Does Disney have an identity in this current generation?

My question mainly concerns the films, but shows can be discussed as well.

Since the end of the animation renaissance of the nineties, Disney has actually been more experimental, with quality varying of course. Atlantis, Treasure Planet, Meet The Robinsons certainly seemed different in that they were more adventurous(even if they do employ some disney cliches).

The release of Wreck It Ralph really made me think, how do we define Disney now? While they've definitely improved their films after Chicken Little, I find it hard to grasp what they want. Maybe it's partly because of how Pixar essentially succeeded Disney for several years that they're mainly compared with either Dreamworks or Pixar.

But perhaps I'm just focused on Disney. My overall point is, should these films be representative of an identity for the studio(not the company per se), or are good stories just good stories?

I treat all living things equally. That is to say, I eat all living things

Well, I can't really comment on the content of your OP, but I would answer the question in the title thread as yes. Every generation since the original Disney generation has shown their children—this generation included—all the Disney movies they've seen (as well as later ones), and this generation and the previous generation were largely raised on the Disney Channel (you can't tell me that Disney has no identity in this generation when people go around freely with Perry the Platypus T-shirts).

Plus, as long as Disney keeps releasing the Canon on whatever new formats come out, they will never die.

edited 23rd Jun '13 8:57:37 AM by 0dd1

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

I've actually been thinking about this lately, and I definitely think Disney doesn't really know what to do with itself these days. They used to be known for high-quality animated films based on fairytales—no other studio even came close to matching them—but they've slipped badly off their game in that area and show no signs of returning to form any time soon (especially what with abandoning 2D animation). I think I know what happened there.

Disney Princess happened.

To take my favorite example, Beauty And The Beast was not a "Princess movie" when it was released in 1991. The Disney Princess brand didn't exist yet. It wasn't even a kids' movie. It was for everyone, and by and large everyone loved it (except people with a pre-existing bias against animation). The same goes for the other fairytale movies of the Disney Renaissance, and truth be told, the fairytale-based classics from the Gold and Silver Ages. They were for families—everyone in the family.

But in 2000, just as the Renaissance was winding down and Disney's feature animation department was starting experiment with non-fairytale movies, the Disney Princess brand hit the shelves. Suddenly, "Disney fairytale heroine" was equated with "little girl stuff," the Girl-Show Ghetto kicked in, and without any current fairytale movies to mitigate the effect, that stigma rubbed off on the entire Disney fairytale lineup.

Now Disney is afraid to return to the template for fairytale-based movies that proved so successful in the past, because they think no one will want to see another "Princess movie." At the same time, though, they won't work on a fairytale without Princess potential, because the Disney Princess merchandising line is so lucrative. So they still make fairytale-ish movies with strong female leads, but they downplay them in the advertising, use Dreamworks-style marketing tactics, and do wholesale rewrites of well-known stories in order to distance themselves from their earlier work.

What it boils down to is that they don't have faith in their own product anymore. It's sad, and if they don't get their arms around the problem it's going to kill the studio.

Stuff what I do.

Actually, I'd say Disney's current identity is, for the most part, Disney using Pixar's identity as its own.

I was thinking something along the same lines.

"Disney"'s identity is more "Pixar" these days than it is actually "Disney". Which I suppose is to be expected when you consider that when Disney bought Pixar, the reality is that Pixar pretty much got paid to take over Disney.

That's an interesting way to look at it.

So, what about from a business perspective? Disney's dipped its feet into so many different waters that can it really be said to have had much of a cohesive identity as a company in the first place? At least, not since they branched out into every business venture under the sun. They may be primarily known for their animated films, but look at what else they have: ESPN (sports), ABC (a typical major television network), ABC Family (trashy teen dramas and The 700 Club), Disney Channel (kidcoms and cartoons), Miramax (more adult-oriented movies)...

That's probably not even an eighth of what they own and control. If Disney has any sort of identity, it's that of an octopus.

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

I'd say their identity is ramming factory-made popstars down your throat, then saying "HEY EVERYONE LOOK AT PIXAR" if it doesn't take.

They've had a few moments starting to pull out of that, but nothing consistent enough to do it.

edited 23rd Jun '13 11:49:15 AM by Pykrete

Disney's current identity was stolen from Dream Works (the "The Road To El Dorado era" DW, not the "A Bee Movie era").

Dream Works, in turn, seems to be evolving into the only current animation studios interested in the epic movie genre (no, not that Epic Movie).

edited 23rd Jun '13 12:48:33 PM by peryton

Well I'm not saying I think Disney should only return to their Fairy Tales. They should experiment with their fairy tales, but only if they have a good story, not just because Fairy Tales have been their bread and butter for a long time.

I want Disney to do both; try new kinds of films and concepts(still approaching things with a sense of wonder), while reinvigorating their old material rather than solely relying on it. As I said, I think Disney's improved a lot, but the flipside is that they seem to lack a concrete identity anymore. So I'm wondering if it's a matter of giving the studio more time to reestablish itself, or is it a clear problem?

@Odd1 Hmm, an octopus, that sounds reminiscent of some business metaphor in the 19th century with Rockfeller... It's interesting; I like Disney mixing in different brands, but from an actual business perspective it's pretty scary absorbing all these companies

edited 23rd Jun '13 9:56:19 PM by blueflame724

I treat all living things equally. That is to say, I eat all living things

They're still trying to find an identity. Or at least, being appreciated by today's generation.

When Walt Disney was still alive, he was set not to repeat himself in his movies. He liked to mix things up - which is the reason why movies like Fantasia and Sleeping Beauty even exist. Prior to the renaissance era, Disney had developed a tendency to movies with Animals as protagonists (I guess because they are easier to animate than humans), but they still came up with creative approaches. With the Renaissance era, they got stuck in a formula - and that was NOT a good thing Imho. There are only so many movies you can watch which follow the same format until it gets frustrating. I think that movies like Hunchback would have been way better if Disney had thought out of the box a little bit more. And when they finally did, it was too late. The attention of the audience was captured by Pixar (and all a couple of franchises which were very successful in the early 2000s). If you ask me: The only "identity" Disney needs is that it's a company which produced high quality movies which are watchable for the whole family and have a timeless quality to it. The studios are at its best when they push themselves.

I know exactly what you're talking about! I remember reading about an old political cartoon basically presenting this idea, and I'd actually forgotten about that until I read your post.

It really does make one wonder just how much control a single person or company can be allowed over such massively diverse and far-reaching properties and have so much influence on culture before there is some sort of major pushback that has any sort of effect on their supremacy.

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

No, I don't think it does. And thanks to the interwebs, and all the records of bad decisions the corporation had made over the years, the image of "innocence" is definitely lost.

My angry rant blog!

No matter how much GOOD shit they actually do/try to make in their stead, whether TV (Which is rare as fuck!) or Theatrical (which is becoming quite increasingly rare!)... HELL. FUCKING. NO.

After The Buzzon Maggie and Fish Hooks, this was made more than clear to me!

Even if I had different face, I AM STILL DISGRACED.

"Having an identity" and "putting out quality products" are not the same thing.

Though I'd also argue that you can't judge everything about the company on only two products they've put out there.

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

Just reminding you all that it is because of Di$ney Peter Pan And The Pirates is not being released. The corporation owns the rights, and is not planing on using them anytime soon.

My angry rant blog!

That's less their fault for owning the rights and more that I can't imagine that'd be too lucrative of a business move to rerelease something that (if I understand correctly from the page) is so niche and obscure that it's a wonder it's not considered a real-life Candle Cove.

edited 7th Jul '13 7:39:12 PM by 0dd1

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

More obscure shows have been released just fine.

I'd think it's a matter of not wanting anyone to mistake that version of Peter Pan with Disney's classic one, but then I remember their own recent reinvention of Snow White's dwarves and tell myself "Nah, that just can't be it then."

I would love to see Disney do another music anthology film like Fantasia but try making a entire film around the music of Mussorgsky's "pictures at an exhibition".

Possibly having a similar plot to this film:

But just music, no talking.

edited 7th Jul '13 8:31:39 PM by minespatch

Eh, I think giving it a plot throughout would kinda miss the point of what made Fantasia so unique.

edited 7th Jul '13 10:16:48 PM by 0dd1

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

Maybe, but it would be a nice unusual project...though I wouldn't do it as full featured movie. But would make a great short. It's high time for Disney to give us something artsy again.

I wouldn't mind that at all.

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

Then again... Pictures at an exhibition is about 30 minutes of material that wouldn't probably carry the entire time limit of a regular film but I think the music could carry itself to a nice story about a art gallery and the subjects that live in the paintings. Have the troll from the music be the villain. Kind of curious about what Baba Yaga would look like as a Disney character... Please don't link me to Bartok The Magnificent, please...

Speaking of Baba Yaga, will Disney ever adapt Vasilisa the Beautiful? If they are going to adapt Philip K. Dick's story, why not the Russian folktale?

As well on the topic of Folktales, I can see Disney doing Anansi the spider. It'd probably be more African than Lion King to be honest.

I have a hunch they'd adapt Anansi on the comic vein of Hercules or The Emperors New Groove.

It'd be fun to have a trickster for a protagonist. I bet the tiger villain could be a pretty intimidating figure.