Should Disney stick to animation?

[Flame Alchemist]

I was watching Disney Channel today (because Phineas & Ferb was on) and it got me wondering. Should Disney stick to animation? Sure, Hannah Montana, Jonas Brothers, Waverly Place, The Suite Life On Deck (which looks like a horrible show, the original was half-decent), Cory in the House, etc. are all somewhat successful, but Disney began as an animation studio. It's what they're known for. Do you think in 20 years people will actually remember Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brothers as something entertaining? No, the people who watch it today will probably look back and laugh. Disney's animation (the classics in particular)? They're timeless. Disney does animation the best.

I can think of some classic Disney live-action though. Mary Poppins, for example. That was, and still is a great movie. But who decided that Disney should start making unfunny, crappy teen sitcoms?

Disney can still pull off TV animation. Phineas & Ferb is hilarious. It's funnier than all their other current shows combined. It's unique, original and doesn't require dim-witted teen actors to make stupid jokes and pretend to be funny. There should be more shows like Phineas & Ferb on Disney Channel (maybe a spin-off series where they go to school?)

[Antiyonder]

The fact that they did live action in their early years nullifies the idea that they should be solely animation. So, nope, I think they should do both.

[Gokou Ruri]

I was watching Disney Channel today (because Phineas & Ferb was on) and it got me wondering. Should Disney stick to animation? Sure, Hannah Montana, Jonas Brothers, Waverly Place, The Suite Life On Deck (which looks like a horrible show, the original was half-decent), Cory in the House, etc. are all somewhat successful That's putting it mildly.



Do you think in 20 years people will actually remember Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brothers as something entertaining? Of course, once those shows end and those viewers start complaining on the internet how whatever shows Disney has in 2010's/2020's are terrible compared to classics like Hannah Montana and Emperor's New School.

[chdr]

Disney Channel had, has, and will air live-action. DC was never intended to be an animation channel.

[Bloody Marquis]

That's putting it mildly.Yeah, I wouldn't consider a DCOM getting 17.4 million viewers only somewhat successful.



Of course, once those shows end and those viewers discover the interet and start complaining how whatever shows Disney has in 2010's are terrible compared to classics like Hannah Montana and Emperor's New School.
Yeah, that'll be... interesting to see.

GUY FROM THE FUTURE #1: These new shows on Nick are awful!
GUY FROM THE FUTURE #2: I miss Wizards of Waverly Place!
GUY FROM THE FUTURE #1: Yeah, that was an awesome show! Selena Gomez was the greatest actress there. But now, all the new shows are too kiddy because of all the soccer moms!
GUY FROM THE FUTURE #2: Wanna rant some more!?
GUY FROM THE FUTURE #1: Yeah!
ALL TOGETHER: RANT! RANT! RANT! RANT! RANT! RANT! RANT! RANT!

[Light Lucario]

Of course, once those shows end and those viewers start complaining on the internet how whatever shows Disney has in 2010's/2020's are terrible compared to classics like Hannah Montana and Emperor's New School.

And thus, the cycle of seriously disliking the popular Disney shows of the days continue.

Disney has never been only animation. They have been doing live-action films for a long time too, even when Walt Disney was alive. So I don't see the point in them doing only animation.


I can think of some classic Disney live-action though. Mary Poppins, for example. That was, and still is a great movie. But who decided that Disney should start making unfunny, crappy teen sitcoms?

For some reason, I never could get into Mary Poppins. Maybe it just felt too long for me. Anyway, Disney channel has had live-action series from the start. So Disney Channel also was never meant to be only animation. While you may see these teen sitcoms as unfunny, and I do agree with you there, obviously the kids that Disney targets to enjoys them. Otherwise, they wouldn't be making more sitcoms and they wouldn't be making as much money as they are from them.

[Silverstar]

Disney has always done live-action as well as animation, and they always will.

[Gorbash]

You can't really count Mary Poppins seeing as how Walt was forced to make it live action even though he wanted it to be an animated feature.

[Dr.Pepper]

I don't care if Disney does live-action.


Of course, once those shows end and those viewers start complaining on the internet how whatever shows Disney has in 2010's/2020's are terrible compared to classics like Hannah Montana and Emperor's New School.
I can't wait for that to happen


You can't really count Mary Poppins seeing as how Walt was forced to make it live action even though he wanted it to be an animated feature
Really? Who forced him?

[Gorbash]

I don't care if Disney does live-action.



Really? Who forced him?

The author of the book did. She objected to the animated scene in the movie as well but Disney managed to calm her down when it came to that one scene.

[Old Guy]

But who decided that Disney should start making unfunny, crappy teen sitcoms?

Walt Disney? :confused: Disney has been making teen programs since the 1950s. Annette Funicello was the Hannah Montana of her day.

[Darklordavaitor]

You can't really count Mary Poppins seeing as how Walt was forced to make it live action even though he wanted it to be an animated feature.
Okay, how about Pollyanna? The Shaggy Dog? That Darn Cat? Darby O'Gill and the Little People?

All of which were live-action movies made from the Disney studio with Walt still alive, and all of which I'd call classics. The studio started making full scripted live-action movies back with Treasure Island back in 1950, and television in 1956. To think that they should stop making live-action material, especially when that's what's making the studio money now; Phineas and Ferb and Bolt may be pulling their weight, but it's Wizards of Waverly Place and Pirates of the Carribean that's paying for the studio.

Stuff like The Jonas Brothers and Hannah Montana is nothing new for Disney when you get down to it, either. I mean in the late 50's, Walt pretty much talked Annette Funicello into making a singing career after hearing her sing on a serial airing on the original Mickey Mouse club. Hayley Mills also got one too after "Let's Get Together" became a popular song from The Parent Trap. Even Kirk Douglas got one thanks to 20,000 Leagues Under the Seas' "Whale of a Tale".

[soundmonkey44]

Yes yes o lord yes! I would love to See DC filled with Quality Cartoons like it was in the 90's! anything to get rid of these Horrible Generic Sitcoms!:D :D :sweat: :evil:

[Dr.Pepper]

Yes yes o lord yes! I would love to See DC filled with Quality Cartoons like it was in the 90's! anything to get rid of these Horrible Generic Sitcoms!:D :D :sweat: :evil:
Are you being serious or are you kind of joking

[Baltofan]

There's no more animation on Disney Channel in 100 years!

Rant! Rant Rant! :D

[Silverstar]

Yes yes o lord yes! I would love to See DC filled with Quality Cartoons like it was in the 90's! anything to get rid of these Horrible Generic Sitcoms!:D :D :sweat: :evil:



There's no more animation on Disney Channel in 100 years!

Rant! Rant Rant! :D

Are you guys joking or what?

First, I believe the question is in regards to the Disney studio as a whole, not just The Disney Channel. Some people tend to forget that the cable channel is just a single branch of the Mouse Empire.

Second, Disney has never been strictly animation, so I don't see why they would suddenly stop now, especially when their live-action outings are so successful.

Regardless of how you personally feel about Disney Channel's live-action sitcoms, they're not going anywhere, and Disney is not going to stop producing live-action. All the folks complaining about the "sudden appearance" of live-action on TDC need to do a little research: there's always been live-action on TDC and there always will be.

[DarthGonzo]

People have to open their minds a little and realize that while Disney's roots are with animation they're been producing live-action for over a half century, and in many cases in a greater abundance than the cartoons. Think about the 1970s and early 1980s, when animation was stagnant at the company and they were churning out lots of weaker live-action fare.

People, animation isn't going anywhere at Disney. That's what they're known for. But the company never promised that's all they'd ever do. Really, who said that Disney Channel had to air animation programming? Even if animated TV programming from Disney is suffering from a dry spell right now, I'm positive it will bounce back eventually.

The sky isn't falling.

[Racattack!Force]

GUY FROM THE FUTURE #1: These new shows on Nick are awful!
GUY FROM THE FUTURE #2: I miss Wizards of Waverly Place!
GUY FROM THE FUTURE #1: Yeah, that was an awesome show! Selena Gomez was the greatest actress there. But now, all the new shows are too kiddy because of all the soccer moms!
GUY FROM THE FUTURE #2: Wanna rant some more!?
GUY FROM THE FUTURE #1: Yeah!
ALL TOGETHER: RANT! RANT! RANT! RANT! RANT! RANT! RANT! RANT!I honestly see that happening. :sweat:

[tucsoncoyote]

Actually I'm neither against nor for having all live action on Disney Channel, but I feel that it shouldn't be solely the entire channel. There should be a blanace of animation AND Live action but something that doesn't just cater to one demographic (Namely the 9-14 year old girls). Disney Channel should be about family first and foremost and that animation should be able to be enjoyed not just by the 9-14 year old girls either. The live action formula they have partially right, but since the shows only cater to 9-14 year old girls it's really a shame I can't really enjoy Disney for It's animation.

Now granted the live action of the 1950's was classical material but Disney has forgotten it altogether (I've still yet to see Disney turn out a classic Zorro DVD (with the late Guy Williams). But like I have always stated Disney Channel itself should be about a harmony of both animation AND Live action, Not a cacophony of either one or the other.

This is really what Disney Channel is missing. Namely a balance, and it's this lack of balance that has existed in just the last year. Imagine what will happen when it's all live action and none in terlevision animation. Then the spiral of Disney Channel will be more of a death spiral.

So until balance can be restored where Disney Channel is both Live action And Animation in harmonious balance, then it's off my channel watching for the time to come.. Of course this all goes against Walt's idea of bringing families together. Rather, it's tearing them apart.

:coyote:

[Dr.Pepper]

Actually I'm neither against nor for having all live action on Disney Channel, but I feel that it shouldn't be solely the entire channel. There should be a blanace of animation AND Live action but something that doesn't just cater to one demographic (Namely the 9-14 year old girls). Disney Channel should be about family first and foremost and that animation should be able to be enjoyed not just by the 9-14 year old girls either. The live action formula they have partially right, but since the shows only cater to 9-14 year old girls it's really a shame I can't really enjoy Disney for It's animation.
I totally agree

[Darklordavaitor]

(I've still yet to see Disney turn out a classic Zorro DVD (with the late Guy Williams).
Actually, the first season is available... through Disney Movie Rewards. But a Zorro set is actually planned to come out in the next Disney Treasures Collection. Probably not a full season, but it's a start.

[Jave]

People always seem to forget that the very first thing Disney made were the Alice shorts, which were live-action with animation blended in.

They've been doing live-action since day one, guys.

[creativerealms]

Disney has not been all animation for a long time probably for longer then most of our lives. Really it's not like this is a new thing at all. However Do I think that Animation should have a larger part in current Disney then it does.

[SycrosD4]

Phineas & Ferb is win.

[Ed Liu]

Actually I'm neither against nor for having all live action on Disney Channel, but I feel that it shouldn't be solely the entire channel. There should be a blanace of animation AND Live action but something that doesn't just cater to one demographic (Namely the 9-14 year old girls).
I think the shows, first and foremost, shouldn't suck. If they suck, I'd actually prefer that they're live-action because tons of things will get blamed on the fact that it's a cartoon instead of the fact that it sucked. Low ratings? Must mean nobody wants to watch animation. Only boys watch it? Girls must not want to watch cartoons. It's immature? Must be because cartoons are for kids. We all know this is bogus, but Hollywood lives, sleeps, eats, and breathes on denial.

Beyond that, I don't think that there should be an inherent bias for or against producing programming because of the accident of its medium. If Disney imposed a quota that half their Disney Channel programming had to be animated, that's no guarantee that we wouldn't essentially get an animated version of Suite Life or whatever that sucked just as badly.

My major beef with the tweencoms that seem to dominate isn't that they're live action or that they're popular with one demographic over another. It's that they're terrible shows.

[Silverstar]

Low ratings? Must mean nobody wants to watch animation. Only boys watch it? Girls must not want to watch cartoons. It's immature? Must be because cartoons are for kids. We all know this is bogus, but Hollywood lives, sleeps, eats, and breathes on denial.

This is SO sig-worthy.

[tb4000]

I think the shows, first and foremost, shouldn't suck. If they suck, I'd actually prefer that they're live-action because tons of things will get blamed on the fact that it's a cartoon instead of the fact that it sucked. Low ratings? Must mean nobody wants to watch animation. Only boys watch it? Girls must not want to watch cartoons. It's immature? Must be because cartoons are for kids. We all know this is bogus, but Hollywood lives, sleeps, eats, and breathes on denial.

Beyond that, I don't think that there should be an inherent bias for or against producing programming because of the accident of its medium. If Disney imposed a quota that half their Disney Channel programming had to be animated, that's no guarantee that we wouldn't essentially get an animated version of Suite Life or whatever that sucked just as badly.

My major beef with the tweencoms that seem to dominate isn't that they're live action or that they're popular with one demographic over another. It's that they're terrible shows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Correll#Producer

I believe this is the man we have to thank for that.

[Justy]

My major beef with the tweencoms that seem to dominate isn't that they're live action or that they're popular with one demographic over another. It's that they're terrible shows.I've often been struck with the thought that, if they were made as animated shows, particularly Wizards of Waverly Place, most of their live action shows would be better....

[DeanBurrito25]

Yes, they should. Hopefully with the release of The Princes and the Frog this year, it will be a huge hit, and Disney wil indeed go back to 2D hand drawn animation instead of those lame CGI films. (That's what Pixar is for. :sweat:)

[Silverstar]

Yes, they should. Hopefully with the release of The Princes and the Frog this year, it will be a huge hit, and Disney wil indeed go back to 2D hand drawn animation instead of those lame CGI films. (That's what Pixar is for. :sweat:)

CGI is animation, and whether a film is hand-drawn or not is not automatically an indication of its' quality. There are as many good CG animated films as there are bad hand-drawn animated films.

Also, Disney hasn't abandoned hand-drawn animation. The Princess and the Frog, Rapunzel, Phineas & Ferb, The Repalcements and Jimmy Two-Shoes are all proof of that.

[Dudley]

Also, Disney hasn't abandoned hand-drawn animation. The Princess and the Frog, Rapunzel, Phineas & Ferb, The Repalcements and Jimmy Two-Shoes are all proof of that.

Actually, Rapunzel is going to be CG, and Jimmy Two-Shoes isn't even produced by Disney.

[Phineas77]

Since reading all of the responses on this thread, I am not sure. I would say that I REALLY like the animation aspect of the Disney shows.......I always liked the animated shows, in fact. With regards to live action, if the show is good, it should stay. Disney, I always thought, was the best with animation compared to live action.

[Baltofan]

OK guys!

I was just joking! :D

[Silverstar]

Since reading all of the responses on this thread, I am not sure. I would say that I REALLY like the animation aspect of the Disney shows.......I always liked the animated shows, in fact. With regards to live action, if the show is good, it should stay. Disney, I always thought, was the best with animation compared to live action.

There's nothing to decide; Disney has always done both animation and live-action, and they're always going to do both.

[Phineas77]

There's nothing to decide; Disney has always done both animation and live-action, and they're always going to do both.Some of thier live action shows are doing rather well, but even then, I like the animated shows and cartoons better.

[ManeFested]

For Disney to surpass Nickelodeon as the #1 top rated kids channel, I think they need to do more animation.

The live action shows are good, for the most part, but you can do more creative things with animation. Spongebob for example is on its 10th year. I see Phineas and Ferb doing this because of all the promotion Disney gives it.

Disney should really try to replace Kim Possible and Jake Long, 2 great shows. I really think Disney should stop doing Playhouse Disney for so long on Sat and Sun. Fill these time slots with cartoons since Saturday morning cartoons are on the decline. Disney can bring anything back to life

[chdr]

For Disney to surpass Nickelodeon as the #1 top rated kids channel, I think they need to do more animation.

The live action shows are good, for the most part, but you can do more creative things with animation. Spongebob for example is on its 10th year. I see Phineas and Ferb doing this because of all the promotion Disney gives it.

Disney should really try to replace Kim Possible and Jake Long, 2 great shows. I really think Disney should stop doing Playhouse Disney for so long on Sat and Sun. Fill these time slots with cartoons since Saturday morning cartoons are on the decline. Disney can bring anything back to lifeRealistically, kids don't care about the medium a show is produced in, as long as it's good.

And Saturday mornings are dead. The only reason networks even aired them at that time was because they didn't have the will nor the space to air cartoons and kids shows during primetime.

[Yash]

All I expect of Disney is the ability to innovate and create new stories that can be enjoyed by generations to come.

Whether that's done through live action, traditional animation, CGI, et cetera. I hope that kids in 2029 will be able to enjoy The Princess and the Frog as much as kids in 2009 will.

[The Cartoon]

I think they should stick mostly too it but they need a little bit of Live Action. Disney is well-known for their animation but if that was all they did, Mary Poppins would have never happened. I do think that Dinsey Channel should have a lot more Animation and much less Live Action. I would love to be able to watch classic Disney shorts more often.