Were Disney Movies Better In The 1990s? I SAY YES!

I think you missed my first point about animation. Implementing similar scenes is different from captivating those scenes with their own colorful style. The movies overall are more easily distinguishable because the style of their animations were different from one another. Tangled is slightly lighter than Frozen...that's it? That is hardly a difference. These movies could easily be placed in the same setting and it wouldn't make a difference. The biggest issue is that developers seem more interested in making the animation look as progressive as possible rather than actually capturing the feeling of the story and characters. You stated: Still, this newer animation is superior enough that it is better than the Renaissance even in these earlier stages. In what way is it superior? Because to me the animation is quite inferior. Progression seems to have taken precedence over emotional captivation, that is what I see. And I don't see it getting better. Why else would companies decide to use 3D animation over 2D animation? Their only purpose is to be progressive not creative. They want to make something that can be the next big "trend" in animation. But guess what? Movie animation that is built on that cannot last for years to come. Why? Because computer technology is constantly changing. Whereas with the 2D animation it is almost like a painting coming to life. Paintings will never go out of style because it is something we can create with our own hands. This is why it will always have a more personal touch. Whereas 3D production of characters from these companies are all about making it look real rather than capturing the imagination of people who watch it. I disagree that Big Hero 6 could not have worked. If you have ever watched The Iron Giant, I think 2D has been able to capture technology in quite a unique and beautiful way. You stated: "Besides, even if the similar starting blocks are visible, it's simply untrue that the characters "cannot be identified without closer examination." Similar does not equal identical. The fact that there were minute details for my picture to point out proves that characterization was considered in the design of these princesses. Actually, having small differences proves that a lot of thought was put into it, instead of just changing the face shape and calling it good". I honestly believe they used the same character design from Rapunzel for Anna, and only gave her slight differences out of laziness or simply because they sacrificed originality for the sake of selling points for the Frozen movie. They look and act a little too much a like for it to be a coincidence. It seems to me they were not made to look extremely different from one another, and they were probably inspired a little too much from Rapunzel's look and personality when doing Anna's character. Seriously, I would not be surprised if the animator said "I used the same model for Rapunzel that I used for Anna". Characters during the Renaissance had many differences in both appearance and movement, even in regards to how they moved and danced. If you look at Esmeralda's facial structure, lips, and eye shape compared to someone like Pocahontas there is a lot of detail put into animating them differently and distinctly. And this is only to add to the distinct animation style they have from one another. And guess what? Those animators began drawing the 2D characters long before it was computerized. They used their own hands to capture the emotions of the characters. So I think it is amazing how talented and creative they were enough to give so much distinction and emotions to the characters. The Renaissance movies were not just a reflection of art, but a reflection of talent. Computer animation does not require talent; all it requires is knowledge and skill and so nothing feels like a personal touch of an artist. Anybody can make a computerized character in imitation with another....but hand drawn animation is difficult to imitate and copy. There will always be differences in the way one is drawn vs another. The amazing part was not just the movie itself, but also the talent of creating such wonderful masterpieces. CGI animation honestly is "cheating" giving creators the option to reuse the same character models over and over again without doing much work to make a brand new character model. All they have to do is use the same model and give a few differences, and they think that's it. But as you can see, people caught on when Anna's character design and personality was a little to similar to Rapunzel. Even Moana, the newest character they are releasing looks a lot like Merida with darker hair/skin and less clothing. Sure, it could be that they don't have the upgraded technology to do so...but I think even if they did the companies are only concerned about producing the next big thing rather than simply being creative. As far as the story of Frozen, Elsa never truly rekindled her relationship with Anna. We can only assume that Elsa is gradually upset, but the movie never makes mention of this so its really only an assumption, not apart of the story development. Elsa's facial expressions may not be an indication of her evolutionary change, but rather an indication that she didn't want to be found. Of course, again we will never know because the movie does not give us anything clear to go on. She only truly discovers that love controls her powers until the end, and this is made CLEARLY evident by what she says and the results. You stated: "Besides, Elsa's change had to slow down slightly while she hid in the castle. Anna needed a chance to develop." Yes, Elsa's story had to slow down to cater to Kristoff and Anna's relationship....but that is all the more reason why I felt the movie ended up being rather sloppy and the transitioning was way off. You also stated: "It's a sister story because the ending is all about sisterly love, as was the inciting incident. All conflicts center around it. It doesn't call for 24/7 interaction." Actually, all conflicts surrounded Elsa's powers. Just because in the end randomly the sister act saves the day doesn't mean the movie itself is a sister story. The sister conflict felt like a "side issue" compared to the overall plot, and that is where it failed to be what it was promoted to be. True, 24/7 interaction was not needed, but some kind of interaction would have helped in a believable rekindled relationship, rather than a random act of protection then suddenly "I love my sister again even though we have been estranged for years and really never got a chance to talk to each other about anything". They honestly had no bond whatsoever with one another. My claim was that the movie was focused on the development of the relationship, but the movie failed at doing what they were attempting to do. What was supposed to be a life altering experience became almost irrelevant to her character development. In other words, usually romance serves to help the character change and grow...but Kristoff did not serve his purpose. Anna ended up lacking EVOLUTION, meaning she had no evident change or anything. Like look at Tiana for example. Tiana changed as a result of her relationship with Naveen, and so did he. It is made obvious that Tiana went from being all about work to learning to find love in her life. Naveen went from being a spoiled prince to actually caring about someone other than himself. What exactly did Anna learn from her experiences with Kristoff? Honestly there was no evidence that she learned anything from being with him. It almost seemed like he was a friend aiding her, but he had no impact on her as a person other than that. What actions led you to believe that she learned from her mistakes with Hans and that she discovered something about herself? Because her actions didn't quite prove that from what I see. Her actions only showed that she loved her sister and that when she loves someone she loves them strongly, willing to do anything for the a person she loves, even impulsively so (which is evident from the very beginning when she falls in love with Hans so quickly and is willing to marry him right there and also when she instantly chases after her sister into the blizzard). Yet, in the end it is not as if her impulsive nature changes as a result of Hans betrayal. She seems to still remain the same girl she was. And honestly, the movie does not do a good job of showing Anna is "capable" at doing anything. Kristoff is the one that got her everywhere safely. If it wasn't for him, she would be dead because she is rather impulsive throughout the movie, all the way until the end of the movie. You stated: " They hid their feelings at first because they hadn't learned yet how to interact." Kristoff did not hide his feelings to the VIEWERS, even if he did not show his feelings directly to Anna. The creators made it very evident that Kristoff had feelings for her. Not Anna. She gave no hints to the viewers that she actually had feelings for Kristoff. So, this kind of "love" honestly didn't change her as a character. It was just there. Just to say "Look we have a romance". "We must remember that these are children movies. Kids love Olaf. I've worked with kids and done Frozen style activities with them- Olaf is always a favorite. Movies have to have development and appeal to adults, but they can't forget their target audience." That is another reason 90s movies were better. Producers were focused on making movies for entire "families" as the demographic. Family movies were popular in the 90s. Now the movies are ready made only for children, hence why the humor is silly and filled with butt jokes. Sure adults CAN enjoy it, but in the 90s movies were made for the entire family. And it is obvious because they were well structured and the characters well developed.