Disney's The Lion King

The Lion King is probably the most beloved Disney film of my generation. When I saw the movie in theaters again for the 3-D release, everyone was going nuts during the whole movie. There was laughter, crying, and all around awe of seeing a classic put back on the big screen. There's just something about this movie that makes it so appealing to everyone. The characters, the songs, the overall story; it's just perfect. It came out at the perfect time, too. I was just nine years old and distinctly remember going to school and seeing every kid with a Lion King backpack, a Lion King lunchbox, and even Lion King folders and pencils. We even watched it at school when it came out on video in early 1995. I remember begging my parents to buy the movie when it came out on VHS. This movie was the coolest. I even had the Sega Genesis game that came out a little while after. I still feel bad for kids these days. They don't have the luxury that my generation had, growing up with outstanding animated films from Disney. Sure, Tangled and The Princess and the Frog have gotten Disney back on track, but for awhile there, kids had Home on the Range, Chicken Little, and Brother Bear. Yuck.

Disney's biggest hit of all time was first thought up when Disney was on its way to promote Oliver & Company in Europe. Katzenberg, Roy Disney, and Peter Schneider were on a plane going over the pond when the idea of a movie set in Africa came up. Katzenberg loved the idea and they started coming up with ideas for this film. Thomas Schumacher, the producer of The Rescuers Down Under, immediately latched onto the project "because lions are cool." Katzenberg put his ideas into it, basically putting in parts of his own life story. He wanted the movie to be about coming of age and death and mirror some of the events of his own life, especially his life in politics. The earliest draft of the story was penned by The Brave Little Toaster author, Thomas Disch, with the story being called King of the Kalahari. Linda Woolverton spent a year writing up a script and the name changed from King of the Kalahari, to King of the Beasts and King of the Jungle. Woolverton's story was a little bit different from the one we know today. "The plot was centered in a battle being between lions and baboons with Scar being the leader of the baboons, Rafiki being a cheetah, and Timon and Pumbaa being Simba's childhood friends. Simba would also not leave the kingdom, but become a 'lazy, slovenly, horrible character' due to manipulations from Scar, so Simba could be overthrown after coming of age." Yep. That sounds like a winner.

Directors and producers came and went and tried to retool the story, and it wasn't til Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff became the directors and Don Hahn the producer that things really took off. In two weeks they came up with a new story which had a better central theme, something Hahn felt was missing from the first draft. Along the way they realized that they could not call the movie, King of the Jungle. Why? Because lions do not live in the jungle but the savannah. The title was then changed to The Lion King. The Lion King became the first Disney animated film that wasn't directly based off something (sort of). The filmmakers claimed that the story was inspired by the story of Jospeh and Moses in the Bible and William Shakespeare's Hamlet. Now, the Hamlet one I can see in the story, but the story of Joseph and Moses is a little harder to pick out. Rewrites continued to be made, namely making Timon, Pumbaa, and the hyenas more comic characters. Once the filmmakers teamed up with Tim Rice, who had done the songs for Aladdin along with Alan Menken, they had a real production coming together.

Part of what makes this movie so great is the voice actors. It's funny because for some reason I could recognize a bunch of the voices even at my young age. Mufasa was Darth Vader, young Simba was Randy from Home Improvement, grown up Simba was Ferris Bueller, Zazu was Mr. Bean, and Shenzi was Sister Mary Clarence. I didn't know their real names at the time, just their other character's names. Well, maybe Jonathan Taylor Thomas, because every kid knew who he was. James Earl Jones is Mufasa to me. Sure he was Darth Vader but when I hear his voice, I immediately go back to Mufasa. Other well known actors that did voice roles: Nathan Lane as Timon, Jeremy Irons as Scar, Cheech Marin as Banzai, and Jim Cummings as Ed. Nathan Lane had originally auditioned for Zazu while Ernie Sabella, who voiced Pumbaa, auditioned for one of the hyenas. They ended up meeting at the recording studio, and being current co-stars in a production of Guys and Dolls, wanted to audition together for parts as the hyenas. The did so well together that Disney instead decided to cast them as Timon and Pumbaa. Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong were meant to play the hyenas but Chong was unavailable so they made the second hyena a girl and gave the part to Whoopi Goldberg.

Production on The Lion King started concurrently with Pocahontas and many of the animators wanted to work on Pocahontas because they felt that it was the more prestigious of the two. Even the story artists were hesitant to work on The Lion King because some felt that "the story wasn't very good." It's funny when people are proven wrong on a monumental scale. As it turns out, most of the animators for The Lion King were doing main characters for the first time. In the end, over 600 animators contributed to animating The Lion King. Disney harkened back to Bambi and many of their other realistic animal movies by bringing in live representations. Lions and other savannah animals were brought to the studios for inspiration with a trainer explaining each animals mannerisms. Part of the production team even went to Hell's Gate National Park to help give them a feel for what their backgrounds and environment should look like. The Pride Lands are modeled after the park. One of the most tedious parts of the animation process for the film was the wildebeest stampede. "Several distinct wildebeest characters were created in a 3D computer program, multiplied into hundreds cel shaded to look like drawn animation, and given randomized paths down a mountainside to simulate the real, unpredictable movement of a herd. Five specially trained animators and technicians spent more than two years creating the two-and-a-half minute stampede sequence." Yeah, its a good thing this film didn't bomb.

The Lion King was released on June 24th, 1994 to rave reviews. Most praised the story along with the superb animation. Then you had others who compared it to other Disney films and felt it didn't match up. Namely Siskel and Ebert, who felt that Beauty and the Beast was a better film, and that The Lion King was just a good film. What can I say, you can't make everyone happy, and it's hard when you release a string of extremely good movies. Someone's going to complain that one is weaker than the other. Critically, The Lion King is considered one of the best animated films of all time. It didn't do that bad in the box office either. With foreign grosses added in, the film made $772.6 million in its first run. With the re-releases, it's up to $951 million. It still stands as the highest grossing traditionally animated film of all time with The Simpsons Movie behind it. The Lion King also went on to win a Golden Globe for Best Picture for a Musical or Comedy and Best Original Score. It also won Best Original Score and Best Original Song (Can You Feel the Love Tonight by Elton John) at the Academy Awards. So, I guess The Lion King did pretty well for itself. Did I mention it's also a smash hit as a Broadway musical?

Like every Disney movie in the 90's, there seems to be a little bit of controversy connected to the movie. The Lion King actually has two, and they are both very entertaining. The first claim is that The Lion King is one big rip off of Kimba the White Lion, a 60's anime TV show from Japan. Similarities include: The name of the title character, certain scenes being the exact same, and similar characters and situations. Matthew Broderick thought he was auditioning for a remake of the Japanese TV show, as he was familiar with it beforehand. Disney has officially said that all similarities are coincidental. Yoshihiro Shimizu, of Tezuka Productions, who created Kimba the White Lion, has refuted claims that Disney paid him and Tezuka Productions to use their ideas for the movie. He also explains the reason why he and Tezuka Productions has not tried to sue Disney: "we're a small, weak company. It wouldn't be worth it anyway... Disney's lawyers are among the top twenty in the world!" I have not personally seen any episodes of Kimba so I can't weigh in on this one but I'm sure there are scenes on YouTube if you are curious. The second claim against the movie is a sexual one. Remember the scene where Simba doesn't know what to do and flops down on that cliff and a bunch of leaves fly up? Well, as it turns out, the leaves form the word SEX, or at least that's what it looks like to a lot of people. As it turns out, it spells out SFX, a common abbreviation for special effects. It was intended as a innocent signature from the effects team and nothing more.

The Lion King is still one of my all around favorite Disney films, ranking up there with Aladdin, Hercules, and many of the classic films of the 40's and 50's. It's got one of the best openings of any animated film, some of the best and most catchy songs, and even some of the best characters. Who doesn't love Timon and Pumbaa? And for that matter, Ed? Who hasn't found themselves singing "I've Got a Lovely Bunch of Coconuts" or "Hakuna Matata?" If you didn't get to see the film again in 3-D, pop it in your VCR/DVD/Blu-ray player and prepare to be taken back to Elementary School.

Disney's Aladdin

We've finally made it to one of my favorite Disney movies of all time (the other being Hercules). This film was the first one that I saw more than once in theaters. For me as a child, that was huge. It had great songs, funny lines, larger than life characters, and a big snake that scared the crap out of me (I made a vow not to call any bully a snake, as I feared they would in turn say, "lets see how snake like I can be!" and proceed to morph into my worst nightmare. I had a very active imagination). Though something that stuck with me after watching it those two times, more than the songs and characters, was the ultimate moral of the story: be yourself and everything will be fine. Aladdin tried, through a mystical being, to change himself into what he thought would be acceptable to others, when in the end, he was accepted more for being himself. In fact, the princess Jasmine doesn't quite fall completely in love with Aladdin until the truth comes out about his real character. Besides the overarching moral, the movie struck on the very real struggle with feeling trapped. Aladdin was trapped in what he perceived as an inescapable life as a "street rat." Jasmine was trapped in her life as a princess, unable to do what she really wanted in life. Genie was trapped not really by a situation so much as a responsibility to the lamp, tethered to it until someone wished his freedom. Even Jafar was trapped in his role as the royal vizier, doing the sultan's bidding. The movie showed that even though you may feel trapped by your current situation, there is a way out, as long as you get out the right way.

This movie wouldn't of been possible had it not been for Howard Ashman, the lyricist that had worked on The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast. Ashman, way back in 1988, pitched the idea of doing a musical adaptation of the story of Aladdin. There was a little bit of interest, so he and fellow lyricist Alan Menken started to write songs for their proposed Arabian Nights adaptation. Linda Wooverton eventually hashed out a screenplay and even The Little Mermaid's directors, Ron Clements and John Musker signed on to direct. The directors had the choice between three projects, the others being Swan Lake and King of the Jungle, and they picked Aladdin (I'll give you one guess what King of the Jungle eventually turned into). Musker and Clements worked on the screenplay and eventually handed it in to Jeffrey Katzenberg. Katzenberg looked it over and determined that it "didn't engage." Katzenberg did eventually greenlight the production, but it was only after the screenwriting duo of Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio rewrote it. Clements and Musker, along with everyone that had worked for quite a long time on the storyboards and screenplay affectionately called the period during the rewrite as "Black Friday."

Many things were thrown out of the first draft, namely about characters and not about plot. Aladdin, who was modeled after Michael J. Fox was changed into more of a Tom Cruise looking character with a rougher attitude like a young Harrison Ford. Katzenberg stated that in no concievable world would Jasmine be interested in Aladdin if he was a Michael J. Fox type character. He remarked that what they had was Julia Roberts and Michael J. Fox, which doesn't work. What they needed was Julia Roberts and Tom Cruse. The crew still didn't want Aladdin to be a big buff looking idiot, so they made him just a big older and athletic looking. They wanted to retain the boy like charm that was going to make the character likeable. Jasmine's character was also changed, becoming a stronger and more bold character. I figure that after Beauty and the Beast, Disney couldn't bear to have a female lead be a passive damsel in distress like they had in the past. Iago, initially meant to be a proper, British accented bird, was changed after the crew had seen Beverly Hills Cop II and seen Gilbert Gottfried's performance. Iago would ultimately become a loud, annoying bird. Aladdin's mother was a big part of the original screenplay, but the new writers found her to be unnecessary, so Aladdin became an orphan. So sad. There were minor changes to the story however, as some plot points changed to be more like the 1940 film, The Thief of Baghdad.

The characters of Aladdin were, for the most part, all based off of work by caricaturist Al Hirschfeld (trust me, you've seen his work). The production designer Richard Vander Wende found the style appropriate, as it bared similarities to the swooping lines of Persian miniatures and Arabic calligraphy. I said almost all were, as Jafar was not, his supervising animator, Andreas Deja, wanted Jafar to be contrasting. You can see by the picture to the left that they kept each character design to a specific geometrical shape, keeping with a more caricaturist drawing. Each character was animated alone, with animators working together when scenes called for it. This proved difficult as some animators were in California, and some in Florida, so some animators like the ones for Aladdin and Jasmine had to keep faxing or sending designs to each other. In terms of broad animation, the layout was based off of the layout supervisor's hometown of Isfahan, Iran. Inspiration for the rest of the scenery came from old Disney movies from the 50's and 60's, plus the movie The Thief of Baghdad. Coloring of the cells was once again done by the CAPS process and computer animation was used in several scenes, namely the tiger's head of the Cave of Wonders and the Cave of Wonders escape scene.

Aladdin really has more of a star-studded cast than the last couple of films. Beauty and the Beast had Angela Lansbury and a bunch of people you've never heard of. The Rescuers Down Under had three fantastic actors that you've probably heard a little about from your parents. And The Little Mermaid had...well....Buddy Hackett. All recognizable to our parents, but not for us, unless your parents made you watch Murder, She Wrote. For the most part, Aladdin's voice cast was recognizable to its young audience. Gilbert Gottfried, who voiced Iago, was in Problem Child, which I had seen a bunch of times before Aladdin came out. Scott Weinger, who voiced Aladdin, was D.J.'s boyfriend Steve on Full House. Frank Welker, who voiced Abu and Raja, voiced Fred in Scooby Doo plus a bunch of other characters from our childhood. And of course everyone recognized Robin Williams providing the voice of Genie. Jim Cummings provided the voice of Razoul, the palace guard, whom you may remember as the voice of Pete in Goof Troop and Winnie the Pooh from...well everything with Winnie the Pooh in it since the early 80's. The one casting I find humorous is the one for Jafar. Jonathan Freeman (left), who provides Jafar's voice, doesn't look like he could conceivably make that voice come out of his mouth. In fact, Jafar's supervising animator (right) looks much more like he should be the voice of Jafar. I mean just look at him! He's got the facial hair and everything. Maybe I'm just crazy.

A little refresher for all those not privy on how animation works: the voice actors do their lines, then the crew animates it. If it went the other way, then you wouldn't of seen such a great performance from Robin Williams. Most of his lines were ad-libbed, which was extremely rare for animated pictures. The crew just gave him a subject to work around and let him loose. The crew ended up having to go through hours of material from Williams and taking out the parts that were funny enough, or on topic enough to make it into the film. Williams was actually pretty hesitant to do the film, though the genie part was written with him in mind the whole time. It wasn't until Clements and Musker put one of his stand up routines to the genie animation did Williams agree. Things did not end to well between Disney and Williams however. Because Good Morning, Vietnam had done so well, it being a Touchtone film which is owned by Disney, Williams agreed to do Aladdin for SAG(Screen Actors Guild) scale pay ($75,000). He had a few conditions however: that his name not be used for marketing and his character not taking up more than 25% of advertising artwork. Disney, for financial reasons went back on the deal on both counts. As a result, Disney and Williams had a bitter falling out and Robins refused to do anything Disney. So, you can blame Disney for Williams not voicing Genie in Return of Jafar or the Aladdin TV series. After Katzenberg left however, the new president Joe Roth issued a public apology to Williams. Thus, Williams did provide the voice of Genie in the second Aladdin sequel, King of Theives, for considerably more than scale. Dan Casteleneta, who you may know as the voice of Homer on The Simpsons provided the voiced of Genie in Return of Jafar and the TV series. Castellaneta did all the voice work for Genie in King of Thieves, but after Williams agreed to do the film they erased all of Castellaneta's voice track. Don't feel too bad for Castellaneta as I'm sure he got paid for his work and I'm pretty sure he gets a pretty penny for doing The Simpsons.

The original story of Aladdin comes from Aladdin and the Magic Lamp, one of the tales in The Book of One Thousand and One Arabian Nights. In the story, Aladdin lives in China as a young impoverished boy. Aladdin is tricked into following a sorcerer around since the guy claims to be his dad's brother. The sorcerer claims that he is going to take Aladdin away to make him into a wealthy merchant. Aladdin's mother falls for it and lets him go. The sorcerer's real motive however is to have Aladdin go into a magic cave of wonders full of booby-traps to retrieve a wonderful oil lamp. Aladdin finds out too late that he is being tricked and is trapped in the cave. Bummer. Luckily for Aladdin, the sorcerer unwittingly gave him a magic ring. When Aladdin happened to rub it for no conceivable reason, a genie sprang out of it. Carrying the lamp, Aladdin is whisked away back to his mother by the genie. His mother decides that she needs to clean that ruddy old lamp so she's going to rub it with some cloth. And of course a more powerful genie pops out of the lamp. I guess everything houses a genie in this story! Anyhoo, so Aladdin, without any limit to his wishes, becomes rich and powerful leading him to marry Princess Badroulbadour. Hmmm...OK from now on she is going to be referred to as Princess Bad.

The genie even builds Aladdin a palace more elegant and exquisite than the sultan's. The sorcerer's doesn't like that Aladdin's all rich and powerful now so he sets out to steal the lamp. He somehow gets to Princess Bad and convinces her to swap the magic lamp for a new one. Princess Bad doesn't know the significance of the lamp, because I guess she has been ignoring that big genie that her husbands been palling around with, and trades it away. I mean, really?! How would she not notice a genie building a palace?! That's it, her name is now Princess Brick, and for obvious reasons. The sorcerer orders the genie to take Aladdin's palace to his home in Maghreb. Aladdin, still having the magic ring, has the lesser genie take him to Maghreb, since the lesser genie cannot undue magic. Aladdin flies to Maghreb and totally gets Princess Brick and the lamp back. I'm not sure how, but I'm guessing that the story failed to mention that Aladdin was also a ninja. Oh, and Aladdin totally offs the sorcerer. Hey man, that's what happens when you mess with Aladdin. That's not the end however, as Princess Brick tries her hardest to screw everything up again. The sorcerer's older and more powerful brother seeks revenge, so he dresses like an old lady and tricks Princess Brick into letting him stay at the palace. Unfortunately for the guy, nobody told him about Aladdin having two genies. One of the genies tells Aladdin about the threat and Aladdin sneaks into the guys room and kills him ninja style, I would assume. Then Aladdin becomes sultan. The End. So, in summation, if you encounter a genie, the rest of your life will be cake.

The two stories are a bit different as you can tell. The book version is a little weird on the offset because it takes place in China and not in a Middle Eastern country like you would think. My only guess is that this is an alternate China where it is inhabited by Muslims instead of Buddhists and functions as an Islamic country. Also, the book version has a lot of annoying plot holes. Plot holes that make Aladdin seem invincible and the luckiest guy in the whole world. Disney realized that the original story's moral sucked. Ron Clements explains that, "the original story was sort of a winning the lottery kind of thing. When we got into it, particularly coming in at the end of 1980s, it seemed like an Eighties 'greed is good' movie. (...) Like having anything you could wish for would be the greatest thing in the world and having it taken away from you is bad, but having it back is great. We didn't really want that to be the message of the movie." Aladdin would of been a much different film if Aladdin literally got everything he wanted and there were no consequences. Instead, Aladdin only gets three wishes, two out of the three don't really bring him any happiness, and nobody actually likes him when he's pretending to be someone else. The only wish that does work out in the end is his decision to free the Genie and do something completely unselfish. Good job, Disney.

Aladdin premiered on November 13th, 1992 and didn't get a wide release until the 25th. It did reasonably well over its first weekend by grossing a little over $19 million, coming in second under Home Alone 2. With that competition, it didn't reach number one until eight weeks later. It hit number one five times during its twenty-two week run and ended up grossing $217 million domestically and over $500 million worldwide. It was then the highest grossing animated film of all time, and highest grossing film of 1992. It would later be beaten by The Lion King for highest gross for a traditionally animated film. It is now third behind The Lion King and The Simpson's Movie. Most critics praised Robin Williams' performance and the movie as a whole. Legendary animator Chuck Jones even called it "the funniest feature ever made." Aladdin is widely loved by critics and audiences but it is not without its detractors. Some found the characters to be too bland and just cookie-cutter characters. Roger Ebert praised the movie, but said its musical numbers were not as good as The Little Mermaid's and Beauty and the Beast's and that Aladdin and Jasmine were pale and routine.

Aladdin is also not without controversy. Though we may not have given the line a second thought as children, our parents probably thought the line, "where they cut off your ear if they don't like your face," was pretty odd and just a bit racist. The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee lobbied Disney to have the lyrics changed and all releases now have the line, "Where its flat and immense and the heat is intense." Animation fans have also pointed out the similarities between Aladdin and the long suffering production of The Thief and the Cobbler. Though The Thief and the Cobbler came out after Aladdin, it had been in production since the 60's and many find that some ideas and characters were lifted from the stalled production. Since The Thief and the Cobbler came out after Aladdin, it has now been labelled a poor copy of Aladdin, which is really too bad because the movie is really quite good. Some of you may have seen The Thief and the Cobbler when you were young, but don't know the messy history behind the animated masterpiece that was to be director Richard William's Magnum Opus. I'll get to the story here eventually, as I have to get through all these Disney films first. Next up is everyone's favorite, The Lion King!

Disney's Beauty and the Beast

I can confidently say that this was in fact the first Disney movie I saw in theaters. I remember entering a contest at the old Brighton movie theater and winning a big Beauty and the Beast gift basket. I was seven, and a boy, so I decided that my sister would like it better. For me, Beauty and the Beast has been something that has taken a while to grow on me. I'm sure I found it entertaining as a child, but in essence I found it to be more of a girl's movie, so I didn't watch it that many times. Same with The Little Mermaid. Those were my sister's favorites, not mine. I would have rather watched Aladdin or Hercules. That being said, it's much higher on my list now that I'm older. I may not of seen it when I was younger, but Beauty and the Beast is very much a masterpiece of storytelling. I'm not the only one who thinks so either, as evidenced by it's nomination for Best Picture at the Oscars in 1992. Whether you think it's a girl's movie or not, you have to admit that it's a great piece of film. I can guarantee that everyone in my generation has at least seen it once in their lives and can recount a funny scene or sing one of its many songs. I think it's up there with The Lion King in the nostalgia department.

Beauty and the Beast was yet another idea that Walt wanted to do in the early days of his full length motion pictures. Attempts to actually make the film in the 30's and 50's didn't pan out since they writers couldn't come up with a good enough draft. It's also thought that Disney was discouraged from making it in the 50's, as Jean Cocteau had just released a film version in 1947. Thanks a lot, France! After the success of Who Framed Roger Rabbit however, Disney decided to give it another go. The first thing that makes Beauty and the Beast different from its predecessors is that it was made through a script instead of storyboards. So, it was written like any old live action movie by having a screenplay. Because of this fact, Beauty and the Beast has an unusual amount of writers. One might say that too many cooks would ruin the recipe, but as we have all found out, that wasn't the case for this movie. On seeing the original story in 1989, Jeffrey Katzenberg hated it so much that he ordered the process to be completely redone. Kirk Wise and Gary Trousdale were hired on to direct the film, though the only thing they had ever directed was Cranium Command, a ride in EPCOT. Ron Clements and John Musker were asked to direct, but declined since they had just finished with The Little Mermaid and wanted a rest. Katzenberg wanted to make Beauty and the Beast a Broadway musical type performance, much in the same vein as The Little Mermaid, so he asked Mermaid's songwriter Alan Menken and other songwriter Howard Ashman to develop the music. Ashman, just learning that he was dying of AIDS, was reluctant to join the struggling production team, especially since he was already working on Disney's pet project, Aladdin. He ultimately decided to sign on, but due to his health, all pre-production had to be moved to his home in New York. Disney was finally on its way to delivering another hit. Now they just had to get a decent script made.

The original story of Beauty and the Beast basically just has the two eponymous characters, which wasn't really working out for Disney's version. They wanted to find a way to brighten up the gloomy story and make it fun to watch for the whole family. They decided the best way was to add a whole bunch of characters. The biggest additions were the household items that talked, and an actual villain in Gaston. The household items would function as the comedy relief for the somewhat dark tale, and Gaston would provide the suspense and pig-headed charm. This, unfortunately, was not pure genius dreamed up by the Disney writers, but a borrowing of ideas from the French film of 47', which had a oafish suitor and inanimate objects that come to life in the castle. The characters however, were given a life of their own and were apparently good enough to have the script accepted by Katzenberg in 1990. The production team started on the storyboards and had to fly back and forth from California to New York to have Ashman OK each one, though they were in the dark as to why.

Unfortunately for the production team, the film had to be done in two years instead of the usual four thanks to the two years wasted on the original script. Though the movie may have been rushed, the product came out exceptionally well. Beauty and the Beast is the second film to use the CAPS digital scanning, inking, painting, and compositing system of software developed for Disney by Pixar. Not only did the software allow the production team to cut a lot of time out on animation, but also added color, depth, and multiplane effects. Computer animation was not used extensively in the film, mostly taking place in the ballroom scene. This scene however, led many executives to jump on the computer animation bandwagon.

The music sequences went through a few changes throughout production. "Be Our Guest" was originally supposed to have the household objects singing to Maurice, Belle's father, instead of Belle herself. One of the story artists suggested that it would make more sense for Belle to be the recipient of the song and the directors had the sequence redone. "Human Again," which was a song sung by the household objects about what it will be like when they are back to normal, was written and recorded, but ultimately scrapped since it caused story problems about the timeline over which the story takes place. Menken and Ashman thus had to come up with a replacement song. "Something There" became that replacement song, one sung by Belle and the Beast on their growing affection for each other. This was added very late in the game and to save on time they made it a voice-over song. "Human Again" was later revised by Menken and used in the Broadway version of the musical and was included on the 2002 DVD release of the animated film. During pre-production, Ashman succumbed to his illness and passed away eight months before the film was released and before the film was even finished. Ashman's work on Aladdin had to be picked up by another songwriter, Tim Rice. Beauty and the Beast was dedicated to Ashman's memory.

Beauty and the Beast, AKA La Belle et la Bete, was written by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneve in 1740. The better known version was written a few years later by Jean-Marie Le Prince de Beaumont. Geez these French people have long names! Beaumont's version goes like this: There once was a man who had three daughters. The man was very wealthy and gave his daughters all they desired. The most beautiful and unselfish of the daughters was the youngest, named Belle. One day, the father learns that his fortune is gone since all of his ships were destroyed in a tempest, or a very big storm. The family is forced to move into a small cottage and all work to stay alive. The father then learns that one of his ships did in fact make it out of the storm and was arriving at a nearby port. Before the father set out, he asked his daughters if they desired a gift that he could bring back to them. The first two daughters, thinking that their father's riches had returned, asked for jewelry and expensive clothes. Belle asked for something far less extravagant: a simple rose, as they didn't grow in the area they lived. The father set out and arrived at the port, only to find that all his belongings and goods had been used to pay off his debts. He was basically no better off than he started. He relented that he was not able to buy his daughters their gifts but started on his way home. He, of course, got lost along the way and wandered into a majestic palace. There he found a large feast laid out. He assumed it was a gift from the non-present owner. He partook of the feast and then took a nap. When he woke, he went off again, but not before he took the lowliest rose out of the mysterious owner's rose garden.

Suddenly a beast appeared and scolded the man for taking one of his most prized possessions after he had gave him such a feast and hospitality. The beast is about the kill the poor father until the father explains that it was only a gift for his youngest daughter. The beast spares him, but tells him that the father, or the youngest daughter must come to palace and live there with the beast for the rest of their days. The father agrees and receives not only the rose for Belle, but the jewelry and expensive clothing for the other daughters. He returns home and gives the daughters their gifts, but Belle notices that something is troubling her father. He reveals his predicament and Belle volunteers to go to the palace in her father's place. She arrives at the palace and is received graciously by the beast who tells her that he is her servant from now one. The beast gave her all that he had to give and talked with her every day. Each night, he would ask her to marry him, but Belle would refuse. Each night, Belle would have odd dreams of a handsome prince asking Belle why she keeps refusing the Beast's proposal. Each time Belle responds that she only loves the beast as a friend. What guy hasn't heard that one before? Belle lives with the beast for several months, never connecting the beast with the prince in her dreams. She eventually gets extremely homesick and asks if she can go home. The beast relents, but asks her to come back to him in a week's time. She agrees and the beast gives her a mirror and a ring. The mirror will allow her to see the beast at any time, and the ring, when turned three times, will take her back to the palace instantly. She is welcomed back home by her family with much joy, but her sisters see how well fed and happy she is. They become incredibly jealous and decide they want to ruin everything for Belle. Knowing that Belle has only the week to spend with them, they attempt to have her say longer so hopefully the beast will become angry and gobble her up. They rub onions on their eyes to make it appear as if they are crying and beg Belle to stay just one more day. Belle is moved by her sister's (un)genuine feelings and stays an extra day. The next day, Belle checks on the beast with her mirror only to discover that the beast is dying from a broken heart by the rosebushes where the rose was taken. She uses the ring to get back to the palace and tries to save the beast. She weeps over the dying beast and tells him that she loves him. One of Belle's tears falls on the beast and he magically turns into the handsome prince that she recognizes from her dream. They get married and they live happily ever after. A lot of similarities between the two versions, though characters are omitted from each one. The beast is portrayed different ways in the book versions, some as a scaly gremlin creature, some as a hairy boar or Bigfoot looking beast.

Beauty and the Beast was released in November, 1991 to universal praise. Many named the ballroom scene as the highlight of the movie along with the many musical numbers. Others praised the way that Disney attempted to undo the female stereotypes of their previous films by making Belle a smart, independent woman who didn't do housework the whole movie. I have still heard nitpickers complain about the abusive relationship side of the movie. Some claim that the movie supports the notion that women should stay with an abusive male, because eventually they will change and become the perfect man. I, for one don't think that was the message that Disney was trying to get across, so I think those people are just trying to find something wrong with a great film and great story. Beauty and the Beast even went on to do the unthinkable and be the first animated movie to be nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. It lost to Silence of the Lambs, but it's still a huge honor.

Beauty and the Beast has gone on to make 377 million overall, not counting the amount it's going to make with the 3-D release coming in January. Its also found an audience on Broadway, as it has become an extremely successful Broadway musical. Whether you love the movie for the characters, the story, or the songs, Beauty and the Beast is just Disney at its best and ranks up there with Snow White, The Lion King, and Bambi.

Disney's The Rescuers Down Under

"By nature I'm an experimenter. To this day, I don't believe in sequels. I can't follow popular cycles. I have to move on to new things" -Walt Disney

Perhaps Walt was turning in his cryogenically frozen pod when the Disney team finally developed a sequel for The Rescuers. As you can tell by the quote, Disney didn't very much like sequels and one can hardly blame him. In animation and in live action movies there seems to be a drop off point in quality after the original movie. There are rare exceptions like The Dark Knight and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, but for the most part there are stink burgers like Oceans 12, Spiderman III, and Grease II. Hollywood attempts to ruin perfectly good movies by adding unnecessary episodes to them, but was it this way with Disney? In my opinion, Disney has done this many times, with only a few exceptions. The three canon sequels, The Rescuers Down Under, Fantasia 2000, and Winnie the Pooh are all great. Disney knows which ones to release on video only and which ones to release in theaters. Though they have strayed away from releasing many sequels on the big screen, Disney has released a ton on video. Thirty-seven to be exact. I'll admit that I've only seen a few of these video sequels, but the ones I did see weren't terrible. Granted, they were the two Aladdin sequels and the sequel to Lion King. Lion King II was alright. Not up to par with the first one of course, but it was entertaining. Aladdin II and III were awesome films if I'm remembering them correctly. They were the first ones to be released as video sequels and it seemed that everyone had seen them. Since then however, Disney has released a sequel for basically every movie it's ever made. Since I haven't seen them, I cannot say that I know they are terrible, but from a general consensus and the number of petitions that people have started to ask Disney to stop making sequels makes me think they might be crummy. So Walt Disney may of had a point when he said numerous times that he wouldn't do sequels as long as he was alive. Some movies just work better on their own.

As evidenced by Oliver & Company, this wasn't the first time that Disney had tried to make a sequel out of The Rescuers. The movie had made a lot of money for the studio and they were convinced that people would come in droves to see the continuing adventures of Bernard and Bianca. When the Oliver & Company idea didn't work, they put the sequel idea away for a few years. After the amazing success of The Little Mermaid, perhaps the Disney head honchos felt they could afford to take a gamble and finally make a sequel. So they already had the main characters figured out, but what scenario would excite audiences? Anyone will tell you that one of the most important parts of the story is the setting. The setting determines a lot of what will happen in the story just for the fact that different environments cause different things to happen. So what setting should this Rescuers movie be in? They already did the South, and the city motif was rejected earlier. Then Disney remembered that a short time earlier, America had went through a love affair with all things Australia. After the release of Crocodile Dundee, America couldn't get enough of Australian culture. Disney didn't bother to check and see if the love was still there and determined that if the setting was in Australia, people would come and see it.

Since the technology wasn't up to par for The Little Mermaid, Disney couldn't release a film that was completely made digitally until this movie. The CAPS process, or Computer Animation Production System, made hand painted cels obsolete by digitally inking and painting cels. "The animators' drawings and the background paintings were scanned into computer systems instead, where the animation drawings are inked and painted by digital artists, and later combined with the scanned backgrounds in software that allows for camera positioning, camera movements, multiplane effects, and other techniques." This made production time a lot less. Disney could now churn out a movie a year like they wanted to since they had the technology. CGI was also present in the film, such as the opening field sequence, McLeach's truck, and the high flying sequences with Cody and Marahute, the golden eagle. In other words, this film looks awesome. The eagle scenes are incredible on the small screen, but I imagine they would be even better on the big screen. I honestly cannot remember if I saw this one in theaters. Even if I did go I doubt I paid much attention to how cool the animation looked. It was probably all, "Oooh! Big birdy!" and "Kangamaroos!" One thing that distinguishes this movie from the rest of the Disney Renaissance is the fact that it has no songs. I can't really blame Disney on this one, as I can't see where they would of fit them in.

The movie brings back the pair of Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor. It's fun to see them again in a movie, especially since that was Eva's last performance before she died in 1995. Helping Bernard and Bianca throughout the film is Jake the kangaroo rat, voiced by Australian native Tristan Rogers, and Wilber the albatross, voiced by the hilarious John Candy. In what I think is one of the best casting calls that Disney has ever made, they had the villain McLeach voiced by the gravelly voiced George C. Scott, best known for playing Patton in the eponymous movie. Scott was a hugely talented actor and he wasn't a slouch as a voice actor either. Though McLeach is not one of the more popular or well known Disney villains, he still steals the show throughout the movie. Here is a disclaimer for the rest of Disney movies that I will cover: Frank Welker does all the animal voices. By that I mean that any animal that is present and doesn't actually talk is voiced by Welker. I've mentioned him before but this man is the animal voice person. Any cartoon show or movie with animals in it that make a lot of noises, chances are that he's doing the sounds. He's been in everything. Seriously, check out his wikipedia page or imdb. He is probably best known for voicing Freddy on Scooby Doo, something he has done since the premiere in 1969. Welker does Marahute and Joanna the egg hungry goanna in this film. I watched the film the other day to refresh my memory on some of the storyline and realized that the nursemice sound an awful lot like Minnie Mouse. Turns out I was right, as they were voiced by Russi Taylor, the long time voice of Minnie Mouse and spouse of Wayne Allwine, who voiced Micky until his death in 2009. So yes, Mickey and Minnie were married in real life.

The Rescuers Down Under was released in fall of 1990 to an opening weekend box office earning of $3.5 million. That was way below expectations so Katzenberg decided to pull all advertising for the movie. While he probably saved some money by not paying for additional advertising, I can't help but wonder if the movie would have done better in the long run had he kept them. Without advertisment after it's release, the movie only went on to gross a measly $27 million with an additional $47 million from overseas. Nothing to sneeze at, but it ended up being the least profitable animated movie Disney released in the 1990's. Critics found the movie to be so-so. Roger Ebert found the movie to be fun to watch, especially the eagle flying scenes. Many critics hailed it as great animation and beautifully drawn. Others found the setting to be a little bit lame. As it turned out, America was done with the whole Australia craze by the time 1990 came around. Some critics argued that the story could have taken place anywhere and the Australian setting wasn't all that important to the underlying plot. Others claimed that the Rescuers were not in it enough, not coming in until a third of the way through the film and not doing anything to help the boy until the very end. This is all nitpicking and sour grapes if you ask me. I like the movie a lot and I got a lot of joy out of seeing it again. Wilbur is great comic relief throughout the movie and I found the love triangle to be fun to watch. Watch it again if you haven't seen it in awhile and you too will realize that not only is it a great movie, but also that Bernard technically kills McLeach in the end. That's right.....a mouse kills a dangerous poacher.

Disney's The Little Mermaid

Thanks to the commercial success of Oliver & Company and the Disney/Amblin film Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Disney was able to do what they proposed and start pumping out an animated film every year. Their first movie after Oliver & Company would be one that Disney had proposed very early on: The Little Mermaid. After Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs had wrapped, Disney was looking to make a package film that involved several of Hans Christian Anderson's tales. The Little Mermaid was to be one of them. This idea was eventually shelved for one reason or another and it collected dust until 1985. The Great Mouse Detective's co-director Ron Clements happened to be browsing a bookstore when he discovered a book of Hans Christian Anderson's Fairy Tales. This gave Clements an idea and he promptly wrote up a two page draft for The Little Mermaid. He presented it to CEO Michael Eisner and Walt Disney Studios chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg at a idea suggestion meeting. Eisner and Katzenberg passed on it, feeling the mermaid tale was too close to the sequel they were working on for the sequel to Splash. (Splash, Too did actually get made, but as a TV movie.) Katzenberg must have thought it over, as he greenlit the idea, along with Oliver & Company the very next day.

The staff started writing drafts of the story, making a few changes here and there and adding characters, when they stumbled on the original story ideas from the late 1930's by Kay Nielson. Incidentally, the changes the group from the 80's had made to the story were almost identical to the changes from the 30's script. Ron Clements and John Musker turned the two page story into a twenty pager, though had to set the thing down for a while, as the studio wanted to focus more on Who Framed Roger Rabbit and Oliver & Company, two movies that were happening in the nearer future. When production of the two films were complete, the two set out to find out exactly what kind of musical this was going to be. They turned to songwriter Howard Ashman, who had wrote the songs for Oliver & Company. Ashman, among other things, had Clarence, the English-butler crab turned into a Rastafarian Jamaican crab and shifted the music in the film to reflect this. In other words, you have Ashman to thank for "Under the Sea." At the same time, Katzenberg, Clements, Musker, and Ashman revised the story format to make it more like a broadway musical story structure, making the musical numbers the tent poles of the story. Ashman teamed up with Alan Menken, both of whom had written the music for the off-Broadway musical Little Shop of Horrors together, to write the entire score for The Little Mermaid.

Disney poured a ton of money into this movie. I think they knew they had something special on their hands. Besides the main animation studio in California, Disney had a satellite studio built inside of MGM Studios in Walt Disney World (Keep in mind that MGM Studios opened its doors to the public in 1989). This group of animators were tasked with animating the Roger Rabbit short that came before the movie and helping out with the ink and paint for the movie's animation. This was the last Disney film to use hand painted cels and analog camera and film work. In all there were over a million drawings done for the movie. The movie was to be the first to be completely digitally processed but the technology wasn't quite ready yet. The honor instead goes to Disney's next film, The Rescuers Down Under.

Ariel was based off Alyssa Milano, who at the time was on Who's The Boss? Something that had been gone since Walt Disney's leadership was the use of live-action references. Sherri Lynn Stoner was used for the live reference though less animators were privy on using live action references, insisting on using their own creativity. One animator was so dead set against it that he left the studio. A fun fact about Ariel's design is that the studio decided to make her a redhead so people wouldn't confuse her for Darryl Hannah's mermaid from Splash. For Ariel's voice they found Broadway actress Jodie Benson. Benson is now synonymous with Ariel, even voicing her for the video game series Kingdom Hearts. Benson also voiced Barbie in Toy Story 2 and 3. Ursula in turn was based on drag performer Divine. My younger audience and even my peers may not know who that is, but check out the movie Pink Flamingos if you're really curious. Pat Carrol ended up doing the voice for Ursula, but wasn't Clement's and Musker's first choice. The script was specifically written with Bea Arthur in mind for Ursula. Bea Arthur's TV show, The Golden Girls was owned by Disney, so Clements and Musker figured they could get her easy. She wasn't interested. Several other actresses were considered for the part, even Roseanne Barr. Ursula's personality in general was based off of Madame Medusa from The Rescuers. The Little Mermaid was not exactly thick with recognizable names. The most recognizable to me even now is Buddy Hackett, who voiced Scuttle the seagull. One funny thing about the voice actors is the fact that the Disney team hired Ben Wright to voice Prince Eric's butler but had no idea that he was a veteran of Disney films. Wright had to remind the people working on the film that he had voiced Roger in 101 Dalmatians. Other notable voice actors who did additional voices for the movie included Tim Curry, Mark Hamill, and Nancy Cartwright (she does the voice of Bart on The Simpsons).

Hans Christian Anderson's version of The Little Mermaid is just a bit different from Disney's. In Anderson's, the little mermaid is the youngest of the King's daughters but is basically looked after by her grandmother. When she turns 15, the little mermaid (she isn't called Ariel in the original story) is allowed to go up to see the land above the sea. While she is admiring the upper land from the sea she notices a prince on a boat from afar and instantly falls in love. A storm rolls up and sinks the boat however and the little mermaid saves him, pushing him on shore and watching over him until a girl happens upon him. The Prince incidentally does not see the little mermaid. After this episode, the little mermaid asks her grandmother about humans and if they live forever if they don't drown. Her grandmother responds that they live much shorter lives than merfolk (around 300 years) but human's live on through their souls which go up to heaven, whereas merfolk just turn into foam. Tough break for the merfolk. The little mermaid desires the prince and an eternal soul so she goes and visits the local Sea Witch. The Sea Witch gives her legs but in return, she takes her tongue, for the little mermaid had the most intoxicating voice in the world. The Sea Witch also warns that if she drinks the potion, she will never be able to go back to the sea and walking on her legs will feel like walking on sharp swords. In addition, she only gets a soul if she is able to get true love's first kiss and the Prince marries her, thus sharing his soul with her. However, if the Prince marries someone else, at dawn of that day, the little mermaid will die brokenhearted and turn into foam.

I know what you're all thinking: "How dumb could this girl be? There is no way she'll agree to that!" She does. Apparently having her true love is more important than being banished, stepping on invisible swords, and potentially turning into foam. Remember that she hasn't even interacted with him when he was conscious, so how does she even know that she is in love with him? I have a feeling this isn't going to turn out well. She drinks the potion and gains legs, quickly finding the Prince who is amazed at her beauty and is seemingly attracted to her though she cannot talk. The Prince likes most of all to see this mysterious new girl dance for him. The little mermaid dances for him, even though she feels as if she is dancing on daggers. Now that is commitment! The Prince's father tells him one day that he must marry the Princess from the neighboring kingdom, though the Prince confides in the little mermaid that he doesn't love the princess. He tells the little mermaid that the only one that he could marry would be the girl that saved him on the beach that day of the storm. Uh-oh....here we go. So, in a funny twist of fate, the girl that saved the Prince was actually the Princess who was in the area going to school at the temple near the beach. They arrange to be married, much to the little mermaid's chagrin. She realizes that this will be the end of her and she waits to turn into foam. Right before dawn however, one of her sisters gives her a knife that was given to her by Ursula in exchange for her long hair. She explains to the little mermaid that if she slays the Prince with the knife and has the blood drip on her legs, she will turn back into a mermaid and will avoid death. The little mermaid cannot bring herself to do it however and throws herself into the sea at dawn, becoming foam. Now, in the original ending, that's all that happens. The little mermaid dies and everyone learns a valuable lesson on making deals with Sea Witches. In the revised ending, the little mermaid becomes a daughter of the air, a kind of spirit after she dies. The other daughters of the air tell her that because she strove to get a soul, she is getting the chance to earn one. All she has to do is do good deeds for three hundred years and she'll be allowed in heaven. Can't tell which ending is worse? I can't either. Many criticized Anderson's changed ending and thought it too much of a "better do the right thing or you're going to hell" story that was meant to scare children into behaving. I personally like the movie much better.

As you know, Ariel doesn't die in the end of the movie, but wins Prince Eric's heart and with Eric, defeats Ursula. A much better ending in my opinion, but most fairy tales had weird depressing endings. The Little Mermaid is probably one of the most beloved Disney movies of my generation. Sure it's more directed towards girls, but I've always liked it and I know plenty of other guys that like the movie too. It doesn't matter who the lead role is, as long as the story and songs are really good. And this movie has some really good and catchy songs. Heck, "Under the Sea" won the Oscar for Best Song, so you know at least that song was fantastic. "Part Of Your World" was almost cut because Katzenberg thought it was too boring! The movie wouldn't be the same without it! There isn't much to hate about this movie. It's got a strong lead, a Jamaican crab and a flounder fish named....Flounder as sidekicks, a bird that doesn't know what a fork is, a menacing octopus with two really freaky eels, and a love interest that will run a boat into said menacing octopus for love. Seriously though, how did Ursula not see that huge boat coming at her! It was like slow motion and she still gets stabbed with the mast! Oh, and the whole sequence with Sebastian and the French Chef is basically my favorite scene in the movie. Anyway, it's a great film and the official mark of the Disney Renaissance. I thought we'd never get here!


Jeffrey Katzenberg warned the directors ahead of time that since this was a "girl's movie," it would probably make less than Oliver & Company, which had been the studio's biggest hit of the decade. As time went on though, Katzenberg realized that this movie could really be a big hit and may be the first to hit over $100 million, thus being a blockbuster. The Little Mermaid did do better than Oliver & Company, but didn't hit the $100 million mark. It would gross a little more than $84 million in its initial run, earning 67% more than Oliver. With the 1997 re-issue, the film earned an additional $27 million, plus another $99.8 million from outside North American continent. This brings the grand total to $211 million dollars, so I think Katzenberg had his blockbuster. Critics praised the film for not only its story, but for the main character, Ariel. Many found her independent and rebellious nature refreshing, as most Disney Princesses had not taken a very proactive role in their films. Disney finally had their major hit, and they planned on keeping the rate going. Not only had the movie been a smash hit, but it established the animation department as the main money making branch of Disney. In years past it had been the theme parks, live action movies, and TV shows that made the studio profitable, but now animation was once again the key to Disney's success.

I almost forgot about all the nasty rumors about the movie! Everybody seems to know about the tower on the castle that looks a little bit different, and the priest at the end of the movie who seems to be a little too excited about officiating. Turns out that the tower that supposedly looked like a certain male part, was done on accident and the animators claimed it couldn't be helped since all the towers were phallic looking to begin with. People still claim that the priest rumor is true however, though Disney has claimed that its just the man's knee. Disney since has removed both the tower and the bulge as to keep people from sending them nasty letters.

Oliver & Company

One thing I distinctly remember from my childhood is the story of Oliver Twist. My father had first introduced me to the story through the musical movie version Oliver! I fell absolutely in love with it, singing it's songs and even experimenting with pick-pocketing my fathers wallet. I got pretty good at it until my father reprimanded me. Obviously, he did not want his daughter pick-pocketing strangers or growing up to be a thief. I can honestly say I have not pick-pocketed anyone since then. I mention Oliver Twist because this is basically an animal version of the famous Dickens novel. Instead of some street urchins, there are a bunch of dogs and a cat. Oliver & Company is one of the few Disney movies that takes place in a contemporary setting. Originally it was supposed to take place in modern (80's) day London, but the filmmakers eventually decided that New York City would be a better setting. If you've watched the movie and suddenly realized, "Hey, this movie has a whole lot of product placement," well you wouldn't be wrong. Disney wasn't trying to sell Coca-Cola or Sony products, but trying to make New York look real. Anyone who has been to New York, or watched anything that takes place in New York has noticed the abundance of advertisements, especially in Times Square.

Another fun fact about the movie is that the production title was Oliver and the Dodger. Both titles honestly aren't that great if you ask me. Something that's a little odd to think about is that the producers wanted to make this into a sequel of The Rescuers. They would have Penny living in New York and continue the storyline in that vein. The producers realized that the story they were thinking about developing wasn't convincing enough, so they scrapped it and started from scratch. The only thing that stayed was the New York setting and a character that looks a whole lot like Penny from The Rescuers, named Jenny. I bet it took them all but two minutes to come up with that one.

What sets this movie apart from its predecessors was its use of CGI in a big way. While The Black Cauldron and The Great Mouse Detective had used it only in short sequences, Oliver & Company used it throughout the whole film. The skyscrapers, cars, trains, Fagin's scooter, and the subway chase were all computer animated requiring Disney to form its own department solely for the effects. If you hadn't noticed with the last couple films, Disney had kind of gotten rid of the musical element from its animated films. Oliver & Company was the test subject to see if Disney could sneak its way back into that. According to Disney, if the movie has three or more songs, it's considered a musical. Now let's all transport back to the mid to late 80's and remember fondly the really cheesy musical videos that dominated MTV. Well, that type of entertainment was so "in" that Disney decided to make its musical numbers more like music videos. Trust me, watch the part with "Why Should I Worry" and it'll all make sense.

Disney went all out in the voice acting department and got all well known (at the time) actors or singers to voice Oliver & Company's characters. Most notable were up and coming actor Joey Lawrence as Oliver and singer Billy Joel as Dodger. If you don't know who either of them are then you haven't listened to a radio station that plays the 80's ever and didn't watch TV in the early 90's. Cheech Marin of Cheech and Chong plays Tito, the excitable and often angry chihuahua. Other names that you may recognize are Bette Midler playing the poodle Georgette, Jenny's dog and the always enjoyable Dom DeLuise as Fagin. I think the only one I recognized when I was a child was Fagin's voice, as I had watched An American Tale and Fievel Goes West a million times and Dom had done Tiger's voice in both films.

Disney needed the star power because they were going up against the new behemoth that was Bluth Animation studios and their film, The Land Before Time. While Bluth's film didn't have anyone in the way of famous actors voicing the characters in The Land Before Time (if you don't count voice acting extraordinaire Frank Welker as Sharptooth), he did have executive producers Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Kathleen Kennedy, and Frank Marshall. The odds weren't looking in Disney's favor as they weren't having the most successful string of movies and The Great Mouse Detective was destroyed by Bluth's An American Tale. Disney needed more than critically acclaimed movies; they needed commercial successes.

Like I mentioned before, after the sequel to The Rescuers didn't pan out, Disney decided to do a new take on Charles Dicken's classic novel Oliver Twist. You may have noticed a few differences between the two, the biggest being that this is a story about animals and not about people. There are more differences between the movie and the novel than I can count so I won't go too much into it. If you have read Oliver Twist, then you know that basically everyone dies in the end (Sorry...late Spoiler Alert). This is not the case in the Disney version, as one can expect. Fagin and the Artful Dodger are legitimate villains in the book as is Sikes. In the Disney version however, Sykes (spelled with a Y for some reason) is the only person perceived as a villain. Fagin and Dodger are thieves but the audience is meant to have sympathy for their plight. The four characters are the only ones carried over from the book, with Oliver and Sykes keeping their demeanor from the original story. Sikes in the book is actually part of Fagin's gang but is no less dangerous and ruthless. In the Disney version, he is a loan shark that demands money from Fagin and the eventual kidnapper of Jenny. The part about Oliver joining a group of pickpockets and eventually being adopted by a rich family are about the only parts of the Oliver Twist story that are recognizable.

Oliver & Company was released November 18th, 1988, the same exact date that Bluth's The Land Before Time was released. I can't help but feel that Bluth did this on purpose, but who knows who set the release date first. Bluth's film took the number one spot for the weekend and ended up grossing 84 million worldwide to Oliver & Company's 50 million. Disney had lost the battle with Bluth but the film was still a success. Because of said success, Disney announced that it would release an animated film every year from now on, which they have done except for the years 1993 and 2006. The movie release also prompted the first partnership with McDonald's, with McDonald's selling Christmas ornaments with Oliver and Dodger on them. McDonald's has, for the most part, released toys or cups or other cheap junk in conjunction with Disney films. Even though the film was successful, people weren't able to see it at home until 1996 when it came out on VHS. While the film was a commercial success in the grand scheme of things, it wasn't a critical success. Critics found the songs to be lackluster, the animation stiff, and the plot predictable. Siskel and Ebert gave the film a thumbs up with Siskel saying the story was too fragmented and was one of the lesser in the Disney canon and Ebert saying it was "harmless, inoffensive." Gee thanks, Ebert. John Kricfalusi, creator of Ren and Stimpy, went as far as to say the movie should be used as a form of torture. Everybody's a critic!

I've always like Oliver & Company, as has my sister who wrote the intro. Sure it's not Sleeping Beauty or Bambi but it's good old Disney fun and it is good to see films in a contemporary setting. While not the first Disney film I saw in theaters (I was almost three at the time), it was one of the first I watched when I was a child, though now I have no idea how I saw it since it didn't come out on video until 96. Hmmmm....mysterious!