Let's Discuss: The Early Disney Renaissance

I think it's just that when they first came out, it was more novel, doing the whole Broadway treatment to them. Then after Lion King it started to get old so that people got progressively more tired of it. I do wonder if they were switched around and, say, Hercules had come out in 1989 while Little Meraid wasn't until the late 90's after all the others, if they still would have gotten the same reception.

Hunchback of Notre Dame is really the best of the whole lot, but it probably didn't do well because it was viewed as too dark. I'm not sure why Lion King was the biggest hit though, it always felt kind of over-rated to me.

Beauty and the Beast and Hunchback are really the most Broadway of them, espeically with the whole openings, but I guess the Broadway musical tone was what made the Renaissance stand out from everything else. Little Mermaid was pretty Broadway too, but BATB really owned it.

It still makes me laugh that Disney didn't even think Lion King would be a huge hit, and thought Pocahontas would be their big movie instead. How in the hell did they think Pocahontas would be huge?

Stream on as part of a marathon through the history of Disney. Tonight is Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and Nightmare Before Christmas. live stream dot com slash oakshappyfuntime

File: 15.jpg (503KB, 800x598px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 800x598px

>>81035103
Beauty and the Beast starting

BatB is really strong overall, but is probably the most poorly-animated film in the canon. Probably has to do with the new digital format.

Tarzan is my personal favorite, but I can't look at it objectively for that very reason.

Pocahontas is the worst by far, and one of the most poorly-written Disney films period.

Aladdin has aged a lot more poorly than the rest.

Hercules is potentially the best overall.

Hunchback would be incredible if the Gargoyles didn't throw off the tone.

It's weird that Rescuers Down Under is the only Disney sequel considered part of the canon.

>>81035759
>It's weird that Rescuers Down Under is the only Disney sequel considered part of the canon.

It was made directly by the main animation studio and before they created DisneyToon.

Also, you're forgetting Fantasia 2000, the 2011 Pooh movie and arguably Three Caballeros (to Saludos Amigos)

>>81035845
And don't forget we're going to be getting Frozen 2 as a theatrical Canon movie too.

>>81034852
>How in the hell did they think Pocahontas would be huge?

They wrote it just to be Oscar bait and loaded it up with their most talented animators.

>>81035759
I never really noticed BATB as poorly animated. At least it's not super sketchy and full of stolen animation like the movies of the 70's.

>>81035103
Credits rolling on BATB. Aladdin is coming up.

>>81035103
Nightmare before Christmas coming up

>>81038298
Aladdin credits now, Nightmare is next

>>81034852
Pocahontas was very successful, just not on Lion King levels.

The Little Mermaid and the Beauty and the Beast were the Renaissance, it died with Howard Ashman. The lion King was a good imitation, and there were small high points here and there, but how the hell can anyone say with a straight face anything after those two approached "Golden Age Disney" levels of invested character animation, both technical skill and just really good acting. The writing afterwards never had more than the same three characters until things like the Emperor's New Groove and Lilo and Stitch, and I never liked the Glen Keane CAPSy look of all the stuff as the decade went on.