Memorable New Characters?

[exDS vet]

Disney buys the "Bear In The Big Blue House" and the muppets!!!
Disney/Pixar brings us Buzz, Woody, Nemo, etc...
Yada, Yada, Yada!

When is Disney going to create some new and memorable and dare I say enduring characters of their own? It has been ten years since the company has created any characters that have the appeal of Mickey Mouse, and the other originals. Not since those characters from "The Lion King" have we seen anything close.

It seems to me that the company is more interested in buying the rights to the Poohs, Kermits, and Nemo's of the world, than they are in bringing us new and original characters that we can all love and appreciate.

I'd love to hear what some of you think about this subject.

 

[SpaceAce]

I am pretty well in agreement with you. The characters whose rights are bought, instead of being true Disney creations, really seem to be different.

I would like to see more of the "real thing" - a Disney character made by Disney.

 

[wdw4us2]

I think you could say Stitch is a memorable character. That was the last successful traditionally animated Disney film. He has quite a following with kids and adults.

If you don't believe me, talk to some pin traders.

 

[Razor Roman]

I'd agree with the Stitch thing...

it does seem like there's a dearth of new "memorable" characters being created - but really, how many Feature animation characters really live a long life on their own?

Basically, you've got the Princesses, and some of the "Animal" type chracters.

Some characters rely too much on the celebrity voices that perform them like The Genie and Mushu, so what can be done with the characters is limited. This cuts back on their long-term longevity. Whereas, with a character like Timon, Nathan Lane IS the voice, but you can get away with not having him. When they tried to replace the Genie's voice, he just ended up sounding like Homer Simpson pretending to be Robin Williams (which is actually what it was, Dan Castellanetta).

I also think Disney has been playing it too safe, they don't seem to want to do something too outlandish - which is what people want in cartoon characters!

 

[OnWithTheShow]

I would also argue that stitch is a memorable character. Maybe not with the adults as much as the kids. But the kids WILL remember Stitch when they are adults.

There have been periods before when characters havent been as memorable. Try to thing of some between Bambi and Cinderella (6 movies) or between Pooh and Little Mermaid (5 movies).

 

[goofy370]

My 25 year old brother HAD to have his picture taken with Stitch at MGM. He waited on line with all the kids. Then he HAD to buy every Stitch pin he saw, so I would say that Stitch definately has an Adult following.

Also, at my store we have adult Stitch T-Shirts. They are going like hot cakes...

 

[Goofyposter]

I would like to see more of the "real thing" - a Disney character made by Disney

I agree. But that's pretty hard to do when you NUKE 75%+ of the animators who (used to) work for the company!!!

 

[memymomonica]

Lilo & Stitch all the way. Not to mention Nemo and the fish gang. I think they will stick around for a while.

Now, Brother Bear....not so much.

 

[SpaceAce]

I want to preface my comments with the fact that I am just guessing, and I offer full respect to those who disagree. I could be wrong!

Isn't nemo a pixar film? Nemo then isn't truly a Disney creation, unfless I am wrong about that. (I may be.)

I am not sure that Stitch is going to have the same staying power as others on this board think. But again, that is just my opinion. I see it dwindling away like other cartoons, like Thundercats or something that seems big for a few years and goes away. I still don't see Stitch as a timeless character like Cinderella, Snow White, etc...

Hey, just my prediction - I may be wrong.

But I want to ask everyone...what do you think made the Disney characters seem timeless while newer characters, and most non-Disney characters, don't latch onto the American psyche. What is the formula????

 

[memymomonica]

I'm not sure about the Disney/Pixar thing. I just assumed that Disney did the characters and Pixar did the animation. I could be wrong.

Not sure what makes a character a classic. I guess it just is a character that people relate to. I think the princesses became popular at a time that girls needed role models.

My daughter loves Lilo. My husband thinks she is a brat. I remember the first time I saw the movie and she threw herself on her bed and locked her sister out. I was thinking "Great example".

Cuteness is a huge factor too. Just my thoughts.....

 

[Razor Roman]

Nope, the characters in the Pixar Movies are 100% Pixar creations, Disney just owns the rights to them. Go figure.

Basically, Pixar makes the movies all on their own, and then Disney puts them out. I know that for Toy Story, and Bug's Life Disney management had a signifigant amout of say as to some of the plot points, etc. of the movies, so they may have had a little role in those films, but from what I've heard Disney input was practically nil on Monsters Inc, and especially "Nemo" which could attest to some of those stories being leaked from Disney saying "don't get your hopes up too high on that Finding Nemo movie..."

 

[JeffH]

I still don't see Stitch as a timeless character like Cinderella, Snow White, etc

?I thought we were talking about new original Disney created characters, not those Walt took from some fairy tales. Most of the 'classic' Disney characters that we know were not Disney original creations. If you are looking for original stories and characters you have to look at the last couple of decades.

 

[memymomonica]

Good point! Not until you brought that up did it dawn on me that the "classic" Disney characters weren't created by Disney. Princesses, Pooh, Little Mermaid, Peter Pan.....

Huh...makes you think what they came up with on their own.

 

[SpaceAce]

touche! Good point about that!

Maybe part of Disney's "timelessness" is the fact that they borrowed and dusted off old story characters, even if some were obscure compared to others...

Good job at debunking me

 

[Razor Roman]

That's why it's all about Mickey! :-D

 

[Another Voice]

"If you are looking for original stories and characters you have to look at the last couple of decades."

Well...I kinda of thought Mickey and Minnie were both original and loveable.

And if you're just talking about characters, ever read the original Brothers Grimm version of 'Snow White'? Not a lot of real characters in those books (certainly none of the dwarves were characters at all) - what people remember now is strictly from the movie.

And Jimmy Cricket from Pinocchio - in the book he's crushed to death in about two pages. I'd say that Disney certainly created a character out of him.

I believe Dumbo was an original story and everyone in it.

How are these any worse than the "last couple decades" of The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, The Hunchback of Norte Dame, Aladdin, Pocahontas, Mulan, Treasure Planet, etc.?

We won't even go into the memorable part of the question unless someone is actually playing with all those Atlantis action figures out there.

And if you want to scream that Lady and the Tramp is based of 'Happy Dan, The Whistling Dog', than shouldn't you also acknowledge Kimba's…er, Simba's debt to several outside forces as well?

Simple fact – today is no more "original" than the past was. But at least in the past Disney tried to interpret and expand its characters. Today they seem content to buy and market them wholesale.

 

[Dad of 5]

Semi-tangential point:

Why has Disney (and by extension, Pixar) become so dependent on "celebrity voices" for animation? Think about it... You have to reach back pretty far in the roll call of recent features to find a film that wasn't trying to hang its hat on big name voices. Why not use more "unknown" voice talent that lets the characters shine?

A couple of examples: I might be looking forward to "Home on the Range" as an animated feature, but I really don't want to have to suffer through xxx minutes of Roseanne's screeching. And I found "Tarzan" mildly amusing, but couldn't stand Terk/Rosie, solely because of the voice.

I think it's a pretty cheap (maybe not inexpensive) way to garner more eyeballs. Guess it's just like the rest of the non-animated film industry - whatever gets 'em in the door.

 

[Stitch's Greatest Fa]

I hope Stitchy is around for years to come. I'm 26 and he is my absolute favourite - although Eeyore comes a close second. Macca macca id!!

 

[VintageKnight]

back in walts days a lot of his source material.. there was no one to sue you over doing a movie out of it.. now you have to buy it if you want to use it, or just employ the sorry guy that came up with the idea and pray he doesnt sue for compensation....

its all about the money..... other than maybe a bonus a lot of the guys that did stich and others dont have jobs anymore.. or maybe, hopefully were transfered elsewere...

DisneyVK