Interestingly, Lady and the Tramp was released in 1955. Many of the 'timeless classics' are timeless because...well, they're timeless. I first saw Lady and the Tramp in theatre I think, and that was in the 80's. Until Wikipedia, I thought it was *from* the 80's. Pretty much every animated movie Disney's made since the early 80's has been...very not timeless. (Surprise surprise, Micheal Eisner took over as head of Disney in the mid-80's)
He took over in 1984, and the last of the timeless classics (In my mind at least), was...Probably the Fox and the Hound, in 1981. In 1985, The Black Cauldron was released, and, while it wasn't bad, I doubt anybody really remembers it anymore. Has it even been re-released since then?
In 1989 they had a brief return with the Little Mermaid, but it sank back into the mire of Eisnerdom, resurfacing 14 years later with Lilo and Stitch. They haven't yet recovered from being Eisner'd, with everything since then being 3D animated and suffering from Dreamworks Disease (Also known as Shrek Syndrome, the need to put overly humorous and pop-culture-reference-heavy spins on fairy tales and other public domain sources).
The only films they've produced since the early 80's that were of any real quality or lasting...ness... weren't made by them at all, but wholly subcontracted or just dubbed by them (Pixar's work and Studio Ghibli)
It's such a sad state...Oddly, their TV shows have actually been pretty good in the years that their movie studio's declined...I guess everyone jumped ship when Eisner took over for something that was beneath his notice since it didn't have the potential to bring in billions.
Your right the 'timeless classics' are timeless. Not to mention impacting considering that they had far less to work with than at present. I first timeless classic I had the privilege to see was Sleeping Beauty which come out in 1959, back in 1987. And at that time I was only 2 years old. If that impressionable I'm not sure what is.
As far as their TV shows go I have to say I liked "Gargoyles". Maybe because it was a kids show yet it borderline what we call "TVPG". Or maybe it was the constantly developing story that was better than a lot of live action dramas.
But in the end I guess all we could do is just not watch the new stuff or watch it and ask, "God damn it Eisner! What the hell?!" They're both doable.
How many of the movies were based off other stories? IO know quite a few of them were, since I've heard Walt Disney being described as an early fan-fic writer.
JakeBob said: How many of the movies were based off other stories? IO know quite a few of them were, since I've heard Walt Disney being described as an early fan-fic writer.
Sleeping Beauty, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, The little Mermaid, The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, Pinocchio, Cinderella, Peter Pan, 20,000 Leagues under the Sea, Old Yeller, Swiss Family Robinson, Robin Hood, The Sword in the Stone, The Three Musketeers, Tom Sawyer, James and the Giant Peach, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Tarzan, and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. I know these are because I've read every single one of them (yes I read too much), although I'm pretty sure this isn't even half of what is in the "vault". I'll tell you one thing though. Not all the books I've listed have a "happy ending" like in their movie counterparts.
Well, the animated movies based on existing stories made while Walt was alive were...
Snow White, Pinocchio, Ichabod and Mr. Toad (I think), Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, Sleeping Beauty, and the Sword in the Stone.
Since then, they've added...
Jungle Book, Robin Hood, Winnie the Pooh, Fox and the Hound, Great Mouse Detective (Slightly debatable, but let's include it), Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Lion King (Ooo, that'll start a war.) Pocohantas, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, Mulan, Tarzan, Atlantis: The Lost Empire, Treasure Planet, Chicken Little, Princess and the Frog, and soon, Tangled.
Since Eisner took over, Disney's churned out a movie a year, factory-style, and it shows.