Talk:Disney Renaissance

Beauty and the Beast - Crown Jewel?

In the area on the page describing Beauty and the Beast, it states that the movie is considered the crown jewel of Disney movies, and that it achieved more critical success than any other animated film.

"Considered" here is perhaps a weasel word, and both of these claims lack any kind of substantiation. Who considers this film the greatest of the Disney animated canon?

Also, as for critical success, A Nightmare Before Christmas has a fresh rating of 100% on rotten tomatoes; this shows that the claim that Beauty is the most critically acclaimed animated film ever is debatable, at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.8.234 (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The statement "considered" needs to have a reference to support the statement. Considering that this article is about a historical period, there should be plenty of references that can support what has been, up to what will hopefully be Wall-E's turn in the spotlight, the only animated film to be nominated for best picture. The nomination itself should be enough to show that it has achieved a certain level of respect and allow the "considered" portion of the sentence to survive. SpikeJones (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Does this website help - [1]. (talk) 4:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A single link to a single review is hardly evidence that it is "often considered to be the crown jewel of not just the Disney Renaissance but of all the Disney animated films," it is merely proof that a single critic feels that it is such. Citing an aggregate score would be better for talking about mass critical reaction but an article or book from a well respected source would be ideal, something that this page generally needs. UncannyGarlic (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The Rescuers Down Under

I thought The Rescuers Down Under wasn't considered part of the Disney Renaissance due to its underperformance at the box office. User: Christianster45 23:04 1 August 08 (ULC)

It was a critical and commercial success. WHY it isn't included on this page, I'm not sure. Jienum (talk) 13:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the source - I have seen it listed both as part of and not a part of the renaissance. Now if we can only find the ones that say it is, it can be sourced and added to the article with no more discussion. SpikeJones (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The bigger issue is that The Rescuers Down Under states that the film IS part of the renaissance, and it's not listed here. Regardless of which way we lean, one of these two articles (and possibly others) will need to be brought in line with each other. SpikeJones (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"The Rescuers Down Under" was not a commercial success by any means, it was a box-office failure and it is in fact considered the "black sheep" of the era when included, and when not included it is said that the renaissance "really begun with "Beauty and the Beast." Its failure is also the reason why later sequels were not released theatrically. T.W. (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Proof of "Disney Renaissance"

Alot of articles are trying to refer to this page in relation to the "Disney Renaissance." We need a notable source that proves this even exist. Simply quoting revenue and reviews does not establish proof. Please see WP:NPOV. Until we can prove it, its simply a "point of view" with a little "original research" to establish it. DrNegative (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The Disney Renaissance did exist. And if you look on the external link column, I found a website to show proof. talk 20:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well done! DrNegative (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Both Christopher Finch in his book The Art of Walt Disney (2004) and Bob Thomas in his book Disney's Art of Animation: From Mickey Mouse to Hercules(1997) discuss the Disney Renaissance. However, their version is that the Renaissance began with a 'changing of the guard' during production of The Rescuers and The Fox and the Hound. Instead of the original "nine old men" that Walt had hired himself, the main production of animation was coming from the likes of Don Bluth, Glen Keane, John Musker, and Ron Clements. These younger animators had gone through the studio's in-house animation teaching program. If no one objects I can rework the history section with these sources and their information. Cactusjump (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this should be merged in a page about Disney's history, quoting the books that use the notion of "Disney Renaissance".--Elikrotupos (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I still agree with the original comment; a single Christian film critic's article--largely criticizing alleged non-Christian influences in 1990's Disney films--doesn't make the term "Disney Renaissance" notable enough for Wikipedia. Indeed, the differing use of the term in Disney's own literature to refer to the era immediately after the "nine old men" raises serious doubts as to the term's notability, though I think the critic's coinage is more accurate. Furthermore, though I believe most would agree that whatever it was began with The Little Mermaid (definitely not with The Rescuers as Disney propaganda claims), I think even the critic thought it ended before Tarzan (as this article claims); he merely ended his criticism with examples from Tarzan. I'm sure some would think Disney's "rebirth" ended as early as The Lion King. --RBBrittain (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the sources provided for this article are minimal and hardly concrete. A google of the term finds no good sources in the first 100 results, most are blogs, amateur reviews, and information taken from this page (either verbatim or the list of movies on this site). Other than some polls on unreliable websites, I have yet to find any source that clearly defines when the period began and ended. The term is clearly used but unless some reliable sources can be found, I have to agree with the DrNegative and RBBrittain that this page constitutes original research and fails to meet NPOV standards. UncannyGarlic (talk) 07:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ebert mentions it by name and includes The Hunchback Of Notre Dame [2] and likely Hecules (second to last paragraph) [3] and Mulan (last two lines) [4] and possibly Tarzan [5]. In UltimateDisney.com's review of Pocahontas, they label the Renaissance as the five year period starting with The Little Mermaid and ending with The Lion King.

"It would be extremely difficult not to disappoint following The Lion King, the ultra-succcessful pinnacle of the so-called animation Renaissance that had been embraced in the public eye wholeheartedly for 5 years, a period where Disney could achieve nothing but excellence (with the sidenote exception of the good but unremarkable sequel The Rescuers Down Under)."[6]

That is the period which I had always heard. The "Return of a Classic" featurette for Oliver and Company attributes it as what started and allowed for the Renaissance (not by name, they mention the films from Little Mermaid to Pocahontas) [7]. I'm guessing that various sources are going to stretch the period out differently. UncannyGarlic (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it is notable enough but Disney's head of marketing during this time, Howard Green, was interviewed and reffered to this era as the "Renaissance" during his interview.[8]DrNegative (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, look, I'm sure it's possible to argue for a Disney renaissance that stretches all the way up to The Princess And The Frog, but in terms of critical support and as a cultural phenomenon, the era clearly begins with The Little Mermaid and ends with The Lion King. Pocahontas was less well-received (and obviously less popular), and then the ground shifted dramatically with Toy Story's release later that year. The hand-drawn branch of Disney never managed to recapture the same momentum again (yet, anyway). 220.239.203.179 (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Several of the movies just past Lion King were decent, and made decent money, but not many people would argue they were on the same plane as the trifecta of Lion King/Little Mermaid/Beauty and the Beast, plus Aladdin. Those four are the movies that put Disney back on the map, both artistically and financially, even if it took them a while to completley lose the plot again.80.101.113.45 (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Meet the Robinsons

Should Meet the Robinsons go along with Lilo & Stitch as one of the animated Disney films that were critically and commercially successful. Now, I know 66% of Rotten Tomatoes critics liked it and only made $169 million worldwide at the box office. And even though it didn't make $200+ million and didn't get 70% or higher approval rating. It can still be declared a success. Can it? Christianster45 14:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Prince of Egypt and Anastasia

I believe this movie should be apart of the renaissance list of films. --p4 (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)p4poetic--p4 (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong studio. SpikeJones (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Make that wrong studios (plural). The Prince of Egypt was from DreamWorks; Anastasia was from Fox. Though both films were released during the latter part of the "Disney Renaissance" era (as defined here, though I question the term) and were clearly inspired by Disney's 1990's success, as non-Disney films they certainly don't belong here. --RBBrittain (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Also FernGulley, Thumbelina, The Swan Princess, and Quest For Camelot. (talk) 7:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The Great Mouse Detective

Was Don Bluth Productions in any way associated with The Great Mouse Detective? I haven't seen anything about this fact anywhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egon14 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No; Bluth left Disney while working on The Fox and the Hound. Given that Bluth's studio was actively competing with Disney's own films at the time (indeed, Bluth's An American Tail outgrossed The Great Mouse Detective as stated here), I'm sure Disney wouldn't have let him anywhere near that film, even as a contractor. --RBBrittain (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This must originate in the fact that Bluth did a lot of mice, for some reason -- from NIMH through the Fievel movies.80.101.113.45 (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Oliver and Company

What of Oliver and Company? Couldn't one argue that any films post The Black Cauldron and stopping with Tarzan are in the Disney Renaissance? Did I miss the Oliver and Company part in the first section? But the DR really was kicked off with the Great Mouse Detective and peaked at Lion King and sharped turned and ended with Tarzan. Moonraker0022 (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Moonraker0022, one could argue that the Disney films from 1986 to 1999 are in the Disney Renaissance. But, I disagree because as good and entertaining as The Great Mouse Detective is, it really didn't catch people's interest in animation as say The Little Mermaid or Beauty and the Beast did. So, the film is not in the renaissance. But, you're right that the DR peaked with The Lion King and went constantly down until it ended with Tarzan. By the way, Oliver & Company is briefly mentioned in the second paragraph of "Before the Renaissance" so perhaps you just missed it. It just played a minor role that led up to the contemporary modern age of Disney history which is the Disney Renaissance. Christianster94 (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC) (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

aw yes. O&C. In my opinion O&C paved the way for The Little Mermaid. It's like a Bell Curve ya know. and some could say that Frog Princess could be a new spike...keep your fingers crossed! Moonraker0022 (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

According to Waking Sleeping Beauty, OLIVER AND COMPANY certainly was considered as part of the beginning of the next animation cycle. In essence, the movie makes the case that the renaissance began when Katzenberg started over the Animation stuff. SpikeJones (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

To clarify further - are we counting the renaissance timeframe from when the films were RELEASED or when the films BEGAN PRODUCTION? SpikeJones (talk) 03:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the renaissance timeframe from my point of view is from when the film were RELEASED. talk 01:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Box Office Miscalculation

On the chart where it displays the box office performance of the various animated films, it states that Pocahontas made over a billion dollars worldwide. I know this to be false. I checked the source websites listed, and the sum is indeed miscalculated. Anyway, if it had made over a billion, it would have been displayed so on Wikipedia's list of Highest Grossing Films, but it is not.Infoadder2010 (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing that. I'll go change it to the accurate gross Pocahontas made. Christianster94 (talk) 2:25, 27 February

2010 (UTC)

Original research

I have placed a request at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard for advice regarding my concerns that this article is largely based on OR. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is actually largely wrong and inaccurate more than anything else. I was working on a revised version of Walt Disney Animation Studios which integrated the usable portions of this article, but ran out of editing time. Should I upload it someplace to a temp page? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You may create a temporary page in your userspace. If you don't know how to do that, see Help:Userspace draft. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I know how to create a temp page within my userspace. I was asking if it would be better to create a subpage at the article's namespace. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Factual accuracy.

It was true of this article almost a year ago and is still true - much of this info is flat-out wrong. Hunchback wasn't considered a box-office success, no mention is made of the downward trend begun with Pocahontas, and there's nothing covered here but superfluous box-office comparison tables that _shouldn't_ be covered in the (also rather poor) article at Walt Disney Animation Studios.

There's an awful lot of incorrect information, weasel words (what typifies a "moderate box office success?" in these cases. If you ask the Disney studio, many of the films identified as such were disappointments), original research, and a general encyclopedic tone. I had started a rewrite of Walt Disney Animation Studios to cover the studio's history as necessary at Talk:Walt_Disney_Animation_Studios/rewrite; only a few people helped edit. Let's try this again, lest we continue to bombard visitors with bad information. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This article also makes no mention of the fact that Pocahontas was critically panned, and The Hunchback of Notre Dame was "honored" with Golden Raspberry (Razzie) nominations. Also, both films failed to reach the expectations at the box office and are among the worst-rated Disney films ever. Certainly these two films back to back are enough to state that the Disney renaissance was a four-film series of movies that started with The Little Mermaid, skipped over to Beauty and the Beast and was finalized with The Lion King. T.W. (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)