Also the fact that Disney abandoned their 2D animation studio since Princess and the Frog. It’s so offensive they refuse to do anything with 2D animation.
Well _technically_ they made a 2D animated Winnie The Pooh movie that came out a couple of years after Princess and the Frog.... but they released it as the same day as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2. Which was a terrible idea.
Well, Disney is working on a 2D animated Tiana series and more of Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur. I just wish we could go back to seeing a traditional hand drawn animated film.
Both 2D and 3D should co-exist at Disney Animation. Imagine if they released one 2D movie and the other in 3D for per year. It would definitely have variety.
One thing I miss about 2D animation vs 3D is the unique look of 2D vs the homogenus look of 3D. Example: Hercules' animation is very obviously influenced by Classical Greek pottery paintings and Mulan is very obviously influenced by Chinese watercolor paintings. The 3D movies all look roughly the same kind of style.
That's what I noticed a few scenes from each of those and I can tell which film they are from and I've never seen most of them. These new ones I couldn't tell apart. All characters look the same, all have similar styles.
I agree and disagree at the same time. I thought Wreck It Ralph and Zootopia looked unique and different from each other. 3D animation can be unique too. We’ve seen that with Spider-Verse, The Mitchells and Arcane.
@@onepresence9460 I agree. 3D CAN look unique. Example: compare Star Wars the Clone Wars to Rebels. They're similar, but Clone wars has a more angular look to it while Rebels has softer curves. My criticism is that, at least in Disney productions, they've all more or less gone with the "Tangle/Frozen" style of model. It doesn't look bad, but it doesn't look unique either.
@@onepresence9460 That's because the above comment is true when it comes to trying to emulate realism. Taking one of your examples, wreck-it-ralph, the main bulk of the movie takes place in a video game world, so they don't have to try for realism and therefore you remember it more, because it's unique. When a bunch of movies try and look realistic in any capacity, they'll look the same, and that realism will inevitably decline as time progresses making them less timeless. It's a double whammy really
More than anything Disney is now ashamed of being the "animation studio". There's a reason they are buying all the non-animation franchises. Also note that they are making so many live action adaptations. Disney doesn't care about animation and left it to Pixar for the most part. I call it betrayal of Disney on the medium of animation as a whole.
The Walt Disney Company Ltd. saw the limitations of the Disney brand and set out to buy up as many other brands as they could to offset those limitations: Pixar, Lucasfilm, Marvel, and 20th Century. However, once they got them, they immediately Disneyfied them... Which is fine for Disney. I like Disney. But it ended up wrecking all those other brands. Then they went about wrecking Disney with lackluster original IP and treating the brand as an IP mine for live-action remakes. How do people run a billion dollar company but have no idea how to do it?!
I really dislike how Disney is treating their animation department. They are just investing into already existing IPs like Marvel and Star Wars and making these unnecessary live-action remakes. Not to mention Bob Chapek calling animation as something just for kids. Walt Disney Animation Studios deserved better.
This reminds me of when the Disney Channel started pushing kid stars and started cutting the TV animated shows. Hannah Montana, Zack and Cody, Jake and Josh, etc taking the best slots with most ads. I just wanted to watch cartoons 😔.
the funniest part is that jack horner is 100 percent a disney parody. he's hoarding "all the magic in the world" and his items (even the Ethical Bug) are mostly references to disney films (poisoned apples, shoe + pumpkin, spinning wheel, The Sorcer's Apprentice-broom, and so on)
@@bigbadgammagnome But what is the power of love without a villain to embody hatred? Those animes you listed that have themes of love and friendship work because they have antagonists who embody hatred and loneliness. A theme without a plot is just an idea.
@@bigbadgammagnome I need a Space Ork movie set in the WH40K universe in the Into the Spiderverse style told from the perspective of an Ork that just loves eatin' humies.
I honestly think we're in the "next" Dark Age of Disney. That Rennaissance lasted through Frozen. They've had their hits, but also a string of misses. I think we'll continue to see this for another 10-20 ish years. I think Pixar is the only thing keeping Disney animation afloat. Marvel had it's run, but that's pretty much done. Don't get me wrong, I love films that aren't your typical "hero v.s. villain" but those films still require full investment... and Disney just hasn't committed. Notable examples done correctly, include everything from "Fox and the Hound" , to "Lilo and Stitch" , and "Encanto"... I'm really excited for Elemental... but I'm also terrified. It's at least Pixar, so I have hope... but yeah, Disney is in a dark place right now. They need to embrace storytelling and innovation again.
Dreamworks is so much better than Disney and Pixar at making sequels. Shrek, Madagascar, How to Train Your Dragon, Kung Fu Panda and the Croods. Even Trolls and Boss Baby have their fans and the sequels delivered. Dreamworks wants to please its audience. Unlike so many creators who destroy franchises out of spite or try to ''fix'' them to their own liking, Dreamworks respects its audience, characters, and lore. I'm sure they know fans want more, but they only make a sequel if they know it will be great.
I, too, am upset that Elsa wasn't the villain of Frozen. What a waste of potential. At the very least, it would've given Elsa a chance to show off the full extent of her powers.
Holy shit Elsa being the villain (especially in the sequel) would have been such a deal breaker, but then again, more profitable for them to keep her on the good side and make billions off Elsa merchandise
I'd also like to add that with the case of Puss in boots, characters like Death are being falsely labelled as villains when they are simply antagonists for the main cast to conquer. Jack Horner was the villain, Death was an antagonist who didn't go after Puss with evil intentions but to fulfill his duty and uphold his morals. Disney doesn't need outright evil villains to improve their stories, they need proper antagonists. They need someone for the main cast to defeat because they're opposing them, be the main character a hero or a villain. Raya would've worked much better if Namaari would have gotten punished for her actions even if it's something as simple as her just getting locked up to think over her actions, or hell if Namaari's mom would've been the true antagonist using her daughter as a puppet and then her getting properly punished for setting the story in motion in the first place. A good story isn't dictated by an evil person getting punished but rather by the protagonist overcoming their shortcomings to defeat the antagonist (like Puss changing his view on life to defeat Death in that duel).
I would still consider Death as a villain, tbh. Even though it's his job to reap souls, Puss is still on his last life and hasn't fully died yet. Sure, Puss has laughed at death plenty of times, but the rule is that cats have 9 lives, and Death made it clear that he is going against the rules to kill Puss and is getting pleasure out of his misfortune. Death only stopped because it wasn't fun to chase Puss anymore. A villain doesn't necessarily have to be a bad person. One of the things that constitutes a villain is someone who willingly harms others for their own personal gain. By this definition, Death would be considered a villain. Goldi and the Bears, tho... definitely antagonists, not villains. I see too many people call them villains when they pretty much did everything morally "just right" (trying to hire Puss and Kitty to do the heist for them, who in turn ended up stabbing them in the back and getting to the star themselves).
A lot of people in this thread misunderstood OP point. Every villain is antagonist but not every antagonist is a villain. That's why OP bring up Namaari as antagonist because antagonist is who simply opposes your view, sometimes this can even be your friends. Antagonist can be very versatile role and apply to many characters. Meanwhile there can only be 1 villain, sometimes 2 or 3 at a time but very hard to execute and require good story structure. But you can have many antagonists which can include villain in one of them.
@@cloudynguyen6527 there's straight up only 3 replies above yours, and all of them mention the same thing. I got OPs point, I just don't agree that Death shouldn't be labelled as a villain.
Spider verse is my favorite movie simply because of the animation. Being someone surrounded by and growing up with 3D animation (and probably taking 2D for granted a lot since it lost its novelty before my time) the stylized animation is so cool and looks amazing. I hope that this style keeps showing up in good movies.
@@PeanutTheSnail I rewatched it and even the story is great! I mean it happened so many times that I rewatched a movie with a spectacular, sometimes cinema changing animation only to find out that's the only thing that made it popular and the story is very predictable. ( Sorry for the grammar mistakes, English isn't my native language. )
Disney needs to realise this isn't the early 2000's anymore and audience's aren't going to be easily impressed with pretty colours and 3D sets. Especially major animation fans, because we are aware just what the medium of animation is capable of. We want to see something new and stylised, something that innovates animation one again. But Disney is no longer pushing any major boundaries, I am surprised Sony of all places has started this new era of animation. Disney animators and artists are immensely talented and it makes upset seeing their potential being wasted.
Wrong. Most people don't appreciate shit. They see animation and take their kids to see it because animashun for kidz lol. Furthermore I had someone tell me the other day they absolutely adored Frozen 2 and I was "like did you actually watch that movie" and they literally said "but it pretty". If anything, that makes ME feel like an asshole for feeling dissatisfied with a franchise. Most people sorta turn their brain off at movies because it's a moment to be away from normal boring/draining human life for a while (I have chronic fatigue and clearly too much time on my hands so there is very little in big animation that I don't watch, but that does sort of make me an exception to the rule). This is why people keep going to Illumination movies. The thing is that a lot of those movies are forgettable but it really doesn't matter. At least hope that some of the kids that parents take to that movie end up developing a taste and realize that sequel after sequel of minions doesn't equal quality. Buy you also know that forums, twitter or discussion groups or whatever the fuck people will use in 10/15 years will be full of people discussing these movies in the same way that people still discuss direct-to-video disney movies. The third Alladin movie slaps if you were like 10 years old when that thing came out, and from then on it will take you back to that moment for the rest of your life. Or whatever the equivalent of that is right now. Might be Frozen 2, actually.
@@theothertonydutch Disney is pumping out soulless garbage after soulless garbage with these remakes. The pointless raceswapping, the rewriting of characters, and especially the ugly lighting they put in their live actions. They only release an animated movie once a year for it to fail like Strange World. I wouldn’t hold my breath for any actual good masterpieces like Puss in Boots the Last Wish from this company. My only hope is Dreamworks at this point
@@theothertonydutch The reason people see animation as a children's media is because Disney and illumination treat it as such. Sony and Dreamworks actually can make a movie that is still technically and visually innovating while creating a well written story to be universally enjoyed. It is totally possible to continue innovating animation without sacrificing your audience. I know majority of people switch their brains off when consuming film and that's why people still enjoy soulless garbage like frozen and marvel movies. But there is also a large audience of fans who genuinely pay attention and critique these things. Honestly the perfect example is this year's animation win at the Oscar's with Del Toro's Pinocchio winning. The second non-Disney/Pixar win (the first being Into the Spider-verse) in the past 10 years because it was something different. If Disney doesn't step it up again they're going to completely lose the animation industry critically. Sure they will still make money from mindless families but they will lose merits.
@Levinge Animations Completely agree. I will also add Arcane to the conversation. Yes, it's stylistically gorgeous, but it also has a cast of compelling characters and a story that comes together very seamlessly. It has a story it wants to tell, and touches on quite complicated situations with nuance. Truly deserves all the praise it gets
@@deulgis6644 ahhh yes Arcane!! How could I forget. That's also a perfect example how animation is not only for kids and doing something outside the box is more beneficial than not.
Hot take: the issue here isn't that Disney no longer has "villains." The problem is they no longer have ANTAGONISTS. People don't usually know the difference I'd say but as a writer and creator, you do, or should, know; an antagonist is someone who opposes the protagonist, creating conflict with their ideals and motivations and goals. That's it. That can mean any number of things--hell, a protagonist doesn't even NEED to be a hero as we think of one (anti-heroes and the rare villain protagonist exist). The role of a protagonist is that we follow them and their story. Point is, it's an important distinction, because the problem in a story isn't that they don't have a villain; it's that they don't have an antagonist, that by default, causes conflict with the protagonist, their goals and motivations, forcing them to face their own ideals head on, and in the process, change. THAT'S what makes a good story. For instance, you brought up how you love Frozen, but not Frozen 2, because Frozen 2 doesn't have a villain; well, the first Frozen's biggest issue IS their villain. They have a villain--Hans. But he's the worst part of the movie, because he's just not executed well, and what does he do? What conflict does he cause in the protagonist, Anna? Basically nothing, nothing of importance anyway. They tried to have it be a twist on Anna's naive expectations, which is good, but again, they don't execute it well. The really big conflict, the thing that Anna has to face and tackle with? Her relationship with her sister. Elsa might not be the villain, but she IS the antagonist for the majority of the movie; she directly opposes Anna's own wishes and desires to grow closer with her, and her ideals of a loving, connected family (and by extension I'd even argue how everyone IS loving and kind, given how cynical and mistrusting Elsa is). That's what makes Frozen work. It wasn't a villain. It was a clearly set up and thought through antagonist creating conflict that made sense for the characters. There isn't some "moral dilemma" going on in Disney's story process making it fail, like you imply; you can have a story without true villains, where everyone has a point and the conflict is resolved through understanding each other (hehem, Encanto, which you ALSO say is good, and you are right on that). The problem is a failed execution of proper antagonists or conflict that works for the characters and story, or when there ARE no antagonists at all.
@@skybunny6258 Dude, she doesn't just have a "tragic backstory". That's ignoring the very real trauma she went through (and the very real political violence that went through Colombia at the time that inspired her story), and she doesn't have a tragic backstory for no reason. It's the entire setup of the movie. It's doing a disservice to the story that's set up to explore generational trauma and how one person's terrible event can cause them to bring up toxic mindsets to cope and pass it on to the next generation, and the next after that. People just bizarrely decide for some reason making something LESS nuanced or ignoring that nuance makes the story better. Encanto isn't a bad movie because they have Alma have a tragic backstory. YOU just didn't like it for that reason, which is fine, it's just brought up on faulty reasoning to accuse a movie of being badly written when it had a plot line you just didn't like.
Just to touch on how people don't know the difference between antagonists and villains. I don't put too much trust in this guy, he didn't even do research about the first animations to come out. It wasn't Disney. Neither the first, nor the first coloured animation.
@@skybunny6258 the conflict is explored at the end because for most of the movie mirabel was trying to save the magic and wasn’t really around abuela much
One thing that puts me off modern Disney/Pixar are the faces, especially the eyes which keep getting bigger and bigger (the news anchor in that Ralph clip is very uncanny valley). And now the mouths are doing that pull to the side thing that either looks painful or looks like a bean. Nothing about these movies visually says Disney anymore, there's no identifying stamp of an artist like there is in their earlier films, like I can tell just from looking that Don Bluth must have animated the kids in Robin Hood because he has a specific way of drawing, even under the Disney guidelines. Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty all have very different faces and motions, Anna, Elsa, and Rapunzel all look like they came out of the same toy mold in a factory.
They need to have variety in the art styles with 3D animation. Dreamworks does that perfectly. The Bad Guys and Puss in Boots 2 are 3D animated, but they look so different from each other.
It's animation. Their designs are just like manga style. You just draw cartoon characters look like real people and real people give a shit to you bc characters will look older and odd, sometimes like horror movies
King Candy is still the best twist villain that Disney has done, because it felt naturally executed and something that is clearly hinted throughout the story, without it being too obvious.
It's like Disney WANTS to do a Studio Ghibli-style film where there aren't really villains, or a key part of the story is the villains' redemption arc, but they lack the sensitivity of Studio Ghibli. You can't have a film that is dumb and sarcastic and insincere AND sensitive. It doesn't work that way. The closest they've come to doing that successfully was Encanto, where trauma is the villain. But then it was written so deep in the Hamilton mold that it suffers if you don't like Hamilton. Just, Disney... Just give us adaptations of fairy tales. It's okay.
And if they've somehow run out of classic European fairy tales they want to tell, pick literally any other region of the world and dive into /their/ classic fantasy and mythology. Respectfully and working with people from those cultures the whole way, ideally. We've gotten a couple hints of that with Coco and Moana, but those films are just two tiny drops of water in a sea of possibility.
@@HumbleWooper Yep. No shortage of fairy tales and folk tales out there. But honestly, this is part of where I've given up on Disney to produce anything worthwhile. Nowadays, if I want to see stories from other cultures, I just watch films from those cultures. Chinese adaptations of Journey to the West.
@@MonsterKidCory Well, well, well then you're a lucky one, because Lego Monkie Kid exist! It isn't an organic adaptation of Journey to the West per se, but they do indeed experiment with that story's element, it kinda feels like a spin off. So check it out if you're interested.
I mean, Disney didn't really want to make it. It was the love child of 2 of their best employees and they had to jump through hoops and shifting goal posts just to get it made. Disney finally caved and let them do it after a few years of promising.
I wish Disney would try animating horror visuals again, like in Snow White and Pinnochio, villain deaths from the 50s-90s, or even how Nightmare before Christmas looked.
I know this'll probably never happen after how badly this film bombed, but I'd really like to see them take on a new dark fantasy story with the same tone as Black Cauldron. Obviously, that film had many problems, but it still stands out as being unique with its much darker tone and atmosphere.
I read The Black Cauldron along time ago when I was a teenager, and I have to say that book was not made for kids. The animation did a decent job of being much more lighthearted than the novel. I was surprised to learn Disney adapted that book into a movie.
@@raistlinmajere7149 The Chronicles of Prydain are genuinely amazing books. I didn't watch the film until I was a teen and I thought it was meh, but I thank the movie for letting me know about those books.
@@raistlinmajere7149 I've been meaning to read them myself. But yeah, the Disney film wasn't going to be as dark as the source material, but when compared to movies that came before, it certainly stood out.
@@justadragonnamemarcus1751 infortunetly that movie suck (for me at least)...a LOT of useless song that don't even progress the plot like not even 10mins apart and they start singing ( for real, only like 20-30mins in and my sis and i were already fed up with it, they couldn't stop even in moments where you'd be like "wtf now is really not the time for singing !!!", if your audience want to quit the movie that early there's something wrong, but after having to do a lot of persuasion to my dad to watch it we were stuck with that crap..) , they barely did anything with the story which made me mad because the idea sounded interesting and they pretty much did nothing with it...i only liked the villain song because it was funny..., to anyone reading that comment don't waste your time with Disenchanted go watch the 1st instead
@@ferreiraisabel1655 now you mentioned it....I watched both movies and I think you're right there so many random songs event but I liked the movie ( 40% only. )
One thing weird about Wish, is that the main character looks to have the same character design as Isabella from Encanto, she may look a bit different in the film but still
@@SweetsourgurlThe dog in Strange World was literally just the dog from The Little Mermaid but 3D and with a missing leg. Nick Wilde is a 3D Robin Hood. Frollo is a male Lady Tremaine, and Lady Tremaine’s design and voice actress was also partially recycled for Maleficent. Taran is basically just Peter Pan. I can go on.
My problem with modern animated films is that they all just look so indistinct. Everyone looks rubbery and everything feels weightless. Nothing is visually interesting or inspired anymore. Feels like all the characters are built from the same factory templates
It's so sad to imagine children growing up these days with soulless animations, made solely to generate income for big studios and with the lowest priority on sending a message and creating feelings. When I rewatch the treasure planet or the jungle book, my two favorite disney movies, I cannot hold back my tears. Both movies tell the tale of a boy who has no family but finds some kind of a father role in an unlikely friend. And oh the music! How could kids nowadays be okay with the crappy soulless music in movies when there were songs like "the bare necessities" in the jungle book. That song is straight up one of the best songs ever written for a childrens movie. Oh and Tarzan, with Phil Collins singing the theme song (and especially cool for Germans like me, he even sang the German version of the Tarzan theme!). It's really sad that there are barely any handpainted movies anymore, it just felt so alive compared to those 3d animations. I'm sure if disney made another handpainted movie in the style of the original disney classics it would probably be their biggest financial success ever.
I figure that’s why there are concerns about kids being held back in school to the point of possibly aging out. They’re probably afraid that they’ll be bored shitless of some of the curricular material that are mercilessly expected to tug at their heartstrings besides just learn from as they supposedly keep staying in school. Now I know why the messages in those Disney films they were intended to teach unfortunately seemed to fly over my head as a kid.
if you want to fines some good, or just intersting, 2d animation (as well as stop motion), look around more. Look at indies and overseas if you need to. I know your point is the major and more popular releases in America, but this is 2023. Look past the common big guys, and to the big guys you may never have heard of before and the plethora of small guys.
We definitely need 2D hand drawn animation to come back. And we need more variety in the art styles for their 3D animated movies as well. I want a Disney 3D movie with the Paperman style.
@@onepresence9460 I hope so too, especially now that Princess and the Frog seemed to have garnered more popularity in recent years than it did during its original theatrical run. I think it’s safe to say that they finally realized most of its revenue was generated from nostalgic millennials in their teens and twenties at the point of its release who easily see the hand-drawn medium through rose-colored glasses and often associate it with the ones they grew up with.
I think Disney has forgotten just how much villains matter in a movie. Puss and the last wish proved how much people miss villains. The last real villain Disney had was Mother Gothel. I don't really count Zootopia because Disney were in their 'twist villain' era. I like to have a villain where we know who it is right from the beginning and someone who enjoys it or just embraces it.
@@crfstewarje Oh right that guy. Doesn't he count as a bit of a twist villain or I'm remembering the movie wrong? It has been too long since I've seen Wreck it Ralph.
9:26 this was the natural progression of the sympathetic villain trope, which Disney transitioned into twist villains. The next obvious step was no villain. It's like they want us to forget that there are sometimes forces or people we should fight against.
no seriously, i hated the message of Raya the last dragon. You wanna talk about dangerous to children? “Remember kids! Trust people who broke yours and hurt you/others because of it, Don’t question anything. Look at the shiny blue dragon!!”
Dreamworks and possible (I can't believe I rooting for them) Illumination, with the new Super Mario film, Sony, Netflix and even possibly Skydance, will move forward with the times, evolving the game of animation, while Disney is, regressing aggressively.....I hope Wish be the one film that prove Disney still is in the game, but sadly I doubt with this heavy political writers behind, will ever be able of beat Dreamworks or Sony, who are taking risk.
Skydance recently had a billion dollar hit with Top Gun: Maverick. They also produced some of the more recent Mission: Impossible films. And they are just now making the move to animation.
Disney learned big-time from 2022, so I really don’t think Wish will feature anything that will be controversial with the general public. (I know the human characters in this will be LatinX but there are less racist people than homophobic people) Plus, Bob Iger said that Disney will be more politically neutral while still doing representation of minority groups.
Treasure planet and Atlantis were my LOVE. The stories were printed so deep in my mind and I am so glad my teacher played them in class. Then I grew up and found out how these two works are sabotaged by Disney themselves, being the victims of them turning to 3D animation. People around me always talk about how good films like Frozen are. I admit the art is amazing, but I really feel the story is kinda bland to me. And every time I think of the storytelling in the old days I think of Treasure Planet.
I only saw those two movies once as a kid, but the feeling of watching them stuck with me. With Frozen... Well... I guess a feeling stuck with me, but it was a feeling of annoyance. I was actually excited for it and felt almost betrayed by it's half baked story. It's so sad how Disney basically sabotaged what I would say are their two most interesting stories.
Things I do not want Disney to do: 1) stop making movies with female leads Things I want Disney to do: 1) experiment more with different body types (yes, Luisa from Encanto was a step in the right direction, but they could do more) 2) experiment more with different animation styles 3) vary the color palettes 4) and this is probably the most important -- strengthen their screenplays! Now, I loved Zootopia, Moana, Encanto, and Turning Red; no one's going to talk me out of my love for those films, because each one of them had a heroine I found super engaging. But I'd like to see another film that had an engaging heroine AND a compelling villain. I miss the dark elements we saw in the classic era.
I don't think there's any problem with movies with female leads Edit: Now that I fully understand your comment, I wholeheartedly agree with you, especially the 2nd and 4th. Disney REALLY needs to experiment more with animation styles, considering other animation studios are doing just that.
Hey, leave Zootopia out of it. I'm not sure how the story would work if you made the villain a super obvious bad guy. (The story is about how everyone can be prejudiced). And I actually dug Turbo from Wreck-It Ralph.
Disney is a company too big to fail, it doesn't matter if movies flop, they make movies to feed streaming algorithms, not to tell storys. There are definitely talented people working there, but that doesn't matter, you don't matter, everything is going to sell anyway and that's what matters.
Funny I always thought Vanellope was the villain in Ralph brakes the internet. I mean think about it. The villain in the first movie was Turbo who abandoned his game to take over another. Thats exactly what Vanellope does in the second movie. It's what Ralph does in Heros Duty and it is painted as a bad thing. The whole first movie was about Ralph accepting his role in the game but by the second Vanellope goes turbo because she is bored. Just like Ralph did in the first movie, but she is better because she gets what she wants. She also disregards Ralph and everyone she's known up to this point. Her character goes down a selfish and destructive path and Ralph is just reacting to it all. Sure, Ralph doesn't handle the situation well but what we see is his response to a self-absorbed shallow ""friend"". This double standard is perfectly fine thoe, because Princess.
Exactly what I was thinking. I hate that movie so much! At least Ralph had an understandable motivation to leave the game (temporarily, I might add) because he was tired of being the ' Bad ' guy. He was being constantly ostracised through no fault of his. Doesn't make his actions right but understandable. Vanellope is the star of her game and the favourite amongst players. And, she leaves the game, permanently, just because she is bored. Boredom can be a powerful motivation but it pales in comparison to what Ralph went through in the first movie.
@@ozmul5810 swap the genders around and THEN YES it’s a SEXIST ACTUAL double standard meaning whatever a man/boy does it’s fine but when it’s a woman/girl here comes the bashing the negativity disapproval:(whatever):baby THAT is what an ACTUAL double standard REALLY IS at least to me
@@thetechnocrat4979 oh ikr how dare Vanellope want more better to get better to do better advance whatever seriously every single damn time that a FEMALE character wants anything more she’s blah blah blah “sElFiSh” she’s “sHaLlOw” she’s whatever negative BS that misogynists WILL GLADLY sling at her but obviously it SHOULD be just fine either nobody cares as in the sense that nobody’s really bothered or even MUST approve of and like support a MALE that’s like freakin damn EXACTLY like that he’s great he’s awesome he’s amazing and cool and ambitious inspiring fantastic great role model for everybody including for children of both of the sexes like I’ve pretty much already mentioned in a previous comment a gendered double standard is well to TRY to put it in a nutshell whatever MALES do it’s pretty much just fine it’s cool nobody really cares must be even totally approved HES A FREAKIN MALE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD EVERYTHING he does it’s cool don’t lie please it’s a gendered misogynistic sexist man’s world with a global worldwide historical still very real still very much alive THOUSANDS OF YEARS old patriarchy yes it is there’s literally no need to whine lie deny deflect project gaslight moan whatever
Disney should learn a thing or two with Dreamworks and Sony Pictures Animation. Both studios are willing to take risks with their storytelling and the animation art styles. Even Illumination is willing to try. I think Disney Animation should hire better writers and have variety in the animation art styles like bringing back 2D hand drawn animation and trying new 3D animation techniques like Spider-Verse and Paperman.
Disney’s main problem of having the films look all the same. It’s also kinda sad that Pixar, a company under Disney, makes better and more unique characters designs.
i know walt used to say he didn't want sequels, he didn't like the idea of them and he wanted to make original, magical stories, so for the company to have become like this practically trying to rely on sequels that are not necessary is just very very sad. they see it as "oh this was successful, we need to make more" but they never seem to see how it should be left as it is and make something else magical and original.
Top Gun: Maverick did the whole "movie without a villain" way better. Because they made the character tension clear, while the traditional bad guys were more of a backdrop. This is kinda what Frozen did, where they successfully took the attention off the bad guys and placed it on family relationships. But notice how both movies went in fully committed to conflict. Seems like modern Disney is afraid to do that.
(whoo boy this one turned into an essay. TL/DR I think Disney has been suffering in the animation department) Besides the issues I have with the overall story telling and music of the newer Disney films, they just don't _look_ right. And I'll be the first to admit, I am a bit biased when it comes to 3D vs. 2D animation. But there are lots of examples of 3D that I absolutely love. The new Puss and Boots looked fantastic visually, love Spider-Verse, The Clone Wars (particularly the more recent seasons and spin-offs) looks phenomenal, I couldn't imagine Wreck-it-Ralph being done traditionally. So I do think that 3D has its place. However, Disney doesn't seem to know how to utilize 3D properly. All of their 3D movies look the same from the last several years. It's hard to describe exactly. But I remember I used to shake my head when I'd hear people talk about the "Disney style." I'd think, "Which style are you referring to?" Because Snow White does _not_ look like Atlantis. Sleeping Beauty does _not_ look like 101 Dalmations. Mulan does _not_ look like Cinderella. Lilo and Stitch does _not_ look like Hercules. They were pretty experimental when it came to overall style and design. With the newer ones though, they all look similar. They might have different setting designs (I'm actually a big fan of the costume designs for Frozen, even though I don't like that film), but the actual animation style looks the same. Well, I'll give it that Strange World had a different, more rounded style. But it still looked odd. If anyone hasn't seen it, I would highly recommend the documentary "Frank and Ollie" which is about two of the classic Disney animators. There are several parts of the doc where it shows them discussing how they tried to get into the character, figure out every little move that the characters would make and how best to express themselves. Take a look at the character animation from the old days, it's like an acting masterclass. Compare that to now, every movement seems stale. It's like they have to exaggerate and over emphasize every last little movement. Animation is all about exaggeration, sure, but Disney used to know how to reign it in. Like how the Mickey Mouse cartoons were more bouncy but Snow White was more toned down and realistic. But now every movement now has to be over the top all the time. Facial expressions, arm movements, they're all over the place. Another thing that I think has been causing the movies to look off is the rendering. With computers now, they can do some amazing hyper-realistic rendering. But when they overlay that on top of a cartoony frame, it looks kind of jarring. For example, I saw Encanto in theaters opening day, and I remember during the scene when she is tossed out of Bruno's room all covered in sand how strange it looked because you could see every single little grain of sand on her face, all perfectly rendered, I thought at the time it looked so odd. Realistic looking sand on a squishy cartoony face. It's such a little thing, but it threw me for a loop. It just seemed disjointed. So does a lot of their animations. They don't seem to be able to properly marry realistic rendering with cartoon frames. But again, using Spider-Verse and the Clone Wars as examples, the rendering is very good in those, but they also play a lot with the textures and visual styles so they come together really nicely. .... Also I am not a fan of Frozen, but I think that's mostly because The Snow Queen was my favorite non-Disneyfied fairy tale growing up, and then when they finally made a movie of it the only similarities were that there was snow and a queen and that's it. Okay byyyyyyyeeee!
I'd like to mention that I think that Disney has also been playing it safe with Character designs as well. Like because of the shift to 3d animation, of course the purpose is to make everything look realist and believable, but it takes away some of the fun and exaggerated character designs we used to have in the Renaissance era that made for more interesting and engaging characters through their iconic silhouettes and proportions. Like I get people don't look like that in real life, but I think its also a reason why Disney was popular in the animation industry and why it set the standard for character designing in general. Like they still utilise shapes in things such as hair and clothing to make for different silhouettes of each characters, but like compare Strange World's characters (just in terms of their designs) to Hercules for a second. A bit of a stretch and they don't share anything in common, but Hercules triangular shaped body and stylised curly hair are much more recognisable and more dynamic than the main character in Strange World who I don't even know who it is by this point. Like in general their designs seem to be getting really basic compared to what they used to do and that's pretty disappointing considering Disney's renaissance era of character designing is what inspired so many character designers today. I know that was a bit of a tangent, and I'm not even a character designer myself, but I thought it was just something interesting that no one seems to be talking about.
I thought Disney was making a comeback after Enchanto. But sadly I was proven wrong. They are still able to make good movies but whoever are pushing sequels and etc aren’t letting the directors artist and animators have free will to work with. Also drop the live actions please they are bad.
My guess as to why they’ve been having less villains in their films lately is due to the backlash some of their past villains have been receiving online for having negative connotations. Whether they’re women in power, flamboyant men, or designs that border on what people perceive to be racist or crude caricatures - there’s no hiding the fact that a number of their villains were loosely based on what contemporary society deemed to be taboo back then. That’s pretty much a death sentence in this divisive world we currently live in.
They could just make villains that aren't like that. And also, some people need to relax. Everything isn't racist. (I know Disney has some really problematic old villains, I know. But some people are also very loud about non-problems).
@@SysterYster Well, that’s the problem right there. How do you know what to avoid when you lack foresight? Anything deemed 'bad' nowadays is subject to change as society continues to evolve or devolve. In this divided world we currently live in, it seems like the only safe route is avoiding it altogether.
I haven't seen anyone calling modern Disney homophobic for having villains. Weird. Sure, there problemetic/questionable villains in their older movies, but most LGBT+ people just laughed it off in a "shake my head on the uneducated past culture" way. If they don't want to do villains like that they can well, simply make a different villain. It doesn't seem like a hard task.
@@redpanda6497 The problem is that they also want the villains to be marketable, which typically requires them to be fun characters in themselves. Completely serious Disney villains have difficulty with being promoted, and kinda for apparent reasons (i.e. Frolo is a genocidal murderer and potential rapist, the Horned King is a gruesome undead necromancer, and Chernobog is the embodiment of debauchery itself, etc.)
I hope Disney takes some inspiration from Spider-Verse, I feel like a lot of movies now are incorporating that 2d-3d hybrid style. It’s new, and refreshing
I'll say this 1. Have an actual decent plot 2. Animate that plot DreamWorks works because they know what the story is about and they know how to Present it. Disney animation climax have nothing notable about them
I think in their attemps to create stories where everyone is given a chance and everyone is actually a perfectly reasonable person, they've forgotten how to do proper conflict because it doesn't come naturally to perfectly reasonable characters without some sort of contriviance, and you only can put in so many of them in before it's to strain the plot. Encanto i believe worked because it managed to insert an incredibly interesting conflict that rolled nicely with the plot of a family grievance. They need to remember how to properly insert conflict with their current brand of characters, and also realize perfectly reasonable characters can have odd obsessions, those make them more interesting to watch, and make conflicts feel more natural
I think I remember hearing somewhere that Wish was going to be 2d animated, which I hope is true, but I’m willing to bet Disney will continue their trend of not having an real villain
I think some look different like Wreck It Ralph, Zootopia and Strange World, but others like Tangled, Frozen and Moana definitely feels the same. They need to have variety in the art styles like Dreamworks does.
Disney’s issue is it HAS to please it’s fans. It’s so dedicated to fanservice and nostalgic callbacks (Luke Skywalker, Bo Katan, and Ahsoka in the Mandalorian) sequels/spin-off shows (Marvel and Star Wars), etc that they’re afraid of taking us through the rollercoaster of emotions that a true story would. They’re afraid to tug on heartstrings, make bold statements, and take the risk of new stories. Companies like Dreamworks succeed because they extrapolate on established characters in new ways. They market each film to *specific* audiences. For example: Shrek’s innuendos and satire appealed to adults, Trolls and Boss Baby were for little kids, King Fu panda was action-based, How To train your dragon was fantasy, Soul and Up were more grounded dramas for disillusioned dreamers. Instead of trying to cater to everyone with a single film, Dreamworks specializes-either layering in subtle adult jokes in addition to the kid ones and implying serious themes, or switching tones/styles to suit the tone of each franchise.
This so much we need to get rid of this nostalgia kick Hollywood seems to be on want nostalgia go watch old stuff and let Hollywood move on so we can get new interesting stories.
Kung fu panda I feel like is a great example of a movie that does use that similar 3D animation style for most of it but also has a great supporting little art style that they use to explain things and it keeps it’s style in the 3D parts through the action and character design. Also puss in boots 2 man. It looks amazing!!!❤❤❤ like the spider verse but not completely like the spider verse
@@katm8128 yesss especially the scene in the second movie where Po learns what happened to all the pandas. That scene literally makes me want to cry every time! 😭
@@lovelycloudyskies for real. For some reason the dark moments are the best in kids movies, I think that’s why everyone likes puss in boots the last wish so much too!
I'm bi, and I think disney is almost running out of token LGBTQ+ background characters to say "disney's first gay character". And it's just sad, There was gaston's sidekick in the movie version of beauty and the beast, wich was basically retconned to be a gay icon despite originally being openly misoginystic (thanks disney, very cool), there were the dozens of background mothers, each making headlines as disney's first homosexual couple. There was that one conveniently brief line of the cyclops woman, being the first lesbian charater. There was the 1 second scene in star wars followed by live slug reaction. and all of them made headlines for being "oh so inclusive coming from a billion dollar company" because you know that if they cared they wouldn't try to hide background characters and take credit for it, especially since Alex hirsch back in 2013 wanted to put 3 seconds of a lesbian old couple, and disney didn't permit him to do that. The owl house was soft cancelled because a new, hyper homophobic dude entered the scene and say it "didn't fit the brand". Dysney wants to get all the minority love points while still not caring for the actual causes.
Newsflash that's every corporation. They want queer dollars but don't want to lose homophobic audiences. Say what you want about marvel but they've stand by taking L's that other Disney owned ip's haven't been willing to do. And they aren't doing very well right now so homophobes say it's because of the representation and queer people rightfully want better so we get them still trying to tow the balance that's getting tighter and tighter to keep truckloads of $
They don’t need to have all that. They should stay neutral but no matter which way they go, they alienate people. Some of us still recognize truth though and that God’s plan is one man one woman. Disney shouldn’t push sin.
I agree, Disney is starting to get at in dark age again. Especially with all of these live action remakes. It’s just lazy and Disney is trying to cash out on its successful Renaissance era.
Yep. Watched the trailer for the Little Mermaid, and was instantly turned off. Not because Ariel is played by black actress (I couldn´t care less, as long as she can act well I am fine with her), but because everything was so dark and dull there I could barely see anything. The original was full of light and colour, and it was part of what made it so special. This one? Nope.
There's a reason the 90's was lightning in a bottle. People actually cared to tell good story and worked together to achieve that, and all those films range from imperfect but solid (Hercules) to god damn timeless masterpiece (Lion King). That lightning will never be captured again until there's a top down personnel overhaul.
disney's problem not really the animation style but the lack of risk they willign to take with their story.... they so obsessed to being neutral and non provoking all their story is flat. And it doesnt helps they harded a lot of franchise known for thought-provoking, conflict seeking ways.
The sad truth is that at the time of Treasure Planet and Atlantis, 3D animation just saved money. And that may be one factor as to why it seems they purposely advertised these films poorly.
I miss Disney focusing on animated musicals. They are now few and far between, just like their 2D animation. The music had always been as big a part of the Disney magic as the animation. Less music and the change in animation style have made many of their recent movies feel generic.
@@lilac3266 Yes, but in the 90s, every Disney movie was a musical and they released one every year. Many more of them since then have not been musicals and we get fewer movies in general. I prefer musicals and 2D animation. The 90s were peak Disney for me.
I think once my generation (gen z) gets older and gradually starts to take over, there is a good chance that there will be more original ideas. I am in an animation class and many of us here have some really unique and interesting ideas.
I actually am a fan of Frozen II despite its flaws. However, I am getting really tired of the mentality we see in soo many franchises today: release as many productions as possible with little effort/creativity to make as much money as possible. My only hope is that this won't work long term. Frozen II could have been more thought through if the creators had been given more time. The life action remakes are just uninspired to me and purely bait on nostalgia. Its not just Disney, its everywhere. Let's make a ton of sequels instead of telling a unique story...or use a great franchise's name to promote our ideas (cough, Rings of Power, cough). There are so many cool new stories out there waiting to be told on screen. So many books, fairy tales etc. But they aren't a safe money-making option for producers. Sadly, few are brave enough to try. So I don't see the problem in the lack of villains - stories can work without them (granted, they can add pressure and be really iconic and fun to watch) - but the lack of creativity and confidence needed to put something new out there for people to enjoy. Exploring new themes of the same story only works to a limited degree. At some point you should just tell a new story.
I'd say that Frozen 2's handling of generational trauma and familial consequences as the villain was a tremendous risk, definitely not playing it safe. It mostly didn't land for folks who didn't already have those concepts or experiences already.
Fucking ironic now that Disney falling behind in terms of innovation......they really made Paperman and then "nah, this look like taking too much risk" and didn't seize that momentum. Now other studio successfully seize this (mixed animation) momentum... we got Arcane, Bad Guys, Spiderverse, Puss in Boots 2 lmaoo.....
Puss in Boots needs to be required viewing for Disney at this point. It's proof you can have a terrifying iconic villain like the old days, but still tell the sorts of complex stories Disney is trying to do.
To be fair to other early animation studios, Disney made a deal with Technicolor that prevented other people from using it. I believe it was 3 or 5 year deal. So for years the public only saw Disney's works in color making him stand out. Brillant business decision, but sucks to be anyone else. Overall, I agree with this video.
Disney animations and movies has lost their magic to me long time ago. Only who respect the medium and their audience can make a compelling story. Making films just for the sake of making is meaningless, because why should us, the audience, care, if it has nothing to offer?
Another problem in my opinion is that in 3D most artstyles look the same. You could take someone from Coco and put him in Inside Out. Tangled Rapunzel could show up in Frozen and would not stick out like a sore thumb.
To be honest my fav Disney/Pixar movies didn't have a main villain. Toy Story doesn't have a "bad guy" not really. Sure we have a kid who likes to blow toys up but the main conflict was Woody's own insecurity and Buzz's disillusion. Goofy Movie, Finding Nemo, Lilo and Stitch, Wall E, Inside Out. I tend to like problems that are caused by characters themselves instead of some fabulous but incomprehensible asshole.
This right here. I still love me my delicious villains ala Ursula and Scar. It still takes skill to make the 'fabulous but incomprehensible villain" work, but 90's Disney on the whole was lightning in a bottle that I doubt will be captured again. At least in my lifetime. They're super memorable for a reason, and heightened though they are, there was care being taken to tell the damn story. Not anymore. Everything feel so damn disjointed and forced, like they're trying to everything to everyone.
3D tries too hard to be realistic, while 2d tends to be more artsy and stylistic. It's also trends too that play a role, 3D has been the rage since the 2000s, 2d dwindled around that time too. But 2d is making strides again given how predictable 3d has become and given how with the rise of internet content creators and the relative ease of animation programs, 2d is trendy again.
This is why I’m hoping this year’s movie Wish will point Disney towards a better future direction for animation styles! A path that balances and has 2D, CGI, sometimes Stop Motion and the new Hybrid animation style! It never has to be only one particular style! I hope Wish will mark the return of 2D animation AND more of a variety of animation styles!
The reason I love Tangled so much from an animation standpoint is because, despite it being 3d, it still keeps the soul of 2d. The hair makes big swooping motions that are less realistic, but look amazing in the film. The whole personality and the way Maximus was animated is so cartoony and fun that I don’t see it as the soulless slop that Disney does today. Tangled is what happens when heart and soul are kept in the animation, despite it being 3d!
I really flarking hated Frozen. Let it go made no sense in the story and is almost immediately contradicted. The Hans twist villain was stupid after he saved Elsa from becoming a murderer. And the idea that Ana shouldn't fall in love with the first guy she meets is immediately contradicted by the story practically forcing her onto the second guy she meets to the point where she is literally put into a wedding dress, and only falling unconscious prevents her from being married to him. So stupid, and the opposite of empowering, IMHO.
I hate that Elsa is so awful but never has to face what she did. I know its a kids movie and I know “sisterly love” but coming from a dysfunctional family I think that her not facing what she did at all sends a terrible message and makes her a very hateable character. It reminds me of my family not taking responsibility, using familial bonds as an excuse for neglect emotional abuse etc. Elsa SENT THE WORLD INTO WINTER AND KEPT RUNNING AWAY, we’re expected to believe because someone reached out to her its just fixed in a snap and btw that climax was just lame anyway. she would have been better as a villain, tie in some stuff about crappy royal family dysfunction and it could have been totally different and interesting. Disney dont have the balls tho.
@@frankie3010 Considering her imminent demise was completely justified, no, it's not attempted murder, but self-defense. The only thing Hans did wrong was how he treated Anna and how he lied about her death to the dignitaries. Going after Elsa is entirely reasonable given the limited amount of information he had-especially after she said she couldn't stop the winter and didn't bother to try-and Frozen II confirms that her death would've ended the calamity. Hans is operating under the assumption that killing Elsa is the only way to fix the problem and that she purposefully struck her sister with a fatal blow and lied to him by playing innocent-because Anna at no point clarifies that it was accidental. He actually seems confused when he mentions it to Elsa and realizes she wasn't aware of that. He also seems confused at the end when he regains consciousness and sees Anna and Elsa getting along, emphasizing the fact that he was kept in the dark throughout the film. This was either entirely intentional to make his character more nuanced, or an oversight on the writers' parts. I'm leaning toward the latter because... Frozen has many, MANY plot contrivances, with most of its story issues stemming from the bad shock-twist. It's mediocre at best. Even though the sequel is objectively worse in writing quality, the first still irks me more because it came closer to being good and feels like it gave up halfway through. And I'm not about to praise incompetent writing, no matter how many people like it. EDIT: Fixed mistake.
Yeah, people tend to ignore how the trolls and story as a whole totally disregard Anna's agency by immediately trying to force her into a relationship-as she's DYING, no less! The screenwriters also seem oblivious to the fact that having Anna emotionally cheat on Hans through her poorly-developed romance with Kristoff reflects really badly on her. It's pretty convenient how they made Hans the bad guy, since it distracts from that-but that still doesn't make her infidelity okay. She gets away with a lot of bad behavior.
I think Disney's problem is that they aren't willing to take risks throughout their animation anymore, so they just milk out any of their successful movies instead, leaving soulless sequels like Ralph Breaks The Internet or reboots of their classic films such as Pinnochio to roam about. Unlike Disney, companies such as Dreamworks not only experiment with new ideas and unique animations but whenever they make any continuations, they actually pay respect to the first movies while also doing something new at the same time (ex: Puss in Boots: The Last Wish, Shrek 2, Kung Fu Panda 2).
9:58 I swear to god I will make a video about it one day, but I had an idea for a WiR sequel right after watching the first movie and I STILL believe it's a better story than the flaming trash heap that is Ralph Breaks the Internet (which really should have been called 'Ralph WRECKS the Internet')....
WiR is an underrated masterpiece. I'll die on that hill, it's clever and unique. The sequel was....wild. I didn't hate it, but good it was not. It also just wasn't a sequel anyone asked for, nor was it needed. Now we're getting a 3rd Frozen, and after the stupid, completely misguided sequel, I don't trust a three-quel to do what the sequel SHOULD HAVE DONE. Not that a Frozen sequel was necessary either, but it was inventible and I accepted that. But good god, they did everything a GOOD sequel shouldn't do.
I really appreciate people like you pointing out movies like Atlantis and Treasure Planet more in the present day. I watched both of these movies at a pretty low point in my life (about a year ago) and, while I was born a few years too late to experience them as a kid, they've still had a massive impact on me as a teen/young adult. Treasure Planet is the sole reason I've not given up on my goal of becoming a character designer/animator, Glen Keane's work is equivalent to the Mona Lisa for me!!! I really hope Disney steps up their game and makes amazing movies like they once did. Animation nerd rant over xx
Going through the comments I find it a bit lackluster that nobody is mentioning cartoon saloon in any of the discussions. They're relatively small but their movies are distinct and tell different stories. Even if I fall asleep during most of them, I always rewind to watch what I missed. They feel like the type of stuff I watched at the neighbours who had a kid who was way into (dark) fantasy even though they are nothing like that.
The reason I can genuinely enjoy those old direct-to-DVD sequels as opposed to the newer sequels (even though there are exceptions) is that the old ones knew what they were. They knew they didn’t always have great story beats, animation, acting, etc. So they were released right to home video rather than in the theater. I know most of them are pretty bad but some are pretty great and it’s like my junk food. The modern sequels are exactly the same thing except they think they deserve big theater releases and multimillion-dollar budgets on terribly short schedules. It’s the difference between your little guilty pleasure fanfiction and a big-budget Wattpad film adaptation with celebrity actors.
I'd also like to point out that paramount has =tarted to get into this hyper stylization that spiderverse and the last wish did with TMNT mutant mania. so literally disney is the only company that refuses to change their art style
When you have a group of people whose knowledge of film history begins and ends with Disney films, their scope will always be limited. Imagine a team of writers whose sole reading experience is the occassional comic book, directors who wouldn't know a Fellini from a Fiat, and animators whose knowledge of fine art begins and ends with the Impressionists and you'll see why Disney as an animation studio is failing.
Honestly I disagree on the villain part. Yes, great villains can be awesome, but you don’t need a villain to make a great story. I would even argue that you can tell more nuanced stories without a villain (obviously you still have to do it right), because then you can’t just rely on one scapegoat for the whole plot. Maybe I’m a bit biased with this because that’s the type of stories I personally prefer, but I still think there are so much more great stories beyond just „bad guy is bad just because and good guy tries to stop him“. Make more gray characters. Make characters do evil things for good reasons. Make „good“ characters do stupid things or let them stand on the „wrong side“. Let everyone do the best that they can with best interests in mind and let that lead to absolute catastrophe and tragedy. But stop blaming a company‘s failing to do good movies (I also partly disagree with this, but that’s not that important) on the lack of villains.
@Alex, Take Puss N Boots The Last Wish for Example. The movie isn't good just because of Death, but because of how the movie handles everything else. If the movie was made by different writers who didn't didnt handle the themes well, Death could have felt like a scapegoat to cover what could have been a bad movie. Case in point - if Disney is going to make villains again, they should do it, because they feel like the villain will fit the themes of the movie. But villain or not, the biggest thing, is that Disney just needs to clean up their writing.
I believe you are shortsighted in saying their main problem is that they don't have villains or antagonists. That's like saying all stories should have one, but no, stories don't actually need a villain or antagonist to work. Yeah, they're fun and iconic, but the world doesn't work in black and white. The problem is that Disney wants to do more mature stories and they can't because of their brand. That's what happened to Soul: it was a very adult film in themes and story arc, but they had to put in the pretty visuals and fun cat hijinks for the kids. As you said, Disney's problem is that they aren't creating original ideas anymore, that they aren't risking investing in new, interesting stories. But it's not just "there are no true villains anymore". It's that they want to tell more complex, grey stories, and the mouse always returns them to black and white.
The parks division has kind of been on the low point for almost 30 years really, ever since Euro Disney land flopped when it first opened. As for their animation divisions, they go through dark spells, but they always come back on the top again, eventually, it’s just a question of what Will cause that to happen and when Last time it was when Roy Disney quit and rallied all the shareholders to vote, Eisner and his cronies out, something he did in the 80s with his blood, cousin Ron Miller. With him no longer around, it will be interesting to see who and what brings them back on top again
I like a lot of disney movies but my favs include: turning red, luca, Encanto, Atlantis, treasure planet and Mulan and some others I can't write out at the moment cause the list will get too long
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Also the fact that Disney abandoned their 2D animation studio since Princess and the Frog. It’s so offensive they refuse to do anything with 2D animation.
Medium biased.
Well _technically_ they made a 2D animated Winnie The Pooh movie that came out a couple of years after Princess and the Frog.... but they released it as the same day as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2. Which was a terrible idea.
Well, Disney is working on a 2D animated Tiana series and more of Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur. I just wish we could go back to seeing a traditional hand drawn animated film.
Both 2D and 3D should co-exist at Disney Animation. Imagine if they released one 2D movie and the other in 3D for per year. It would definitely have variety.
They actually closed down before PatF but sorta restarted it for that movie and I hate how they were then like "NAH WHO WANTS TO WATCH THIS LOL"
One thing I miss about 2D animation vs 3D is the unique look of 2D vs the homogenus look of 3D. Example: Hercules' animation is very obviously influenced by Classical Greek pottery paintings and Mulan is very obviously influenced by Chinese watercolor paintings. The 3D movies all look roughly the same kind of style.
That's what I noticed a few scenes from each of those and I can tell which film they are from and I've never seen most of them.
These new ones I couldn't tell apart. All characters look the same, all have similar styles.
I agree and disagree at the same time. I thought Wreck It Ralph and Zootopia looked unique and different from each other. 3D animation can be unique too. We’ve seen that with Spider-Verse, The Mitchells and Arcane.
@@onepresence9460 I agree. 3D CAN look unique. Example: compare Star Wars the Clone Wars to Rebels. They're similar, but Clone wars has a more angular look to it while Rebels has softer curves.
My criticism is that, at least in Disney productions, they've all more or less gone with the "Tangle/Frozen" style of model. It doesn't look bad, but it doesn't look unique either.
Know where you come from, for me it is always the eyes, they look always the same
@@onepresence9460 That's because the above comment is true when it comes to trying to emulate realism. Taking one of your examples, wreck-it-ralph, the main bulk of the movie takes place in a video game world, so they don't have to try for realism and therefore you remember it more, because it's unique. When a bunch of movies try and look realistic in any capacity, they'll look the same, and that realism will inevitably decline as time progresses making them less timeless. It's a double whammy really
More than anything Disney is now ashamed of being the "animation studio". There's a reason they are buying all the non-animation franchises. Also note that they are making so many live action adaptations. Disney doesn't care about animation and left it to Pixar for the most part. I call it betrayal of Disney on the medium of animation as a whole.
The Walt Disney Company Ltd. saw the limitations of the Disney brand and set out to buy up as many other brands as they could to offset those limitations: Pixar, Lucasfilm, Marvel, and 20th Century. However, once they got them, they immediately Disneyfied them... Which is fine for Disney. I like Disney. But it ended up wrecking all those other brands. Then they went about wrecking Disney with lackluster original IP and treating the brand as an IP mine for live-action remakes. How do people run a billion dollar company but have no idea how to do it?!
I really dislike how Disney is treating their animation department. They are just investing into already existing IPs like Marvel and Star Wars and making these unnecessary live-action remakes. Not to mention Bob Chapek calling animation as something just for kids.
Walt Disney Animation Studios deserved better.
This reminds me of when the Disney Channel started pushing kid stars and started cutting the TV animated shows. Hannah Montana, Zack and Cody, Jake and Josh, etc taking the best slots with most ads. I just wanted to watch cartoons 😔.
@@seekittycat Jake and Josh? Don’t you mean Drake and Josh? Drake and Josh was Nickelodeon btw
I dont know if I would go that far. They are still having shows in development like the Tiana series...
DreamWorks- just casually released the most terrifying villain
Disney- the power of love
At first I thought that the wolf was the scariest animated villain ever
But…Lady Bone Demon from Lego Monkie Kid is a worthy contender…
the funniest part is that jack horner is 100 percent a disney parody. he's hoarding "all the magic in the world" and his items (even the Ethical Bug) are mostly references to disney films (poisoned apples, shoe + pumpkin, spinning wheel, The Sorcer's Apprentice-broom, and so on)
Power of love is a potent theme, but it has to be executed well
@@bigbadgammagnome But what is the power of love without a villain to embody hatred? Those animes you listed that have themes of love and friendship work because they have antagonists who embody hatred and loneliness. A theme without a plot is just an idea.
@@bigbadgammagnome I need a Space Ork movie set in the WH40K universe in the Into the Spiderverse style told from the perspective of an Ork that just loves eatin' humies.
I honestly think we're in the "next" Dark Age of Disney. That Rennaissance lasted through Frozen. They've had their hits, but also a string of misses. I think we'll continue to see this for another 10-20 ish years. I think Pixar is the only thing keeping Disney animation afloat. Marvel had it's run, but that's pretty much done. Don't get me wrong, I love films that aren't your typical "hero v.s. villain" but those films still require full investment... and Disney just hasn't committed. Notable examples done correctly, include everything from "Fox and the Hound" , to "Lilo and Stitch" , and "Encanto"... I'm really excited for Elemental... but I'm also terrified. It's at least Pixar, so I have hope... but yeah, Disney is in a dark place right now. They need to embrace storytelling and innovation again.
Dreamworks is coming back though
It’s not just Disney. It’s everywhere.
Zootropolis and Moana were the last good Disney animated films.
@@kjd-s5b Source?
@@jadedesigns6171 and I'm extatic to see that!
Dreamworks is so much better than Disney and Pixar at making sequels. Shrek, Madagascar, How to Train Your Dragon, Kung Fu Panda and the Croods. Even Trolls and Boss Baby have their fans and the sequels delivered.
Dreamworks wants to please its audience. Unlike so many creators who destroy franchises out of spite or try to ''fix'' them to their own liking, Dreamworks respects its audience, characters, and lore. I'm sure they know fans want more, but they only make a sequel if they know it will be great.
All of them apart from Trolls and BB had good sequels. And the remaining ones all had good original films apart from The Croods.
*than
Don’t forget puss in boots!
@@WestSideRodent I count Puss in Boots and its sequel as part of the Shrek films.
@@kingagrabowska9366 oh yeah, makes sense
I, too, am upset that Elsa wasn't the villain of Frozen. What a waste of potential. At the very least, it would've given Elsa a chance to show off the full extent of her powers.
Or at least gain some character
Holy shit Elsa being the villain (especially in the sequel) would have been such a deal breaker, but then again, more profitable for them to keep her on the good side and make billions off Elsa merchandise
Yes
That would have been better story than what we got
@@justhello7017 Exactly!
I'd also like to add that with the case of Puss in boots, characters like Death are being falsely labelled as villains when they are simply antagonists for the main cast to conquer. Jack Horner was the villain, Death was an antagonist who didn't go after Puss with evil intentions but to fulfill his duty and uphold his morals. Disney doesn't need outright evil villains to improve their stories, they need proper antagonists. They need someone for the main cast to defeat because they're opposing them, be the main character a hero or a villain. Raya would've worked much better if Namaari would have gotten punished for her actions even if it's something as simple as her just getting locked up to think over her actions, or hell if Namaari's mom would've been the true antagonist using her daughter as a puppet and then her getting properly punished for setting the story in motion in the first place. A good story isn't dictated by an evil person getting punished but rather by the protagonist overcoming their shortcomings to defeat the antagonist (like Puss changing his view on life to defeat Death in that duel).
I would still consider Death as a villain, tbh. Even though it's his job to reap souls, Puss is still on his last life and hasn't fully died yet. Sure, Puss has laughed at death plenty of times, but the rule is that cats have 9 lives, and Death made it clear that he is going against the rules to kill Puss and is getting pleasure out of his misfortune. Death only stopped because it wasn't fun to chase Puss anymore. A villain doesn't necessarily have to be a bad person. One of the things that constitutes a villain is someone who willingly harms others for their own personal gain. By this definition, Death would be considered a villain.
Goldi and the Bears, tho... definitely antagonists, not villains. I see too many people call them villains when they pretty much did everything morally "just right" (trying to hire Puss and Kitty to do the heist for them, who in turn ended up stabbing them in the back and getting to the star themselves).
“Death isn’t a villian”
Don’t care. He’s a cool villian.
I disagree with everyone saying he's not a villain. He went out of his way to try and kill puss even though he had one life left.
A lot of people in this thread misunderstood OP point. Every villain is antagonist but not every antagonist is a villain. That's why OP bring up Namaari as antagonist because antagonist is who simply opposes your view, sometimes this can even be your friends. Antagonist can be very versatile role and apply to many characters. Meanwhile there can only be 1 villain, sometimes 2 or 3 at a time but very hard to execute and require good story structure. But you can have many antagonists which can include villain in one of them.
@@cloudynguyen6527 there's straight up only 3 replies above yours, and all of them mention the same thing.
I got OPs point, I just don't agree that Death shouldn't be labelled as a villain.
Once again we need to thank everyone who made Spiderverse.
Spider verse is my favorite movie simply because of the animation. Being someone surrounded by and growing up with 3D animation (and probably taking 2D for granted a lot since it lost its novelty before my time) the stylized animation is so cool and looks amazing. I hope that this style keeps showing up in good movies.
Spider-Verse was a cinematic masterpiece imo. Can’t wait for the sequels.
@@PeanutTheSnail I rewatched it and even the story is great! I mean it happened so many times that I rewatched a movie with a spectacular, sometimes cinema changing animation only to find out that's the only thing that made it popular and the story is very predictable.
( Sorry for the grammar mistakes, English isn't my native language. )
@@ch42965 I need to watch tron uprising aaaaaa
🤚🥴 Hey
Disney needs to realise this isn't the early 2000's anymore and audience's aren't going to be easily impressed with pretty colours and 3D sets. Especially major animation fans, because we are aware just what the medium of animation is capable of. We want to see something new and stylised, something that innovates animation one again. But Disney is no longer pushing any major boundaries, I am surprised Sony of all places has started this new era of animation. Disney animators and artists are immensely talented and it makes upset seeing their potential being wasted.
Wrong. Most people don't appreciate shit. They see animation and take their kids to see it because animashun for kidz lol. Furthermore I had someone tell me the other day they absolutely adored Frozen 2 and I was "like did you actually watch that movie" and they literally said "but it pretty". If anything, that makes ME feel like an asshole for feeling dissatisfied with a franchise.
Most people sorta turn their brain off at movies because it's a moment to be away from normal boring/draining human life for a while (I have chronic fatigue and clearly too much time on my hands so there is very little in big animation that I don't watch, but that does sort of make me an exception to the rule). This is why people keep going to Illumination movies. The thing is that a lot of those movies are forgettable but it really doesn't matter. At least hope that some of the kids that parents take to that movie end up developing a taste and realize that sequel after sequel of minions doesn't equal quality. Buy you also know that forums, twitter or discussion groups or whatever the fuck people will use in 10/15 years will be full of people discussing these movies in the same way that people still discuss direct-to-video disney movies.
The third Alladin movie slaps if you were like 10 years old when that thing came out, and from then on it will take you back to that moment for the rest of your life. Or whatever the equivalent of that is right now. Might be Frozen 2, actually.
@@theothertonydutch Disney is pumping out soulless garbage after soulless garbage with these remakes. The pointless raceswapping, the rewriting of characters, and especially the ugly lighting they put in their live actions. They only release an animated movie once a year for it to fail like Strange World.
I wouldn’t hold my breath for any actual good masterpieces like Puss in Boots the Last Wish from this company. My only hope is Dreamworks at this point
@@theothertonydutch The reason people see animation as a children's media is because Disney and illumination treat it as such. Sony and Dreamworks actually can make a movie that is still technically and visually innovating while creating a well written story to be universally enjoyed. It is totally possible to continue innovating animation without sacrificing your audience. I know majority of people switch their brains off when consuming film and that's why people still enjoy soulless garbage like frozen and marvel movies. But there is also a large audience of fans who genuinely pay attention and critique these things. Honestly the perfect example is this year's animation win at the Oscar's with Del Toro's Pinocchio winning. The second non-Disney/Pixar win (the first being Into the Spider-verse) in the past 10 years because it was something different. If Disney doesn't step it up again they're going to completely lose the animation industry critically. Sure they will still make money from mindless families but they will lose merits.
@Levinge Animations Completely agree. I will also add Arcane to the conversation. Yes, it's stylistically gorgeous, but it also has a cast of compelling characters and a story that comes together very seamlessly. It has a story it wants to tell, and touches on quite complicated situations with nuance. Truly deserves all the praise it gets
@@deulgis6644 ahhh yes Arcane!! How could I forget. That's also a perfect example how animation is not only for kids and doing something outside the box is more beneficial than not.
Hot take: the issue here isn't that Disney no longer has "villains." The problem is they no longer have ANTAGONISTS. People don't usually know the difference I'd say but as a writer and creator, you do, or should, know; an antagonist is someone who opposes the protagonist, creating conflict with their ideals and motivations and goals. That's it. That can mean any number of things--hell, a protagonist doesn't even NEED to be a hero as we think of one (anti-heroes and the rare villain protagonist exist). The role of a protagonist is that we follow them and their story. Point is, it's an important distinction, because the problem in a story isn't that they don't have a villain; it's that they don't have an antagonist, that by default, causes conflict with the protagonist, their goals and motivations, forcing them to face their own ideals head on, and in the process, change. THAT'S what makes a good story. For instance, you brought up how you love Frozen, but not Frozen 2, because Frozen 2 doesn't have a villain; well, the first Frozen's biggest issue IS their villain. They have a villain--Hans. But he's the worst part of the movie, because he's just not executed well, and what does he do? What conflict does he cause in the protagonist, Anna? Basically nothing, nothing of importance anyway. They tried to have it be a twist on Anna's naive expectations, which is good, but again, they don't execute it well. The really big conflict, the thing that Anna has to face and tackle with? Her relationship with her sister. Elsa might not be the villain, but she IS the antagonist for the majority of the movie; she directly opposes Anna's own wishes and desires to grow closer with her, and her ideals of a loving, connected family (and by extension I'd even argue how everyone IS loving and kind, given how cynical and mistrusting Elsa is). That's what makes Frozen work. It wasn't a villain. It was a clearly set up and thought through antagonist creating conflict that made sense for the characters. There isn't some "moral dilemma" going on in Disney's story process making it fail, like you imply; you can have a story without true villains, where everyone has a point and the conflict is resolved through understanding each other (hehem, Encanto, which you ALSO say is good, and you are right on that). The problem is a failed execution of proper antagonists or conflict that works for the characters and story, or when there ARE no antagonists at all.
@@skybunny6258 Dude, she doesn't just have a "tragic backstory". That's ignoring the very real trauma she went through (and the very real political violence that went through Colombia at the time that inspired her story), and she doesn't have a tragic backstory for no reason. It's the entire setup of the movie. It's doing a disservice to the story that's set up to explore generational trauma and how one person's terrible event can cause them to bring up toxic mindsets to cope and pass it on to the next generation, and the next after that. People just bizarrely decide for some reason making something LESS nuanced or ignoring that nuance makes the story better. Encanto isn't a bad movie because they have Alma have a tragic backstory. YOU just didn't like it for that reason, which is fine, it's just brought up on faulty reasoning to accuse a movie of being badly written when it had a plot line you just didn't like.
Thats why encanto is so good, because abuela IS an incredible antagonist
Just to touch on how people don't know the difference between antagonists and villains. I don't put too much trust in this guy, he didn't even do research about the first animations to come out. It wasn't Disney. Neither the first, nor the first coloured animation.
@@skybunny6258 the conflict is explored at the end because for most of the movie mirabel was trying to save the magic and wasn’t really around abuela much
Very well said! I loved this! :)
One thing that puts me off modern Disney/Pixar are the faces, especially the eyes which keep getting bigger and bigger (the news anchor in that Ralph clip is very uncanny valley). And now the mouths are doing that pull to the side thing that either looks painful or looks like a bean. Nothing about these movies visually says Disney anymore, there's no identifying stamp of an artist like there is in their earlier films, like I can tell just from looking that Don Bluth must have animated the kids in Robin Hood because he has a specific way of drawing, even under the Disney guidelines. Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty all have very different faces and motions, Anna, Elsa, and Rapunzel all look like they came out of the same toy mold in a factory.
They need to have variety in the art styles with 3D animation. Dreamworks does that perfectly. The Bad Guys and Puss in Boots 2 are 3D animated, but they look so different from each other.
I love Rapunzel, but I do agree with you on that.
I can forgive Rapunzel cause she was first, but Anna and Elsa are so boring to look at outside of Elsa’s ice magic
i hate the nose , I despise how big and round are ,they seem like a potato stuck in a already too childish face
It's animation. Their designs are just like manga style. You just draw cartoon characters look like real people and real people give a shit to you bc characters will look older and odd, sometimes like horror movies
Disney has had their “First openly LGBT” character like twelve times at this point.
And the character is still either in the background or they have a kiss scene that can be easily cut out.
Pretty much how I feel and I'm always surprised that they think it's the first every time. Yet again it is different genres each time.
Lmaoo I was just about to comment this
Yep and every time they hype it up like a big event, then use it to silence criticism after it blows
King Candy is still the best twist villain that Disney has done, because it felt naturally executed and something that is clearly hinted throughout the story, without it being too obvious.
I think maybe because it was an twist antagonist with a twist unlike other antagonists that are just twists
+crfstewaje Are you waiting for more 2D animation movies by Disney?
It's like Disney WANTS to do a Studio Ghibli-style film where there aren't really villains, or a key part of the story is the villains' redemption arc, but they lack the sensitivity of Studio Ghibli. You can't have a film that is dumb and sarcastic and insincere AND sensitive. It doesn't work that way. The closest they've come to doing that successfully was Encanto, where trauma is the villain. But then it was written so deep in the Hamilton mold that it suffers if you don't like Hamilton. Just, Disney... Just give us adaptations of fairy tales. It's okay.
And if they've somehow run out of classic European fairy tales they want to tell, pick literally any other region of the world and dive into /their/ classic fantasy and mythology. Respectfully and working with people from those cultures the whole way, ideally. We've gotten a couple hints of that with Coco and Moana, but those films are just two tiny drops of water in a sea of possibility.
@@HumbleWooper Yep. No shortage of fairy tales and folk tales out there. But honestly, this is part of where I've given up on Disney to produce anything worthwhile. Nowadays, if I want to see stories from other cultures, I just watch films from those cultures. Chinese adaptations of Journey to the West.
@@MonsterKidCory Well, well, well then you're a lucky one, because Lego Monkie Kid exist! It isn't an organic adaptation of Journey to the West per se, but they do indeed experiment with that story's element, it kinda feels like a spin off. So check it out if you're interested.
@@NathasyaStellaHermanus thanks for the reference!
LMAO 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 yeah right as if people haven’t been shitting all over Disney’s adaptations/versions of fairytale s OMG 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
And yet they neglect the actually innovative part of their company, the television animation
*cough* Owl House *cough*
I don't know if I would agree. There's still Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur and the Tiana and Moana series coming.
Treasure planet was set up, its a great film but it was marketed and released at the wrong time so it would bomb
Treasure planet was what made fall in love with animation with prince of Egypt, the way they seamlessly mesh 3d and 2d was just beautiful
I mean, Disney didn't really want to make it. It was the love child of 2 of their best employees and they had to jump through hoops and shifting goal posts just to get it made. Disney finally caved and let them do it after a few years of promising.
Treasure Planet and Atlantis are like the best Disney movies imo.
@@onepresence9460 Agree!
@@onepresence9460 Atlantis had its flaws, but the imagination and great animation outweighed them easy.
I wish Disney would try animating horror visuals again, like in Snow White and Pinnochio, villain deaths from the 50s-90s, or even how Nightmare before Christmas looked.
Or even Hunchback of Notre Dame, to think that movie came from Disney!
I know this'll probably never happen after how badly this film bombed, but I'd really like to see them take on a new dark fantasy story with the same tone as Black Cauldron. Obviously, that film had many problems, but it still stands out as being unique with its much darker tone and atmosphere.
my hope is one day see a 2d animated sequel that cover the other books. maybe if Disney ever has a new renaissance era
I read The Black Cauldron along time ago when I was a teenager, and I have to say that book was not made for kids. The animation did a decent job of being much more lighthearted than the novel. I was surprised to learn Disney adapted that book into a movie.
@@raistlinmajere7149 The Chronicles of Prydain are genuinely amazing books. I didn't watch the film until I was a teen and I thought it was meh, but I thank the movie for letting me know about those books.
@@raistlinmajere7149 I've been meaning to read them myself. But yeah, the Disney film wasn't going to be as dark as the source material, but when compared to movies that came before, it certainly stood out.
I miss 2D animation so much.
I wish we can get it back. Anime is more or less the closest thing to it other than the DC animated movies and shows.
recently We only get little bit of 2D Disney animation in disenchanted
@@justadragonnamemarcus1751 infortunetly that movie suck (for me at least)...a LOT of useless song that don't even progress the plot like not even 10mins apart and they start singing ( for real, only like 20-30mins in and my sis and i were already fed up with it, they couldn't stop even in moments where you'd be like "wtf now is really not the time for singing !!!", if your audience want to quit the movie that early there's something wrong, but after having to do a lot of persuasion to my dad to watch it we were stuck with that crap..) , they barely did anything with the story which made me mad because the idea sounded interesting and they pretty much did nothing with it...i only liked the villain song because it was funny..., to anyone reading that comment don't waste your time with Disenchanted go watch the 1st instead
@@ferreiraisabel1655 now you mentioned it....I watched both movies and I think you're right there so many random songs event but I liked the movie ( 40% only. )
@@justadragonnamemarcus1751 i did like the animated part tho, i wished they were more of it
One thing weird about Wish, is that the main character looks to have the same character design as Isabella from Encanto, she may look a bit different in the film but still
Disney is just copy and pasting characters design
@@SweetsourgurlThe dog in Strange World was literally just the dog from The Little Mermaid but 3D and with a missing leg.
Nick Wilde is a 3D Robin Hood.
Frollo is a male Lady Tremaine, and Lady Tremaine’s design and voice actress was also partially recycled for Maleficent.
Taran is basically just Peter Pan.
I can go on.
The only things that are similar about them are the colors. They have completely different hairstyles, facial features, and dresses.
They look nothing alike 💀
@@Sweetsourgurl its just their art style lmao
My problem with modern animated films is that they all just look so indistinct. Everyone looks rubbery and everything feels weightless. Nothing is visually interesting or inspired anymore. Feels like all the characters are built from the same factory templates
It's ironic how a lot of movies in newer Disney have one of the messages "its okay to do something new" when Disney has been doing the exact opposite.
Great point
It's so sad to imagine children growing up these days with soulless animations, made solely to generate income for big studios and with the lowest priority on sending a message and creating feelings.
When I rewatch the treasure planet or the jungle book, my two favorite disney movies, I cannot hold back my tears.
Both movies tell the tale of a boy who has no family but finds some kind of a father role in an unlikely friend.
And oh the music! How could kids nowadays be okay with the crappy soulless music in movies when there were songs like "the bare necessities" in the jungle book. That song is straight up one of the best songs ever written for a childrens movie.
Oh and Tarzan, with Phil Collins singing the theme song (and especially cool for Germans like me, he even sang the German version of the Tarzan theme!).
It's really sad that there are barely any handpainted movies anymore, it just felt so alive compared to those 3d animations.
I'm sure if disney made another handpainted movie in the style of the original disney classics it would probably be their biggest financial success ever.
I figure that’s why there are concerns about kids being held back in school to the point of possibly aging out. They’re probably afraid that they’ll be bored shitless of some of the curricular material that are mercilessly expected to tug at their heartstrings besides just learn from as they supposedly keep staying in school. Now I know why the messages in those Disney films they were intended to teach unfortunately seemed to fly over my head as a kid.
if you want to fines some good, or just intersting, 2d animation (as well as stop motion), look around more. Look at indies and overseas if you need to. I know your point is the major and more popular releases in America, but this is 2023. Look past the common big guys, and to the big guys you may never have heard of before and the plethora of small guys.
We definitely need 2D hand drawn animation to come back. And we need more variety in the art styles for their 3D animated movies as well. I want a Disney 3D movie with the Paperman style.
@@onepresence9460 I hope so too, especially now that Princess and the Frog seemed to have garnered more popularity in recent years than it did during its original theatrical run. I think it’s safe to say that they finally realized most of its revenue was generated from nostalgic millennials in their teens and twenties at the point of its release who easily see the hand-drawn medium through rose-colored glasses and often associate it with the ones they grew up with.
@@JDReC100 Can you recommend?
I think Disney has forgotten just how much villains matter in a movie. Puss and the last wish proved how much people miss villains.
The last real villain Disney had was Mother Gothel. I don't really count Zootopia because Disney were in their 'twist villain' era.
I like to have a villain where we know who it is right from the beginning and someone who enjoys it or just embraces it.
What about King Candy?
@@crfstewarje Oh right that guy. Doesn't he count as a bit of a twist villain or I'm remembering the movie wrong? It has been too long since I've seen Wreck it Ralph.
@@Dani_77709 I never saw King Candy as a twist villain, the only twist is that he was revealed to be Turbo all along
@@whatdadogdoin634 ohhhh ok gotcha.
We need a Jack Horner type of villain in Disney. Maybe the next movie called Wish will have that.
9:26 this was the natural progression of the sympathetic villain trope, which Disney transitioned into twist villains.
The next obvious step was no villain.
It's like they want us to forget that there are sometimes forces or people we should fight against.
That doesn't mean stuff can always be blamed on one baddie, though...
no seriously, i hated the message of Raya the last dragon. You wanna talk about dangerous to children? “Remember kids! Trust people who broke yours and hurt you/others because of it, Don’t question anything. Look at the shiny blue dragon!!”
Dreamworks and possible (I can't believe I rooting for them) Illumination, with the new Super Mario film, Sony, Netflix and even possibly Skydance, will move forward with the times, evolving the game of animation, while Disney is, regressing aggressively.....I hope Wish be the one film that prove Disney still is in the game, but sadly I doubt with this heavy political writers behind, will ever be able of beat Dreamworks or Sony, who are taking risk.
It's funny how Illumination beat Pixar in the box office, hopefully they'll do it again with the Mario Movie
Skydance recently had a billion dollar hit with Top Gun: Maverick.
They also produced some of the more recent Mission: Impossible films. And they are just now making the move to animation.
Disney learned big-time from 2022, so I really don’t think Wish will feature anything that will be controversial with the general public. (I know the human characters in this will be LatinX but there are less racist people than homophobic people) Plus, Bob Iger said that Disney will be more politically neutral while still doing representation of minority groups.
Netflix? We'll see if they scrap more animation....we all know what happened last summer with their massive purge.
Dreamworks and Sony Pictures Animation are definitely on fire right now. Disney better start to take notes. Even Illumination is getting there.
Treasure planet and Atlantis were my LOVE. The stories were printed so deep in my mind and I am so glad my teacher played them in class. Then I grew up and found out how these two works are sabotaged by Disney themselves, being the victims of them turning to 3D animation.
People around me always talk about how good films like Frozen are. I admit the art is amazing, but I really feel the story is kinda bland to me. And every time I think of the storytelling in the old days I think of Treasure Planet.
I only saw those two movies once as a kid, but the feeling of watching them stuck with me.
With Frozen... Well... I guess a feeling stuck with me, but it was a feeling of annoyance. I was actually excited for it and felt almost betrayed by it's half baked story.
It's so sad how Disney basically sabotaged what I would say are their two most interesting stories.
i adore treasure planet so much, idk if any disney movie will ever top it for me
Things I do not want Disney to do:
1) stop making movies with female leads
Things I want Disney to do:
1) experiment more with different body types (yes, Luisa from Encanto was a step in the right direction, but they could do more)
2) experiment more with different animation styles
3) vary the color palettes
4) and this is probably the most important -- strengthen their screenplays! Now, I loved Zootopia, Moana, Encanto, and Turning Red; no one's going to talk me out of my love for those films, because each one of them had a heroine I found super engaging. But I'd like to see another film that had an engaging heroine AND a compelling villain. I miss the dark elements we saw in the classic era.
I don't think there's any problem with movies with female leads
Edit: Now that I fully understand your comment, I wholeheartedly agree with you, especially the 2nd and 4th. Disney REALLY needs to experiment more with animation styles, considering other animation studios are doing just that.
@@theotherwayaround621 they said they don't want disney to stop having female leads. I get it though, I had to read a couple times to understand
Hey, leave Zootopia out of it. I'm not sure how the story would work if you made the villain a super obvious bad guy. (The story is about how everyone can be prejudiced).
And I actually dug Turbo from Wreck-It Ralph.
@@hkr0065 Fair point on Zootopia. The twist villain actually worked for that movie; it made sense in view of the plot and theme.
Uh turning red is Pixar and not Disney
Disney is a company too big to fail, it doesn't matter if movies flop, they make movies to feed streaming algorithms, not to tell storys. There are definitely talented people working there, but that doesn't matter, you don't matter, everything is going to sell anyway and that's what matters.
Funny I always thought Vanellope was the villain in Ralph brakes the internet. I mean think about it. The villain in the first movie was Turbo who abandoned his game to take over another. Thats exactly what Vanellope does in the second movie. It's what Ralph does in Heros Duty and it is painted as a bad thing. The whole first movie was about Ralph accepting his role in the game but by the second Vanellope goes turbo because she is bored. Just like Ralph did in the first movie, but she is better because she gets what she wants. She also disregards Ralph and everyone she's known up to this point. Her character goes down a selfish and destructive path and Ralph is just reacting to it all. Sure, Ralph doesn't handle the situation well but what we see is his response to a self-absorbed shallow ""friend"". This double standard is perfectly fine thoe, because Princess.
They threw her character out the window for a cruddy sequel
Exactly what I was thinking. I hate that movie so much! At least Ralph had an understandable motivation to leave the game (temporarily, I might add) because he was tired of being the ' Bad ' guy. He was being constantly ostracised through no fault of his. Doesn't make his actions right but understandable.
Vanellope is the star of her game and the favourite amongst players. And, she leaves the game, permanently, just because she is bored. Boredom can be a powerful motivation but it pales in comparison to what Ralph went through in the first movie.
@@thetechnocrat4979 exactly!
@@ozmul5810 swap the genders around and THEN YES it’s a SEXIST ACTUAL double standard meaning whatever a man/boy does it’s fine but when it’s a woman/girl here comes the bashing the negativity disapproval:(whatever):baby THAT is what an ACTUAL double standard REALLY IS
at least to me
@@thetechnocrat4979 oh ikr how dare Vanellope want more better to get better to do better advance whatever seriously every single damn time that
a FEMALE character wants anything more she’s blah blah blah “sElFiSh” she’s “sHaLlOw” she’s whatever negative BS that misogynists WILL GLADLY sling at her but obviously it SHOULD be just fine either nobody cares as in the sense that nobody’s really bothered or even MUST approve of and like support a MALE that’s like freakin damn EXACTLY like that he’s great he’s awesome he’s amazing and cool and ambitious inspiring fantastic great role model for everybody including for children of both of the sexes like I’ve pretty much already mentioned in a previous comment a gendered double standard is well to TRY to put it in a nutshell whatever MALES do it’s pretty much just fine it’s cool nobody really cares must be even totally approved HES A FREAKIN MALE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD EVERYTHING he does it’s cool don’t lie please it’s a gendered misogynistic sexist man’s world with a global worldwide historical still very real still very much alive THOUSANDS OF YEARS old patriarchy yes it is there’s literally no need to whine lie deny deflect project gaslight moan whatever
Disney should learn a thing or two with Dreamworks and Sony Pictures Animation. Both studios are willing to take risks with their storytelling and the animation art styles. Even Illumination is willing to try.
I think Disney Animation should hire better writers and have variety in the animation art styles like bringing back 2D hand drawn animation and trying new 3D animation techniques like Spider-Verse and Paperman.
Just wait till November! Disney's got their first hybrid film in the works--in fact, it's why Strange World didn't get enough attention.
Disney’s main problem of having the films look all the same. It’s also kinda sad that Pixar, a company under Disney, makes better and more unique characters designs.
I love how with the release of Spiderverse and now Puss in Boots the Disney style of CGI is seen as obsolete. And it is obsolete
i know walt used to say he didn't want sequels, he didn't like the idea of them and he wanted to make original, magical stories, so for the company to have become like this practically trying to rely on sequels that are not necessary is just very very sad. they see it as "oh this was successful, we need to make more" but they never seem to see how it should be left as it is and make something else magical and original.
It's okay to make up sequels but when it is the only reliance then that alone becomes a problem. :(
Even if I'm not the biggest fan of the founder of the House of Mouse, I still know he's rolling in his grave.
Top Gun: Maverick did the whole "movie without a villain" way better. Because they made the character tension clear, while the traditional bad guys were more of a backdrop.
This is kinda what Frozen did, where they successfully took the attention off the bad guys and placed it on family relationships.
But notice how both movies went in fully committed to conflict. Seems like modern Disney is afraid to do that.
Dreamworks has surpassed Disney.
I think that they have been doing that with many of their good films right from ' The Prince of Egypt ', it just wasn't recognised properly.
It's almost like *gasp* it's the screenwriting that makes characters and stories feel real instead of how realistic you make the animation. Who knew
(whoo boy this one turned into an essay. TL/DR I think Disney has been suffering in the animation department)
Besides the issues I have with the overall story telling and music of the newer Disney films, they just don't _look_ right. And I'll be the first to admit, I am a bit biased when it comes to 3D vs. 2D animation. But there are lots of examples of 3D that I absolutely love. The new Puss and Boots looked fantastic visually, love Spider-Verse, The Clone Wars (particularly the more recent seasons and spin-offs) looks phenomenal, I couldn't imagine Wreck-it-Ralph being done traditionally. So I do think that 3D has its place.
However, Disney doesn't seem to know how to utilize 3D properly. All of their 3D movies look the same from the last several years. It's hard to describe exactly. But I remember I used to shake my head when I'd hear people talk about the "Disney style." I'd think, "Which style are you referring to?" Because Snow White does _not_ look like Atlantis. Sleeping Beauty does _not_ look like 101 Dalmations. Mulan does _not_ look like Cinderella. Lilo and Stitch does _not_ look like Hercules. They were pretty experimental when it came to overall style and design. With the newer ones though, they all look similar. They might have different setting designs (I'm actually a big fan of the costume designs for Frozen, even though I don't like that film), but the actual animation style looks the same. Well, I'll give it that Strange World had a different, more rounded style. But it still looked odd.
If anyone hasn't seen it, I would highly recommend the documentary "Frank and Ollie" which is about two of the classic Disney animators. There are several parts of the doc where it shows them discussing how they tried to get into the character, figure out every little move that the characters would make and how best to express themselves. Take a look at the character animation from the old days, it's like an acting masterclass. Compare that to now, every movement seems stale. It's like they have to exaggerate and over emphasize every last little movement. Animation is all about exaggeration, sure, but Disney used to know how to reign it in. Like how the Mickey Mouse cartoons were more bouncy but Snow White was more toned down and realistic. But now every movement now has to be over the top all the time. Facial expressions, arm movements, they're all over the place.
Another thing that I think has been causing the movies to look off is the rendering. With computers now, they can do some amazing hyper-realistic rendering. But when they overlay that on top of a cartoony frame, it looks kind of jarring. For example, I saw Encanto in theaters opening day, and I remember during the scene when she is tossed out of Bruno's room all covered in sand how strange it looked because you could see every single little grain of sand on her face, all perfectly rendered, I thought at the time it looked so odd. Realistic looking sand on a squishy cartoony face. It's such a little thing, but it threw me for a loop. It just seemed disjointed. So does a lot of their animations. They don't seem to be able to properly marry realistic rendering with cartoon frames. But again, using Spider-Verse and the Clone Wars as examples, the rendering is very good in those, but they also play a lot with the textures and visual styles so they come together really nicely.
.... Also I am not a fan of Frozen, but I think that's mostly because The Snow Queen was my favorite non-Disneyfied fairy tale growing up, and then when they finally made a movie of it the only similarities were that there was snow and a queen and that's it. Okay byyyyyyyeeee!
I'd like to mention that I think that Disney has also been playing it safe with Character designs as well. Like because of the shift to 3d animation, of course the purpose is to make everything look realist and believable, but it takes away some of the fun and exaggerated character designs we used to have in the Renaissance era that made for more interesting and engaging characters through their iconic silhouettes and proportions. Like I get people don't look like that in real life, but I think its also a reason why Disney was popular in the animation industry and why it set the standard for character designing in general.
Like they still utilise shapes in things such as hair and clothing to make for different silhouettes of each characters, but like compare Strange World's characters (just in terms of their designs) to Hercules for a second. A bit of a stretch and they don't share anything in common, but Hercules triangular shaped body and stylised curly hair are much more recognisable and more dynamic than the main character in Strange World who I don't even know who it is by this point. Like in general their designs seem to be getting really basic compared to what they used to do and that's pretty disappointing considering Disney's renaissance era of character designing is what inspired so many character designers today.
I know that was a bit of a tangent, and I'm not even a character designer myself, but I thought it was just something interesting that no one seems to be talking about.
Seems like most studios may need good writers and animators in the area possibly for the fact we need a new style going on.
I thought Disney was making a comeback after Enchanto. But sadly I was proven wrong. They are still able to make good movies but whoever are pushing sequels and etc aren’t letting the directors artist and animators have free will to work with. Also drop the live actions please they are bad.
My guess as to why they’ve been having less villains in their films lately is due to the backlash some of their past villains have been receiving online for having negative connotations. Whether they’re women in power, flamboyant men, or designs that border on what people perceive to be racist or crude caricatures - there’s no hiding the fact that a number of their villains were loosely based on what contemporary society deemed to be taboo back then. That’s pretty much a death sentence in this divisive world we currently live in.
They could just make villains that aren't like that. And also, some people need to relax. Everything isn't racist. (I know Disney has some really problematic old villains, I know. But some people are also very loud about non-problems).
@@SysterYster Well, that’s the problem right there. How do you know what to avoid when you lack foresight? Anything deemed 'bad' nowadays is subject to change as society continues to evolve or devolve. In this divided world we currently live in, it seems like the only safe route is avoiding it altogether.
I haven't seen anyone calling modern Disney homophobic for having villains. Weird. Sure, there problemetic/questionable villains in their older movies, but most LGBT+ people just laughed it off in a "shake my head on the uneducated past culture" way. If they don't want to do villains like that they can well, simply make a different villain. It doesn't seem like a hard task.
@@redpanda6497 The problem is that they also want the villains to be marketable, which typically requires them to be fun characters in themselves. Completely serious Disney villains have difficulty with being promoted, and kinda for apparent reasons (i.e. Frolo is a genocidal murderer and potential rapist, the Horned King is a gruesome undead necromancer, and Chernobog is the embodiment of debauchery itself, etc.)
at first I thought they were lacking in the villains department especially with strange world. but then I realized it goes deeper then I thought
I hope Disney takes some inspiration from Spider-Verse, I feel like a lot of movies now are incorporating that 2d-3d hybrid style. It’s new, and refreshing
I'll say this
1. Have an actual decent plot
2. Animate that plot
DreamWorks works because they know what the story is about and they know how to Present it. Disney animation climax have nothing notable about them
Disney classics are just that but I think it's unfair to Pixar since they was separate from Disney and also did great things for animation
The only ' new ' Pixar film that I have liked is Soul. Very sad to see this. Pixar was once such a great studio.
@@thetechnocrat4979 Coco and Luca are great films!
I think in their attemps to create stories where everyone is given a chance and everyone is actually a perfectly reasonable person, they've forgotten how to do proper conflict because it doesn't come naturally to perfectly reasonable characters without some sort of contriviance, and you only can put in so many of them in before it's to strain the plot.
Encanto i believe worked because it managed to insert an incredibly interesting conflict that rolled nicely with the plot of a family grievance.
They need to remember how to properly insert conflict with their current brand of characters, and also realize perfectly reasonable characters can have odd obsessions, those make them more interesting to watch, and make conflicts feel more natural
I think I remember hearing somewhere that Wish was going to be 2d animated, which I hope is true, but I’m willing to bet Disney will continue their trend of not having an real villain
They all look and feel the same.
I think some look different like Wreck It Ralph, Zootopia and Strange World, but others like Tangled, Frozen and Moana definitely feels the same. They need to have variety in the art styles like Dreamworks does.
@@onepresence9460 I would say encanto has distinct designs too especially for the variety in female characters
Treasure planet and Atlantis are soooo good. I love when they used to use a distinct animation style in each film, like Atlantis or sleeping beauty.
Disney’s issue is it HAS to please it’s fans. It’s so dedicated to fanservice and nostalgic callbacks (Luke Skywalker, Bo Katan, and Ahsoka in the Mandalorian) sequels/spin-off shows (Marvel and Star Wars), etc that they’re afraid of taking us through the rollercoaster of emotions that a true story would.
They’re afraid to tug on heartstrings, make bold statements, and take the risk of new stories.
Companies like Dreamworks succeed because they extrapolate on established characters in new ways. They market each film to *specific* audiences. For example: Shrek’s innuendos and satire appealed to adults, Trolls and Boss Baby were for little kids, King Fu panda was action-based, How To train your dragon was fantasy, Soul and Up were more grounded dramas for disillusioned dreamers.
Instead of trying to cater to everyone with a single film, Dreamworks specializes-either layering in subtle adult jokes in addition to the kid ones and implying serious themes, or switching tones/styles to suit the tone of each franchise.
This so much we need to get rid of this nostalgia kick Hollywood seems to be on want nostalgia go watch old stuff and let Hollywood move on so we can get new interesting stories.
Soul and Up were Disney though
Very well said but it was actually Pixar who made up Soul and Up though. Lol
I dont get the criticism of those star wars characters, they're pretty damn important to the overall story
Kung fu panda I feel like is a great example of a movie that does use that similar 3D animation style for most of it but also has a great supporting little art style that they use to explain things and it keeps it’s style in the 3D parts through the action and character design.
Also puss in boots 2 man. It looks amazing!!!❤❤❤ like the spider verse but not completely like the spider verse
Not to mention that kung fu panda incorporates 2d into their dream and flashback sequences which is great
@@katm8128 yesss especially the scene in the second movie where Po learns what happened to all the pandas. That scene literally makes me want to cry every time! 😭
@@NatCatKitty That was pretty dark for a kids movie, but it really was amazing.
@@lovelycloudyskies for real. For some reason the dark moments are the best in kids movies, I think that’s why everyone likes puss in boots the last wish so much too!
I'm bi, and I think disney is almost running out of token LGBTQ+ background characters to say "disney's first gay character". And it's just sad, There was gaston's sidekick in the movie version of beauty and the beast, wich was basically retconned to be a gay icon despite originally being openly misoginystic (thanks disney, very cool), there were the dozens of background mothers, each making headlines as disney's first homosexual couple. There was that one conveniently brief line of the cyclops woman, being the first lesbian charater. There was the 1 second scene in star wars followed by live slug reaction. and all of them made headlines for being "oh so inclusive coming from a billion dollar company" because you know that if they cared they wouldn't try to hide background characters and take credit for it, especially since Alex hirsch back in 2013 wanted to put 3 seconds of a lesbian old couple, and disney didn't permit him to do that. The owl house was soft cancelled because a new, hyper homophobic dude entered the scene and say it "didn't fit the brand". Dysney wants to get all the minority love points while still not caring for the actual causes.
Newsflash that's every corporation. They want queer dollars but don't want to lose homophobic audiences. Say what you want about marvel but they've stand by taking L's that other Disney owned ip's haven't been willing to do. And they aren't doing very well right now so homophobes say it's because of the representation and queer people rightfully want better so we get them still trying to tow the balance that's getting tighter and tighter to keep truckloads of $
They don’t need to have all that. They should stay neutral but no matter which way they go, they alienate people. Some of us still recognize truth though and that God’s plan is one man one woman. Disney shouldn’t push sin.
They just need to stop with all the reboots, live action films, & sequels and just focus on new creative animated films
Best comment ever 👏
the problem is people keep watching them. i dont know what it is, but people will still eat up trash movies .
I agree, Disney is starting to get at in dark age again. Especially with all of these live action remakes. It’s just lazy and Disney is trying to cash out on its successful Renaissance era.
Yep. Watched the trailer for the Little Mermaid, and was instantly turned off. Not because Ariel is played by black actress (I couldn´t care less, as long as she can act well I am fine with her), but because everything was so dark and dull there I could barely see anything. The original was full of light and colour, and it was part of what made it so special. This one? Nope.
There's a reason the 90's was lightning in a bottle. People actually cared to tell good story and worked together to achieve that, and all those films range from imperfect but solid (Hercules) to god damn timeless masterpiece (Lion King). That lightning will never be captured again until there's a top down personnel overhaul.
disney's problem not really the animation style but the lack of risk they willign to take with their story.... they so obsessed to being neutral and non provoking all their story is flat. And it doesnt helps they harded a lot of franchise known for thought-provoking, conflict seeking ways.
It's both.
The sad truth is that at the time of Treasure Planet and Atlantis, 3D animation just saved money. And that may be one factor as to why it seems they purposely advertised these films poorly.
I miss Disney focusing on animated musicals. They are now few and far between, just like their 2D animation. The music had always been as big a part of the Disney magic as the animation. Less music and the change in animation style have made many of their recent movies feel generic.
they made an animated musical in 2021 and before that 2019 and before that 2016
@@lilac3266 Yes, but in the 90s, every Disney movie was a musical and they released one every year. Many more of them since then have not been musicals and we get fewer movies in general. I prefer musicals and 2D animation. The 90s were peak Disney for me.
I think once my generation (gen z) gets older and gradually starts to take over, there is a good chance that there will be more original ideas. I am in an animation class and many of us here have some really unique and interesting ideas.
I wholeheartedly agree, as an aspiring animator and screenwriter myself
I actually am a fan of Frozen II despite its flaws. However, I am getting really tired of the mentality we see in soo many franchises today: release as many productions as possible with little effort/creativity to make as much money as possible. My only hope is that this won't work long term. Frozen II could have been more thought through if the creators had been given more time. The life action remakes are just uninspired to me and purely bait on nostalgia. Its not just Disney, its everywhere. Let's make a ton of sequels instead of telling a unique story...or use a great franchise's name to promote our ideas (cough, Rings of Power, cough). There are so many cool new stories out there waiting to be told on screen. So many books, fairy tales etc. But they aren't a safe money-making option for producers. Sadly, few are brave enough to try. So I don't see the problem in the lack of villains - stories can work without them (granted, they can add pressure and be really iconic and fun to watch) - but the lack of creativity and confidence needed to put something new out there for people to enjoy. Exploring new themes of the same story only works to a limited degree. At some point you should just tell a new story.
I half agree. Disney's problem is writing.
I'd say that Frozen 2's handling of generational trauma and familial consequences as the villain was a tremendous risk, definitely not playing it safe. It mostly didn't land for folks who didn't already have those concepts or experiences already.
Fucking ironic now that Disney falling behind in terms of innovation......they really made Paperman and then "nah, this look like taking too much risk" and didn't seize that momentum.
Now other studio successfully seize this (mixed animation) momentum... we got Arcane, Bad Guys, Spiderverse, Puss in Boots 2 lmaoo.....
You can’t forget the onslaught of live-action films that are consistently being released, that are not only lazy, but are criminally awful.
Puss in Boots needs to be required viewing for Disney at this point. It's proof you can have a terrifying iconic villain like the old days, but still tell the sorts of complex stories Disney is trying to do.
What’s sad is when I think of Disney these days I think of live actions. It feels like animation is a side thing now personally.
Yeah same here. :(
To be fair to other early animation studios, Disney made a deal with Technicolor that prevented other people from using it. I believe it was 3 or 5 year deal. So for years the public only saw Disney's works in color making him stand out.
Brillant business decision, but sucks to be anyone else.
Overall, I agree with this video.
Disney animations and movies has lost their magic to me long time ago. Only who respect the medium and their audience can make a compelling story. Making films just for the sake of making is meaningless, because why should us, the audience, care, if it has nothing to offer?
Another problem in my opinion is that in 3D most artstyles look the same. You could take someone from Coco and put him in Inside Out. Tangled Rapunzel could show up in Frozen and would not stick out like a sore thumb.
To be honest my fav Disney/Pixar movies didn't have a main villain. Toy Story doesn't have a "bad guy" not really. Sure we have a kid who likes to blow toys up but the main conflict was Woody's own insecurity and Buzz's disillusion. Goofy Movie, Finding Nemo, Lilo and Stitch, Wall E, Inside Out. I tend to like problems that are caused by characters themselves instead of some fabulous but incomprehensible asshole.
👍🏻
This right here. I still love me my delicious villains ala Ursula and Scar. It still takes skill to make the 'fabulous but incomprehensible villain" work, but 90's Disney on the whole was lightning in a bottle that I doubt will be captured again. At least in my lifetime. They're super memorable for a reason, and heightened though they are, there was care being taken to tell the damn story. Not anymore. Everything feel so damn disjointed and forced, like they're trying to everything to everyone.
I hope these videos get picked up by the algorithm, these are very well made.
3D animation might be cool in theory, but there's a certain magic about 2D that gives it a kind of life that makes it amazing.
3D tries too hard to be realistic, while 2d tends to be more artsy and stylistic. It's also trends too that play a role, 3D has been the rage since the 2000s, 2d dwindled around that time too. But 2d is making strides again given how predictable 3d has become and given how with the rise of internet content creators and the relative ease of animation programs, 2d is trendy again.
This is why I’m hoping this year’s movie Wish will point Disney towards a better future direction for animation styles! A path that balances and has 2D, CGI, sometimes Stop Motion and the new Hybrid animation style! It never has to be only one particular style! I hope Wish will mark the return of 2D animation AND more of a variety of animation styles!
This aged like milk
Disney has lost what is right and what is wrong. When you don’t know that anymore, it becomes impossible to tell meaningful stories.
I don’t think it’s the animation that’s the problem anymore, it’s the messaging and storytelling.
The reason I love Tangled so much from an animation standpoint is because, despite it being 3d, it still keeps the soul of 2d. The hair makes big swooping motions that are less realistic, but look amazing in the film. The whole personality and the way Maximus was animated is so cartoony and fun that I don’t see it as the soulless slop that Disney does today. Tangled is what happens when heart and soul are kept in the animation, despite it being 3d!
I really flarking hated Frozen. Let it go made no sense in the story and is almost immediately contradicted. The Hans twist villain was stupid after he saved Elsa from becoming a murderer. And the idea that Ana shouldn't fall in love with the first guy she meets is immediately contradicted by the story practically forcing her onto the second guy she meets to the point where she is literally put into a wedding dress, and only falling unconscious prevents her from being married to him. So stupid, and the opposite of empowering, IMHO.
I hate that Elsa is so awful but never has to face what she did. I know its a kids movie and I know “sisterly love” but coming from a dysfunctional family I think that her not facing what she did at all sends a terrible message and makes her a very hateable character. It reminds me of my family not taking responsibility, using familial bonds as an excuse for neglect emotional abuse etc. Elsa SENT THE WORLD INTO WINTER AND KEPT RUNNING AWAY, we’re expected to believe because someone reached out to her its just fixed in a snap and btw that climax was just lame anyway. she would have been better as a villain, tie in some stuff about crappy royal family dysfunction and it could have been totally different and interesting. Disney dont have the balls tho.
@@idontcheckmynotifications almost being murdered is not being punished?
@@frankie3010 Considering her imminent demise was completely justified, no, it's not attempted murder, but self-defense. The only thing Hans did wrong was how he treated Anna and how he lied about her death to the dignitaries. Going after Elsa is entirely reasonable given the limited amount of information he had-especially after she said she couldn't stop the winter and didn't bother to try-and Frozen II confirms that her death would've ended the calamity. Hans is operating under the assumption that killing Elsa is the only way to fix the problem and that she purposefully struck her sister with a fatal blow and lied to him by playing innocent-because Anna at no point clarifies that it was accidental. He actually seems confused when he mentions it to Elsa and realizes she wasn't aware of that. He also seems confused at the end when he regains consciousness and sees Anna and Elsa getting along, emphasizing the fact that he was kept in the dark throughout the film. This was either entirely intentional to make his character more nuanced, or an oversight on the writers' parts. I'm leaning toward the latter because...
Frozen has many, MANY plot contrivances, with most of its story issues stemming from the bad shock-twist. It's mediocre at best. Even though the sequel is objectively worse in writing quality, the first still irks me more because it came closer to being good and feels like it gave up halfway through. And I'm not about to praise incompetent writing, no matter how many people like it.
EDIT: Fixed mistake.
Yeah, people tend to ignore how the trolls and story as a whole totally disregard Anna's agency by immediately trying to force her into a relationship-as she's DYING, no less! The screenwriters also seem oblivious to the fact that having Anna emotionally cheat on Hans through her poorly-developed romance with Kristoff reflects really badly on her. It's pretty convenient how they made Hans the bad guy, since it distracts from that-but that still doesn't make her infidelity okay. She gets away with a lot of bad behavior.
Just bring back 2D ……. Animations were GOLD during that time 🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️
It's time we bring back 2D animations Disney been a while since- what Princess and the Frog
It's sad that the television animation side these days has better enjoyment than the animated film side.
It be like that.
I think Disney's problem is that they aren't willing to take risks throughout their animation anymore, so they just milk out any of their successful movies instead, leaving soulless sequels like Ralph Breaks The Internet or reboots of their classic films such as Pinnochio to roam about.
Unlike Disney, companies such as Dreamworks not only experiment with new ideas and unique animations but whenever they make any continuations, they actually pay respect to the first movies while also doing something new at the same time (ex: Puss in Boots: The Last Wish, Shrek 2, Kung Fu Panda 2).
Honestly I just wish Disney would go back to 2D animation, it’s so much more expressive and it’s one of their strengths
9:58 I swear to god I will make a video about it one day, but I had an idea for a WiR sequel right after watching the first movie and I STILL believe it's a better story than the flaming trash heap that is Ralph Breaks the Internet (which really should have been called 'Ralph WRECKS the Internet')....
Definitely
WiR is an underrated masterpiece. I'll die on that hill, it's clever and unique. The sequel was....wild. I didn't hate it, but good it was not. It also just wasn't a sequel anyone asked for, nor was it needed. Now we're getting a 3rd Frozen, and after the stupid, completely misguided sequel, I don't trust a three-quel to do what the sequel SHOULD HAVE DONE. Not that a Frozen sequel was necessary either, but it was inventible and I accepted that. But good god, they did everything a GOOD sequel shouldn't do.
“You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.”
-Harvey Dent.
It honestly seems time and again what saves Disney is a strong princess movie. That’s their bread and butter.
their making thattt
Disney animations is amazing but all the character models look the same
I really appreciate people like you pointing out movies like Atlantis and Treasure Planet more in the present day. I watched both of these movies at a pretty low point in my life (about a year ago) and, while I was born a few years too late to experience them as a kid, they've still had a massive impact on me as a teen/young adult. Treasure Planet is the sole reason I've not given up on my goal of becoming a character designer/animator, Glen Keane's work is equivalent to the Mona Lisa for me!!! I really hope Disney steps up their game and makes amazing movies like they once did. Animation nerd rant over xx
Going through the comments I find it a bit lackluster that nobody is mentioning cartoon saloon in any of the discussions. They're relatively small but their movies are distinct and tell different stories. Even if I fall asleep during most of them, I always rewind to watch what I missed. They feel like the type of stuff I watched at the neighbours who had a kid who was way into (dark) fantasy even though they are nothing like that.
They're also not letting Disney have the last word in female protagonists, with "The Breadwinner" and the sublime "Wolfwalkers."
@@kelleyceccato7025 I like that they let the directors and writers really tell their own story. It is extremely refreshing.
They all look the same. They all have the same message-be “yourself” whatever that is.
right now the only story disney knows is "old people bad"
The reason I can genuinely enjoy those old direct-to-DVD sequels as opposed to the newer sequels (even though there are exceptions) is that the old ones knew what they were.
They knew they didn’t always have great story beats, animation, acting, etc. So they were released right to home video rather than in the theater. I know most of them are pretty bad but some are pretty great and it’s like my junk food.
The modern sequels are exactly the same thing except they think they deserve big theater releases and multimillion-dollar budgets on terribly short schedules.
It’s the difference between your little guilty pleasure fanfiction and a big-budget Wattpad film adaptation with celebrity actors.
you can have a good story without an explicit villain, these movies just have shit writing
I'd also like to point out that paramount has =tarted to get into this hyper stylization that spiderverse and the last wish did with TMNT mutant mania. so literally disney is the only company that refuses to change their art style
When you have a group of people whose knowledge of film history begins and ends with Disney films, their scope will always be limited. Imagine a team of writers whose sole reading experience is the occassional comic book, directors who wouldn't know a Fellini from a Fiat, and animators whose knowledge of fine art begins and ends with the Impressionists and you'll see why Disney as an animation studio is failing.
Honestly I disagree on the villain part. Yes, great villains can be awesome, but you don’t need a villain to make a great story. I would even argue that you can tell more nuanced stories without a villain (obviously you still have to do it right), because then you can’t just rely on one scapegoat for the whole plot. Maybe I’m a bit biased with this because that’s the type of stories I personally prefer, but I still think there are so much more great stories beyond just „bad guy is bad just because and good guy tries to stop him“. Make more gray characters. Make characters do evil things for good reasons. Make „good“ characters do stupid things or let them stand on the „wrong side“. Let everyone do the best that they can with best interests in mind and let that lead to absolute catastrophe and tragedy. But stop blaming a company‘s failing to do good movies (I also partly disagree with this, but that’s not that important) on the lack of villains.
well fair enough
@Alex, Take Puss N Boots The Last Wish for Example. The movie isn't good just because of Death, but because of how the movie handles everything else. If the movie was made by different writers who didn't didnt handle the themes well, Death could have felt like a scapegoat to cover what could have been a bad movie. Case in point - if Disney is going to make villains again, they should do it, because they feel like the villain will fit the themes of the movie. But villain or not, the biggest thing, is that Disney just needs to clean up their writing.
I believe you are shortsighted in saying their main problem is that they don't have villains or antagonists. That's like saying all stories should have one, but no, stories don't actually need a villain or antagonist to work. Yeah, they're fun and iconic, but the world doesn't work in black and white. The problem is that Disney wants to do more mature stories and they can't because of their brand. That's what happened to Soul: it was a very adult film in themes and story arc, but they had to put in the pretty visuals and fun cat hijinks for the kids.
As you said, Disney's problem is that they aren't creating original ideas anymore, that they aren't risking investing in new, interesting stories. But it's not just "there are no true villains anymore". It's that they want to tell more complex, grey stories, and the mouse always returns them to black and white.
The parks division has kind of been on the low point for almost 30 years really, ever since Euro Disney land flopped when it first opened.
As for their animation divisions, they go through dark spells, but they always come back on the top again, eventually, it’s just a question of what Will cause that to happen and when
Last time it was when Roy Disney quit and rallied all the shareholders to vote, Eisner and his cronies out, something he did in the 80s with his blood, cousin Ron Miller.
With him no longer around, it will be interesting to see who and what brings them back on top again
my favorite Disney movies are the lion king (1994),the Emperors new groove,Brother bear,and Encanto
Almost same, haven't watched encanto yet 😂
Great taste 👍
Mine are Treasure Planet, Atlantis, Brother Bear, The Lion King, The Emperor’s New Groove, Tangled, Zootopia and Encanto.
@@onepresence9460 thanks i love the the emperor's new groove and brother bear because they are great and both are unrated movies
I like a lot of disney movies but my favs include: turning red, luca, Encanto, Atlantis, treasure planet and Mulan and some others I can't write out at the moment cause the list will get too long