>He actually believes there was a "disney dark age"
>He thinks fucking Tarzan and Pocahontas are masterpieces while thinking Aristocats, The Fox and the Hound, the Jungle Book, and the fucking SWORD IN THE STONE are garbage
>He thinks that Disney's 60s-70s xerography is a 'cheap technique' yet praises digitally made films with shit tier shortcut visuals and ugly uninspired shading
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Aristocrats is bad
The Fox and the Hound is bad
Sword in the Stone is barely a movie
Jungle Book was good
>He thinks that Eisner 'saved' disney in the 90s by prioritizing corporate interest and dumbing down storytelling in films
youtube.com
get ready for cringe
Nobody thinks Pocahontas was a masterpiece, not even ironically. I like Sword in the Stone and Robin Hood. Aristocats was a pitch-black piece of shit and the worst overall until they made Chicken Little.
The only truly horrible movie in the Dark Age is Black Cauldron, everything else is decent to good. Love me some Great Mouse Detective, Oliver and Co, and Fox and the Hound.
>I'm having a fight with someone imaginary AND LOOK MOM I'M WINNING
ok
does this impress people on Sup Forums
There is a Disney dark age, we're in it.
The Jungle Book is objectively and subjectively the best movie Disney has ever made.
this desu
Aristocats was meh but had this kick ass song
youtube.com
SHENG HAI, HONG KONG, EGG FOO YONG. FORTUNE COOKIE ALWAYS WRONG
I don't remember liking Black Cauldron (last time I saw it was years ago)
Fox in the Hound is good in the tearjerker way
The Jungle Book is good
Sword and Stone is pretty good but has its flaws: like the voice actor goes in and out of puberty like that, and I feel Merlin quits on Arthur too easy when he becomes a squire.
The only renaissance era disney film I didn't like was Pocahontas.
if there is a Disney Dark Age, it was in the 2000s.
All the movies from Disney Animation were bombs starting with Dinosaurs and the trend only ended with Tangled, Lilo & Stitch being the one exception. Only Pixar brought in some quality material as far as movies goes.
Even on TV, they had to deal with replacing their TV lineup from the 80s and 90s that had been succesful but had ran its course, hence the loads of live-aaction shows that failed, stuff like that. It took Pixar rolling up their sleeves with Toy Story 3 and good old mass marketing with Frozen to really break the slumber and make Disney at least really profitable again.
I call it the budget age because that's what it is. Some of the movies are alright but they are a massive drop in quality from the 40s and 50s. The 90s output has high production values but none of the creative drive of Walt's era. Post-2000 is pretty much a lost cause.
Frozen>Your favorite
>Aristocats, The Fox and the Hound, the Jungle Book, and the fucking SWORD IN THE STONE
These films aren’t garbage, in fact by now they’re well loved classics, but they didn’t sell as well at the time and they’re less remembered among normies and less marketable than a lot of the bigger films. By the time The Little Mermaid came out, the studio was in such dire straights they were coming close to shutting down, and it’s because this was a bad era for them. Calling it “the Dark Age” doesn’t mean “I think these films are shit.” It takes a lot of other parts of the history into account.
Nah, I prefer to call that period The Experimental Era. You can tell they were trying to do something new and had no idea what the fuck they were doing, and while that period inarguably contains the worst films, they did strike a few gems like Lilo and Stitch because their method was a total crapshoot.
nah, it was katzenburger
...Who are you replying to?
>le black cauldron is bad meme
Not saying you're not allowed to like it, man. I'm glad you enjoy it. I didn't. It's still nowhere near being the worst animated film ever, far from it, I just don't care for it as much. Hell, it's not even the worst Disney movie for me, Chicken Little is way worse.
Honestly Disney will have to put in some extra effort to get on Chicken Little's level ov awfulness again.
Worst 2D movie in their "official" canon by a mile.
But user, that's not Rescuers Down-Under or Pocahontas
Rescuers Down Under is good, and Pocahontas has some cool animation.
Black Cauldron has the villain and that's it.
>he spergs about cartoons on an Indonesian ivory carving website
Might be because of the local dub being a bit shite but I've always found Rescuers Down-Under to be stupid beyong belief (let's save an eagle because uh... because!), annoying (that fucking albatross was unsufferable) and at best boring. Only good thing it had were a handful of visuals here and there.
Pocahontas was considered a masterpiece maybe 15 years ago but not now.
Tarzan is just a good movie, not a masterpiece. There's a reason why it's considered the last movie of the Rennaisance
>talking shit about best Disney sequel and John Candy
>best Disney Sequel
That's not saying much.
The only Disney sequel that is actually good is Toy Story 2. Other than that, there's Rescuers Down-Under and direct-to-video crap everybody is trying to pretend never happened.
>was
>implying the dark age isn't right now
Sword in the Stone is godawful. Count how many times they recycle the exact same sound clip of Arthur yelling and falling, then count every time his voice switches from pre to post pubescent.
The Black Cauldron may have butchered the story of not one but two books in an excellent fantasy series, but it's still a better film than Sword in the Stone.
Bambi II shouldn't exist but it's still good.
Dark age is just starting.
Sequels and remakes, it's Eisner MK.II, only this time the films aren't flopping so it continues.
Wuh wut woah!
Jungle Book and Sword in the Stone are from the 60's when Disney was still living. They aren't dark age. Most people associate the "dark age" with after Disney died until around the 80's
they'll start earning less and less money, and new studio will emerge, after couple of years disney will buy them and circle begin again.
*cycle
There are no studios left that wouldn't trigger monopoly restrictions. Who are they going to buy, Illumination?
>implying they won't just lobby these away
They'd have companies like Amazon fighting against them this time, wouldn't just be able to bribe it through.
>hyped as fuck for pic related
>gets cancelled in favour of shit
Do Disney even have any fairy tale/princess films in development that aren't sequels/remakes?
Pictures are often informative.
I like aristocrats and really dislike Tarzan (especially because of the soundtrack)
Fox and the Hound was good wtf
sorry disney will not satisfy ur giantess fetish user
It's cheap but it still functions as a movie (also contains great songs and the GOAT Wizards' Duel scene). Cauldron is a bunch of nonsense mashed together featuring the most annoying Disney side character of all time and a wasted John Hurt performance.
What about A Goofy Movie?
it really isn't
Not part of the official Disney animated canon, it was done by Disneytoon. But it's a good movie.
Idk maybe my memory is tainted because I used to watch it at my grandma's. I'll rewatch it but I remember it as being quite good
It's called the dark age because all their animated films literally looked fucking dark, as if it was constantly overcast.
That and Disney considers it part of their TV line-up despite it being released in theaters.
Rescuers 1 is the most depressing Disney movie ever.
>hey we need a plot for our cartoon movie about talking mice
>how about child slavery?
>brilliant!
Doesn't it also take place mostly in a fucking swamp? At night? Fucking hell, I felt so bad for that little girl.
Because they literally painted over photocopied cells. If you used bright colours it would look like shit.
Stop being reasonable and call someone a faggot
Fox and the Hound > Jungle Book > Tarzan > Sword in the Stone > Pocahontas > Aristocats
It's extremely slight. Some other Disney movies did a good job at stretching out meager source material to feature length but with this one it's particularly obvious.
>Rescuers Down-Under
Oh you done it now!
I don't think they would have cancelled it unless it really just wasn't coming together. I'm bummed too, though. Hope they have some good stuff on the horizon after Ralph 2 and Frozen 2.
They couldn't pull off zootopia this time.
Late 90s to early 2000s is honestly my favorite era of WDAS. The second half of Renaissance and until Home on the Range felt like a much more experimental time.
This.
>worst disney movie
>not the one that single-handedly ended the popularity of 2D disney movies
>blaming the scapegoat rather than the culprit
>>not the one that single-handedly ended the popularity of 2D disney movies
there wasn't any single movie that killed 2D animation, it was a slow, tortured process.
Shoot, you could blame Atlantis, Treasure Planet, and Brother Bear just as much as Home on the Range.
Obligatory:
youtube.com
>you could blame Atlantis
Fuck you that's disneys best movie
I mean, I love it, but it was more of a cult favorite
>not zootopia
The first book was kinda like that. I mean, it’s called the rescuers, they gotta rescue somebody.
I never wanted to make a thread just for this question- so I think this thread will suffice.
Was Jeff Katzenberg the most wrong human being in the animation industry? Editing down Black Cauldron's ending Really the only decision I could kinda understand), trying to cut Part of Your World, thinking Pocahontas was going to soar while Lion King would flop...
nobody's perfect.
If you'd asked the local dogcatcher to oversee and manage an animation studio I think he'd do as good a job as Katzenberg and come with as much relevant experience. There's a reason everyone hated him.
Sword in the Stone is crap. Arthur doesn't develop as a character at all and the vignettes have no purpose and aren't funny.
(((katzenberg)))
The old man rabbit looks cute.
Home on the Range was sent out to die like Old Yeller
I like how Little Mermaid is before the Jew takeover despite releasing in 1989
Now. Now's the dark age. Outside of marvel, starwars and pixar, Disney's dead. The princess shit's been dead for years now.
And the Peter Pan image is from the sequel
I liked pretty much everything Disney did from 1937 all the way up to 1998.
What little I disliked in that period was:
Make Mine Music, Lady and the Tramp and, Fox and the Hound.
1999 and onward had nothing I wanted to watch, AT ALL.
I'm really sad they're doing live action remakes instead of going back to 2d animation. I suppose 2D is basically dead these days.
you cant rewrite 2d moves six months before the deadline.
The 'Disney Renaissance' has aged like milk. Try watching The Lion King now and you'll have a hard time figuring out why so many people went to got see it when it first came out.
early Pixar movies aged faster.
I watched it the other night and it wasn't that hard to figure out
>Black cauldron
>horrible
The Lion King was basically Hamlet but with furries instead of people. Everything else about it was to make it more palatable to kids and annoying soccer-moms who would scream if the movie seemed too much for their precious glass china doll children
Jungle Book and Sword in the Stone ARE garbage.
...
>I suppose 2D is basically dead these days.
Only in America.
there most certainly was a dark age during the early / mid 80s they were even apparently kicking around the idea of closing their animation studios.
but thank god for it, because it allowed other non-disney animation projects to flourish for a while. we wouldn't have NIMH or Rock n' Rule or The Land Before Time.
its easily arguable that the early success of non-disney animation is what allowed others to at least try, and we probably would have never got Pixar as a whole or gems like the Iron Giant.
well, i'm not seeing the cringe...it's just that there are dozens of videos on this subject that pretty much are just pointing these things out. I mean we're not even getting a different take at this point.
not gonna talk about lion king I see
>Aristocats is bad
Stopped reading there, this guy's a total faggot.
I suppose yeah but the only other major place I've seen animation come from is Japan.
Other countries do make things every so often but, it's usually not very good.
...
>Tarzan and Jane, a white couple from source material written by a white man, is supposed to be an example of degeneracy
lolwut?
hurr something-something man with no culture and allegory for blacks wins over civilized white man blah blah blah
You can use anything as an exemple of degeneracy or whatever you want to call it. All you have to do is start with your conclusion and work your way from there.
I also notice they didn't include Mowgli and his sexy little girlfriend in the first era, along with the racemixing in Peter Pan and the furry degeneracy of Robin Hood. And in what way can Lady and the Tramp be used an an example of... well, anything? And what is Meg supposed to prove?
that greeks aren't white
Disney just predicted Sup Forums and Sup Forums memes even before there was a Sup Forums and an /int.