Tangled: Hrmh
Nov. 15th, 2010 05:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ravensweptI have a bevy of thoughts going through my head; suicide, political issues, gender equality, where my life is going. Instead of those, however, I choose something a little lighter; Disney.
Disney is awesome. They are responible in large part for the wide acceptance of animated movies and television shows in America, and are often seen as having "made it." One of the first thoughts a wide-eyed animator says when they strike out is "I wanna work for Disney."
However, things are not always as peachy keen as the Disney image would want you to believe. Various behind the scenes events and occurances, as well as the general sense of growing up and realizing things aren't as sparkly as you thought they'd be, make reality hit hard sometimes. But still, the end product is still there, and that's the important part (right?).
For the purposes of this telling, I'm only speaking of movies considered to be with the confines of "Theatrical Disney Animation Films" (so no Enchanted or the like, nor anything related to Pixar).
Disney's last entry to the box office was last year's Princess and the Frog, a return to form after years of middling and disappointing CGI films, and even more disappointing animated fare. It was a return to the "classic" Disney; 2D, hand drawn animation, a musical, a princess, the things that made Disney Disney. After years of dregging the bottom, they had finally found what made them so beloved in the first place.
And now... Tangled. I have to say, I'm not really feeling it.
Disney hasn't always been the best when it comes to animation; or stories for that matter. From around 1961, with 101 Dalmations until 1981's The Fox and the Hound, Disney's animation style was extremely stagnant. Everything between those films have the exact same animation style, same reference sizes, same use of camera angles. While it could be called their cheapest era, the stories are what still win out (expect for maybe The Rescuers) and keep them the classics they are.
Hound was the first to break away from that valley of sameness and develop a slightly different style. Not totally it's own thing, but can be seen as more lush and dynamic than The Rescuers before it.
I'm not taking away from the art; the watercolors and character design were still amazing then. Just that there was no break in style; it's obvious those twenty years of films were made with the same basic group of animators.
Story wise, most are still considered classics. I have soft spot in my heart for The Arisocats, mainly because the voice of Phil Harris is always welcome and I think Everybody Wants to Be a Cat is an underappreciated work of fun. The Rescuers was a success (extremely, made for $1.2 mil, gross revenue of $72 mil) I will say, but comes off as average. More so, it pales in comparision to The Rescuers Down Under, which underperfomed for it's era (middle of the Disney Renaissance) and it's budget. But the story and art are waves above what it preceeded, and is the only official Disney animated sequel to have gotten a theatrical release.
But that's achievement made with years of evolution and technology advancements. While I admit it's not reallly fair to compare the two being the time gap, this is one sequel that tops the original (box office intake be damned).
Anyway, after Hound, Disney had a few more releases, decent and fun but more cultish than anything else (The Black Cauldron being the greatest outlier) and then hit the Renaissance period with The Little Mermaid. Disney hit their stride, and through the 90's seemed to not be able to miss.
It was also during this time that each film started to develop seperately from each other. Art style was becoming a more noticeable thing with each film, with certain quirks appearing to make each more distinct from the next. Character design adapted to each film, Mermaid starting the much softer and rounder lines, Pocahontas longer and more realistic (for some, Ratcliffe was the villian and so got more leeway), Hercules boxier and more straight lines, Mulan took a much more calligraphic approach; it was a sealed deal.
Things started to waver, though, my best guess starting with Hercules, and maybe preceeded even by Pocahontas. Both were derided for their departure from the source material (not that Disney is well known for sticking to said material); while Pocahontas' argueably made it more popular, Herucles never seemed to set right with audiences. It made mad money, don't get me wrong, but it was the harbringer of things to come.
Mulan was another step up, though again issues from source material, even more so adapting a foriegn culture into something simple for audiences to understand. It had problems, but is still considered a solid classic with the rest. Tarzan, to me, seems to be the last of the Renaissance era films; some would say Mulan, but I'll give it the beneifit of still being in the 90's and, while Disney formula, still a good showing.
The new millenium, however, was a different story. Though they continued to have hits, nothing seemed to really have much staying power in audience memory. Do you remember Dinosaur? Yeah, it is considered a Disney animated film. Disney was running out of steam, or at least not hitting the same chord as they once did. And none were performing like the old hits used to. They made money, but not much over their budget; still a failure if you factored in marketing. The Emperor's New Groove, while fun, was more a guilty pleasure as anything. Atlantis: The Lost Empire was the darkest they've ever gone, steering straight into a PG rating, usually a Disney no-no. It has it's fans, but is more a cult hit than anything. Lilo & Stitch was more a send up for the cartoon series than a real entry, though had the greatest return in years.
Then came Treasure Planet, Disney's first (real) dud. Rescuers Down Under is still beloved, in spite of bad box office performance. Treasure Planet, however, no one is really sure how to treat. A retro/cyberpunkish adaptation of argueably the most famous pirate book of all time; sounds like fun. But from Disney? Really? Audiences were just as confused, and it was quietly swept under the rug.
Disney 2D was near dead. Brother Bear tried to keep it afloat, but had it's own issues, and Home on the Range solidly stomped it into the dirt.
And so begat Disney's decision to only produce computer animated fare from now on, beginning with Chicken Little. It was also during this time that they were having marital issues with Pixar, being that Pixar was holding it's own and Disney was taking the credit. They split, and Chicken was going to tell whether or not Disney would give Pixar the finger and do their own thing, or come grovelling back, hat in hand. It was a mix of the two; Chicken was a success, finacially, but no one pretended it wasn't a win for Pixar. They simply had the better stories that drew people in and remembered. Pixar got folded back in, but they knew where they stood.
Now I'll say this right now, I don't hate CGI movies at all. They are still a lot of fun, and the stories are still wonderful (when they are). But there always seems to be something missing when I watch them. Like it's too easy. One thing I've pointed out to people is that, with 2D animation, the stories have to work the first time out. Because of the time difference in getting everything together and production time, hand drawn animation tended to make sure their stories were solid. There was no time or budget for getting something wrong. But with computers, things could work a lot faster. The turn around from beginning production to theatre was smaller, but with computers things could happen faster. Not as much care, or at least not as close attention to them, was given to the thing that strung the pretty pictures together. This is how we get things like Robots.
Disney continued to make their own studio CGI movies, with Meet the Robinsons and Bolt, but there was no hooplah about them. Just more CGI movies amid all the other ones now produced by Pixar, rival Dreamworks (more to Pixar, but still), and the occasional outside studio collaboration (Robots and 9). Expect made by Disney. And Disney didn't stand out anymore.
But then came The Princess and the Frog, a return to what Disney was known for; smooth animation, catchy if sometimes forgettable music, better villians than heroes, and hand drawn animation. Woo!
Off the top of most peoples heads, they'd be hard pressed to remember much of anything between Princess and Tarzan. Maybe a movie buff, or a Disneygeek, but for those that glance at the papers and catch the occasional movie, they aren't going to remember much inbetween.
So when after this fine return to what was good, we get Tangled, a CGI adaptation of Rapunzel. This doesn't sit well with me.
First off, it's a fairy tale story. To me, with Disney, that reeks of 2D Princess fare. Disney is best known for taking olden day stories and Disneyfying them; it's a blessing and curse. So to see that they went 3D with this is just, wrong.
Second, it's 3D CGI. I know that these things are started years in advance, and most likely was started before or during the production of Princess, but it seems like a step back; which is strange, I know, considering. But it doesn't feel right. Chicken Little gets a pass, it's a really short story extended with aliens, as does Robinsons which adapted a book but not a classic. But Rapunzel, the very idea just screams of Disney classic.
Third, and this is when it gets personal, I don't like the main character. The main character, strangely, seems to not be Rapunzel. It's this insert thief, Flynn Rider (god I even hate his name). Rapunzel seems to be secondary, and we're going to be following Flynn around, being this smarmy, smooth ass for 90 some minutes.
Fourth, I just realized I hate the title Tangled. Before, Disney Princess movies (and you know she's going to be one) always just had the name as the title; Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, or was the title of the story it was based on (Hunchback, Beauty and the Beast etc). Tangled is a stupid pun on her long hair, playing with how "tangled" the two, and the story, will become. Ha ha. Funny.
Maybe it's the time it takes, and the care involved, when making 2D animation. Maybe it's just the overall beauty of seeing it move, opposed to that of 3D. Maybe I'm just being snobby and nostaglic for what I think of better from my childhood. Maybe. But it doesn't mean I'm wrong.
But then again, I could be jumping the gun. As I said, animated films of any kind take years of production before they're released, so this was started long before they knew that Princess was going to go over so well. The next offical Disney film, Winnie the Pooh, the first offical theatre release of a Pooh movie (sadly, the classic The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh was only released on video, and The Tigger Movie and the Piglet entries aren't considered offical Disney animation entries; both were going to be straight-to-DVD releases, but Tigger got pushed into theatres at the last minute, and Piglet followed based on the success of Tigger) is said to be another hand drawn, 2D entry to the archieves. Exective producer John Lasseter is helming the way, who was also responsible for insisting that Princess be a return to the old ways. So maybe they got the message. At least he did.
But that still doesn't mean I'm going to like Tangled and what it stands for.
*Note* This got waaaaay beyond what I was originally planning, and turned into a mini disertation of Disney's animted history instead of just the simple moan and groan about their latest movie entry. I kinda want to go back and keep talking, because I like this kind of stuff, but that's not what I meant to do so I'll leave it as is. But still, warning and all that.
Disney is awesome. They are responible in large part for the wide acceptance of animated movies and television shows in America, and are often seen as having "made it." One of the first thoughts a wide-eyed animator says when they strike out is "I wanna work for Disney."
However, things are not always as peachy keen as the Disney image would want you to believe. Various behind the scenes events and occurances, as well as the general sense of growing up and realizing things aren't as sparkly as you thought they'd be, make reality hit hard sometimes. But still, the end product is still there, and that's the important part (right?).
For the purposes of this telling, I'm only speaking of movies considered to be with the confines of "Theatrical Disney Animation Films" (so no Enchanted or the like, nor anything related to Pixar).
Disney's last entry to the box office was last year's Princess and the Frog, a return to form after years of middling and disappointing CGI films, and even more disappointing animated fare. It was a return to the "classic" Disney; 2D, hand drawn animation, a musical, a princess, the things that made Disney Disney. After years of dregging the bottom, they had finally found what made them so beloved in the first place.
And now... Tangled. I have to say, I'm not really feeling it.
Disney hasn't always been the best when it comes to animation; or stories for that matter. From around 1961, with 101 Dalmations until 1981's The Fox and the Hound, Disney's animation style was extremely stagnant. Everything between those films have the exact same animation style, same reference sizes, same use of camera angles. While it could be called their cheapest era, the stories are what still win out (expect for maybe The Rescuers) and keep them the classics they are.
Hound was the first to break away from that valley of sameness and develop a slightly different style. Not totally it's own thing, but can be seen as more lush and dynamic than The Rescuers before it.
I'm not taking away from the art; the watercolors and character design were still amazing then. Just that there was no break in style; it's obvious those twenty years of films were made with the same basic group of animators.
Story wise, most are still considered classics. I have soft spot in my heart for The Arisocats, mainly because the voice of Phil Harris is always welcome and I think Everybody Wants to Be a Cat is an underappreciated work of fun. The Rescuers was a success (extremely, made for $1.2 mil, gross revenue of $72 mil) I will say, but comes off as average. More so, it pales in comparision to The Rescuers Down Under, which underperfomed for it's era (middle of the Disney Renaissance) and it's budget. But the story and art are waves above what it preceeded, and is the only official Disney animated sequel to have gotten a theatrical release.
But that's achievement made with years of evolution and technology advancements. While I admit it's not reallly fair to compare the two being the time gap, this is one sequel that tops the original (box office intake be damned).
Anyway, after Hound, Disney had a few more releases, decent and fun but more cultish than anything else (The Black Cauldron being the greatest outlier) and then hit the Renaissance period with The Little Mermaid. Disney hit their stride, and through the 90's seemed to not be able to miss.
It was also during this time that each film started to develop seperately from each other. Art style was becoming a more noticeable thing with each film, with certain quirks appearing to make each more distinct from the next. Character design adapted to each film, Mermaid starting the much softer and rounder lines, Pocahontas longer and more realistic (for some, Ratcliffe was the villian and so got more leeway), Hercules boxier and more straight lines, Mulan took a much more calligraphic approach; it was a sealed deal.
Things started to waver, though, my best guess starting with Hercules, and maybe preceeded even by Pocahontas. Both were derided for their departure from the source material (not that Disney is well known for sticking to said material); while Pocahontas' argueably made it more popular, Herucles never seemed to set right with audiences. It made mad money, don't get me wrong, but it was the harbringer of things to come.
Mulan was another step up, though again issues from source material, even more so adapting a foriegn culture into something simple for audiences to understand. It had problems, but is still considered a solid classic with the rest. Tarzan, to me, seems to be the last of the Renaissance era films; some would say Mulan, but I'll give it the beneifit of still being in the 90's and, while Disney formula, still a good showing.
The new millenium, however, was a different story. Though they continued to have hits, nothing seemed to really have much staying power in audience memory. Do you remember Dinosaur? Yeah, it is considered a Disney animated film. Disney was running out of steam, or at least not hitting the same chord as they once did. And none were performing like the old hits used to. They made money, but not much over their budget; still a failure if you factored in marketing. The Emperor's New Groove, while fun, was more a guilty pleasure as anything. Atlantis: The Lost Empire was the darkest they've ever gone, steering straight into a PG rating, usually a Disney no-no. It has it's fans, but is more a cult hit than anything. Lilo & Stitch was more a send up for the cartoon series than a real entry, though had the greatest return in years.
Then came Treasure Planet, Disney's first (real) dud. Rescuers Down Under is still beloved, in spite of bad box office performance. Treasure Planet, however, no one is really sure how to treat. A retro/cyberpunkish adaptation of argueably the most famous pirate book of all time; sounds like fun. But from Disney? Really? Audiences were just as confused, and it was quietly swept under the rug.
Disney 2D was near dead. Brother Bear tried to keep it afloat, but had it's own issues, and Home on the Range solidly stomped it into the dirt.
And so begat Disney's decision to only produce computer animated fare from now on, beginning with Chicken Little. It was also during this time that they were having marital issues with Pixar, being that Pixar was holding it's own and Disney was taking the credit. They split, and Chicken was going to tell whether or not Disney would give Pixar the finger and do their own thing, or come grovelling back, hat in hand. It was a mix of the two; Chicken was a success, finacially, but no one pretended it wasn't a win for Pixar. They simply had the better stories that drew people in and remembered. Pixar got folded back in, but they knew where they stood.
Now I'll say this right now, I don't hate CGI movies at all. They are still a lot of fun, and the stories are still wonderful (when they are). But there always seems to be something missing when I watch them. Like it's too easy. One thing I've pointed out to people is that, with 2D animation, the stories have to work the first time out. Because of the time difference in getting everything together and production time, hand drawn animation tended to make sure their stories were solid. There was no time or budget for getting something wrong. But with computers, things could work a lot faster. The turn around from beginning production to theatre was smaller, but with computers things could happen faster. Not as much care, or at least not as close attention to them, was given to the thing that strung the pretty pictures together. This is how we get things like Robots.
Disney continued to make their own studio CGI movies, with Meet the Robinsons and Bolt, but there was no hooplah about them. Just more CGI movies amid all the other ones now produced by Pixar, rival Dreamworks (more to Pixar, but still), and the occasional outside studio collaboration (Robots and 9). Expect made by Disney. And Disney didn't stand out anymore.
But then came The Princess and the Frog, a return to what Disney was known for; smooth animation, catchy if sometimes forgettable music, better villians than heroes, and hand drawn animation. Woo!
Off the top of most peoples heads, they'd be hard pressed to remember much of anything between Princess and Tarzan. Maybe a movie buff, or a Disneygeek, but for those that glance at the papers and catch the occasional movie, they aren't going to remember much inbetween.
So when after this fine return to what was good, we get Tangled, a CGI adaptation of Rapunzel. This doesn't sit well with me.
First off, it's a fairy tale story. To me, with Disney, that reeks of 2D Princess fare. Disney is best known for taking olden day stories and Disneyfying them; it's a blessing and curse. So to see that they went 3D with this is just, wrong.
Second, it's 3D CGI. I know that these things are started years in advance, and most likely was started before or during the production of Princess, but it seems like a step back; which is strange, I know, considering. But it doesn't feel right. Chicken Little gets a pass, it's a really short story extended with aliens, as does Robinsons which adapted a book but not a classic. But Rapunzel, the very idea just screams of Disney classic.
Third, and this is when it gets personal, I don't like the main character. The main character, strangely, seems to not be Rapunzel. It's this insert thief, Flynn Rider (god I even hate his name). Rapunzel seems to be secondary, and we're going to be following Flynn around, being this smarmy, smooth ass for 90 some minutes.
Fourth, I just realized I hate the title Tangled. Before, Disney Princess movies (and you know she's going to be one) always just had the name as the title; Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, or was the title of the story it was based on (Hunchback, Beauty and the Beast etc). Tangled is a stupid pun on her long hair, playing with how "tangled" the two, and the story, will become. Ha ha. Funny.
Maybe it's the time it takes, and the care involved, when making 2D animation. Maybe it's just the overall beauty of seeing it move, opposed to that of 3D. Maybe I'm just being snobby and nostaglic for what I think of better from my childhood. Maybe. But it doesn't mean I'm wrong.
But then again, I could be jumping the gun. As I said, animated films of any kind take years of production before they're released, so this was started long before they knew that Princess was going to go over so well. The next offical Disney film, Winnie the Pooh, the first offical theatre release of a Pooh movie (sadly, the classic The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh was only released on video, and The Tigger Movie and the Piglet entries aren't considered offical Disney animation entries; both were going to be straight-to-DVD releases, but Tigger got pushed into theatres at the last minute, and Piglet followed based on the success of Tigger) is said to be another hand drawn, 2D entry to the archieves. Exective producer John Lasseter is helming the way, who was also responsible for insisting that Princess be a return to the old ways. So maybe they got the message. At least he did.
But that still doesn't mean I'm going to like Tangled and what it stands for.
*Note* This got waaaaay beyond what I was originally planning, and turned into a mini disertation of Disney's animted history instead of just the simple moan and groan about their latest movie entry. I kinda want to go back and keep talking, because I like this kind of stuff, but that's not what I meant to do so I'll leave it as is. But still, warning and all that.
no subject
on 2010-11-16 03:18 pm (UTC)O_O It sounds like the working name of a porn actor.
I'm one of those who believes that Mulan was the last solid movie. I really liked the look and style of Tarzan, but the story didn't have the life that the rest of the 90s movies did. Though it did give me an eternal fear of being torn apart by baboons.
I think why I like 2D animation for Disney's fairy tale adaptations over 3D is that the look feels so much more fitting. Even when you add song and dance numbers and dopey jokes, there's still a mythic feel to the story, and animation that looks like hand-drawn illustrations come to life resonate with that more than the sheen of CGI.
no subject
on 2010-11-16 06:35 pm (UTC)And now I'm not going to be able to look at him any other way. -.-
I think why I like 2D animation for Disney's fairy tale adaptations over 3D is that the look feels so much more fitting.
Definitely. It has a more lush feel to it. Enchanted was homage/parody of everything Disney, but I still think the animated parts are what felt right about it. And showcase why those stories work so much better animated. The dragon, which we only see in the "real world" isn't horrible, but would've looked amazing in 2D. I wanted to see that dragon so much more than the one we got.