More Happenings

You've probably heard about it, I assume? A new Walt Disney Animation Studios project that happens to be super secret? Unnamed? Check. No plot details? Check. Director(s) revealed? Check. A good idea of what it's going to be like? Check!

Tangled co-director Byron Howard is currently working on a project that Jason Bateman will be headlining, a project described as a "talking animal comedy". At first, I thought, "Oh no, treading old ground again?" Then all of that was washed away when Brendon Connelly of Bleeding Cool got some details on the project when he talked to Tangled's two directors - Nathan Greno and Byron Howard - in 2011. Whether Greno is still on board this project is up in the air, as it's been implied that this will be directed solely by Howard.

Greno described the film as a "big action picture" while also saying that it will "feel like a Disney movie yet feel very different to Tangled". Howard added that it was combination of two ideas from the duo. They presented a total of six to John Lasseter, who suggested that the two combine two of the ideas that he liked the most. He also states that it'll be a "really wild, different concept of a film, so totally weird and different."

Yes... I'm already excited.

This reminds me of someone who is a head at Disney - the name escapes me because the Variety article was taken down a while back (damn it!) - who said that the next batch of films from Walt Disney Animation Studios will be different and they will open audiences up to what Disney animation can be. Funny, I remember saying similar words back when Wreck-It Ralph's trailer was on its way. Wreck-It Ralph proved that Disney had left its current comfort zone, channeling the Walt era more than the Renaissance since it was something that they hadn't tried before... A risky one at that! A Disney animated film about video game characters? Who would've thought, right? The adaptation of Marvel's Big Hero 6 is already an indicator of what's to come, and Ron Clements and John Musker's secret project definitely sounds different... This one, despite the fact that we know very little about it, also sounds like it'll be unique. Just Greno and Howard's description of it already intrigues me!

When will it come out? Probably 2016, that is if Ron and John's project is still on track for a 2015 release. The November spot where Disney Animation normally opens their films was taken by Pixar's Finding Dory, and they can't release it in the summer because it would be too close to Pixar's Inside Out along with other big Disney tentpoles such as The Avengers 2, Star Wars: Episode VII and the fifth Pirates of the Caribbean film. I have a feeling that Disney Animation may not have a film ready for release in 2015 since that year is already jam-packed.

That being said, when 2016 rolls around, will this come out first? Or Ron & John's project? I'm going to say this project, because someone is already cast for the lead. We've only heard small rumblings about Ron & John's project since last summer and no cast was revealed, heck it's really unknown whether that South Pacific Rumplestiltskin plot is really accurate or not. Also, Connelly got the details back in 2011. Ron & John, for a while, were going to direct an adaptation of Terry Pratchett's Mort. That didn't go over well, we didn't hear anything until last year.

Anyways, a talking animal comedy that's weird, totally different and action-packed on top of that? Yes, yes and YES.

Walt Disney Animation Studios continues to go through it's own new Golden Age.

~

What are your thoughts on this upcoming project? Does it sound like it'll be another winner for the studio? Another risky experiment much like Wreck-It Ralph and Big Hero 6? Sound 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...

"Frozen" Character Reveals (Fake)

Read No Further: These posters have been confirmed to be fake, courtesy of a Walt Disney Animation Studios visual development trainee.

It looks like Disney is finally getting the ball rolling for the marketing of Walt Disney Animation Studios' next release, Frozen... In Argentina. Today, three posters were sighted here.

First off, I like the color scheme they are going for. Given the setting and the title, it's appropriate. We don't get much in terms of the set design, they take a back seat to the rather distracting snowflake designs and such. The designs of the two characters, however, don't inspire much confidence for me... Yet.

Anna, like many have pointed out, is almost a dead ringer for Rapunzel in Tangled. The big eyes and overall design pretty much seal the deal, but that isn't bothering me. The character is appealing enough. I don't like the design of Elsa, the film's villain, the bitter and evil Snow Queen. I was expecting something more menacing and villain-like, she doesn't really look it. The hair is odd too. The character just looks... Off...

But then again, promo artwork for animated films is usually bad. The character poses make them seem what they are not, maybe Elsa will end up looking great in this film. Maybe... Maybe not...

Now I want to get one thing out the way, and hear me out: This film could very well blow me away when it comes out, and I have a great feeling it might. The reason I'm not too fond of the two character designs is because from Meet the Robinsons to Wreck-It Ralph (not counting Winnie the Pooh), each film had its own set of unique character designs. The ones in Bolt are different from Robinsons, and Tangled's are different from Ralph's and so on. Some share similarities, but they all have a distinct look. If Frozen's cast looks like too much like Tangled's, that wouldn't annoy me per se, I would just be wishing that Disney would've tried a different style instead returning to one that they already used. There were times were when Disney used the same set of character designs for their films (the early-to-mid 1950s films come to mind), but since they had different designs for each film in the last six years, I was just hoping for something completely different.

Other than the character designs, I'm just worried that Disney will try to repeat what made Tangled a success with this film. Now don't me wrong, I don't dislike Tangled. As a film, I think it's flawed and not the masterpiece that some claim it is, but I love it despite all its problems. That being said, I don't want Frozen to be just like that. I want it to be different in tone, style and story. Disney Animation destroyed itself by repeating themselves (well that was mostly the fault of executives), I don't want that to happen again.

... And maybe it won't. Tangled isn't a rehash of The Princess of the Frog, and rightfully so. I'm hoping that this will not be a rehash of Tangled. Plus, no modern slang dialogue. Leave that out, guys.

With these posters making their debut, does this mean that we'll be getting a teaser soon? I sure hope so.

~

What do you think of these posters? Do you like them? Do you think they are underwhelming? Sound off!

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...

Moving Forward (Part 3)

Here in part 3, I take a look at Tangled, Walt Disney Animation Studios' 50th film (if you happen to go by the canon, that is). This film was notable for being Disney's biggest commercial success since the Renaissance, and one that got outright critical acclaim. But, is it deserving of the status of "Best Disney animated film in years?" Also, I take a look at Winnie the Pooh, the hand-drawn follow up to The Princess and the Frog.

~

Tangled

Directed by Byron Howard and Nathan Greno

Written by Dan Fogelman

Produced by Roy Conli, John Lasseter and Glen Keane

Released on November 24, 2010

Another project that was on and off at Disney for so many years, a serious attempt to actually get started on it occurred sometime towards the end of Michael Eisner’s regime. It was originally thought to be a Shrek-style film called Rapunzel Unbraided, and it was a project that just remained on the back burner until the new regime changed Walt Disney Animation Studios. The writers quickly dropped the original plot, involving two modern day teenagers playing the roles of Rapunzel and her love interest. It would not have worked.

Originally thought to be a revolutionary breakthrough for computer animation, the project would later shift to two directors Nathan Greno and Byron Howard, while original co-director Glen Keane (master Disney animator) was out. He was still involved with the recooked film, which went from Raounzel to Tangled due to Disney’s concerns over The Princess and the Frog’s box office performance.

Tangled comes off as two films much like Meet The Robinsons: 1). An irreverent comedy that sweetly pokes fun at Disney traditions, and not in a cynical and mean-spirited way like DreamWorks’ Shrek films. 2). A heartfelt film in the great tradition of classic Disney films. Meet The Robinsons had a hard time balancing two ideas, this one tries a bit harder and succeeds.

The rather gabby first act really establishes the relationship between Rapunzel (voiced by Mandy Moore) and Mother Gothel (voiced brilliantly by Donna Murphy). In the film’s first few minutes, Mother Gothel steals an infant Rapunzel from the king and queen of an unnamed kingdom and has her locked up in a hidden tower in the forest. Why? She wants Rapunzel’s magical hair to keep her young and beautiful.

Mother Gothel is manipulative of her, no doubt, but at the same time, it’s possible that Gothel actually has some form of affection towards her. Immediately, an emotional side of the story begins to take shape. At the same time, we’re treated to slapstick with Flynn Rider (voiced by Zachary Levy), a bandit who is just after valuables and Maximus, a palace horse. Actually, the two animals in this film don't speak, which makes them even funnier. Aside from Maximus, we also have Pascal, Rapunzel's chameleon. The comic relief all works very well and it adds fun to the story.

We are also introduced to the Stabbington brothers (voiced by Ron Perlman), who Flynn cons during the heist. They seem like minor characters at first, but they do play an important role later in the film along with the tiara that Flynn steals from the kingdom. Character development is more front and center in the film's second act, as we get to know more of Flynn's background. Rapunzel herself is a very well-written character. She isn't rebellious per se, she's curious about the lanterns that always appear on her eighteenth birthday, being sheltered her whole life. She stills worries about what Mother Gothel will say when she leaves the tower for the first time, which says quite a lot about her.

Alan Menken’s musical numbers seem a bit modest at best early on, though “Mother Knows Best” says a lot about Gothel’s character (Judge Claude Frollo in a way, but more flamboyant) despite being a bit silly. Rapunzel’s “When Will My Life Begin” is a great opening that is a bright, cheery number. Menken tries to recreate a showstopper with “I’ve Got a Dream”, a rather nonsensical song that everyone in The Snuggly Duckling (a tavern full of huge, intimidating brutes who are just silly, dreaming men at heart) sings with joy. It’s a little too silly, and it just feels like an attempt to give us another “Gaston”.

Tangled starts firing on all cylinders towards the end of the second act. After an uplifting dance scene in the middle of the kingdom (an actual dance, not one set to some pop song), we see just how saddened the King and Queen are when they plan to launch the lanterns in celebration of Rapunzel’s eighteenth birthday. It’s a silent scene, and for the better, and it wonderfully pulls the heartstrings. This leads to Menken’s “I See The Light”, the film’s best song and one that is a lovely tribute to the big love ballads in the Disney Renaissance films: “Tale as Old as Time”, “A Whole New World”, etc. The color, art direction and lighting on this scene is breathtaking.

When Rapunzel realizes how she’s been lied to all these years, it leads to a surprisingly tense third act that ends with a very sweet conclusion. The color scheme changes during Rapunzel confrontation with Mother Gothel, along with Menken’s score. The writers still attempt to throw humor into the film’s third act, but it’s never distracting. Tangled’s story is very solid, but it’s only held back by a rather inconsistent script. The aforementioned "two movies" problem does affect the film’s first act, and some of Menken’s work is rather flat. At times, the dialogue is all modern and that can get annoying. Eugene’s narration at the film’s beginning and end was rather unnecessary as well, because it treats the film as if it isn't serious. ("But don't worry! This is a fun story!")

Pretty as the animation is, it’s not the revolutionary style we were going to get. Instead, it’s an upgrade of the painterly look used in Bolt. It is a mere stepping stone, but it’s still nice. The character designs are appealing, but not fresh. They basically retain the typical appealing Disney look, but in computer animation. Rapunzel and Flynn's designs are very good, Mother Gothel's tows the fine line between menacing and motherly, with a dash of something over the top. The rest of the humans' designs aren't bland, but they're more on the typical side. Nothing unexpected here. The best designs were saved for Maximus and Pascal, being the film's show-stealers.

Tangled, like most of the recent Disney films, is another project that was saved from development hell. It's one that entertains like no other, and it comes off as a great crowd-pleaser. However, the story and script don’t match the likes of The Princess and the Frog, and even Bolt to some extent. The film somewhat struggles to keep a consistent tone, not knowing if it wants to be a fun comedy or something more in line with a Pixar film. It’s a bit on the safe side, but it has its heart in the right place.
B+

~

Winnie the Pooh

Directed by Stephen J. Anderson and Don Hall

Written by Stephen J. Anderson, Clio Chiang

Don Dougherty Don Hall, Brian Kesinger, Nicole Mitchell

Jeremy Spears and Kendelle Hoyer

Produced by Peter Del Vecho

Released on July 15, 2011

Winnie the Pooh was really nothing more than a gap filler for both Walt Disney Animation Studios and for corporate Disney. Disney apparently needed another Winnie the Pooh feature film to keep the franchise alive (why would they though?). Thankfully, John Lasseter took this under his wing and set out to make a film that was faithful to Walt Disney’s take on A.A. Milne’s classic stories.

At a brisk 69 minutes, Winnie the Pooh is well-paced and quick. It only takes two stories and turns them into a non-cinematic storyline, but one that is very charming and immediately likable. The voice cast is mostly different from the folks who voiced the Pooh characters for the last ten years, but they do a fine job nonetheless.

Nods to the original shorts are littered everywhere. Winnie the Pooh can almost be called a tribute film, yet it's one of the few films in this day and age that appeals more to children yet it does not pander to them like most of today's kid-oriented films. Winnie the Pooh is still a family film, as there is enough wit and charm to entertain anyone older than eight. It's very sentimental and nostalgic, tapping the right buttons.

Like the original shorts, it’s also a musical, with charming musical numbers and an affectionate re-imagining of the Winnie the Pooh theme song sung by Zooey Deschanel. The animation is virtually the same as the original shorts, it’s minimal and it resembles illustrations, but it's great to look at. At the same time, the animators throw in some surrealism to spice things up, with the chalk drawing “Backson” song scene and Winnie’s honey hallucination.

In the end, Winnie the Pooh is a pleasant film that’s very well-written. It’s not ambitious, being just a Winnie the Pooh film, but it’s a lot of fun and one that has a lot of passion put into it.
B+

~

A Grand Slam and a Big Bomb

After several years of early development and story changes, a definitive story took shape at Walt Disney Animation Studios. Rapunzel would continue Disney's classic tradition of adapting well-known fairy tales. For many years of course, this was going to be Rapunzel Unbraided, which ultimately would not have worked out. One look at this PreViz from 2005 is a great indicator.

Glen Keane and the crew behind this film would bring forth a revolutionary art style that made the film look like a Rococo painting come to life. Over the years though, the film would only have sheds of that, instead it would just improve upon the unique look used for Bolt. When finished, Disney kept touting that the budget for this film was $260 million, which would make it the most expensive animated film ever produced unadjusted. Disney most likely took the money spent on early development over the years (for example, Disney spent $25 million during development of Kingdom of the Sun, which later was reworked into The Emperor's New Groove, so that was added to the finished film's $75 million production budget) and added that to how much the actual film cost to make, which should've been around $120-140 million.

Before Tangled's first trailer ever appeared, changes happened at Disney. Rich Ross, whose background was in television, mainly the Disney Channel, was made Chairman of the Walt Disney Studios by CEO Robert Iger. He immediately fired everyone in the marketing department and brought in inexperienced young blood. Rapunzel was dropped, as the executives blamed The Princess and the Frog's underperformance on young boys avoiding a film with "princess" in the title. Failing to realize that it was bland marketing that caused it to underperform, they assumed re-titling Rapunzel to Tangled would solve the problem. This change deservedly got criticized, since the film is, at heart, Rapunzel.

Tangled was an awful title, and many folks knew it. Disney veteran Floyd Norman scathed Disney's decisions, and he was right to do so. Tangled's teaser trailer, which debuted in front of Toy Story 3, was an absolute disaster. With its pop music, teenybopper dialogue ("Best day ever!") and frenetic tone, this looked like a debacle in the making. The marketing, however, was aggressive. The film debuted on November 24, 2010, touted as the 50th Disney animated feature film in the canon.

Something happened... It opened with... $48 million at the domestic box office, a record for a Disney animated feature film! Critics loved it, and word of mouth caught on that this was a comeback for Disney, despite how good Bolt and The Princess and the Frog were. With Thanksgiving weekend giving it a boost, Tangled outgrossed all of the post-Lion King Disney animated features unadjusted. It took in $200 million domestically and $590 million worldwide, while also doing very well on home media.

While Tangled's success was great, it's also saddening at the same time. The two films that preceded it definitely could've done as well had they been backed by better marketing, since word of mouth elevated those films beyond their awful opening weekend performances. With that behind them, you'd think there would be some fanfare for the next animated feature, right? Think again...

Enter Winnie the Pooh, which was a fairly modest project that only cost $30 million to make. It would be a cheaper endeavor, one that could keep the Winnie the Pooh franchise going. The problem was, selling a Winnie the Pooh film wasn't easy. Ever since the Winnie the Pooh merchandising explosion of the early 1990s, numerous direct-to-video and theatrical spin-offs, alongside awful preschooler television shows that heavily pandered to the younger set, Winnie the Pooh seemed like a "kids only" thing from Disney despite the brilliance of the original short subjects.

Winnie the Pooh was obviously going to be just like those short subjects, so maybe it would be a slow burner at the box office. It was not likely. Disney's marketing department, for reasons unknown, decided to give it the barebones treatment. It debuted in Europe first in mid-April, and it did terrible business. The domestic release occurred on July 15, 2011, the same day Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows, Part 2 opened. Now, Winnie the Pooh obviously wasn't going to appeal to the same demographic, but it could've. Here's why...

When an animated film grosses a lot, it shows that more than just families and children made them a success. Adults and teenagers play a big part in the success of the biggest animated films, and Winnie the Pooh could've gotten a decent chunk of that had it been marketed correctly and given a better release date. With that, it only opened with an awful $7 million, but... Word of mouth was good! It climbed to $26 million, but that made it the least-attended Disney animated film in years.

Like I said in the review, Disney could've avoided this and just left 2011 empty. The two stories used to form the film (originally, there was going to be five!) could've been divided into two short subjects. With that, they could've avoided the financial disappointment. Hand-drawn animation wouldn't have taken such a harsh blow, and maybe hand-drawn animation would really make a comeback much earlier. It was another marketing woe from Disney that hurt a very good animated feature...

Meet The Robinsons, Bolt, The Princess and the Frog, Tangled and Winnie the Pooh are the rebirth of Walt Disney Animation Studios, as the first film slowly started the Third Golden Age of Animation alongside Enchanted. These films were met with praise for the most part, and are seen as superior to what Disney was churning out every year. After The Lion King, Disney's animation wing fell victim to the executives who thought their "help" was going to improve the animated features. There were a few risky efforts that worked for the most part, but other films only turned people away from the studio as Pixar, DreamWorks and Blue Sky were offering the goods.

Disney executives, and DreamWorks' executives, were so quick to torpedo hand-drawn animation in 2003. DreamWorks' Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas tanked and Disney's Brother Bear underperformed. Finding Nemo, on the other hand, outgrossed the two of them put together by an extremely wide margin. It did so because it was far superior to those films, not because it was a computer animated film. Sure, computer animation was a novelty to audiences back then, but now that it's worn off, now is the time to re-introduce hand-drawn to audiences. Now is the time to remind audiences why Disney is a great animation studio, and shatter the whole "Pixar is great, Disney is bad" mindset.

These five films are already proving this slowly but surely, as Disney seems to be excited about promoting the risky Wreck-It Ralph. With its November release date, an appeal amongst the gamer crowd along with family audiences, and a satisfying trailer, they are looking to recreate Tangled's success. If it does well, then that's good... But that can't be a once in a lifetime hit. Frozen needs to repeat that success when that opens in 2013. The next planned film is Big Hero 6, which will be something along the lines of a blockbuster being based on a Marvel Comics series. That should be another critical and commercial success, if not something that'll be an easy sell to support the studio.

But more importantly, Ron Clements and John Musker's next film, a hand-drawn film that's reportedly going to be done the same style of John Kahr's revolutionary short film Paperman, needs to be even more successful in order to really kick things into high gear.

The future of Disney animation?

Paperman, which is going to debut in front of Wreck-It Ralph, will be no ordinary animated short film. The animation itself is a seamless blending of computer animation and hand-drawn animation, not for a sequence, but for an entire short film. According to various reports, this is how Ron and John's next film is going to look. This is apparently going to be what Disney will be doing for traditional animated features. Not only are they experimenting and trying something different, they are also breaking new ground for the medium. If Ron and John's next film is just like this, then it's not only going to elevate Disney's animated feature studio at the box office, but propel the medium to amazing new heights. You might say the other studios are going to try and emulate that.

It seems as if Walt Disney's dreams of advancing the medium are going to come true. The Disney studios almost got there, had Pinocchio, Fantasia and Bambi never bombed at the box office and shattered Disney's confidence in ambitious works. Over 70 years later, as the studio is no longer controlled by executives or people who weren't creative, they have the opportunity to take daring risks again. With the success of Tangled behind them, now is their chance to really soar.

Can it happen?

~

From Part 4 onwards, I'll take a look at the DreamWorks' films that were released in the last four years starting with Kung Fu Panda. Do you personally believe that Walt Disney Animation Studios is heading towards a new Renaissance? Do you think the Third Golden Age of Animation has been going on since 2007? Or do you think that it has yet to start? Which of these upcoming Disney films are you looking forward to? Which of the five films do you consider the best? Sound off!