonds with John Silver, the rather sketchy cook of the ship that is going to find the much sought-after planet, the RLS Legacy (named after the author of Treasure Island, Robert Louis Stevenson).

At the same time, John Silver is built up as the film’s antagonist, but he has his own battle as he really takes a liking to Jim. Jim is interested in getting to Treasure Planet because he ultimately wants to help his mother, finally trying to make things right by actually putting his life at risk. Joining him is Dr. Delbert Doppler, one of the film’s best characters and one that carefully weaves comic relief into the action epic with fun one liners. Captain Amelia serves as the sly, in control commander of the ship but she’s a rather distant character.

The rest of the cast just isn’t all that much to write home about. Some of John Silver’s baddies (with the exception of the creepy and menacing Scroop) are visually interesting, but there’s not much else to them. B.E.N. is introduced in the later half of the film, a rather loopy robot who is missing his memory piece. This sounds like a potentially interesting character, but everything’s wasted on forced comic relief, as if Doppler wasn’t enough to provide some. Again, the executives are making sure the film panders to children. Another comic relief character, the gelatinous Morph, is also shoe-horned into the story though his playfully mischievous personality does make for some interesting mix ups halfway through the film. Everyone else is just decoration, it’s really the two leads that shine here.

Treasure Planet’s dialogue is either well-written or annoying, with a lot of comic relief that backfires. Most of the time it's just downright awkward. Some of the more “adult” jokes are particularly funny, though there are moments where a simple dialogue scene is just pulled off in such a strange way. It’s a bit of a mess. Unlike Atlantis, there is heart to most of the story and screenplay. The “I’m Still Here” scene is close to being a tearjerker, as it does a fine job establishing why Jim is so angst-ridden.

With its fairly engaging story, Treasure Planet mostly succeeds in the visual department. The look of this film screams “creative”. Taking the story of Treasure Island and setting it in outer space may seem imaginative on paper, but in the film, it’s amazing. The designs of the different planets, the look of the creatures and how everything is done in a steampunk way is just fascinating. Visually, this is one of Disney’s best animated films. It takes an old world look and keeps true to the era Treasure Island was written while making it appear futuristic. It’s an appropriate mix, and one that is loaded with visual imagination at every pore. While some the use of computer animation doesn’t mesh well in some sequence (the floating space whales, for example), the film is still a feast for the eyes.

In the end, Treasure Planet is ultimately superior to Atlantis: The Lost Empire. Both films go against the 1990s Disney grain by trying on the action belt and ditching the musical/big epic story/romance routine. Treasure Planet tries on a much more emotional, character-driven story despite the fact that some of the characters may not be the strongest. Atlantis: The Lost Empire has great ideas early on, but it doesn’t know where to go once it reaches the title city, throwing us around with a bunch of ideas that never reaches a satisfying conclusion. Atlantis on the other hand doesn’t look like a Disney film all that much, whereas Treasure Planet sticks more to the classic Disney character route while taking liberties with it.

Both films proved that the folks at Walt Disney Feature Animation were willing to take risks, even if it meant trouble for the suits. Both films try their might to be fresh and new, with one partially succeeding while the other one is shackled with enormous setbacks. Box office grosses aside (why box office grosses spell bad reputations for a good film is beyond me), these two films shouldn't be forgotten. Sure they have problems and aren't anything near masterpiece-status, but they deserve more.

Atlantis: The Lost Empire - C+
Treasure Planet - B-

Moving Forward (Part 2)

In the first part of "Moving Forward", I took a look at two Disney animated features that marked the beginnings of the comeback of one of the greatest American animation studios of all time after years of disappointing audiences and critics alike. Those two films were Meet The Robinsons and Bolt, which I reviewed while also taking a look at how they performed and what the outcome was for both of them.

Here, I take a look at Disney's The Princess and the Frog, the successor to these two films and the studio's return to hand-drawn animation, a medium they ditched six years prior to its release.

~

The Princess and the Frog

Directed by Ron Clements and John Musker

Written by Ron Clements, John Musker and Rob Edwards

Produced by Peter Del Vecho

Released on December 11, 2009

With the changes made at Disney in 2006, hand-drawn animation was going to make an immediate comeback amidst the glut of computer animated films. Fox’s The Simpsons Movie and Disney’s own Enchanted were the first stabs, along with the Goofy short film How to Hook Up Your Home Theater. The Princess and the Frog marked Disney’s full return to hand-drawn animation, and the animated musical format, which they hadn’t done since Home on the Range.

At first glance, The Princess and the Frog (terrible title, should've stayed as The Frog Prince) seems like an attempt to recreate the much-lauded Disney Renaissance. It has a love story, a big bad villain and big production numbers. It actually isn’t, it’s just an attempt to make a good, heartfelt musical in the vein of classic Disney musicals, from any decade of Disney's history. The Princess and the Frog does not go for some epic plot like most of the Renaissance films do. In fact, it’s a simplistic plot that’s very character-driven. Tiana (voiced by Anika Noni Rose) and Prince Naveen (voiced by Bruno Campos) are both the polar opposites, who both learn about the most important things in life on their journey.

Tiana is the textbook example of a workaholic, chasing a seemingly impossible goal. She puts her job and hard work before everything, rejecting spending time with her friends or getting married and raising a family. Her mother Eudora (voiced by Oprah Winfrey) wants her to follow in her deceased father’s (voiced by Terrence Howard) footsteps. Tiana believes she is, by fulfilling his dream. A hardworking man he was, he still made time for his family, something Tiana fails to realize. At the same time, Prince Naveen is cut off by his family for being a lazy schmuck. His valet, the whiny Lawrence (voiced by Peter Bartlett), tries to ram that point home by telling him to either marry a rich woman or get a job. The Maldonian prince (fictional location) doesn’t seem to care, he just wants to live life.

Enter Dr. Facilier (voiced wonderfully by Keith David), a voodoo witchdoctor whom they make a deal with. He's not a big bad powerful villain like some of the Disney Renaissance villains (Jafar and Scar, anyone?), he already has some power, which proves to be his undoing. He has no relationship with the main characters, he's just a con man. He's a threat because of Naveen and Lawrence, he's not a threat from the get-go. A recreation of the Renaissance films? Think again. Facilier grants them a better future, but it ultimately backfires on Prince Naveen. He’s turned into a frog, whereas Lawrence is magically transformed to take on the appearance of the prince, as long as the prince’s blood isn’t used up in the voodoo charm. Tiana meets the frog prince on a balcony during a masquerade ball. The prince tells her that a kiss will undo everything, but it only turns Tiana into a frog. The two find themselves lost in the Louisiana bayou, as the second act goes into full throttle. The two embark on a quest down the bayou to get to a voodoo lady named Mama Odie (voiced by an outrageous Jenifer Lewis) with the help of Louis (voiced by Michael-Leon Wooley), a jazz enthusiast alligator and Raymond, a Cajun firefly (voiced by voice actor veteran Jim Cummings).

At first, these two come off as the typical Disney sidekick characters. The ones that are there to provide comic relief. There’s nothing with this, but Disney had so many annoying sidekicks in the 1990s that popped up in serious moments to lighten the load for children that weren't really necessary. In this film, they aren’t. They’re important to the story, which does get a bit muddled towards the end when the gang meet Mama Odie. Despite some messy odds and ends, the third act climax solves this all without haste. Everything locks together perfectly. Supporting this colorful story are a screenplay that never panders or pulls any punches and musical numbers that ooze with confidence. Randy Newman's New Orleans jazz-infused songs soar, and his score captures the setting of the film quite wonderfully. You can feel the energy that went into this film, it’s quite exciting to experience.

Take “Down in New Orleans” for example, it’s fast and directed with such verve, it pulls you right into the story. Dr. Facilier’s surreal production number, “Friends on the Other Side”, is reminiscent of the outright madness of “Pink Elephants on Parade” from Dumbo mixed with a psychedelic voodoo nightmare. Tiana’s dream song, “Almost There”, is set to a beautiful Art Deco style scene. The animation style shifts, much like it did for the “Barking at the Moon” montage sequences in Bolt.

The other songs are satisfying, though some are better than others. The thumping zydeco tune “Gonna Take You There” (sung by Ray) is a bit flimsy, but Mama Odie’s “Dig a Little Deeper” is bombastic and exciting. “When We’re Human” is like “I Wan’na Be Like You” from The Jungle Book in the Louisiana bayou, it’s a lot of fun. Ray’s love song to a star, “Ma Belle Evangeline”, serves as a love ballad for Tiana and Naveen, much like “Kiss The Girl” and “Tale as Old as Time”.

While moving the story forward with songs that define the characters and situations (not production numbers for the sake of having them), the writers tried incredibly to balance a lot of subplots here, especially the ones concerning Dr. Facilier, Lawrence and Charlotte (Lottie), a wild and obnoxious debutante who is close friends with Tiana (voiced by a hyperactive Jennifer Cody). This is why the story does get a bit inconsistent towards the end of the film, but everything is wrapped up nicely.

The Princess and the Frog’s only other problems are some of the similarities to the older Disney films, but it never feels like they are trying to revive the same old hat tricks. Instead, they’re breathing new life into these Disney traditions. Also, the film does have some unnecessary slapstick, mainly a very cartoony scene involving three swamp hunters, which starts out funny but turns sour when the violence emulates a Warner Bros. cartoon. Slapstick is fine in animation, but when it really goes against the realism of a film, it's a problem.

Best of all is the animation, combining the vivid beauty of films like Bambi and the Golden Age films with the softer style of the 1950s Disney films like Peter Pan and Lady and the Tramp, while also having the style change (“Almost There”) and adding other surprises along the way, such as flashes of Tim Burton (particularly with the scenes with the friends on the other side), Richard Williams ("the cards... The caaaards!") and others. The bayous look lovely, much like the forests in Bambi and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. The design of New Orleans itself is pretty to look at, as said before, it has a Lady and the Tramp feel given the turn of the century setting.

The character animation shines, always vibrant and energetic. When it comes to hand-drawn films from Disney, always expect the character designs to be great. The characters move swiftly, and they all have unique designs. Tiana and Naveen may draw similarities to other Disney couples, but then you got Dr. Facilier whose sleek design suggests his snake-like nature. His shadow is creepy, resembling something out of a Tim Burton film or The Haunted Mansion. Lawrence comes off like Cogsworth, but his design is actually rather sinister. Lottie's design is off the wall, going along with her crazy character. Mama Odie's design is hilarious. The frog versions of the two protagonists are fine, but a bit lacking. Louis and Ray? Great designs, especially Ray. You can tell the animators had a field day here.

The Princess and the Frog feels like the studio has gotten their confidence back after years of executive interference. Directors Ron Clements and John Musker essentially delivered the classic Disney musical (after all, they directed Disney's The Little Mermaid, which felt more like a genuine Disney film than the few that came before it) with traces of the other Disney films from every era, but with fresh new twists. It’s a real treat.
A-

~

The Second Coming of Disney?

The Princess and the Frog was chosen for the studio's first hand-drawn film since Home on the Range, most likely because Disney hadn't adapted a classic fairy tale for years. It was announced that this would be the return to hand-drawn animation as far back as July 2006, when projects like American Dog and a Rapunzel adaptation were still in the works. Of course, these two projects would become Bolt and Tangled. When early concept artwork was shown sometime around early 2007 (with the title The Frog Princess), it got criticism from all across the board, directed at the character designs, the setting and the title itself. Changes were made, but the writers kept the idea of having the film be about an African-American princess and it being set in New Orleans (being John Lasseter's favorite city). Originally, Alan Menken was going to write the songs, but the job was given to Randy Newman instead. Disney legends Ron Clements and John Musker (The Little Mermaid, Aladdin) were to direct the film, with Peter del Vecho as producer.

The first trailers began popping up in 2008, but the marketing kicked into full gear a year later. It's too bad that the film's trailers and TV spots didn't sell the movie as an event (I didn't want to see it back when it came out, the ads made the film look lame). Despite the fanfare, positive critical reception and its wonderful performance at the two theaters in both Los Angeles and New York respectively (on Thanksgiving weekend), it took in a disappointing $24 million on its opening weekend. Disney apparently felt that releasing the film a week before competition like Avatar and Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel was a good idea. So, with it disappointing, what happened after that?

People liked the film, despite families being suckered in by the dreadful Alvin and the Chipmunks sequel, they went to see it as the holiday season ended. It crept up to $104 million domestically, not bad for a film that opened so low. It grossed less than Bolt though, and worldwide, it only took in $267 million, against a $105 million production budget. The executives blamed everything on the film having "princess" in the title. However, Disney was at least happy with how it did in the long run (add huge merchandising sales to that). Production on a hand-drawn animated film every two years was a go, rather than being every year. Soon after, a hand-drawn Winnie the Pooh film was announced for 2011.

The Princess and the Frog did well on Blu-ray and DVD, deservedly, as it found new audiences. Like Bolt and Meet The Robinsons, it's one that people are going to discover over the years.

So that wraps up Part 2. It was originally going to include Tangled and Winnie the Pooh, but those were saved for Part 3. The Princess and the Frog's qualities and the fact that it was the big return to hand-drawn animation (not financially, of course) for Disney called for its own part.