Enjoy aFREE TRIAL of Disney+,courtesy of Den of Geek!
Cauldronflopped horrifically at the box office.
But a miraculous thing happened.
After a falling out with Bluth, Spielberg produced a movie calledWho Framed Roger Rabbit(1988).
Of course, Disneys actual animation team had little to do with it because they were so downsized.
Work on the movie had to be exported to London animators.
Back at Disney, the animators also just happened to be working on another film calledThe Little Mermaid.
The Little Mermaidsincredible success seemed to be a perfect storm of events.
But afterWho Framed Roger Rabbitsreturns, Walt Disney Animation Studios had an influx of new talent and resources.
The movies biggest boon came with the addition of Howard Ashman and Alan Menken to the creative team.
The inclusion of the Broadway collaborators meant turning the Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale into a musical.
Obviously, the idea of a Disney cartoon with songs is nothing new.
The Broadway formula was likewise added to the pacing of the movie.
The protagonist is introduced as unique and apart from the other chorus girls during the opening song.
But not before a big chorus number or two led by comedic supporting characters.
One that would carry Disney to its greatest heights before it came crashing down.
More merchandise meant more brands that would lure families to the theme parks.
More theme park attractions meant more demand for direct-to-video sequels.
It was a vicious, lucrative cycle.
The next Disney film that carried on this style wasBeauty and the Beast(1991).
Beauty and the Beastbecame the jewel in the studios crown.
Thematically, they tried to further free themselves from the continuing complaints of sexism.
The last Disney movie that Ashman contributed to wasAladdin(1992).
However, one major difference betweenAladdinand the previous two Renaissance pictures was the inclusion of a major celebrity voice.
Thanks to the miracle of animation, visuals were finally able to keep up with Williams spitfire improvisation.
It followed the formula, but no more than a normal Broadway show would.
In fact, it is also one of only a few that even Alan Menken was not involved in.
A film that dealt with big emotions and big ideas!
It was going to be for adults…and big!The Lion King?
That one was kind of a weird experiment that somehow got greenlit.
Hence, every artist wanted to be on thePocahontasteam, andThe Lion Kingbecame the project for the also-rans.
However, there was something special about the lion picture.
First, it was not based on any pre-existing story, fairy tale or otherwise.
This gave the writers and artists enormous freedom.
The second advantage was that since its the experimental one, they could actually experiment.
Ultimately, it also became very influenced by William ShakespearesHamlet…except with lions.
An uncle murders a father to assume the throne.
The son goes into the wilderness until he is ready to accept his divine right.
It deals with ideas like mortality, legacy and familial responsibility as opposed to simply a love story.
It also gave the Disney Renaissance an opportunity to grow in a new direction.
Unfortunately, Disney took the wrong lessons from it.
The Lion Kingmarked several other major changes for the company.
Before its release, Frank Wells died in a tragic helicopter crash.
Wells played superego to the regular egos of Eisner, Katzenberg and Roy E. Disney.
Shortly after his death, Katzenberg demanded Wells job of COO and President.
The follow-up toThe Lion Kingread none of its signs.
It again starred a pair of young lovers who dreamed of being together.
Pocahontas has a pet sidekick raccoon; the villain has a pet sidekick dog.
Eventually the dog becomes the raccoons sidekick.
And none of it is cute.
Grab aFREE TRIAL of Disney+, on us, right here!
The worst problem for all this was thatPocahontasis based on actual history.
Disney has never been afraid of changing the source material before.
Even worse, most of the changes were patronizing stereotypes.
The Native Americans are just such noble, noble savages in the movie.
Its not just stupid.
It doesnt work; no matter how pretty Alan Menkens music is in the film.
This is what became the major problem for the second half of the Disney Renaissance.
Ending said suffering kind of defeats the purpose.
There is no denying that the formula was incredibly played out by the end of the 1990s.
The problem is the formula was too blatant after one fairy tale romance almost every year.
The sad thing is, Disney did lay out how to do its musicals freshly withThe Lion King.
In many ways,The Lion Kingsuse ofHamletand biblical archetypes laid the groundwork for Pixars enchanting model.
That convention can even be a love story with musical numbers (2008sWall-E).
After all, he was the one who thoughtPocahontaswas the next Oscar-winningWest Side Story.
Rather, the early Renaissance films took wild chances and created massive success.
Ashman insisting on mixing calypso and Broadway ballads inThe Little Mermaidwas a risk.
MakingAladdinsbiggest supporting character Robin Williams on overdrive was stepping out there.
TurningHamletinto a story about lions could have gone sideways real fast.
Everything had to be CGI like Pixar, and ironically self-aware like what Katzenberg was doing at DreamWorks.
Yet, what was Disneys first major animated success in the ensuing decade?
A little movie from 2010 about a girl in a tower with really long hair.
Incidentally, thats also the best a non-Pixar animated Disney movie has done sinceThe Lion King.
At least until Disney made its first unabashed musical with one of the composers fromAvenue QandThe Book of Mormon.
By chance, have you heard ofFrozen?
It cleared a path for Pixar, DreamWorks, and everyone else Disney followed in this 2000s.
Hence, this child of the 90s has been ready to go back under the sea.
Its good to see that Disney finally is too.
