Zero Punctuation: Epic Mickey

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Lordofthesuplex:
Surprised Yahtzee didn't mention that this was by Spector in this review at all. You'd think after trashing Brutal Legend and Tim Schaeffer, he'd be all over insulting another game designer unfairly.

RTR:
Yeah Disney really copped out on the whole "edgy" angle that Warren Spector had proposed.

Wait a second...
no mention of Warren Spector? Well, given Yahtzee's opinion, it was for the best.

Essentially, there's two ways to look at this and form an expectation: based on the games Yahtzee has talked about in the past and based upon his explicit mention of specific individuals. Yes, Yahtzee has talked about Deus Ex, Thief: The Dark Project and System Shock as particularly influential titles in the past. Yes, Warren Spector has had a quite an influence on computer games since the early 90s and well into this last decade. But despite the strength of that contribution, Yahtzee has never singled him out in the past for his contribution.

Thus, it's only fair that after not homing in on Spector's career highlights (more of which can be easily gleaned from his Wikipedia entry at present) that Yahtzee remains equally silent about a less well received title.

In addition, the comparison to Tim Schaeffer seems a little odd since (regardless of the merit of the respective work) Yahtzee has never suggested that anyone hurt themselves for not having played a Warren Spector game. Well, at least he hasn't on Zero Punctuation so far: I would hesitate to make grand proclamations about his comments in his personal life. :)

where can I find that vintage comic where Mickey tries to off himself?

Fun review.

I don't agree with it, but fun review.

I have the game and have enjoyed it.

The 2D levels actually make me want to look up the toons on YouTube (save for the one Oswald and one Mickey cartoon that they throw into the game).

Fetch quests never bothered me really. I don't know why.

I never really had that much of a problem with the camera. As I move I constantly use the + and it's fine for me.

As for the comments about Disney's edginess/non-edginess and risk/non risk...this game was a risk as they have mentioned that they want to change Mickey away from the goody-two-shoes he's been to something more along the lines of his late 20s version. Plus, semi modern Disney (even though it too is 20 years old) had some riskiness: Darkwing Duck had a few times where characters actually DIED (sure they didn't mention death, but still).

OK, I've said my piece.

Carbo:

HentMas:
OH! but thats the thing!!!, thats the "BEFORE" Disney, the one that actually treated kids and children like PEOPLE, the NOW Disney is actually more concerned of "what would the parent say??" and have a whole censorship board before them, just so they dont "Traumatize" the kids with movies like (what do you guess??) BAMBI.

Disney WAS edgy and interesting and made you think, but in this world where the people cry in one voice "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" they have to play it safe.

That's the thing though - this game was made in order to reinvigorate Mickey's more mischevious side and rebrand it's market.

mmm... i didnt thought of it that way... and if thats what they were aiming for i think they got cold feet, but thats just me.

So... Yahtzee has played Kingdom Hearts? Now that's a shock...

We need more games like this one and i'm going to buy it. Because if I do some one
at some other company or maybe Disney will look and say hay this made money we can do more
games like that but we can't rip it of so lets make this tweek and this adjustment and
then we have a hole new,NEW game.Or the guys at Disney will say hay you want "edgy"you got
it camera issue no problem,and the gaming industry it all the better because of it.

Srdjan Tanaskovic:

HentMas:

i agree, but in the end it makes no differenc what yo do or dont, and in the end it looked like something was missing, and that takes out the "edge" of doing something "forbiden" or "wrong" it then just boils down into "im a jerk" or "im not" and if you want all the credits youll be a jerk, and if you dont you will not, because there is no real context for doing either thing than money.

but thats my opinion.

I haven't played the game (a Cataclysm got in the way) so I cant say to much about the moral system but from what I heard if your evil them Mickey will change his appearance or something like that

pretty sure that Extra Credit can do some sort of episode about it

that concept was cancelled on early development, sooo, no, it doesnt change "appearance"

it was on the escapist a few months back.

Ugh, the mascots. I have never liked them, and still give them a wide berth at 15. I went to see tron legacy the other day, Damn Yogi bear was in front of the theatre.

Anyways, I will never forgive disney for abandoning that art style. it was beautiful, tragic, and nostalgic. plus, the post apocalyptic steampunk vibe really appealed to me.

A lot of truly old school Mickey comics were hardcore adventure stories.

I remember one where he was flying his plane over the jungle looking for some friends who were lost, but the plane went down and he broke his leg in the crash. So he had to spend the rest of that issue fighting his way through the underbrush while wearing a splint.

HentMas:

gaming Outlaw:
My god people,don't just take his word for it.yahzee is just....yahzee,not the first person
to come to for buying advice.It's funny that even though he knows the market in games has
stagnated he doesn't speak a word of a game like this being a new, fresh,risk taker.And
thats what it is,even if mickey didn't try to kill him self,which must be the only way
a game can be edgy.

On a side note let me remind you that Disney have(whether you know it or not)
always been the edgiest guys around.Bambi's mother gets shot at the beginning of the
movie and no one has a mom,that edgy stuff.(they just don't want you to think of it that way)

OH! but thats the thing!!!, thats the "BEFORE" Disney, the one that actually treated kids and children like PEOPLE, the NOW Disney is actually more concerned of "what would the parent say??" and have a whole censorship board before them, just so they dont "Traumatize" the kids with movies like (what do you guess??) BAMBI.

Disney WAS edgy and interesting and made you think, but in this world where the people cry in one voice "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" they have to play it safe.

Oh yah,because nothing with the Disney name came out this year that could be considered
dark and edgy,oh wait TOY STORY 3.THAT was edgy stuff.They make reference to hell and purgatory.
And it was disturbingly sad,and parents don't care if its sad they care about sex and violence.
And in a cartoon you can have all the fun with violence you want.

gaming Outlaw:
Oh yah,because nothing with the Disney name came out this year that could be considered
dark and edgy,oh wait TOY STORY 3.THAT was edgy stuff.They make reference to hell and purgatory.
And it was disturbingly sad,and parents don't care if its sad they care about sex and violence.
And in a cartoon you can have all the fun with violence you want.

thats Pixar and people like to separate Pixar from Disney

HentMas:

Srdjan Tanaskovic:

HentMas:

i agree, but in the end it makes no differenc what yo do or dont, and in the end it looked like something was missing, and that takes out the "edge" of doing something "forbiden" or "wrong" it then just boils down into "im a jerk" or "im not" and if you want all the credits youll be a jerk, and if you dont you will not, because there is no real context for doing either thing than money.

but thats my opinion.

I haven't played the game (a Cataclysm got in the way) so I cant say to much about the moral system but from what I heard if your evil them Mickey will change his appearance or something like that

pretty sure that Extra Credit can do some sort of episode about it

that concept was cancelled on early development, sooo, no, it doesnt change "appearance"

it was on the escapist a few months back.

No I mean he becomes and blob like and inky

I have to applaud Yahtzee for not blaming a 3rd Party Wii game's gameplay shortcomings on Nintendo. Bravo, Yahtzee, I mean that.

That being said, it was a fun video. I can't say I agree with him, since I haven't played the game yet (I'm planning to get it before the month is over), but it was a fun video nontheless.

gaming Outlaw:
Oh yah,because nothing with the Disney name came out this year that could be considered
dark and edgy,oh wait TOY STORY 3.THAT was edgy stuff.They make reference to hell and purgatory.
And it was disturbingly sad,and parents don't care if its sad they care about sex and violence.
And in a cartoon you can have all the fun with violence you want.

woah... i seriously believed that Toy Story 3 was "produced by Pixar Animation Studios" and only "released by Walt Disney Pictures."

oh... THATS RIGHT

in the end "Disney" didnt actually make a Movie, they just released it to the public, that is to say, if there is some kind, any kind of back lash, PIXAR would be the ones taking the heat

thank you for your understanding.

Srdjan Tanaskovic:
No I mean he becomes and blob like and inky

ok... i might be wrong here, but im pretty sure that doesnt happen in the game, but i havent played it in every possible way

HentMas:

gaming Outlaw:
My god people,don't just take his word for it.yahzee is just....yahzee,not the first person
to come to for buying advice.It's funny that even though he knows the market in games has
stagnated he doesn't speak a word of a game like this being a new, fresh,risk taker.And
thats what it is,even if mickey didn't try to kill him self,which must be the only way
a game can be edgy.

On a side note let me remind you that Disney have(whether you know it or not)
always been the edgiest guys around.Bambi's mother gets shot at the beginning of the
movie and no one has a mom,that edgy stuff.(they just don't want you to think of it that way)

OH! but thats the thing!!!, thats the "BEFORE" Disney, the one that actually treated kids and children like PEOPLE, the NOW Disney is actually more concerned of "what would the parent say??" and have a whole censorship board before them, just so they dont "Traumatize" the kids with movies like (what do you guess??) BAMBI.

Disney WAS edgy and interesting and made you think, but in this world where the people cry in one voice "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" they have to play it safe.

Casual Shinji:
They should make a game around one of those old WW2 cartoons, where Donald Duck takes on Hitler. Now that would be epic.

Unfortunately, the good old days of controversial Disney are long gone.

Actually, Disney has never been as simple as either viewpoint would indicate: whether referring to the company, the creator or the content, there's always been several aspects to consider.

Yes, Bambi is one of the most complex films that Disney made during that entire era. This is true both on an emotional and storytelling level as well as on a technical/production one. If your curious on that point, you can search the web for information on the complex camera system that was used to film multiple layers with correct perspective on that project (the most complex that was for any traditional animation project in the studio's history). At the same time, Bambi can't tell the story of Disney's narrative of approach in that era on it's own.

Another aspect is the way that Disney adapted existing fairy tales. I can remember (as I'd wager others would) hearing the original versions of some these tales later on, after I'd originally seen the Disney movie. It was not uncommon for certain grim elements of the tales to be omitted, and this was in the early days of their feature length pictures.

So if we examine the early Disney films we see dual forces: a desire to tell complex original stories and innovate technology in order to serve the storytelling and concurrently the adaptation of existing stories to create something more "kid friendly" or "family friendly". In other words, both controversial and conservative forces incorporated in the same entity in its defining era.

If the company was so difficult to pin down at the time it originally sculpted its identity, how we can we now look back at one aspect at and choose it as the "defining aspect"? That's before we even take into account the inherent complexity of reconciling all those aspects with how the company has involved over time or the face of a company branded with a family name juxtaposed against one that no longer employs a member of that same family.

While there may be easy answers in some Disney films, there never have been when looking at the company as a whole.

Well I'm still interested in checking out the game, although the camera issue does make me wary. I'm in the process of playing through Twilight Princess on the Nintendo Wii right now. Played it partway through on the Gamecube a while ago. The one thing that is irking me to no end is the lack of decent camera control. Poor Link is getting severely injured from me just trying to reposition the camera so I can see what's going on during a fight. It's honestly making me want to hunt down a Gamecube version of the game and play it instead.

dalek sec:

BlueInkAlchemist:
"The air of compromise" indeed. A shame all that potential went to waste. I thought they were going to go for a truly dark Disney story, something worthy of The Black Hole. But no. Had to play it safe.

Cowards.

Pretty much this is how I feel about it, I loved those dark and twisted art designs they had for it all but no.... they had to play it safe. Though I will say he actually tried to review it, I thought that when he heard Mickey he would just smash it with all the grace of a sledgehammer against a glass wall.

I know.

I was hoping for an entire game based on the same feel as "Night On a Bald Mountain" from Fantasia.

That was, without a doubt, the most badass thing Disney has done.

See, if it was just Yahtzee, I'd just say, "Yeah, that's him and his shtick." But it isn't. I've seen reviews among reviews saying the same thing. Hell, even Russ Pitts here said something similar as well.

I don't know, maybe it's because I was looking forward to it after all the trailers. I don't blame the Wii; there are other games that work just fine without too much problems.

Translated:
snip

you are right, Disney is a "company", a "Brand", a "Name" and as such it has to look after it interest the best it can acording to the situation, but latelly they do seem to be more tame, with the sequels they take away a lot of the original elements that could had being considered "controversial"
so in my very personal opinion, i DO can tell that Disney WAS more edgy and dark and catered to make children "Grow", but now they just cater to make children "entertained" and that speaks volumes of a company that with the years has lost its heart in exchange of "safety risks" and "profit".

so yeah, we might not be able to point out a defining momment on the past, but we surelly can point out that right now, what defines "Disney" is profit, and safe investments.

Dooly95:
See, if it was just Yahtzee, I'd just say, "Yeah, that's him and his shtick." But it isn't. I've seen reviews among reviews saying the same thing. Hell, even Russ Pitts here said something similar as well.

I don't know, maybe it's because I was looking forward to it after all the trailers. I don't blame the Wii; there are other games that work just fine without too much problems.

To be fair, there are just as many reviews being a bit more favorable towards the game. Adam Sessler from X-Play seems to love it and he's one of the biggest douchebags there is when it comes to game criticism. My advice, if you're not sure if this game is bad as most people say it is then go rent it. That's what we did back in the day and I don't see how it should automatically become obsolete all of a sudden and yet I still see people today claiming they won't play a game for themselves if it'll waste $50. And this game is no exception to that line of idiocy.

the working class camera joke was so fcking awesome i had to pause the video to collect my entrails because my sides burst! xD

HentMas:

gaming Outlaw:
Oh yah,because nothing with the Disney name came out this year that could be considered
dark and edgy,oh wait TOY STORY 3.THAT was edgy stuff.They make reference to hell and purgatory.
And it was disturbingly sad,and parents don't care if its sad they care about sex and violence.
And in a cartoon you can have all the fun with violence you want.

woah... i seriously believed that Toy Story 3 was "produced by Pixar Animation Studios" and only "released by Walt Disney Pictures."

oh... THATS RIGHT

in the end "Disney" didnt actually make a Movie, they just released it to the public, that is to say, if there is some kind, any kind of back lash, PIXAR would be the ones taking the heat

thank you for your understanding.

Well, once again we're dealing with a more complex issue. A decade ago, the argument about Disney vs. Pixar was almost as cut and dried as depicted here. But Disney bought Pixar, so Pixar is now part of the Disney in the same way as Junction Point (which Disney also bought). Since Junction Point made Mickey, one could compare the two as both being "Disney products", since neither is more independent.

CMWaters:

As for the comments about Disney's edginess/non-edginess and risk/non risk...this game was a risk as they have mentioned that they want to change Mickey away from the goody-two-shoes he's been to something more along the lines of his late 20s version. Plus, semi modern Disney (even though it too is 20 years old) had some riskiness: Darkwing Duck had a few times where characters actually DIED (sure they didn't mention death, but still).

OK, I've said my piece.

And The Lion King (which is often held up as the culmination of Disney's work in that era) featured the villain killing one of the lead characters after a plea for empathy and his son crying at his dead body. Of course, that same year they also made the movie "Blank Check", a film that does more to paint Disney in the light of "following formula" than "honing their craft". So ample fodder for both criticism and acclaim in that decade as well.

HentMas:

gaming Outlaw:
Oh yah,because nothing with the Disney name came out this year that could be considered
dark and edgy,oh wait TOY STORY 3.THAT was edgy stuff.They make reference to hell and purgatory.
And it was disturbingly sad,and parents don't care if its sad they care about sex and violence.
And in a cartoon you can have all the fun with violence you want.

woah... i seriously believed that Toy Story 3 was "produced by Pixar Animation Studios" and only "released by Walt Disney Pictures."

oh... THATS RIGHT

in the end "Disney" didnt actually make a Movie, they just released it to the public, that is to say, if there is some kind, any kind of back lash, PIXAR would be the ones taking the heat

thank you for your understanding.

(if there is some kind, any kind of back lash, PIXAR would be the ones taking the heat)
HOW do you know that huh,I said HOW do you know that,by that logic you can also say that
well Disney isn't a game company so how could they get any of the back lash,and ist not like
they give a sh*t,They may be based on image BUT its a POWERFUL one.

gaming Outlaw:

HOW do you know that huh,I said HOW do you know that,by that logic you can also say that
well Disney isn't a game company so how could they get any of the back lash,and ist not like
they give a sh*t,They may be based on image BUT its a POWERFUL one.

...thats the single most irrelevant post i have ever read
by my logic?? come on! i didnt said that "Disney" are not movie makers, i said that EVERYONE knows Toy Story 3 was from Pixar, and everyone recognizes that, and if the movie takes a back lash, Disney can easily say "WE DIDNT MAKE IT" (wich they didnt) but this game haves the most iconic character as the principal guy and they had to play it "safe" THAT was my point.

Ih8pkmn:
where can I find that vintage comic where Mickey tries to off himself?

Here.

SamThe1:
Mickey suicide comic:
http://theblarg.wordpress.com/2009/07/11/mickey-mouse-suicide/

Sweet review. Glad Yahtzee doesn't like it as well. The Wii is just a shitty console to devolep for with limited genres.

Though Monster Hunter was rather epic though.

Translated:

Well, once again we're dealing with a more complex issue. A decade ago, the argument about Disney vs. Pixar was almost as cut and dried as depicted here. But Disney bought Pixar, so Pixar is now part of the Disney in the same way as Junction Point (which Disney also bought). Since Junction Point made Mickey, one could compare the two as both being "Disney products", since neither is more independent.

you make a good point, but "branch wise" the only ones that could take a back lash from this would be "Pixar" wich functions as a "branch" effectivelly covering the name of "Disney", if all goes to hell (this is a very hipotetical reasoning) Disney can blame the "Pixar" branch and close it off, and make sure the punishment goes to them, and they would remain with their public image untouched

Like when Janet Jackson had the famous "wardrobe malfunction" on the super bowl, they cut ties with her and went merrily on their way, leaving the "Disney" immage intact.

I SAW THAT COMIC! The one of Mickey trying to commit suicide! It was really... strange.

Yahtzee brings up a really good point near the end.

How relevant IS Mickey Mouse to kids today? I don't have kids but my brother has three and I don't think I've heard them ever mention Mickey. I don't have the Disney Channel but I understand it has gone from the disney cartoon channel that it used to be to whatever tween drama/star is hot at the time. Outside of Kingdom Hearts, is Mickey really that big a children's icon anymore?

HentMas:

Translated:

Well, once again we're dealing with a more complex issue. A decade ago, the argument about Disney vs. Pixar was almost as cut and dried as depicted here. But Disney bought Pixar, so Pixar is now part of the Disney in the same way as Junction Point (which Disney also bought). Since Junction Point made Mickey, one could compare the two as both being "Disney products", since neither is more independent.

you make a good point, but "branch wise" the only ones that could take a back lash from this would be "Pixar" wich functions as a "branch" effectivelly covering the name of "Disney", if all goes to hell (this is a very hipotetical reasoning) Disney can blame the "Pixar" branch and close it off, and make sure the punishment goes to them, and they would remain with their public image untouched

Like when Janet Jackson had the famous "wardrobe malfunction" on the super bowl, they cut ties with her and went merrily on their way, leaving the "Disney" immage intact.

I think in this case the differentiation isn't found at the corporate level (where either company, Junction Point or Pixar, could be held up as an "isolated example" if something went wrong). Epic Mickey isn't a product of Disney's core "animation" or "family film" branches and Disney isn't known for their gaming products in the same way that they are known for their films (though some of their games have done fine by the gaming press, such as Aladdin for the Sega Genesis during the 90s to cite a childhood example). In both these cases, however, we can look at Disney more as "publisher" than "developer/creator" here, but in that case we have to do so for both examples.

The difference, as you alluded to with your comment about "the 'Disney' image", is in the use of the company's primary IP. A game that features Mickey Mouse is inextricably linked to Disney in the public consciousness, much as any game that features Mario is linked to Nintendo. You're right: that's an important distinction. It's much riskier to "mess with" the core aspects of your brand than to experiment with a new IP. That's one of the many reasons why purchasing Pixar was so attractive to Disney in the first place: they frequently created market-viable new IP that Disney could leverage. If Pixar had only been interested in making movies based off existing Disney characters, Disney probably wouldn't have been as ready to take a chance.

I LOLed at the wasted potential used condom Joke XD Yahtzee always nails these reviews. Luckily classic disney from the 30's I couldn't give two shits bout, which is always perfect when Yahtzee is going to talk about something, something miles away fro manything remotely related to anything I like.

But anyway, i did enjoy kingdom hearts, and by the look of it, this is the best game to expect from disney in what is going to be quite a while :)

Oh well, Thanks for doing a review before your christmas break Yahtzee :)

Translated:

HentMas:

Translated:

Well, once again we're dealing with a more complex issue. A decade ago, the argument about Disney vs. Pixar was almost as cut and dried as depicted here. But Disney bought Pixar, so Pixar is now part of the Disney in the same way as Junction Point (which Disney also bought). Since Junction Point made Mickey, one could compare the two as both being "Disney products", since neither is more independent.

you make a good point, but "branch wise" the only ones that could take a back lash from this would be "Pixar" wich functions as a "branch" effectivelly covering the name of "Disney", if all goes to hell (this is a very hipotetical reasoning) Disney can blame the "Pixar" branch and close it off, and make sure the punishment goes to them, and they would remain with their public image untouched

Like when Janet Jackson had the famous "wardrobe malfunction" on the super bowl, they cut ties with her and went merrily on their way, leaving the "Disney" immage intact.

I think in this case the differentiation isn't found at the corporate level (where either company, Junction Point or Pixar, could be held up as an "isolated example" if something went wrong). Epic Mickey isn't a product of Disney's core "animation" or "family film" branches and Disney isn't known for their gaming products in the same way that they are known for their films (though some of their games have done fine by the gaming press, such as Aladdin for the Sega Genesis during the 90s to cite a childhood example). In both these cases, however, we can look at Disney more as "publisher" than "developer/creator" here, but in that case we have to do so for both examples.

The difference, as you alluded to with your comment about "the 'Disney' image", is in the use of the company's primary IP. A game that features Mickey Mouse is inextricably linked to Disney in the public consciousness, much as any game that features Mario is linked to Nintendo. You're right: that's an important distinction. It's much riskier to "mess with" the core aspects of your brand than to experiment with a new IP. That's one of the many reasons why purchasing Pixar was so attractive to Disney in the first place: they frequently created market-viable new IP that Disney could leverage. If Pixar had only been interested in making movies based off existing Disney characters, Disney probably wouldn't have been as ready to take a chance.

well, all i have to say or add is that i agree with everything you just said!!

isnt it nice when you find common grownd on the "internetz"? :P

The working class camera bit made me laugh out loud. At work. Good job, Yahtzee!

thepyrethatburns:
Yahtzee brings up a really good point near the end.

How relevant IS Mickey Mouse to kids today? I don't have kids but my brother has three and I don't think I've heard them ever mention Mickey. I don't have the Disney Channel but I understand it has gone from the disney cartoon channel that it used to be to whatever tween drama/star is hot at the time. Outside of Kingdom Hearts, is Mickey really that big a children's icon anymore?

This game is merely the beginning of an attempt at re-branding Mickey and making him actually feel relevant. For the most of the part, while the game isn't for everyone, it certainly succeeds at that. It makes Mickey Mouse feel interesting and imperfect again, the reason most of us came to love him in the first place.

Say what you want about the general gameplay, I myself have my days and dont when I come to enjoy the game or not, since it requires a time commitment to get into, as well as actual interest to create your own experience. But the design, story, concept and characters are all extremely compelling in this game. There's as many heartwarming as there are sad and depressing moments. It's a nice experience.

HentMas:

Translated:
snip

you are right, Disney is a "company", a "Brand", a "Name" and as such it has to look after it interest the best it can acording to the situation, but latelly they do seem to be more tame, with the sequels they take away a lot of the original elements that could had being considered "controversial"
so in my very personal opinion, i DO can tell that Disney WAS more edgy and dark and catered to make children "Grow", but now they just cater to make children "entertained" and that speaks volumes of a company that with the years has lost its heart in exchange of "safety risks" and "profit".

so yeah, we might not be able to point out a defining momment on the past, but we surelly can point out that right now, what defines "Disney" is profit, and safe investments.

Sorry to respond to your posts in reverse order. :)

If we're going to look at risk-taking in the Disney brand, I think we can see one of the biggest transformations during the 90s. Though the company had already gone through several transformations (first from animation only to animation and live action content and from content provider to content outlet, etc.) the one during the 90s is both readily analyzed and of particular note. There's a great deal of discussion on this in the WikiPedia entry "Disney Renaissance" so I won't go over that too much. I will, however, note that I diverge from some of the points made in that article by saying that Toy Story (released the year after The Lion King) marked a shift in the primary thrust of Disney's business from their own traditional animation to increasingly looking to the outside for inspiration.

We see this not only in the move from traditional to computer animation (both in their own releases and the new ones through Pixar) but also within the content of the traditional animation itself. If we look at (for instance) the use of chins in character designs, we see a transformation from a readily identifiable "Disney look" to one more influenced by other styles. Take the chins in "The Little Mermaid" and compare them to the ones in "Beauty and the Beast" and then jump straight to "Hercules" and you'll see a deliberate choice to go with a different style to compliment the material in the latter, rather than to make the latter "fit Disney". Look at Mulan and you'll see that again. And by "The Emperor's New Groove" you wouldn't have been surprised if someone had told you that it had been designed by another studio.

Now that's not to criticize those films, as that's a separate issue entirely, but rather to show that Disney was changing. Over the next decade, we would see Disney increasingly defined by Pixar's films, the Disney Channel and other outlets rather than by their core animation studio. As a result, the content from their "safer" ventures has come to define the public perception more and more (exempting Pixar). Disney's live-action family films have never been known for their risk-taking and the "non-canon" animated sequels (not my term, just borrowed from the Disney Wiki article I mentioned) or spin-off TV shows have been even less so. That's why even though the Disney TV animation department was more a product of the 80s, that it was only as the core feature film animated brand became less iconic, that this other work has come to be how many people knew Disney.

I'm just barely touching on a much broader issue here, but I think it provides food for finding out more, at the very least.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 64770)