My Almost Certainly Incorrect Views On Every Disney Animated Film

[The F Bomb]

I've enjoyed most Disney stuff I've seen but I'm at the age where 'Disney adults' are a thing in my wider social group and a thing that I find cloying and annoying. I feel like I can't enjoy Disney because of associations with these people wearing Mickey Mouse ears and singing Let It Go at karaoke and posting it on social media. Perhaps it's more than that, maybe I'm worried that I will become like them if I watch more Disney. Maybe to go further, maybe I want to be.
...
No, it's not that. I almost barfed, just wanted to test my own id and see if I was in denial. There's currently an insane 5 for £30 on Disney 4K discs at Zavvi (or 10 for £50!) so maybe I'll get some.

[madhair60]

I'm sorry, you've thrown off the Emperor's groove.

[dead-ced-dead]

I like Hercules a lot, but if you've seen Richard Donner's Superman, you can tell they've cribbed the structure of that movie almost point for point. It's close to plagiarism, with bits just changed enough so the teacher won't notice you've copied someone else's homework.

[13 schoolyards]

Raya and the shitty Wish

The scat numbers were a highlight

[madhair60]

Ralph Breaks The Internet (2018) – I was really looking forward to this,

jesus christ

[madhair60]

it is alarming the extent to which you have venerated contemporary slop while writing off beautifully drawn and animated vintage stuff, but it's okay because you admit to being incorrect in your own thread title and we need not fight

[Mister Six]

jesus christ

The first film was really good fun, with a cute and pretty smartly executed central concept. I looked forward to that sequel too.

[Ant Farm Keyboard]

About the recent eras, there was a definite dip in quality after Jeffrey Katzenberg left. That was basically the end of the Disney Renaissance. Due to delays in producing animated movies, he wasn't part of the team who green lighted stuff released after 1997-1998, which is more or less when the animated movies started going on fumes. And it's quite surprising that he was so important, given everything that's been told about him when he tried to make changes to Toy Story, or his patchy track record at Dreamworks. But it seems that Michael Eisner tried his hand at supervising directly the animated movies and he wasn't good at that, at all.

After the merger with Pixar in 2006, the heads of Pixar, Ed Catmull and John Lasseter, were also put in charge of the Walt Disney Animated Studios. That's where the upturn started. They insisted on revamping American Dog/Bolt, taking it out of Chris Sanders' hands (the original concept was much darker and quirkier), they okayed the occasional hand-drawn project (The Princess and the Frog or Winnie the Pooh) and they agreed that the Rapunzel project needed another go, which resulted in Tangled. Tangled was a hit and made money (which wasn't easy as its budget included the various attempts for a decade to produce a Rapunzel adaptation, and amounted to $260M, the most expensive film ever at the time), and showed everyone at the studio that they could do even Disney princesses flicks in CGI with these visuals. It paved the way to Frozen, even if I regard Tangled as the better movie.

After Lasseter was fired, a noticeable dip in quality started at the Walt Disney Studios even if, just like what happened with Katzenberg, he lost his touch when he returned to animation, as shown by Luck, produced by Skydance and released on Apple TV+.

[madhair60]

The first film was really good fun, with a cute and pretty smartly executed central concept. I looked forward to that sequel too.

wretch

[jamiefairlie]

I've enjoyed most Disney stuff I've seen but I'm at the age where 'Disney adults' are a thing in my wider social group and a thing that I find cloying and annoying. I feel like I can't enjoy Disney because of associations with these people wearing Mickey Mouse ears and singing Let It Go at karaoke and posting it on social media. Perhaps it's more than that, maybe I'm worried that I will become like them if I watch more Disney. Maybe to go further, maybe I want to be.
...
No, it's not that. I almost barfed, just wanted to test my own id and see if I was in denial. There's currently an insane 5 for £30 on Disney 4K discs at Zavvi (or 10 for £50!) so maybe I'll get some.

" singing Let It Go at karaoke"

FFS, same cunts who think The Eurovision Song Contest is the highlight of the year.

Infantilization gone mad.

[Shaxberd]

Hey now, don't bring Eurovision into this. Disney is for children, Eurovision is for (drunk, gay) adults.

[madhair60]

look at those people enjoying themselves. how i hate them.

[Small Man Big Horse]

Oh shit, yeah.

The Emperor's New Groove

I've often thought that the reputation this film has, the "lost" classic, the cult classic, the one with all the memes etc, comes from genuine surprise on the part of the audience. Because by all accounts, the film should have been a disaster. On paper, it has a cliché, run of the mill plot. It's got David Spade in it. It feels like a cheapie, a filler episode, after the climaxes and crescendo's of the Renaissance era musical epics. And it's got David Spade in it.

And yet it's a bloody marvel. There's hardly a scene for me that doesn't work. That doesn't have at least ONE brilliant thing about it. Even the parts where the film slows down to make way for exposition and plot (mainly anything to do with Pacha's family), still zips by with enough charm, and don't hang around long enough anyway for anyone to be bored (let alone kids). Everyone cites Aladdin as the wacky, Warner Bros one. But that's only really like that when Robin Williams is doing his thing. Here, that manic, bonkers tone runs through the whole film, it's in the DNA.

Every dramatic moment both works as drama, AND is undercut by something surreal and silly going on, either above or below ground level. Which again, should not work. And yet the tone is exactly right. Kuzco interrupting the film while Pacha's at his lowest moment to remind us who the star is (blew my eight year old mind in that cinema in Bury, that did!). Kronk's little back and forth with his shoulder angel/devil, which works as it's own goofy little set piece, while also reinforcing the internal conflict of a good man having essentially just committed a murder, and having a (literal) attack of conscience. Kuzco arguing with his OWN narration voice over. Silly and surreal on it's own terms, while also marking the point where he finally starts to conquer his own ego, and stop being such a cunt.

As SMBG mentioned, the cast are fantastic. Eartha Kitt just filling every line with that mock femme fatale tone. Patrick Warburton's voice was made for this film, and this film alone, as far as I'm concerned (apologies to fans of Seinfeld/Family Guy/the twenty million over voice over works he's done). David Spade does his thing too, and it's astonishing how much I can tolerate him in this, and not tolerate him in much of anything else (does he play a loveable bellend in essentially every film? Imagine that being your "thing").

I'm going to plagarize here slightly, and quote the Youtube fella Nerrel, who when talking about The Legend Of Zelda: Majora's Mask, stated that it was good directly BECAUSE of it's rushed development, not in SPITE of it. And I think exactly the same can apply here. Because the film was essentially busked in the space of just under a year, frantically scrabbling in the wake of another film* having totally collapsed under it's own weight. This is why it's so manic, so all over the place. I would argue that they almost had no choice. They had to make SOMETHING. Time was running out. Jobs were on the line. So why not have a laugh?

The amazing thing isn't that they created a fantastic piece of animated comedy. The amazing thing is that they did that, AND still made it feel like a Disney film. Yes, it's the "Warner Bros" one of the canon, more then any other. But I think why it's endeared so much, especially with irony loving kids and there memes (look mum, I'm cool too!), is because they somehow still made it feel like it belongs in the pantheon, with the other heavy hitters. This is genuinely as good as Lion King, as Beauty And The Beast. As all the ones critics and Youtubers tell us are the bee's knees.

Plus it's got a bit with a funny squirrel in it.



_{*Anyone with a slight interest in any of this, should watch The Sweatbox, a documentary centred on Kingdom Of The Sun, the film that Groove evolved from. The story of how this transformation happened is too long and convoluted to fit into a review, and the doc does a far better job of telling the story. You learn a lot about filmmaker pressure under corporate studio glares, the mental and spiritual toll of creativity, and how much of a mardy arse Sting is.}

That's a really fantastic piece of writing, and I may well find myself agreeing with it at some point in the future, and I will definitely give it a second go as it's more than possible I just wasn't in the right mood for it that day.

I rewatched The Little Mermaid (original, animated one) a couple of years ago and was shocked by how poor it was compared to my memory of it as a kid - Ariel's an unlikeable spoiled idiot who gets everyone into trouble and almost gets her dad killed, and the only thing stopping everything from falling apart is the true protagonist, Sebastian. It should have been called The Overworked Crab.

Putting it higher than Mulan and Encanto is a crime, @Small Man Big Horse, a crime!

It might just be my love for Howard Ashman, as Little Shop Of Horrors is my favourite film, but I still think it's pretty great despite certain flaws.

Big time, and all the better for it. But it's also the point at which you can see Disney starting to lose its nerve and lose its way. After the doldrums of the 1980s, 1989's The Little Mermaid (as much as I don't think it deserves its rep) really kicked Disney into high gear for almost a solid decade: Beauty and The Beast (1991), Aladdin (1992), The Lion King (1994), Pocahontas (1995 - a wobble, but the songs are amazing), The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996, a dip for sure), Hercules (1997, a return to form), Mulan 1998, maybe my favourite cel-animated Disney flick), Tarzan (1999) and Fantasia 2000 (1999, weirdly).

If you haven't seen it the documentary Howard is a must watch, and though he sadly died during the making of Aladdin I think he deserves a lot of credit for that really strong nineties run, as Disney gave him a lot of freedom to shape the films in the way that he (and Alan Menkin and many others they worked with) wanted to, and I can't imagine Disney doing that again in such a way.

Then through the 2000s they really seem to lose their way, just shooting off in all different directions with seemingly no coherent vision and lots of misses. You've got the pointedly irreverent and "anti-Disney" Emperor's New Groove (2000) and Lilo & Stitch (2002); a couple of science-fictiony films that feel vaguely like something Don Bluth might have knocked out for Fox: Atlantis (2001) and Treasure Planet (2002); a couple of animal-led things in Brother Bear (2003) and Home on the Range (2004); and then the progressively better CGI flicks Chicken Little (2005), Meet the Robinsons (2007) and Bolt (2008), with only Bolt being the only one that feels like a modern CGI movie in story and tone - but not a Disney one.

I've never really investigated why this happened, if there was a change of studio head, or that they panicked at the way Pixar was suddenly producing films which audiences preferred to traditional Disney stories, but it really is a messy decade and even the ones I like aren't anywhere near classics.

Then at the end of the decade they seem to get over this weird mid-life crisis and get back into their old groove, with The Princess and the Frog (2009) being a throwback to the cel-animated princess yarns and Tangled (2010) marrying the princess trope with CGI and kicking off the current format for Disney Animation: a baseline of female-led fantasy films (Encanto, Frozen, Moana, Raya) punctuated with other flicks that broaden the company's creative horizons a little bit (Zootopia, Wreck-It Ralph, Coco).

That said, I wonder if the 2020s will be another troublesome year; aside from Encanto, the other films have been the middling Raya and the shitty Wish - and the only things racked up for the near future are sequels to Moana and Zootopia, which doesn't scream wild creativity.

Don't know why I wrote all that. Just been rattling around in my head a bit and wanted to get it out.

Frozen 3 comes after Zootopia 2 so it seems likely that it won't be until 2027 that they produce something which isn't a sequel, and who knows if they'll try and chuck out Coco 2 or Wreck It Ralph 3 for that year. Obviously they don't need to worry financially anytime soon, but it does seem unlikely they'll be making anything that'll topple my current top 5.

it is alarming the extent to which you have venerated contemporary slop while writing off beautifully drawn and animated vintage stuff, but it's okay because you admit to being incorrect in your own thread title and we need not fight

I get that, I do, and as a whole I miss 2D animation and the way so many 3D films lack flare (though with Puss In Boots, Spider-Verse and the Turtles film that slowly seems to be changing) but a lot of the early Disney films look great but are quite simplistic when it comes to the storytelling. And that's not always a bad thing either, except when it is and you have a film based around an abhorrent cunt (Bambi, and I'm really not joking, the way that shit behaves is not okay).

I've enjoyed most Disney stuff I've seen but I'm at the age where 'Disney adults' are a thing in my wider social group and a thing that I find cloying and annoying. I feel like I can't enjoy Disney because of associations with these people wearing Mickey Mouse ears and singing Let It Go at karaoke and posting it on social media. Perhaps it's more than that, maybe I'm worried that I will become like them if I watch more Disney. Maybe to go further, maybe I want to be.
...
No, it's not that. I almost barfed, just wanted to test my own id and see if I was in denial. There's currently an insane 5 for £30 on Disney 4K discs at Zavvi (or 10 for £50!) so maybe I'll get some.

It's probably an age thing but I hit 50 this summer and I think I'm the only one out of my group of friends who still watch Disney / Pixar films, quite possibly because they had children and became sick to death of having to watch certain movies over and over again.

[BJBMK2]

That's a really fantastic piece of writing, and I may well find myself agreeing with it at some point in the future, and I will definitely give it a second go as it's more than possible I just wasn't in the right mood for it that day.

Thank you kindly :)

If you don't get around to watching the film again, I would still recommend you check out The Sweatbox, the doc mentioned in the footnote. If your interested in Disney, it'll give a glimpse into it's backstage politics and turmoil that you won't get much anywhere else. This is evident by the fact that Disney will continually and persistently, remove it every time it pops up online (you should be able to find a watchable copy on Youtube though, it's always getting re-uploaded).

EDIT: Here it is, in parts. The uploader has done the "shrink screen" trick to avoid getting flagged, so if you don't mind watching it on a screen the size of a postage stamp, you'll be reet.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaK-S_Mx6IisTGUmld_SOGtO6Qe3r6BqX

[Small Man Big Horse]

Thank you kindly :)

If you don't get around to watching the film again, I would still recommend you check out The Sweatbox, the doc mentioned in the footnote. If your interested in Disney, it'll give a glimpse into it's backstage politics and turmoil that you won't get much anywhere else. This is evident by the fact that Disney will continually and persistently, remove it every time it pops up online (you should be able to find a watchable copy on Youtube though, it's always getting re-uploaded).

EDIT: Here it is, in parts. The uploader has done the "shrink screen" trick to avoid getting flagged, so if you don't mind watching it on a screen the size of a postage stamp, you'll be reet.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaK-S_Mx6IisTGUmld_SOGtO6Qe3r6BqX

I meant to mention that, as I found it on the internet archive - https://archive.org/details/SweatboxDocumentaryUneditedVersion - and plan to watch it very soon.

[BJBMK2]

I meant to mention that, as I found it on the internet archive - https://archive.org/details/SweatboxDocumentaryUneditedVersion - and plan to watch it very soon.

Ahh even better! Thanks for sharing that.

[Ant Farm Keyboard]

I've never really investigated why this happened, if there was a change of studio head, or that they panicked at the way Pixar was suddenly producing films which audiences preferred to traditional Disney stories, but it really is a messy decade and even the ones I like aren't anywhere near classics.

In 1994, Jeffrey Katzenberg left Disney after he was denied a promotion. He started Dreamworks with Spielberg and Geffen and, as I've said, Disney CEO Michael Eisner became more involved with the major artistic choices the studio would make. He was for instance responsible for the bunch of DTV sequels that would add some revenue in the short term, but also contributed to diluting and cheapening the entire brand.
Regarding CGI, they had partnered (rather successfully) with Pixar but the biggest problem was Dreamworks. Dreamworks Animation didn't have much success with their hand-drawn projects (outside of The Prince of Egypt), but after Antz they hit the jackpot with Shrek, which was perceived at the time as an astute takedown of the entire Disney output (note from the narrator: it wasn't).
Eisner went ballistic and made the whole studio switch to CGI (outside of the DTV sequels, which were outsourced to lesser units anyway) for animated films. That was a life or death issue for him. They had no clear roadmap outside of that. Animators simply completed the traditionally animated projects that were already in production, but the switch couldn't happen magically. They hadn't found yet some kind of approximation to their classic style in CGI, like they did with Tangled, they simply had to compete with Dreamworks and produce stuff that appealed more to modern sensibilities.

And then he more or less prayed for Pixar to have a huge flop before the end of their contract, as it would have allowed him to sign a new deal under favourable terms for Disney. Except that Pixar released in turn Toy Story 2, Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo and The Incredibles, which wasn't too shabby. Pixar wanted to use Disney as its distributor, as they could already handle every creative aspect of production on their own, similar to what Lucasfilm had done with Fox on Star Wars or Paramount with Indiana Jones. Negotiations between Eisner and Steve Jobs for a new contract failed repeatedly. At some point, Eisner even started a new CGI division, Circle 7, with the sole goal of producing sequels to Pixar movies, under the assumption that Disney owned the intellectual property on the originals. They actually announced Toy Story 3 that was supposed to be made without Pixar being involved.
Jobs only had to wait for Eisner to be ousted by the board (where Roy Disney was still very much influential) and to be replaced by Bob Iger. Iger acknowledged that Disney wouldn't matter much without Pixar and he was the one who made the offer for a merger, that granted Pixar full artistic independence (and made Steve Jobs, at that point, the largest individual shareholder of The Walt Disney Company).

[Mister Six]

Interesting stuff, cheers @Ant Farm Keyboard.

[BritishHobo]

I would also like to defend Wreck-It Ralph and say I was looking forward to number two. The sequel's big problem is the problem inherent in any piece of media that 'does' the internet, in that the internet is so fucking stupid that the more accurately you capture it, the worse it makes your writing look. And also they have to skim off the edges because its for kids. Which is incongruous, because when they get to the point of addressing mean internet comments, all it does is make you think about how those comments should be full of much more abhorrent and hateful language. Which a kid's film shouldn't make you think about.

[Small Man Big Horse]

About the recent eras, there was a definite dip in quality after Jeffrey Katzenberg left. That was basically the end of the Disney Renaissance. Due to delays in producing animated movies, he wasn't part of the team who green lighted stuff released after 1997-1998, which is more or less when the animated movies started going on fumes. And it's quite surprising that he was so important, given everything that's been told about him when he tried to make changes to Toy Story, or his patchy track record at Dreamworks. But it seems that Michael Eisner tried his hand at supervising directly the animated movies and he wasn't good at that, at all.

After the merger with Pixar in 2006, the heads of Pixar, Ed Catmull and John Lasseter, were also put in charge of the Walt Disney Animated Studios. That's where the upturn started. They insisted on revamping American Dog/Bolt, taking it out of Chris Sanders' hands (the original concept was much darker and quirkier), they okayed the occasional hand-drawn project (The Princess and the Frog or Winnie the Pooh) and they agreed that the Rapunzel project needed another go, which resulted in Tangled. Tangled was a hit and made money (which wasn't easy as its budget included the various attempts for a decade to produce a Rapunzel adaptation, and amounted to $260M, the most expensive film ever at the time), and showed everyone at the studio that they could do even Disney princesses flicks in CGI with these visuals. It paved the way to Frozen, even if I regard Tangled as the better movie.

After Lasseter was fired, a noticeable dip in quality started at the Walt Disney Studios even if, just like what happened with Katzenberg, he lost his touch when he returned to animation, as shown by Luck, produced by Skydance and released on Apple TV+.

In 1994, Jeffrey Katzenberg left Disney after he was denied a promotion. He started Dreamworks with Spielberg and Geffen and, as I've said, Disney CEO Michael Eisner became more involved with the major artistic choices the studio would make. He was for instance responsible for the bunch of DTV sequels that would add some revenue in the short term, but also contributed to diluting and cheapening the entire brand.
Regarding CGI, they had partnered (rather successfully) with Pixar but the biggest problem was Dreamworks. Dreamworks Animation didn't have much success with their hand-drawn projects (outside of The Prince of Egypt), but after Antz they hit the jackpot with Shrek, which was perceived at the time as an astute takedown of the entire Disney output (note from the narrator: it wasn't).
Eisner went ballistic and made the whole studio switch to CGI (outside of the DTV sequels, which were outsourced to lesser units anyway) for animated films. That was a life or death issue for him. They had no clear roadmap outside of that. Animators simply completed the traditionally animated projects that were already in production, but the switch couldn't happen magically. They hadn't found yet some kind of approximation to their classic style in CGI, like they did with Tangled, they simply had to compete with Dreamworks and produce stuff that appealed more to modern sensibilities.

And then he more or less prayed for Pixar to have a huge flop before the end of their contract, as it would have allowed him to sign a new deal under favourable terms for Disney. Except that Pixar released in turn Toy Story 2, Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo and The Incredibles, which wasn't too shabby. Pixar wanted to use Disney as its distributor, as they could already handle every creative aspect of production on their own, similar to what Lucasfilm had done with Fox on Star Wars or Paramount with Indiana Jones. Negotiations between Eisner and Steve Jobs for a new contract failed repeatedly. At some point, Eisner even started a new CGI division, Circle 7, with the sole goal of producing sequels to Pixar movies, under the assumption that Disney owned the intellectual property on the originals. They actually announced Toy Story 3 that was supposed to be made without Pixar being involved.
Jobs only had to wait for Eisner to be ousted by the board (where Roy Disney was still very much influential) and to be replaced by Bob Iger. Iger acknowledged that Disney wouldn't matter much without Pixar and he was the one who made the offer for a merger, that granted Pixar full artistic independence (and made Steve Jobs, at that point, the largest individual shareholder of The Walt Disney Company).

Thanks for both of those, it was fascinating to read. I do remember their being a big fuss when Katzenberg went off with Spielberg and Geffen to form Dreamworks, but looking at the list of films while some are fun (Shrek, Chicken Run, Trolls) the only ones I really like are Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit and Puss in Boots: The Last Wish. I'm someone who clearly likes animated family fare too, but I've never watched any of the Madagascar or Kung-Fu Panda films, I'm sure they're okay but the trailers put me off them.

I've also not seen Cars or any of the sequels, which I think are the only Pixar movies I've yet to see, but eh, I hear okay things about the first one and then largely bad things about the other two.

I would also like to defend Wreck-It Ralph and say I was looking forward to number two. The sequel's big problem is the problem inherent in any piece of media that 'does' the internet, in that the internet is so fucking stupid that the more accurately you capture it, the worse it makes your writing look. And also they have to skim off the edges because its for kids. Which is incongruous, because when they get to the point of addressing mean internet comments, all it does is make you think about how those comments should be full of much more abhorrent and hateful language. Which a kid's film shouldn't make you think about.

That's really well put, the concept of the original is really quite smart in comparison, but it just doesn't work when you try and insert the character in to something as deranged as the internet.

[Mister Six]

I would also like to defend Wreck-It Ralph and say I was looking forward to number two. The sequel's big problem is the problem inherent in any piece of media that 'does' the internet, in that the internet is so fucking stupid that the more accurately you capture it, the worse it makes your writing look. And also they have to skim off the edges because its for kids. Which is incongruous, because when they get to the point of addressing mean internet comments, all it does is make you think about how those comments should be full of much more abhorrent and hateful language. Which a kid's film shouldn't make you think about.

I'd say it's partly that it turned into a tedious advert for Disney halfway through, but mostly that the story is unfocused and meandering, and lacks the cohesion and charm of the first. Is it about the perils of social media addiction? Is it about negative social media interactions and cancellation? Is it about insecurity in the face of change? Is it about letting go of your friends so they can grow?

It's sort of about the first two in the beginning, then suddenly about the last two at the end, and none of it fits together terribly well. It's like they didn't really have a coherent way to visualise the internet in a way that was conducive to the story, nor any real idea of what they wanted to say about it, so it just staggered about then glommed onto some generic after school special platitude and called it a day.

[kalowski]

"You're welcome" from Moana is just one of the greatest songs they ever did. It's in my top five
Pink Elephants in Parade
When I See and Elephant Fly
You're Welcome
Shiny
Everybody Wants to be a Cat

[Small Man Big Horse]

"You're welcome" from Moana is just one of the greatest songs they ever did. It's in my top five
Pink Elephants in Parade
When I See and Elephant Fly
You're Welcome
Shiny
Everybody Wants to be a Cat

I absolutely agree with you there, and I love that it contains lyrics as weird as "I killed an eel / I buried its guts / Sprouted a tree, now you got coconuts" in a mainstream family film.

[kalowski]

It actually makes me quite emotional after that bit when he gets bac to the chorus and the backing vocal come in too. Just brilliant.

[madhair60]

noana

[Small Man Big Horse]

As recommended by @BJBMK2 I watched "The Sweatbox" last night and thought it was phenomenal, and one of the best insights in to how a company like Disney functioned back then. Here's the Letterbox'd review of it I posted:

The Sweatbox (2002) - Documentary by Trudie Styler and John-Paul Davidson about the making of Kingdom Of The Sun, or as it eventually became, The Emperor's New Groove. It's apparently banned by Disney and you can understand why but at the same time consider them awful as after all these years it seems only fair to show how much work went in to the original film, and what happens when those involved with running the studio decide they're very unhappy with three years worth of filmmaking.
It did make me question how favourably Sting was portrayed given that it's directed by his wife, and that's something we'll probably never know, but I was impressed about how much he cared about the movie, I'm not a fan of his music but I did find myself liking him more than I ever have before, and was fond of the way that the film occasionally portrays him as a grumpy old man.
On that note it's very clearly a movie about white male men, there's the occasional person of colour or a different gender but not many and it's especially obvious during the sequences where they story department are trying to put together a new plot after 90% of the old one was jettisoned, and how all of the high positions are held by men.
I was also fond of the way that Tom Schumacher and Peter Schneider came across really poorly (which some claim was something Styler deliberately did, while others believe she was unaware of how arrogant they seemed), but ether way it made it all the more captivating, and I think this a remarkable documentary about how Disney created their films in the late 90s / early 2000s, and fascinating from start to finish. 8.6/10

[horse_renoir]

Princess and the Frog has some absolutely cracking songs, especially the Keith David ones.

[Glebe]

Dad of Glebe took me to see re-releases of 101 Dalmatians and The Jungle Book when I was around 12. Magical.

[A Hat Like That]

Tell me more about

Victory Through Air Power

[A Hat Like That]

EDIT - found it on Youtube.

Strong vibes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUeKeN9bXSE