The Disney Renaissance

Feature David Crow 1/18/2013 at 11:31PM

In 1989 The Little Mermaid heralded a Renaissance at The House of Mouse. Unfortunately, Disney doesn't seem to have learned The Lesson of the Lion King.

Earlier this week, Disney announced its revised slate for theatrical releases over the next two years. Most of the news from the House of Mouse was of an unsurprising affair. The second Captain America and Guardians of the Galaxy will be released in 3D; we get another Pirates of the Caribbean (whether we want it or not) in July 2015; Maleficent is now coming in summer 2014. Overall, it’s pretty generic studio minutia for movies that are a very long way off. Yet, something about the news blurb stuck out to me. The Little Mermaid, previously announced to be returning to theaters this September in 3D, had its rerelease scrapped. Variety dryly commented that this is motivated by the soft openings of Beauty and the Beast and Monsters, Inc.’s 3D conversions last year.
 
There was something so empty and mindlessly banal about that assessment for a movie I haven’t seen in years. After all, The Little Mermaid (1989) was THE movie that brought Disney back. Prior to that film, Disney executives were patiently explaining to reporters how animation was a non-profit business venture for them, done more out of obligation than passion. Before Mermaid, Disney hadn’t had a true animated classic in around 30 years. It was the film that spurred the company into what is now commonly known as The Disney Renaissance; the era in which Disney, as well as American animation itself, had a theatrical rebirth for a whole new generation. How could the company, which created the first animated feature, rise so high in the 1990s and fall so far ten years later? Why is it that in 2013, the only Disney fairy tale the studio is willing to greenlight is one that follows the new Hollywood trend of remaking Disney stories into modern action movies? Yes, much like last year’s awful Snow White and the Huntsman, Maleficent seems to be another Burton-ized star vehicle without the Burton. Only now, it is Disney cannibalizing itself and writing Angelina Jolie the paycheck. Can all Disney do is unimaginatively remake its past successes while not even being able to show the real ones (never mind creating something new)?
 

These are questions I am going to arrogantly try to explore below. But first…full disclosure. I grew up in the 1990s. I recall wearing out the VHS tapes of Aladdin and The Lion King (as well as my parents’ patience). I remember my older sister forcing me to watch The Little Mermaid and my 4-year-old self being repulsed by the “girly” picture. I even know my reaction to Toy Story’s trailer was along the lines of, “What’s this computer crap?” I’m sure Disney’s traditional animators thought the same thing too at the time. It is almost impossible for a child of the ‘90s to judge these movies objectively and without nostalgia, but that is exactly what I aim to do. For no matter how brief or fleeting this “Disney Renaissance” was, it had an impact on animation not only for my generation, but for all that have come since.
 
Disney was in a bad place during the 1980s. At the start of the decade, founder Walt Disney had been dead for 14 years. Their last animated fairy tale, Sleeping Beauty (1959), was even older than that.  Following Walt’s passing, there were some animated successes, but much like the company’s live-action oeuvre, the studio failed to produce anything substantial during the 1970s. Things became so dark that members of Disney’s Board of Directors began plans for a hostile takeover that would lead to the company’s assets being sold off. With dissolution seemingly inevitable, Roy E. Disney, son of Walt’s brother, quit the board and brought in Paramount wunderkinds Michael Eisner and Frank Wells to run the company. The shake-up saved the brand from utter destruction in 1984 and laid the groundwork for its reinvention.
 

After the dust settled and corporate brinkmanship ended, one final Paramount exec came to the House of Mouse: Jeffrey Katzenberg. Katzenberg, an up-and-comer who was charged with running Disney’s motion picture division, discovered an animation department that was being maintained more like a memorial to the studio’s glory days than as a vibrant creative force. The beleaguered cartoon staff was a generational clash of hungry college grads wanting to make their bones and old legends who thought their newest release, The Black Cauldron (1985), was just peachy.
 
Cauldron flopped horrifically at the box office. What made it even worse for the animation studio was that by the end of the decade, ex-Disney animator Don Bluth was succeeding in their market with hits like The Secret of NIMH (1982) and the Steven Spielberg-produced An American Tail (1986). By the time Bluth’s The Land Before Time (1988) came out, Katzenberg had long demoralized the entire animation staff by exiling them from the building Walt built for them and off the studio grounds to make room for more office space. The artists, relocated to a sketchy neighborhood and decrepit building, should have been facing the end of feature animation. But a miraculous thing happened. After a falling out with Bluth, Spielberg produced a movie called Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988). Of course, Disney’s actual animation team had little to do with it because they were so downsized. Work on the movie had to be exported to London animators. Still, that movie’s use of mature themes and adult-friendly humor mixed with classic cartoon tropes for children proved a box office bonanza. A year after CEO Eisner patiently explained to Diane Sawyer that they continue to make animated features only due to Walt’s legacy, Roger Rabbit showed that audiences were hungry for feature length animation if it was good. Back at Disney, the animators also just happened to be working on another film called The Little Mermaid.
 

The Little Mermaid’s incredible success seemed to be a perfect storm of events. Despite Katzenberg greenlighting it in 1984, the exec was cautious about Mermaid’s box office potential due to it being a “girl’s film.” But after Who Framed Roger Rabbit’s returns, Walt Disney Animation Studios had an influx of new talent and resources. The movie’s biggest boon came with the addition of Howard Ashman and Alan Menken to the creative team. The inclusion of the Broadway collaborators meant turning the Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale into a musical. Obviously, the idea of a Disney cartoon with songs is nothing new. But Ashman had a very clear vision for reinventing the form at a studio that was then relying on stunt pop music casting like Billy Joel and Bette Midler to sell other middling animated flicks. Ashman cast Jodi Benson, a little-known Broadway thesp who had appeared in his last Great White Way flop, as the voice of his leading lady. He had the animators change a proper English crab, the mermaid’s animal sidekick, into a Jamaican Rastafarian, thereby creating more musical diversity. This also led to the Oscar winning showstopper “Under the Sea” and the calypso crooner “Kiss the Girl.”
 
The Broadway formula of pacing was also added to the movie. The protagonist is introduced as unique and apart from the other chorus girls during the opening song. Instead, she gets her own solo that explains why she is so special and why you should root for her. The song, “Part of Your World,” became a point of contention between Ashman and Katzenberg when the latter thought it killed the pacing of the movie. Instead, it defined what would become the Disney formula for the next ten years of its Renaissance. First you introduce your heroine, then she sings a song about what she wants in life (usually revolving around love) and finally she has to overcome a villain to get what she wants. But not before a big chorus number or two led by comedic supporting characters. Ashman and Menken were bringing the traditional Broadway-style musical back to cinemas after the genre died even harder than animation did in the 1970s. The Little Mermaid opened in 1989 to glowing reviews and an amazing box office run of $86 million domestically, three times what Don Bluth’s All Dogs Go to Heaven made in the same year. The winning plot coupled with the most gorgeously drawn Disney art in nearly a third of a century birthed a juggernaut of a formula. One that would carry Disney to its greatest heights before it came crashing down.
 

Disney, now seeing the potential in animated films, embraced the art form in a way that even Walt had stopped doing later in life. By making these massively budgeted musicals that played just as well for adults, teenagers on a date and children, Disney created new content to merchandise. More merchandise meant more brands that would lure families to the theme parks. More theme park attractions meant more demand for direct-to-video sequels. It was a vicious, lucrative cycle. The next Disney film that carried on this style was Beauty and the Beast (1991). 
 
Beauty and the Beast became the jewel in the studio’s crown. A bigger budget and the use of some computer animation (based on a program created by Pixar) made it even more visually breathtaking. Thematically, they tried to further free themselves from the continuing complaints of sexism. In Mermaid, Ariel is much more proactive than previous Disney princesses like Cinderella, Aurora (Sleeping Beauty) or Snow White; who literally sat around all day singing that her prince would come. Yet in the end, Ariel’s actions are all in pursuit of a pair of legs so she can get a man between them (read any feminist paper on it, ever). With Belle, the beauty in the second movie’s title, Disney wanted to create a modern woman who wasn’t after love but some sense of self-fulfillment. She obviously doesn’t look to fall in love with a beast, but she has an intellectual curiosity and it just happens because of a relationship built on more than him being a conventionally handsome prince. Now, I could also easily argue that Disney inadvertently created a film that romanticizes Stockholm Syndrome and told the story of how a poor girl, kidnapped by a monster for six months, finally snaps and becomes infatuated with her tormentor…but at least they were trying? In any case, the movie clearly worked for the critics, because it became the first animated movie to ever be nominated for Best Picture by the Academy Awards (and not like today where there are ten nominees, so Pixar can get a token spot). Beauty and the Beast also marked a sad note for the studio. Howard Ashman, who again collaborated on the songs with composer Alan Menken, died of AIDS eight months before the film’s release.
 

The last Disney movie that Ashman contributed to was Aladdin (1992). He wrote half the songs with Menken, who then finished the remaining musical numbers with lyricist Tim Rice. Aladdin continued the old school Broadway formula, but this time with a male protagonist. Even so, he sings a ballad early about what he wants out of life (money) to his sidekick (talking monkey) and how he intends to get it (palace). The movie was even more beautifully drawn than the last and included more noticeable CGI animation, provided for by Pixar’s programming. However, one major difference between Aladdin and the previous two Renaissance pictures was the inclusion of a major celebrity voice. Cast in the role of the Genie, Robin Williams steals the entire movie as a fourth-wall shattering stand-up comedian. Thanks to the miracle of animation, visuals were finally able to keep up with Williams’ spitfire improvisation. Ironically, this was the first kind of celebrity-branded voice casting that would eventually play a role in the end of Disney’s fairy tales. But for that moment, like the previous two films, Aladdin worked due to the sheer exhilaration of self-discovery by the animators and other talent. It followed the formula, but no more than a normal Broadway show would. With the Genie character and other Arabian flourishes blanketing Disney’s style, they were creating something new in the genre. Not unlike modern movie trends (ahem—superhero origin stories—ahem), the story beats were becoming a little too obvious, yet it still worked, even if the next one would have to be different.
 
The Lion King (1994) is the crowning achievement not only of Disney animation, but also American animation in general.  One of the only two Renaissance films to break with Broadway tradition, the movie also marked a transition for the era as the first project that Howard Ashman had no role in. In fact, it is also one of only a few that even Alan Menken was not involved in. With songs by Elton John and Tim Rice, and a score written by Hans Zimmer, The Lion King is creatively the odd one out. This was intentional. When production for The Lion King and 1995’s Pocahontas began concurrently, Katzenberg sat all the artists down to discuss the projects. Pocahontas was going to be their next Beauty and the Beast. A film that dealt with big emotions and big ideas! It was going to be for adults…and big! The Lion King? That one was kind of a weird experiment that somehow got greenlit. Hence, every artist wanted to be on the Pocahontas team and The Lion King became the project for the also-rans.
 

However, there was something special about the lion picture. First, it was not based on any pre-existing story, fairy tale or otherwise. This gave the writers and artists enormous freedom. The second advantage was that since it's the “experimental” one, they could actually experiment. Slowly, the artists involved added elements from the Bible like the tales of Moses, Joseph and Cain and Abel. Ultimately, it also became very influenced by William Shakespeare’s Hamlet…except with lions. An uncle murders a father to assume the throne. The son goes into the wilderness until he is ready to accept his divine right. It deals with ideas like mortality, legacy and familial responsibility as opposed to simply a love story. These facets, combined with Zimmer’s much more ponderous and menacing score, created a tone unlike any other Disney film ever produced. Audiences ate it up and with a worldwide box office of $951 million, it is the most successful hand drawn animated movie of all time. It also gave the Disney Renaissance an opportunity to grow in a new direction. Unfortunately, Disney took the wrong lessons from it.
 
The Lion King marked several other major changes for the company. Before its release, Frank Wells died in a tragic helicopter crash. Wells played superego to the regular egos of Eisner, Katzenberg and Roy E. Disney.  Shortly after his death, Katzenberg demanded Wells’ job of COO and President. But after years of the press crediting Katzenberg for the Disney Renaissance over Eisner and Roy E. Disney, that clearly wasn’t going to happen. It is still disputed whether Katzenberg quit Disney or was fired, but either way he left to form DreamWorks SKG with Steven Spielberg and David Geffen (say hello to Shrek in a few years). Given the lesser success and eventual ruination of the Disney features that followed, a popular narrative has formed that it was the loss of either Katzenberg or Wells that brought an end to the Disney Renaissance. I disagree.
 

While there is no denying that Katzenberg’s obsessive drive on the Walt Disney Animation Studios after 1989, as well as clearing house in the mid-80s, helped push them to new heights, he was also there when the first seeds of its destruction were planted. Enter Pocahontas.
 
The follow-up to The Lion King read none of its signs. It again starred a pair of young lovers who dreamed of being together. It didn’t help that unlike Aladdin, Jasmine, Ariel, Belle or any of the other Renaissance protagonists, Pocahontas and John Smith were deadly dull personalities. Other formulaic conventions that were cute in the past, like a Jamaican Rastafarian crab playing wingman to a mermaid or a smartass monkey being a street rat’s partner-in-crime, became toxically overdone in Pocahontas. Pocahontas has a pet sidekick raccoon; the villain has a pet sidekick dog. Eventually the dog becomes the raccoon’s sidekick. And none of it is cute.
 

The worst problem for all this was that Pocahontas is based on actual history. Disney has never been afraid of changing the source material before. However, it is substantially different when you rewrite the ending to the original Little Mermaid fairy tale (spoiler alert: she dies) than when you rewrite U.S. history (spoiler alert: POCAHONTAS DOES NOT LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER WITH JOHN SMITH AND THERE ARE NO MOUNTAINS IN COASTAL VIRGINIA!). Even worse, most of the changes were patronizing stereotypes. The Native Americans are just such noble, noble savages in the movie. That’s why they can do things like jump off waterfalls, take baby cubs away from momma grizzly bears and literally talk to trees who give them magical powers like, oh, learning new languages in five seconds! Assuming most audiences might buy that the Virginia Company landed in a swamp to dig for gold is one thing, but thinking they’ll accept talking trees in a story based on history? It’s not just stupid. It doesn’t work; no matter how pretty Alan Menken’s music is in the film.
 
This is what became the major problem for the second half of the Disney Renaissance. Most of the films produced between 1995 and 1999 by Disney’s animation division were based on stories that simply did not lend themselves to the Disney formula. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) is a dense, complex work of literature by Victor Hugo, and it is not a fairy tale that can be so easily tinkered with. When you add comical, talking gargoyles (not unlike the talking candlestick and pots in Beauty and the Beast), you take away from the tragedy of the work. Also, while I’m sure there is some Hans Christian Andersen scholar out there enraged that Ariel lives happily ever after instead of committing suicide, giving Quasimodo a happy ending is a might-bit different. It’s not a fairy tale and the whole point of his character, like almost all Hugo characters, is his endless suffering. Ending said suffering kind of defeats the purpose. Let’s not even get into how Disney’s Hercules (1997) avoids the whole, “Your dad kind of raped your mom while disguised as her husband” thing.
 

Contrary to industry wisdom, I do not think that the formula quit working or that audiences really grew tired of hand-drawn animation. There is no denying that the formula was incredibly played out by the end of the 1990s. So much so, that real gems like Mulan (1998) disappeared under the radar when it actually was not about a girl in search for a guy (though she does find one as a bonus at the end). Audiences show a vast willingness to see the same story again and again, as Disney’s newer acquisition of Marvel Studios can attest. The problem is the formula was too blatant after one fairy tale romance almost every year. It was also starting to be used on material that was far too incongruous with the Disney brand, thus creating films that were at odds with themselves. The sad thing is, Disney did lay out how to do its musicals freshly with The Lion King. You can take inspiration from existing stories, but not be beholden to any source material if you put them in a striking new context. In many ways, The Lion King’s use of Hamlet and biblical archetypes laid the groundwork for Pixar’s enchanting model. What is Toy Story (1995), but a buddy cop movie complete with the cocky rookie and weary veteran? How many times have you seen a father search for a missing child before or after Finding Nemo (2003)? Up (2009) didn’t exactly invent the concept of an old man accepting his mortality after losing his wife. The Pixar formula is to take a convention you may know and reinvent it in the astonishing way that only animation can. That convention can even be a love story with musical numbers (2008’s Wall-E).
 
I won’t say that Katzenberg's absence was the reason the formula collapsed on itself by the time the final Disney Renaissance film, Tarzan (1999), was released. After all, he was the one who thought Pocahontas was the next Oscar-winning West Side Story. Rather, the early Renaissance films took wild chances and created massive success. Ashman insisting on mixing calypso and Broadway ballads in The Little Mermaid was a risk. Making Aladdin’s biggest supporting character Robin Williams on overdrive was stepping out there. Turning Hamlet into a story about lions could have gone sideways real fast. The only chances Eisner took in the second half of the 1990s were in directly adapting material that could never work as a Disney film.
 

In the 2000s, Eisner saw the success of the Shrek movies and the failures of the last several awful hand-drawn Disney pictures that came after the Renaissance and declared traditional animation dead. Everything had to be CGI like Pixar and ironically self-aware like what Katzenberg was doing at DreamWorks. Yet, what was Disney’s biggest animated success in the last 15 years? A little movie from 2010 about a girl in a tower with really long hair. She even feels locked away by a domineering parent who won’t let her be…part of your world. Tangled may be CGI, but it follows the formula right down to the Alan Menken songs. And while I’d argue its story is a little too close to The Little Mermaid—save that instead of a touching parable about a father letting go of his grown-up daughter, we’re back to the evil stepmothers of the 1950s—it clearly wasn’t for audiences when it made nearly $600 million worldwide. Incidentally, that’s also the best a non-Pixar animated Disney movie has done since The Lion King.
 
All this brings me back to that news blurb. Disney is testing the waters of animated fairy tales again, but they still seem to think the best bet is to follow the trends of other studios by remaking their own classic movies in live-action, just minus the wit and charm that made them classics. I can’t help but wonder when they’ll have another 1989-styled revival and want to lead American animation again, instead of timidly following the competition. Because ultimately, it was the Disney Renaissance that convinced Hollywood that feature animation could play to more than children and do good business. It cleared a path for Pixar, DreamWorks and everyone else Disney now follows. And as I think about these things that nostalgia comes rushing back to me. This child of the ‘90s is ready to go back under the sea. Hopefully, someday Disney will too.
 
Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for all news updates related to the world of geek.




Disqus - noscript

No mention of Wreck-It Ralph? I thought that was Disney's true return to form as of late

This article makes good points about the later movies. I don't think the movies after the first big 4 should be in a "renaissance." It really made me really nostalgic for Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast.

Good article with clever observations. I grew up during the "renaissance" myself. It's fun to watch them now. I think those movies hold up surprisingly well. Fortunately, it's not just nostalgia. I love the work of Pixar, and I think it carries on that 90s Disney tradition more-so than Disney itself. But I had forgotten just how warm and beautiful hand-drawn animation can be. And I'm definitely a fan of Alan Menken.

Hey, I would agree that "Wreck It Ralph" is good stuff. But with this article, I wanted to stay focused on the Disney Renaissance and how it came and went. I only mentioned "Tangled" because beyond being a great movie, it was also a throwback to the Renaissance era and Disney's classic legacy. It is also Disney Animation's most successful movie since "The Lion King." Thanks for the feedback!

Um, secret of nimh, aside from being a terrible cartoon, was a bomb. And bluth left Disney because he didn't feel he was getting his way.

The year was 1979, and the 9 Old Men at Disney were retiring. don bluth felt he was the heir apparent, but the older Disney animators were smart enough to know that while don might understand the mechanics of making a film, he did NOT know how to create character or a story. Plot is not enough, especially when the audience is as disrespected as they invariably always are when attempting to watch a cartoon by don bluth.

So instead of handing don the reins to the Disney animation department and retiring, the 9 Old Men took on a new training program--first at the studio, and then at Walt Disney's art school, California Institute of the Arts. The new animation talent (including Brad Bird, John Lasseter, Tim Burton, Joe Ranft, Mike Gabriel, John Musker, Andy Gaskill, Ron Clements, Mike Giamo, Pete Young, Burny Mattinson, Darrell Van Citters, among others) were schooled in the fundamentals of Disney storytelling and character creation, and this group quickly surpassed bluth in their abiity to tell not only a coherant story, but one loaded with character and heart as well. The young film makers saw through don and all his surface techniques and lack of strong storytelling skills, and refused to genuflect to his ego.

don, in all his petulant selfishness, chose to flee the studio rather than rise to the challenges. A theme he is to repeatedly exhibit in both his film and business, and no doubt, his personal life.

Disney was finally free of the cancer, and could once again move forward to create some of the greatest films, and greatest animated films of our lifetimes.

don, on the other hand, began making cartoons on his own, where his lack of basic film making skills could be on full display.

Thanks for the in-depth and thoughtful comment. I personally enjoyed "An American Tail" and "The Land Before Time" growing up, but I agree with many of your criticisms about Bluth. They became especially apparent in the 1990s when he tried to copy the Renaissance. Still, I would like to point out a number of the animators you praise Disney for finding, such as John Lasseter and Tim Burton, were also let go from the company for being too experimental in their desire to tell stories "loaded with character and heart."

We may do an article on Bluth one day, but this feature is meant to be
about Disney's rebirth. Bluth only played a small role in that as their
primary competition during the 1980s. Thanks for your well-versed insight about that transition.

Yes--Lasseter worked at Disney for less than a year. Brad Bird was fired, too. But they were fighting for great STORIES...while bluth was fighting for power. His regressive and weak ability to create strong characters and stories played out from his first film onward. You may have fond nostalgic memories of american tail and land before time, but like nihm and everything he's made, they don't stand much scrutiny or even the test of time--unlike the best work of Bird, Burton, and Lasseter.

Who's running Disney animation now??!!!!!

this list is flawless. great choices and wonderful writing

It's nice to see someone acknowledging some of the flaws in Disney films people tend to ignore, but I'm surprised that there was no mention of The Rescuers Down Under. That movie most certainly did not follow the typical Disney formula and it revolutionized animation as we know it.

To be honest, I think Katzenberg had nothing to do with the renaissance. He was there at the right moment, at the right time and he got lucky enough that Alan Menken joined Disney at the same time. He's the one that brought the music and broadway aspect to those movies and helped them guide in that direction.

If you look at Katzenberg work after he left Disney.. I'm actually very happy they let him go ( or decided to leave ). He's the one who greenlited Pocahontas ( one of the worst movie of Disney in my opinion ). And after he left, I think people were maybe tired of hand drawn animation a bit ( with Pixar succes ). Because Hercules and Mulan were two great and under appreciated movie.

After, he left he work on movie... that well nobody can even remember (Antz, Prince of Egypts, Road to El Dorado, Chicken Run ). He's the one who declared hand drawn animation dead... before Disney themself !

He did manage some great movie with Shrek, Kung Fu Panda,How to Train your Dragon and Madagascar. But he also did : Shark Tale, Over the Edge, Bee Movie, Puss in Boots, Flushed Away and many mores.

And I won't even mention the numerous sequel he green lited. If it was the direction he was going for with Disney... I would take Mulan and Hercule any day before that.

If you put aside Shrek, their best movie came in the last couples of years and I would argue with you that Princess and the Frog, Tangled, Wreck it Ralph and even Bolt were as good as any of those movies.

And, in the end it gave place for Jonh Lasseter to enter the Disney family once again and make another " renaissance " happen at disney.

More, or at least equally important was the wit and strong direction of John Musker and Ron Clements, who proved their mettle on The Great Mouse Detective, and who originated The Little Mermaid. Their collaboration (which was initially instigated by them) with Howard Ashman (and to a lesser extent, Menken) really drove the studio forward.

roger rabbit is a mess of a film, with mostly crap animation (save a few scenes), and did far less for the industry as a whole than other, smaller films that happened at the time.

No mention of Lilo & Stitch, the other post-renaissance success aside from Tangled? What about the one that was more successful than Tangled, Wreck-It Ralph? Or that one "throwback" movie that didn't work: The Princess and the Frog? I actually think this needs a bit more research since the biggest reason the renaissance era came to a close was because of just how successful the big 4 (Mermaid, Beast, Aladdin and Lion King) ended up being. Their success basically dictated what the proceeding films could and could not do. Movies that actually dared to be different were over-managed by the executives and whatever focus group that wanted a piece of the action

Pocahontas, which mind you did not have a happy ending at all, was meant to be their prestige film and it was a serious and darker project than anything before it. The animals didn't talk, the songs were about racial issues and the protagonists did not have a happy ending. Because TLK was so successful, everyone expected the same of Pocahontas which it just was a completely different movie. (There's also the things about important plot elements being deleted due to "pacing issues" but that's another story). The historical aspect is not what made it fail (which is a mostly American complaint, go to any other country and they could care less about those inaccuracies) it was that it wasn't a kid's movie at all.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame went into production before anyone knew how Pocahontas would be received and so it followed the darker, more mature sort of mantra that that movie was operating under. When it became clear that the audience wanted something lighter, they were forced to "Lighten up" Hunchback, that's why it's so uneven. If you look up the German Stage production based on Disney's movie that Menken also worked on, it's a lot darker and works much better and this is because it wasn't under pressure to be kid-friendly.

Hercules' directors didn't even really want to work on it, Ron Clements and John Musker wanted to work on "Atlantis" and turn it into a classic B-Movie monster parade but Eisner wanted something that followed the formula and so promised them that they could make Atlantis right after they work on Hercules.

The reason Mulan was as good as it was is because it was produced by the satellite studio in Florida, far away from the meddlesome executives in Burbank. This studio also produced the brighter lights of the end of the renaissance: Lilo and Stitch and Brother Bear until it was unceremoniously shut down while in production of "A Few Good Ghosts".

Tarzan was born as a response to the success of the Lion King in that its songs were primarily provided by an outside, stunt-cast singer. TLK had Elton John, this one had Phil Collins. While not as successful as the Big 4, Tarzan was actually a modest hit.

Another movie greenlit with this intent was "Kingdom of the Sun" helmed by the very director that gave us The Lion King. It was to be a re-telling of the classic "Prince and the Pauper" parable set in the world of the ancient Incas of South America featuring songs by Sting. Unfortunately a lot of inner turmoil in the project involving top executives sent the movie into a massive re-tooling, coming out as the starkly different "The Emperor's New Groove" a full-on comedy. The film flopped despite being actually pretty funny.

By the beginning of the 21st Century, The Animated features were more and more crippled by demanding studio notes and restrictive release dates that were marred in merchandising politics. The decline in quality coupled with the rising popularity of Pixar and Dreamworks' much more cost effective CG features (which actually were more adventurous with their storytelling) all led to the eventual shutting down of the hand drawn department.

Things would keep looking dim with mediocre to terrible attempts at CG with Chicken Little to Meet The Robinsons until John Lasseter became in charge thanks to a changing of the guard in the overall company that also saw the acquisition of Pixar.

The then in-production "American Dog" helmed by Chris Sanders (responsible for Lilo & Stitch and eventually How To Train Your Dragon) was going to be a gamble for the studio with a much edgier spin but Lasster didn't quite like the direction it was going so he replaced Sanders with a new set of directors and the movie turned into "Bolt", which was still mildly received.

Around this time, Alan Menken, Stephen Schwartz and a group of renaissance veterans were hard at work on a movie called "Enchanted". A live-action/animation mash-up that lovingly made fun of and paid homage to classic Disney fairy tales. It was a full on pastiche of the traditional disney princess movie: it had broadway-ready songs (that were nominated for 3 Academy Awards) and even featured complete segments in traditional animation. The movie was a success prompting the studio to take a second look at hand drawn animation.

The studio then made the bold move of bringing back hand drawn animation and with a fairy tale to boot in "The Princess and the Frog". the movie was moderately successful but nowhere near the heights of where Disney once was. (Excuses range from poor timing to the jazz-inspired song list to even the title having the word "Princess" in it.)

"Rapunzel" was a project that's been in development for nearly a decade under the leadership of legendary animator Glen Keane. Under his tenure, the film was a lot darker with themes that revolved around isolation. The new regime wanted something more akin to classic Disney (more successful) features and so a new directing team took over and re-worked the movie to what we know today as "Tangled".

If there's one thing that can be gleaned from this history is that things get dark before the dawn. Just like the 1980's, Disney Animation was faltering from the old guard toying with darker, more mature themes in the late 90's early 00's and it wasn't until a new regime came in and brought new, outside talent to the studio that things got better. With the success of Tangled and even moreso, Wreck-It Ralph; it shows that it doesn't just take a formula to make the studio churn out great things, it's the people working on them. All eyes should now be on "Frozen", the long gestating re-imagining of Hans Christian Andersen's "The Snow Queen". If history reads right, this should be spectacular.

Everyone hates on Pocahontas but I LOOOVED that movie. I was 11-12 when it came out and everyone I knew was going to see it as well. It has some of my favorite Disney songs of all time too. The music is so sweeping and lovely and reminds me of Belle singing that she wants adventure in the great wide somewhere. I wish that Disney would get back to using Broadway talent for their musicals too. Tangled was sweet and I liked it but they could have done much better than Mandy Moore. It's kind of a shame that Kristin Chenoweth doesn't have her own Disney movie.

I cannot wait for Frozen! I have very high hopes for it because Disney has been on a high as of late. I think that quite a few movies have come out in the past decade that were very under-rated. "Meet the Robinsons" is definitely one of them. That movie is so sweet and such a nice tribute to Walt Disney and also funny. Even my friends who like Disney haven't seen it so I try to get as many people as possible to watch it. Mulan, Lilo & Stitch, and Bolt were also good movies. I loved Enchanted as well. The lesson that Disney needs to learn is the same as what television networks have never seemed to understand. The "suits" need to stop meddling with every picture and let the creatives have control. Disney also really damaged their brand by releasing crappy direct-to-DVD sequels one after the other.

I agree but I LOOOVE Flushed Away. I don't care what anyone says, that movie is freakin hilarious! I can't help but laugh at all the slugs. Actually saw that one in the dollar theater over a holiday just when it was leaving the theater. The place was PACKED with little kids so I kind of groaned that they were going to be bothersome. Those kids were so entranced with that movie it was unbelievable! Seriously, you could have heard a pin drop while it was playing. Plus it has my girl crush(Kate Winslet) and hunky Hugh Jackman.

Thank you for your detailed response. I tried to recognize that there was less risk-taking and more corporate formula-pushing elements in the second half of the 1990s, though I do not think Pocahontas nor Hunchback failed because they were simply too dark or meddled with. The animals may not have talked, but the trees did in the former. The entire tone was incongruous with the Disney formula to the point where the studio had to bend over backwards to try and couch history with their brand. Such as the implied happy ending of John Smith coming back to Pocahontas and they both promising their undying love to each other. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Similarly, The Hunchback of Notre Dame went into production before Pocahontas underperformed and its lighter elements stem from elements that worked in the "Big Four" (talking inanimate objects who sing funny songs). Even if Pocahontas's failings are responsible for the inclusion of the gargoyles in Hunchback (something I have never heard), the material still never worked as a Disney film because the subjects of persecution and religious bigotry never fit Disney's style. It would have been even darker still for young children who were already turned off without the corporate notes and still would have done things that made it too light for its own story (turning Frollo into a judge instead of an Archdeacon, thereby removing Hugo's critique of celibacy; giving Quasimodo and Esmeralda happy endings.).

I too think Lilo & Stitch is underrated but, again like Wreck it Ralph, it came after the Renaissance. Tangled is the first post-Renaissance film that embraced the tone and style of those "Big Four" movies while using the formula in a fresh, genuine way. It is also the most financially successful Disney Animation film in many years. I too hope that Frozen will continue the trend. Thanks for the feedback!

thanks for the reply as well! I have to say though that it should also be noted that Pocahontas actually made more than The Little Mermaid. 141 million to Mermaid's 111 mill, As did Mulan with 120 million, Lilo and Stitch however made more than all 3 of them with 145.

One thing with the big 4 though is that 3 of them were heavily influenced by Howard Ashman. I feel an even bigger reason subsequent films just weren't up to snuff was because of his absence. For as good as Tangled is, it doesn't at all hold a candle to the The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast or Aladdin and Ashman is a primary reason for that.

The anomaly, The Lion King, works because it's a completely original story, something that when Disney does is always successful (Wreck-It Ralph, Lilo & Stitch and to some extent, The Emperor's New Groove) because it's the rare opportunity that the studio just gets to be a regular animation studio and enjoy all the creative freedom that go with it. That's why Pixar movies are so good, they're born out of storytelling think-tanks without worrying about a source material.

"Ironically, this was the first kind of celebrity-branded voice casting that would eventually play a role in the end of Disney’s fairy tales."

I would love to hear you expand on that point. I have often thought that the same thing. It seemed as the popularity grew so did the names we knew in the cast. The one exception is the Lion King, which was immensely popular, and had a very famous cast.

Also what is your opinion of the Princess and the Frog? I enjoyed it a lot more that Tangled. It seems that audiences enjoyed the latter more.

Great article! I would love to hear your thoughts on The Princess and the Frog, though. Any thoughts on why it failed? And I would also love to hear your ideas regarding Frozen. :)