scarykitties on 23/9/2009 at 21:18
I'm not sure how many others have grown up on Disney animated classics, but I know that I watched such musicals as Pinocchio, Snow White, The Lion King, Robin Hood, Aladdin, Mulan, etc. I loved their music, I enjoyed their stories, and I admired their characters.
Of course, Disney stopped its animated movies for a reason. They thought that the rise of 3D animated features meant that flat-drawn animation was no longer a valid medium (something that the Pixar creators highly disagreed with, ironically enough since Pixar's success inspired Disney to close its animation studio's doors). However, with one of Pixar's heads now in charge of Disney (I believe), they are insisting that it's not the medium but the quality of the work that is important, which I agree on. Take, for instance, (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lfjww2cA2FE&feature=related) Ponyo, which has typical anime simplicity of lip movements and really some unimpressive animation (based solely on the trailer, mind), but was a big success this summer (at least according to (
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ponyo/) Rotten Tomatoes).
The question is, will The Princess and the Frog be able to stand up to such giants as The Lion King, Aladdin, and Beauty and the Beast?
From what I've seen of (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8N-kIiELUA) the trailer, it looks like it could have promise, as long as it manages to avoid any racial offence. With that said, the firefly character in particular (with the alligator as a close second) strikes me as having a bit too much quirk. That is, they certainly look like throw-away characters at a glance, but I of course haven't seen the film.
What are your thoughts? Think it will resurrect the 2D animated musical again, or will it be a mediocre drop in the bucket, or worse, a complete failure?
Jackablade on 24/9/2009 at 00:10
I'm impressed. It looks a lot like the 80's/90's Disney musicals I remember from childhood. Could be good.
frozenman on 24/9/2009 at 00:21
I think the true key to success is whether or not it contains any hidden explicit sexual references. I think it's more likely that Disney animated films started to suck because they stopped including these.
Sulphur on 24/9/2009 at 17:52
frozenman's on the money. The last 'classic' Disney feature was The Lion King, which aroused some amount of (fake/flaky) controversy involving dust clouds spelling out the word 'sex', and also contained a scene with a lioness featuring the most explicit come hither look (true) ever committed to celluloid.
But then again, the quality of your average modern Disney animation feature precludes anything else about it from being half as entertaining, so there's the real reason why.
Stitch on 24/9/2009 at 18:00
This trailer looks pretty horrible, a throwback to an era of mediocre family cinema that Pixar blessedly killed off. I'm glad they're bringing back traditional animation, but they could have left the other dated trappings--musical numbers, anyone?--in the past where they belong.
Starrfall on 24/9/2009 at 18:05
I liked this movie the first time when it was Shrek.
scarykitties on 24/9/2009 at 18:51
Quote Posted by Starrfall
I liked this movie the first time when it was Shrek.
Bam! Good one.
I'm not sure what it is, exactly, but something about the trailer kind of rings a warning bell. It misses the "wow, this will be epic!" mark and falls into the "eeegh... they're trying too hard" area.
For the last few animated films before the animation studios' doors closed, I recall the films becoming more and more quirky. Take, for instance, Lilo & Stitch or The Emperor's New Groove. Both were successful, but they didn't have the same feel to them as, say, The Lion King. They were driven almost wholly by slapstick and humor, instead of primarily by story or character development. It worked in those cases, but it failed in others, like Home on the Range. Then, when Disney tried to get serious again with Treasure Planet, it didn't work (I've heard because the story was pretty weak, which I suppose I can agree with, though I enjoyed it, myself).
The trailer looks like they're shooting for the heavy slapstick/humor approach again, and a lot of the characters looks borrowed from Proud Family (which, when I absolutely had to watch it, I'd only enjoy seeing the antics between Proud and Sugar Mama). I'm pretty sure I see Sugar Mama in there (the short, old lady).
Disney seems pretty (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRX_LnZ586Q) confident that their new villain will "go down as a classic Disney villain." It could have promise, based on how they describe him as a suave sort, which hasn't been done very often in Disney's films. But can he really stand up to Gaston, Jafar, etc.?
Starrfall on 24/9/2009 at 19:00
The clips in the trailer of the singing medicine man villain guy are also look like pretty much a straight rip from Aladdin.
To kind of build on what Stitch said, Pixar showed that kids movies can be very successful without being super Disneyed-up (its not a technical term but you know what I mean). This movie looks super Disneyed-up, and that's disappointing. Just because it's a movie for kids doesn't mean it has to be a movie for bleating ninnies.
OF COURSE it might just be an unfortunate trailer. Looks like they have a pixar guy or two involved so we'll see how reviews look.
mudi on 24/9/2009 at 19:34
The 'official' explanation of the 'SEX' appearing in the sky in Lion king is that the Special Effects team caused them to briefly appear as 'SFX', which looking closely at the frame I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on that one.
Now some of the other stuff in Disney movies... hmm.
