I teared up when I watched Once Upon a Studio. I, certainly, am not immune to Disney nostalgia. Even in his quest for innovation, Walt was a nostalgic guy who idealized “the good old days,” to the point where he modeled the entrances of his theme parks after how his hometown looked at the turn of the 20th century. Nostalgia isn’t a bad thing, nor is it entirely at odds with Walt Disney. The company’s biggest legacy isn’t the princesses, the theme parks, or even Mickey Mouse: It’s how all those elements started out as daring projects that no one else was doing.Īnd yet Disney and its fans apparently keep forgetting that, and keep clinging to the past with such ardor that it does their idol’s legacy a disservice. What’s made his studio so special over the past century is how it’s looked forward, trying new things even in the face of failure and taking chances that other production houses couldn’t afford or risk. And even The Little Mermaid, the film that kickstarted the Disney Renaissance, was a risk a big Broadway-style musical of its type just hadn’t been done in animation before.Īfter all, Walt Disney himself famously pushed for progress and innovation, especially in the studio’s creative endeavors, even when that translated into poor financial decisions. Lilo & Stitch was so damn weird that the filmmakers basically hid it from the rest of the company it ended up making back more than three times its budget, and more importantly, turning Stitch into one of the studio’s most memorable characters. The original 1940 Fantasia was one of Walt Disney’s most ambitious passion projects turned box-office failures, but the Sorcerer Mickey short is as iconic as the mouse himself. But at the same time, some of the company’s most memorable movies have stemmed from these risks. From the dark and dreary Black Cauldron, which almost bankrupted the studio in 1985, to the off-kilter adventure movies of the early 2000s, the studio’s mold-breaking passion projects have often been megaflops. Over the past 100 years, Disney has taken some big, risky swings, and has fumbled many, many times. Some of these legacy projects have been good, but even so, the sheer volume of them just doesn’t seem built to last. And the studio’s many spinoffs and reboots don’t help, either. Even though Disney loves to celebrate its past, the studio rarely references this era.Įven with a much higher budget and flashier visuals, the live-action remake fad Disney has been riding for the past decade is still contributing to the feeling of nostalgia oversaturation. After John Lasseter took over as Disney’s chief creative officer in 2006, he canned the whole DTV department a year later, reportedly denouncing the way cheaply made sequels diminished the Disney brand. Remember the Disney sequel era? When Disney pumped out cheap direct-to-home-video titles based on every beloved Disney movie from The Fox and the Hound to The Lion King? Disney tries not to. The live-action remakes might make a lot of money in the short run, but all they’re really doing is reiterating what Disney has done in the past, without meaningfully adding to the original movies’ legacy. ![]() People will pay to see their faves on screens again, or to try to share their happy childhood memories with their own children.Īt least, they will until they get tired of the diminished returns. ![]() Disney’s live-action remakes and sequels consistently get mixed to poor reviews, but they make hundreds of millions of dollars. ![]() From a moneymaking standpoint, it’s easy to see why Disney sticks to legacy-linked projects: They’re all but guaranteed to make bank.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |