New disney seems too fixated on appealing to children, and not on telling good stories.
Old and New Disney
In old Disney, there was more focus on more old-world ideas and norms in new Disney the setting may be in the old world, but they people don’t act like it they put things in there that could not have been based on the original stories like guitars random singing and because they abandoned traditional animation all their characters and movies now all feel the same and reused.
New Disney has a lot of out of place singing as well, though the older Disney is not as stupid, like Sleeping beauty one their best and underrated film that focuses on story and doesn’t have a needless song every five minutes. So old Disney movies are more realistic whereas the new ones are childish and infantile forms of entertainment in the media today with too much creative license those stories are meant to teach children important lessons like; not to trust strangers or old hags.
Pixar does not have singing in their movies and owned by Disney now, so they would be better for children to view as they are not as ambiguous in their messages. Though perhaps it is simply the new age of Disney that is more mature there is still singing and dancing but has become less predominant for the male audience now there are more movies that can relate and teach the gender more thoroughly.
"Overall, it’s obvious that classic Disney is far superior to modern Disney. But perhaps the biggest indicator is that classic Disney had Walt Disney himself. H
- Why Classic Disney Is Better Than Modern Disney | Fandom
Despite high ratings and strong audience performance, modern Disney films don't have the same level of experimentation and personal charm of the classics.
Disney now loves money more than creativity.
The Reality of Modern Disney
Ever since the death of Walt Disney Disney the company has suffered a major decline in the 70's and early 80's they released several poorly received film that copied animation from previous films had a mediocre plot and were just plain bad. Robin Hood is a good example of this the heroes were no heroic likable or charismatic and on top of that they made all the character animals which Disney had never done in revered old tales about humans. Plus I think it paved the way for perverted cartoonists who have an unnatural obsession with animals which started in the 70's.
The film (Disney's Robin Hood) was also panned by most critics who did not share in that unhealthy fixation as previously mentioned proof talking animals should not get their own films because they degrade the quality make it more infantile and just downright weird. Then you also had the Black Cauldron a film with a boring hero a cool looking but ultimately disappointing evil king who almost did nothing or achieved little other than capturing a dumb pig. Black Cauldron was no Snow White or Sleeping Beauty in fact I would say it wasn't even half of one of those films as it was also denounced by critics as being a bad movie even for children as it was incoherent boring and the characters were plain unlikable or unrelatable. However even before Disney died they had released a flop or two, like the Sword in the Stone it felt much like the previously mentioned films animation was not top notch but was okay and suffered many of the failings of the previously mentioned films and was also critically panned.
The so called classics of the 90's were not really that, Lion King stole its plot from William Shakespeare's Hamlet and stole the concept of a young lion who will become king of the jungle from Kimba the white lion the main character of Lion King is even named Simba. Now I'll admit I did not like Kimba it was dull boring and way too childish lions eat all other animals they are not seen as royalty by the other animals of jungle only in that lions are top of the food chain because of their hunting techniques which put them at the top.
Male lions eat the cubs that aren't theirs so that their lineage will survive and to get he females in heat, somewhat like King Henry VIII but even more evil. Kings have never been peaceful loving rulers save maybe a few exceptions, most monarchs and emperor have been tyrannical vindictive and most of murderous not unlike modern dictators. Even the ones history writes about favourably are mean xenophobic maniacal lunatics who get a kick out killing and enslaving those beneath them probably why the lion has been seen as a symbol of royalty throughout the ages. The Lion King was no better than Kimba it was childish boring lacked any adult drama or realism just for dumb kids who have never read Shakespeare and are easily fooled. However it made a lot of money and wasn't critically panned somehow seen as a classic when it reality it just a cheap pop bubble gum movie.
Beauty and the Beast was a poor interpretation of the classic tale done masterfully in 1946 classic french film 'La Belle et la Bête' and done poorly and childishly in the 1991 American Disney film. They butchered the source material changing nearly everything about it besides there's a beast and a beauty. They add stupid unnecessary musical numbers, in a musical songs should be in service to the plot not just because a few character want to randomly sing a trope of many modern Disney films. The side characters are dumb and dull to anyone over the age of 7 and are there only to distract small children from how the film is.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame is another bad Disney interpretation of classic French literature, you'd thing a company whose name is of French origin would have more respect and reverence for classic French literature and film but alas they are not they care more about making money than making a well written film that does justice to its source material. The film ruins the original French tale of a deformed monster living in Notre Dame cathedral more faithfully accurately and well done in the Lon Chaney film from 1939. The film's protagonist shouldn't be the hideous Quasi Modo it should be Esmeralda who was the protagonist of the original book and the previously mentioned Lan Chaney film. The hunchback is the monster of the story and he's not La Bete he doesn't get the girl in the end and is a monster who abducts Esmeralda, and is the dutiful servant of the antagonist Claude Frollo.
The critical consensus on rotten tomatoes of Disney's version is as follows "Disney's take on the Victor Hugo classic is dramatically uneven..." "Some fans of Victor Hugo's novel criticized the movie, expressing disappointment with the changes Disney made to the material. Arnaud Later, a leading scholar on Hugo, accused Disney of simplifying, editing and censoring the novel in numerous aspects, including the personalities of the characters. In his review, he later wrote that the animators "don't have enough confidence in their own emotional feeling" and that the film "falls back on clichés." (Laster, Arnaud). Descendants of Hugo bashed Disney in an open letter to the Libération newspaper for their ancestor getting no mention on the advertisement posters, and describing the film as a "vulgar commercialization by unscrupulous salesmen." (Williams, Michael).
Again the Disney version is popular but again is nothing more than empty calories filled with hot air not unlike other Disney films previously mentioned. Hunchback of Notre Dame has good animation but still of less quality than produced 30 years prior like Lion King, and Beauty and The Beast before it. Disney adds the cliche unneeded unnecessary side kicks this time their talking gargoyles who talk to Quasi Modo and also burst into song randomly as is Disney's sophomoric tradition. Disney tries desperately to ruin classic literature by shielding children from reality so more children will see it and more adults won't say it's evil witchcraft trying to poison children. Which all boils down to greed in the end, Disney has ruined more literature and comic books than any other modern company they despise literature and love money. If Walt were alive he would tell them to stop being the evil money grubbing power hungry villains portrayed in so many of their films.
There are certain instances when adult themes are shown in Disney movies, but they give vague descriptions as to what they are in real life such the early Pirates of the Caribbean films which has many adult themes it could teach a child plenty, it has a clear villain and hero but also a moral grayness and not the stereotypical versions we're used to. There is a time when love is necessary as well as learning but once into adulthood, it becomes quite different. Disney uses creative licensees on their franchises though if a student was researching those times for school or for a job, he or she would find their source to be highly unreliable which just makes it harder for the kid to live in the real world.
Learning Real-life values and consequences is a much better way for children to learn and gain certain stimuli and conditioning so they may fit into society better. However, people who are robbed of innocence at an early age lack imagination and creativity so perhaps this is not a good thing as creativity can help the child to overcome obstacles presented to them in their lifetime. Disney does do what is needed it shows violence and implements morals into children by showing them how evil is punished and how good is rewarded.
Reality is not how modern Disney portrays it in it's films as always having a happy ending for the “good” people but what is good anyhow? Conquering one's inner demons understanding them and being able to tell people to conquer their own. They will go against the rules of society and challenge them, even change them. They will treat others as they should be but give undo justice to the evil ones who plague them and all around him they must they will have to commit wrongful acts for the betterment of all or fall into mediocrity and simplicity where there are no great people to lead.
New Disney also favors bland cheap looking 3D animation to make it's films abandoning the core principles it was founded on the principles of animation laid out by Disney. Who wanted his animations to be more realistic in the way it shows animation not necessarily making photo-realistic looking characters just that move realistic which was more important because they were an animation studio. 3D computer generated animation may be cheaper and better for video games but classic animation that Disney was well known for in the past was of the highest caliber, you see modern cheap Japanese animation where characters mouths are just holes that open in close with no jaw movement making it look fake and not realistic. Classic animation is also cheaper to make, however modern 2D animation is about as cheap looking as any 3D animation few take the tame to add shadow and highlights to give their animations form and are just cheap and ugly looking.
Not only does Disney make horrible films that make a lot of many not unlike Michael Bay but they don't even use animation and several new films don't even bother to use even 3D animation, they just remake their old films as live action which come across as bland and dull. Disney is owned by a tycoon billionaire who cares not of the quality of his product but moreso on the quality and the money they make. Animation as a whole seem to be heavily degraded in recent years where you hardly ever see anything like the classic animation of yore.
Exaggeration of Disney
Modern Disney often exaggerates the truth and often over-dramatizes events in their stories and often take artistic license when work with mythological stories often changing the material until it is almost unrecognizable from its source. They also started the trend of tears or some other nonsense curing death thus bastardizing the character death as meaningful and making it irrelevant to the stories though of course the villain usually stay dead meaning they had more memorable death than the heroes or side character that may have feigned death for a scene or two. The story of Hercules is censored cut and ruined by trying to shield children too much from reality and the truth of classical greek literature which was violent and didn't try to protect people from reality. They also make Hades the villain when it was Hera who cursed might Hercules or Heracles before that he was Alcaeus meaning strong in greek. Heracles or Hercules means glory of hera an ironic title as hera cursed the mighty hero to murder his wife and children thinking them his enemies, it's a greek tragedy not a disney cartoon with random singing.
References (works cited)
Laster, Arnaud (January 1997). "Waiting for Hugo". Animation World Magazine. Vol. 1 no. 10.
Williams, Michael (March 11, 1997). "Disney's 'Hunchback' irks Hugo progeny". Variety.
Now Disney is all about catering to the young far left social justice crowd, and while it might be better than catering to the far right crowd it's still not a good strategy either way, I mean good literally as both political extremes are evil.They ruin marvel comics by making movies that barely follow the source material even mock it some cases. They make old beloved marvel characters obsolete paving the way for new terrible characters that no one like, the only reason for their existence it to be more diverse which is ironic because it seems more exclusionary of anyone white and heterosexual. Star Wars suffered much the same fate with their comics being ruled as non-canon by the Disney overlords old beloved characters replaced with new ones that no one cares about. Now Disney owns Fox and the rights to some of the greatest films ever made, that they don't already have the rights to.