Sunday, December 07, 2003



Sunday, December 07, 2003

| |Rearranging The World: After Happily Ever After |

| |The Trouble with Disney. |

| |[pic] |

| |Today's rant: Disney movies.  This is a topic I'm well versed in.  I can sing a dozen Disney songs perfectly in pitch with no |

| |waffling over words.  I can sing the entire Lion King set list and can even sing back up vocals for them.  I'm fluent in talking dog,|

| |cat, mouse and talking farm animals and beavers.  I can regale you with the escapades of anthropomorphism and when I have a child, |

| |will probably plagiarize Disney stories for bedtime tales.  I'm bad.  |

| |So what's the problem then?  Let us look at the recent economic downturn of the Disney Corporation.  Has anyone else noticed this?  |

| |You would if you were a stock-holder.  I'm not.  If I was, I would have bailed the minute Pocahontas 2 came out.  That's where it |

| |began I think.  Actually, if the economic downturn of Disney followed a standard negative parabola, Pocahontas 2 would be at the |

| |point (1, -1).  (see, math isn't all bad!)  If you really wanted the vertex, I'd be inclined to tell you it was when Pocahontas 1 |

| |came out.  Oh yes.  We'll start there. |

| |With the release of Pocahontas, the American masses were introduced to the reality behind Disney.  Very few of their stories are |

| |original.  Finding Nemo is original.  The Lion King, while based upon Hamlet . . . still fairly original.  ok, the Rescuers and the |

| |Rescuers 2.  Lady and the Tramp?  Possibly original, but not by much.  Pretty much all others with a few varying exceptions are taken|

| |from other places.  With Pocahontas though, the public was forced to see what had been in front of them for so long: the Disney Co. |

| |taking stories from other places.  Now for the most part, it wasn't a problem because Americans are too caught up in their own |

| |suffering to read and if you ask the average 12 year old, they're not going to know that Cinderella came from the Grimm Brothers, and|

| |chances are, Snow White was *invented* by Disney, not the other way around.  But every child learns about Pocahontas in school.  And |

| |most who saw it in theaters probably recognized that the story wasn't quite the same that they learned in school, but still |

| |technically all fairly recognizable.  So here was an example of Disney taking a story idea from actual past events!  And then people |

| |could no longer deny it.  Because suddenly, Hercules was coming out. And Mulan.  And the Hunchback of Notre Dame was a much more |

| |prominent figure in the literary classics than the Little Mermaid ever was (I don't care what you say, Victor Hugo overshadows Disney|

| |at every turn).  I'm not saying Pocahontas wasn't a great movie. It was.  And Mulan is one of my favorites.  I'm also a big fan of |

| |Hercules (if my dad let me watch cartoons and animated movies at home, I'd probably own it).  But I'm just saying that this was the |

| |big sign: the beginning of the end.  This was the high point before the downfall of Disney, the corporate giant.  |

| |Only recently, they came out with a great hit that was a fresh new look and a new story; The Emperor's New Groove.  Fabulous movie.  |

| |Eye-catching color scheme, great humor, and a drawing style just a little unique from the others.  But then, that was it.  And we're |

| |heading into Category number 2.  Which is?  Number 2.  Or.  The Sequel. |

| |I'd rather stab myself with a dull pencil than describe this gory and cruel turn from the norm.  It hurts so much to even recognize |

| |that this has happened.  If we look at The Lion King as the height and beauty of the glory days of Disney, then we can certainly draw|

| |a connection between Lion King 2 and slow, drawn-out decay and death of all that is new and beautiful within Disney.  No one will |

| |ever accuse George Lucas for his use of sequels.  At least his are epic and worth the film they're run on.  Disney though?  No go.  |

| |It's a pretty obvious thing to see when movies are airing on the Disney Channel before their predecessors ever even make it to the |

| |small-screen.  That's certainly what triggered today's rant.  Yesterday evening, Lady and the Tramp 2 was on the Disney Channel.  I |

| |vaguely remember The Little Mermaid 2 being there 2 months ago.  It's awful that Disney is so out of creative ideas or places to get |

| |stories that they're reverting to sequelization of EVERYTHING.  The Rescuers was quite possibly the first Disney movie that had a |

| |sequel.  That was fine.  The Rescuers Down Under was breathtaking in its imagery and plot, and was a fresh outlook on the situation |

| |of poaching.  Then came Aladdin, who had not 1, but 2 sequels.  And a TV Series. I guess that's really where it began, but most |

| |people didn't recognize it for the earth-shattering event that it was until number 3 came out.  Probably because the Little Mermaid |

| |and Alice in Wonderland had TV series first (even though AinW was live-action).  But truly, I suppose in all fairness, Aladdin 3 was |

| |the beginning of the end for Disney.  Oh yes, like teetering on the top of a dangerous roller-coaster, about to go over the edge, not|

| |quite ready for the plunge.  And then the sequel flood hit.  Disney was big on sequels before even the summer of '03.  There were 2 |

| |sequels for the Beauty and the Beast, a sequel for 101 Dalmatians, The Little Mermaid, Cinderella, Lady and the Tramp, The Jungle |

| |Book, Peter Pan, the Aristocats, The Lion King, Atlantis, and countless others.  And pretty much every sequel listed here was a |

| |flop.  Most went straight to video. That should tell you something.  Perhaps the thinking behind this was that if they produced |

| |enough movies with a 2 added onto the end, they could make the same revenue as if they produced 1 or 2 blockbusters, and that |

| |sequels would be far easier because everyone knew the original story, so less marketing.  Uh-huh.  ok. |

| |I don't watch Disney Sequels unless I happen to catch it on TV or someone else is showing it.  I don't own any Disney Sequels with |

| |the exception of The Rescuers Down Under and Fantasia 2000 (also extremely worthy of praise).  This is how I managed to actually see |

| |Lady and the Tramp 2 and The Little Mermaid 2.  If it weren't for the Disney Channel’s frantic efforts to reassert their claim of the|

| |younger crowd, I would never be telling you any of this.  I'd be ranting about shampoo or chap stick.  Isn't it funny how life works |

| |out?    |

| |But there are more coming, didn't you know?  Mulan is one of those exceptional movies that gets 2 sequels.  By 2006, There will be a |

| |Mulan 2 and a Mulan 3.  How does that make you feel?  By the end of 2004, The Lion King will also have 2 sequels ( The Lion King 1.5,|

| |and the Lion King 2 which has already come out).  Also by 2006, there will be a third Rescuer's Movie out (I'm not at all as thrilled|

| |as I would be), Oliver and Company 2, Hercules 2, and a new installment of Fantasia (Fantasia 2006, which I'm a bit more thrilled |

| |about).  Also coming possibly in 2012 0r 2013, The Lady of the Lake which seems could very possibly be a sequel to the old Classic |

| |"The Sword and the Stone".  I know, I know, 2013?!?!  That's like flying cars future and stuff.  ok, maybe not flying cars, but |

| |hopefully electric cars.  |

| |The important question is whether any of these sequels is worth your time.  No.  None of these are worth your precious time.  Ok, |

| |except for Fantasia 2006, and possibly Rescuers 3, (but be careful with the latter, because I'm doubting it severely).  My father |

| |would argue that once you pass the age of 12, you shouldn't watch animated movies at all.  I disagree, but I have to say that Disney |

| |can't handle Sequels for their life, and you can't expect the ones in the futures to be any exception.  My father would also argue |

| |that few companies can pull off sequels.  He's one to point out that George Lucas is getting sappy and sloppy in his old age and that|

| |Star Wars 1 and 2 (the real 1 and 2, not 4 and 5) absolutely sucked in the worst way possible (to put it lightly and succinctly).  He|

| |liked X2 (how could you not?!?).  And he likes every James Bond movie to ever come out, but pretty much everything else is spared the|

| |accepting opinion.  Even one of my favorite sequels, Jewel of the Nile gets a head shake.  I have to agree there.  It's pretty darn |

| |cheesy, but still . . . it's not on the same level as Disney sequels.  That's a good thing.  So he pretty much doesn't like animated |

| |movies, and he doesn't like sequels, which means his views on the recent Disney turnouts are probably way harsher than my own (if you|

| |can believe it).  His belief is that there is no way an animated sequel can be enjoyed in anyway. There's just no way to do it, no |

| |way to produce them and make them bearable.  That's where we diverge. |

| |I've already expressed my fascinated horror with Disney's ineptitude for sequels, but this doesn't mean it can't be done.  Far from |

| |it, one people has mastered it.  The Japanese.  The idea behind sequels is not to go overboard with them and not to spout off a whole|

| |bunch of the same thing. Wait until you have a story to tell and then give a sequel.  Don't look at it as "darn, we're not making |

| |enough money.  We need a quick and easy way to generate a few million that won't take too long.  Screw coming up with new characters |

| |and sets!"  The Japanese extended sequels to TV series!  No, Americans don't do that.  Don't argue.  Americans do spin-offs.  |

| |Japanese do sequels.  Look at Tenchi!  They've got what, 4, 5 series?  Every season was like an alternate universe!  It's not a |

| |spin-off.  The characters and their traits are all there, but they meet each other in different ways, they're different ages, they |

| |have different jobs, and have different love interests.  That's how you mix it up, Disney.  Use your sequels sparingly please. |

| |I'm going to take a moment to point out the obvious.  Bear with me.  Disney movies are all fairly similar.  Girl/boy is oppressed by |

| |society or family.  Girl/boy longs for a way out.  Girl/boy sees unattainable boy/girl. By some ironic twist of fate/magic girl/boy |

| |comes to marry and live happily ever after with boy/girl and all evil forces that stood in the way to perfect happiness have been |

| |dissolved/destroyed.  |

| |Very few Disney stories don't follow this format.  The Jungle Book doesn't.  The Sword in the Stone doesn't.  Atlantis doesn't (well,|

| |not exactly)  The Rescuers has the first part and the happily ever after, but there's not exactly romance in child abuse.  But in |

| |general, the format works.  You know what I'm talking about, right? |

| |So we can plainly see that The Aristocats and the Lady and the Tramp, and Tarzan, and Cinderella, and Hercules, and the Lion King, |

| |and Lady and the Tramp 2, and The Little Mermaid, and Snow White, and all the others . . . well they're all the same.  The Aristocats|

| |is the Lady and the Tramp exactly, except in cat form.  That and the female love interest already has kids (who don't have a |

| |father!?!?  Disney!  My gods, what messages we're sending to young children! A cat with bastard children!?!? Never!).  Otherwise, the|

| |same.  Lady and the Tramp just waited for kids until after the guy was on a leash, Aristocats ended up as a stepfather (I suppose) |

| |who adopted the kids as his own.  Sometimes the story is accelerated and all the action happens after happily ever after (yeah, |

| |huh?). That's where 101 Dalmations comes from.  The bachelors have both been happily married, and there's not a cloud on the horizon,|

| |and suddenly everyone's world is shattered.  We still manage somehow to get to that house in the country and happily ever after.  How|

| |does that happen?  Is real life at all like that?  Mostly, no.  It's too bad, really, I could live in a world like that.  Unless, you|

| |know, I was one of the townspeople in one of those quaint little French countryside villages.  There are a lot of those in Disney |

| |movies. |

| |Now we take a different turn.  Where are all these awful ideas coming from?  |

| |Urgh.  I don't want to answer that.  But I will.  Let's see.  The same people who drew the Little Mermaid, drew the sequel a decade |

| |later.  "What's the problem?" you say, "They had a hit before, same people, you get a hit again!"  But that's not how it works, hon. |

| |You need fresh people with fresh ideas.  This is why Fantasia 2000 was so gosh darn appealing.  Their team of animators changes for |

| |every sequence, so you get a large variety of visual styles and concepts.  But where's the root of the problem?  Someone decided to |

| |keep all the people from the original classics.  You'd probably be willing to say Roy Disney, Walt's nephew, named in the will after |

| |his death for the company to be passed on to.  But that's where you'd be wrong.  Few people are aware that just this week, there was |

| |a massive shift in power in the Disney Corporation, in name, if not in actual fact.  I know you're trying to shoot me weird looks |

| |over the computer.  It doesn't work like that.  Roy Disney gave up his titles and roles and relinquished control of Disney just this |

| |week.  Michael Eisner, who was supposed to be Disney's 2nd in command has actually had control for a long time and was making a lot |

| |of the executive decisions.  Disney apparently grew tired of having Eisner holding the reins and left Disney, saying that the company|

| |was in the process of atrophy and that its tired ideas wouldn't last much longer.  Disney recognized that Eisner was just using him |

| |as a figurehead and Eisner was making all the important decisions anyway.  Disney is no longer owned by a Disney.  How does that make|

| |you feel?  I'm not warm and fuzzy, are you?  This borders on funny to me.  This is so against everything that Disney stands for in |

| |the movies.  Disney movies are about getting along, teamwork and recognizing individuals.  Disney is about the good-guys winning.  |

| |Eisner is the power-hungry Scar of the Lion King.  This is the Alternate Universe sequel, in which Simba leaves and never comes back.|

| |The pride is run out by the hyenas (20th Century Fox, Warner Bros., Dreamworks, and the crazy Hyena, Ed/Nickelodeon {who'd never |

| |survive if it weren't for the other Hyenas}), and all the Lions die, leaving a myth in their place; the mega-corporation who had |

| |5-year-olds eating out of their hands.  How the mighty have fallen. |

| |Will Disney Co.'s name be changed to Eisner?  Probably not.  People won't recognize the name, which is where Roy gets a little bit of|

| |revenge, possibly.  And yet, still, it all seems so unfair.  I long for the days of Disney PS (pre-sequel).  I will end this |

| |extensively long rant with a list of animated movies and whose ideas they were originally (ie: where the heck they came from or were |

| |based off of).  PS forever! |

| |1)Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) - The Brothers Grimm "Little Snow White" |

| |2)Pinocchio (1940) - Carlo Collodi (1826-1890) |

| |3)Cinderella (1950) - The Brothers Grimm |

| |4)Alice in Wonderland (1951) - Lewis Carrol "Alice in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass" |

| |5)Peter Pan (1953) - J. M. Barrie The Adventures of Peter Pan |

| |6)Sleeping Beauty (1959) - Charles Perrault "The Sleeping Beauty" (1697), Perceforest (1528) |

| |7)The Sword in the Stone (1963) - Mythology/Actual fact. King Arthur of England.  Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.  |

| |Mabinogion |

| |8)The Jungle Book (1967) - Rudyard Kipling |

| |9)The Many Adventures of Winnie-the-Pooh (1977) - A.A. Milne "The Tales and Stories of Winnie-the-Pooh" |

| |10)Robin Hood (1973) - mythology/history (1170 - 1247) |

| |11)The Black Cauldron (1985) - Lloyd Alexander, mythology.  Mabinogion |

| |12)The Great Mouse Detective (1986) - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes (1887-1927) |

| |13)Oliver and Company (1988) - Charles Dickens. Oliver Twist |

| |14)The Little Mermaid (1989) - Hans Christian Anderson (1836) |

| |15)Beauty and the Beast (1991) - The Nights of Straparola (1550), Tales of Mother Goose (1697) < Charles Perrault |

| |16)Aladin (1992) - Tales of Shaherazod.  Tales of 1001 Arabian Nights |

| |17)The Lion King (1994) - Shakespeare. Hamlet |

| |18)Pocahontas (1995) - American History |

| |19)The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) - Victor Hugo |

| |20)James and the Giant Peach (1996) - Roald Dahl |

| |21)Hercules (1997) - Greek Mythology |

| |22)Mulan (1998) - Chinese Mythology |

| |23)Atlantis: the Lost Empire (2001) - World Mythology |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download