What If Warner Bros. Were As Smart As Disney?

In 2013, a Superman reboot entitled Man of Steel is set to be released. It's directed by Zack Snyder of Dawn of the Dead, 300, and Watchmen fame, written by David S. Goyer who helped Christopher Nolan pen the first two installments of his Dark Knight Saga, and produced and "grandfathered" by Christopher Nolan himself. It's also been announced that Nolan and Goyer will cooperate similarly on a Batman reboot to be released in 2015, The Dark Knight Rises being the last in Christopher Nolan's personal Bat-verse.

2011's Green Lantern was...lackluster, to be sure, but Ang Lee's atrocious Hulk and Louis Leterrier's mediocre The Incredible Hulk, didn't stop Marvel. Cleverly, they managed to move forward with the Hulk's story while only half acknowledging the existence of the first film. Warner Brothers could easily do something similar simply by recasting Hal Jordan if they didn't want to risk a pseudo-sequel along the lines of The Incredible Hulk.

Back in 2007, following the release of Superman Returns and Batman Begins, Joss Whedon was attached to direct a Wonder Woman adaptation to match the recently executed reboots of the other two chief Justice League properties. Eventually the project fell through. But, given the astounding success Joss Whedon brought Marvel's The Avengers, I have no doubt that Warner Brothers are looking at that Wonder Woman idea again (with or without Whedon himself), to coincide this time with the re-reboots coming in the next couple of years.

Clearly, Warner Brothers is within striking distance of following in Marvel's footsteps and bringing the Justice League together for the first time on the big screen. More than that, doing so under the oversight of Christopher Nolan.

After Man of Steel and the first film in the rebooted Batman franchise, the next step would be Wonder Woman and, if they attempted to follow in Marvel's Incredible Hulk footsteps, a Green Lantern pseudo-sequel (likely introducing the Sinestro Corps War). This is all the set-up needed for a Justice League film, potentially slated for release in Summer 2016. Justice League would introduce The Flash and Martian Manhunter in similar fashion to how The Avengers treated Black Widow and Hawkeye. The League's first villain would be Lex Luthor, as set up in Man of Steel à la Loki in Thor and The Avengers.

Justice League's success would pave the way for a Superman sequel in which he returns to Metropolis to fight another of his famous villains. Say, Metallo, or a Metallo-Parasite team-up. Brainiac might be the best choice. (Unless he's to be used as the Justice League 2 villain, as you'll see.) The Batman sequel would pit the Caped Crusader against a more serious of his villains than he faced in the first film. Perhaps, And, if they've learned anything from Nolan, the Batman sequel would not introduce Robin. Wonder Woman would probably not get a sequel. If a Green Lantern pseudo-sequel wasn't released before Justice League introducing the Sinestro Corps War, it would be now. The Flash and Martian Manhunter would get their own origin story prequels as well.

Leading to Justice League 2, which would either pick up where the Green Lantern pseudo-sequel left off with the Sinestro Corps War (if they went that route), or, if not, likely introduce Brainiac as the League's first major cosmic villain. This is very similar to what Marvel plans to do with the Avengers. The first film was just the team's origin story. In the sequel they will be forced to take their place on a more cosmic stage, facing off against Thanos. Brainiac is a good DC analogue for such a scheme. Justice League 2 would also introduce Aquaman, prepping him for a solo film of his own, though probably not his origin story.

After Justice League 2, Superman 3 would feature whatever major villain the Man of Tomorrow hasn't faced yet, or the return of Lex Luthor. Probably enough time would have passed in between The Dark Knight and the release of Batman 3 to attempt a post-Heath Ledger Joker. If all went well with Justice League 2, now is when they would start releasing solo films for more minor characters, just like Marvel is now doing for Black Widow, Hawkeye, and Nick Fury. I already mentioned Aquaman. We would likely see a Green Arrow film, also featuring Black Canary and maybe The Atom. There would also need to be a Green Lantern 3 to follow up with the Sinestro Corps War, assuming Justice League 2 didn't already do that. There's room for one more sequel. That would probably be whichever of Wonder Woman, The Flash, or Martian Manhunter made the most money.

Please let me see this movie.

Then follows Justice League 3 (adding Plastic Man, and maybe Hawkman and Hawkgirl, to the mix, though maybe not), in which our heroes would square off against their greatest enemy, Darkseid.

To sum up:

Man of Steel - Summer 2013
Batman (and it will probably be called that) - Summer 2015
Wonder Woman - Christmas 2015
Justice League - Summer 2016
Superman 2 (perhaps Man of Tomorrow) - Christmas 2016
The Flash - Spring 2017
Batman 2 - Summer 2017
Manhunter - Christmas 2017
Green Lantern 2ish - Spring 2018
Justice League 2 - Summer 2018
Aquaman - Christmas 2018
Green Arrow - Spring 2019
Superman 3 (maybe Last Son) - Summer 2019
Green Lantern 3ish - Christmas 2019
Wonder Woman/The Flash/Manhunter 2 - Spring 2020
Batman 3 - Summer 2020
The Atom - Christmas 2020
Justice League 3 - Spring 2021

But none of this will ever happen, because Warner Brothers will never see this post, and will never understand that I'm smarter than any of them. As a friend recently pointed out, if anything, they're most likely to make a Robin spin-off of the Batman reboot. Pathetic. Pull it together guys.

Heartwarming Short

The magic and imagination of Pixar in a stop-motion short:

Address Is Approximate via I Watch Stuff

Magic in Disney's The Lion King

The review of The Lion King over at Decent Films Guide is surprisingly scathing. Along with Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King is so beloved of so many that it takes guts to point out a flaw. While I agree with many of the points in that review, I would give The Lion King a higher grade, and encourage my own kids to watch it, for one simple reason: magic.

No, not "Disney magic," though there is that, I mean Rafiki the Baboon Witch Doctor's magic. "Whaaat?" you're probably saying. "How can a Christian possibly support a movie which suggests the validity of such primitive and satanic practices?" Some of you may remember that when The Lion King was originally released, many Evangelical Christians reacted strongly for that very reason. Disney was in the hands of Satan, pushing, at the very least superstition, and at the worst witchcraft on our children. Of course, the problem only got worse with Pocahontas and The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

We should remember that The Lion King is a story. Stories live in their own worlds. They must abide by the rules of the world they create in order to remain realistic. It would be kind of a strange thing if the first thing we saw at the beginning of the movie was infant Simba being taken to the local parish church for lions to be baptized. In a way, though, by analogy, that's exactly what happens in the opening scene—within the bounds of the pre-Christian world that The Lion King inhabits. Young Simba is annoited with oil on his forehead, presented to the priest in the form of Rafiki, and "baptized" in the light of the Sun for the whole kingdom to see.

It's magical, and rightly so. It is too easy to forget in our day and age what every other culture throughout history other than ours has known without a doubt, that the world is alive and teeming with supernatural activity we usually cannot see. Religion, in all its forms, paganism and Christianity alike, is merely an attempt to get a handle on that invisible, supernatural reality that shapes our lives without us knowing how or why. Of course, Christianity rises above all other attempts because it alone reveals the truth of God completely in Christ. Nevertheless, I appreciate a movie that illustrates the prevalence of the supernatural influences on the world in which we live. That's a lesson I wouldn't trade for anything.

Heaven's Light: The Supernatural in Disney's Tangled, The End

Tangled ends with the unlikely hero Flynn dying on the floor, stabbed by the evil, sorceress step-mother in order that she may keep Rapunzel's regenerative powers from doing any one any good but herself. Rapunzel cuts a deal with her step-mother: she will submit to slavery if only she is allowed to heal her knight-in-shining-armor, which she proceeds to do despite Flynn's protest. In the end, Flynn sacrifices himself on behalf of Rapunzel's freedom, cutting all her hair short and robbing it of its healing magic. Rapunzel cradles her dead Beloved in her arms and sheds a tear:

Flynn knew that in order for his beloved to "have life, and have it abundantly" (Jn 10:10), he needed to give up his own. Yet, surprisingly, after he does so, at that moment when it seems all hope is lost, Rapunzel's tear falls on his cheek. Turns out they too carry the "light of the Sun" and Flynn is healed.

September 14th is the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross. This is followed immediately by September 15th's feast of Our Lady of Sorrows. When the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph went to the Temple, as was the custom, to present the child Jesus to Simeon the High Priest, he prophesied Jesus' death on the Cross. In the same breath he said to Mary, "A sword will pierce through your own soul also," (Lk 2:35).

There is a parallel being drawn here between Christ's sufferings on the Cross and Mary's at his feet. As Christ's "soul" was pierced by Longinus' spear, so his Mother's soul would be pierced in sorrow as she stood at her dying son's feet. Of course a mother would grieve for her son dying in horrible pain, but does this passage point to something else as well?

Recently we took a look at rood screens and their place in traditional ecclesial architecture. What we didn't talk about is why they're called rood screens. Atop a great many of these screens or beams stands the Rood, Old English for cross. Inevitably, under the cross on either side stand Our Lady and John, the Beloved Disciple:

It is significant that it is John specifically, continually referred to as "the disciple whom Jesus loves" that stands at the foot of the Cross with Our Lady and his Mother. Of course, God loves all his children, but, as Jesus himself said, "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of my Father," (Mt. 7:21). But what is the will of the Father? St. Paul tells us that "we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him," (Rom. 8:16-17).

In other words, our salvation is dependent on our suffering like Christ: humbly, lovingly, and on behalf of others. St. Peter tells us that "one is approved if, mindful of God, he endures pain while suffering unjustly," (1 Pet. 2:19). Like John, if we are to be faithful and "beloved" servants of Christ, we must stand with him in his agony. We must live a life of humility and suffering as he did.

Amazingly, though, according to Paul, our suffering can do even more good than just getting ourselves into heaven: "I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, the church," (Col. 1:24).

Wait a second. Did he just say what I think he said? How can it be that "Christ's afflictions" on our behalf "lack" anything? Of course, strictly speaking, they don't. Christ's sacrifice was all-sufficient. What, then, could St. Paul mean?

What is lacking in Christ's afflictions is the application of his grace to the individual. Christ's death on the Cross redeemed the world, it didn't save it. In other words, Christ did everything necessary for it to be possible for us to be reunited with God, but it is up to us whether we will take advantage of the redemption he offers or not. St. Paul is telling us how to do that: be like Christ, humbly submit ourselves to the pain the world has to dole out, unite our sufferings to his, and so become true Christians, or "little Christs."

In this way, we participate in Christ's redemption of the world. Not adding anything, for one cannot add to something infinite. One can, however, cooperate with it. The love and suffering of the Church makes Christ's sacrifice effective in the world, just as Rapunzel's sadness brought about the happiness Flynn's sacrifice had made possible.

If, by our suffering, we can cooperate with Christ in the salvation of the world, surely the Blessed Mother, forced to witness the brutal death of her sinless, divine Son, should be the preeminent cooperator. This is what Simeon prophesied, and why Catholics name her Coredemptrix.

Why should Rapunzel's tears make her Beloved well again? Why should suffering heal? How is it that our suffering and, primarily, that of our Blessed Mother can work good in the world? Because it makes us like Christ. When we suffer willingly and in a good spirit, not seeking it out, but accepting it when it comes (and it will come), we hang ourselves on the Cross with Christ, which is exactly what he told us to do: "Take up your Cross and follow me," (Mk. 8:34). Thanks be to God, "as we share abundantly in Christ's sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too," (2 Cor. 1:5).

What If Disney/Pixar's Up Had Been Made In 1965?

UPDATE: Disney Animated Features, Ranked

So, the "Saturday Morning Classics" post is upcoming. In the meantime...

The first thing to do when compiling this list was to break down the movies into three tiers: Tier One being the above average films, Tier Two being the average films, and Tier Three being the below average films. From there, it becomes easier to sort them into specific rankings within the three tiers.

Tier Three:

#36 - Oliver & Company
#35 - Meet the Robinsons

#34 - The Princess and the Frog

#33 - The Great Mouse Detective
#32 - The Emperor's New Groove
#31 - Pocahontas
#30 - The Aristocats

Tier Two:
#29 - The Rescuers
#28 - Hercules
#27 - Fantasia
#26 - Tarzan
#25 - Lady and the Tramp
#24 - The Sword in the Stone
#23 - Alice in Wonderland
#22 - Winnie the Pooh
#21 - The Rescuers Down Under
#20 - Lilo & Stitch
#19 - The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh
#18 - The Fox and the Hound
#17 - Robin Hood
#16 - Pinocchio
#15 - Mulan

Tier One:
#14 - Sleeping Beauty
#13 - Cinderella
#12 - Bambi
#11 - Aladdin
#10 - The Jungle Book
#9 - Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
#8 - The Little Mermaid
#7 - Dumbo
#6 - Peter Pan
#5 - Tangled
#4 - 101 Dalmatians
#3 - The Hunchback of Notre Dame
#2 - The Lion King
#1 - Beauty and the Beast

So it's really difficult to put the films into exact order. Without a more thorough investigation into each film, it's hard to say which of two very close in quality is better. I'm not dead set on the exact positions in this list, but it's pretty close, I think.

The following films in the official list of Disney features were unable to be ranked because (1) they're obviously terrible and I haven't gotten around to seeing them as a result, (2) I regrettably haven't seen them yet, or (3) they're really just an extended short film. I'll let you figure out which reason(s) applied: Saludos Amigos, The Three Caballeros, Make Mine Music, Fun and Fancy Free, Melody Time, The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad, The Black Cauldron, Dinosaur, Fantasia 2000, Atlantis: The Lost Empire, Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, Home on the Range, and Chicken Little, and Bolt.

UPDATE: You'll notice the list of excluded films has gotten a bit shorter. Turns out I can't automatically disqualify computer-animated Disney films on account of Tangled deserving its new position at #5 (many Tangled-related posts soon). As a result I've appropriately added Meet the Robinsons, which I had seen previously, near the bottom of the list. I've also rethought a couple of rankings since the original posting, and added Winnie the Pooh in its proper spot having seen it just prior to Tangled. What do you think?

Heaven's Light: The Supernatural In Disney's Tangled - The Beginning

So, turns out the Disney Film Rankings need to be updated a bit. Tangled is definitely Top 10. I'm gonna go ahead and put it in between Peter Pan and 101 Dalmatians. Yeah, #5. It's that good.

The first thing I have to say is "Wow!" It's kitschy, I know, but really. I'm not the first person to talk about Disney Magic, but it really is apt here, seeing as Tangled is the first Disney film since The Lion King to have it. Hunchback, Mulan, and Tarzan come close, but they don't quite get there. Mulan and Tarzan try and fail by being derivative, and Hunchback, while suffering from some of the same issues, fails in the end by being quite unlike any other Disney film.

So far, most of the features which have had that magical quality have done so on account of their romance, by which I mean to refer to the genre of Medieval, Renaissance (and, later, Romantic) literature and NOT contemporary "romance" novels. The classic fairy tales on which many of the great Disney films are based can themselves be considered more or less great romances: Beauty and the Beast, Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid, and, finally, Rapunzel.

Though the specific works from which Disney draws its material are individually more or less directly connected to these Medieval and Renaissance tales, all of them can trace their lineage, at least stylistically, to these works. It is the Medieval romances which are responsible for our (rapidly disappearing) cultural association of the Middle Ages with daring knights, evil witches, and damsels in distress; or, to quote Belle, "far off places, daring sword fights, a prince in disguise!" Through revivals in the Renaissance and the Romantic Age the specific form of the romance shifted quite drastically, several important elements remained the same.

The most important of these is a preoccupation with the supernatural and fantastical. The Middle Ages lived in a world alive with divine and demonic power, in a world where otherworldly forces intervened regularly, pulling Mankind back and forth between Heaven and Hell. What we consider "fantastical" was not at all so for them. It was simply life. There is something to be learned from this perspective.

Tangled begins when a drop of sunlight falls from the sky and enchants a flower with endless healing powers. This flower is later used to heal Rapunzel's mother in order that she may successfully deliver Rapunzel, who then inherits the flower's abilities. Whenever a special song is sung, Rapunzel's hair begins to glow with sunlight and heals anything it touches.

There was once another Woman who received a drop of Son-light (sorry) and was henceforth granted the ability to heal all she touches: "And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. ...She brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron." (Rev. 12:1,5). This "woman" may be interpreted as the nation of Israel, from whom Christ the Physician issued:

"Surely he has born our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with he stripes we are healed," (Isa. 53:4-5).

The Incarnation is the single greatest event in history. God, perfect Love and Being itself, descended from Heaven like a drop of light, and became Man, taking a body like ours. This body was that of an Israelite, fulfilling the Old Testament prophecy that Israel would become "blessed above all peoples," (Deut. 7:14).

But, the redemption Christ brought is not just one of ideas and abstract principles, it must be a bodily one as well, for we are persons composed of body and soul. As such, Christ took a body, and by it, he heals our bodies, along with our souls, if only at the end of time when all shall be brought to glory as his body was at Easter.

The Woman can also be the Virgin Mother, whose God-given virtue allowed her to become the very vessel of redemption and grace:

"My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generation will call me lessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name," (Lk. 1:46-49).

It is through the Blessed Virgin that Christ's spiritual and bodily health was made able to come to us. As Catholics, we believe our Blessed Mother sits at the right hand of her Divine son in Heaven, interceding to him on our behalf, raining showers of love and grace down on us all the time. It was us to whom Christ was speaking when he uttered these last words upon the Cross, "Behold, your mother!" (Jn. 19:27).

She may also be the Bride of Christ, the Church, within whom Christ resides, and thereby grants the ability to transmit his healing grace to the world:

"Jesus said to [the disciples], 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained,'" (Jn. 20:21-23).

Disney Animated Features, Ranked

So, the "Saturday Morning Classics" post is upcoming. In the meantime...

The first thing to do when compiling this list was to break down the movies into three tiers: Tier One being the above average films, Tier Two being the average films, and Tier Three being the below average films. From there, it becomes easier to sort them into specific rankings within the three tiers.

Tier Three:

#33 - Oliver & Company

#32 - The Princess and the Frog

#31 - The Great Mouse Detective
#30 - The Emperor's New Groove
#29 - Pocahontas
#28 - The Aristocats

Tier Two:
#27 - The Rescuers
#26 - Hercules
#25 - Fantasia
#24 - Tarzan
#23 - Lady and the Tramp
#22 - The Sword in the Stone
#21 - The Rescuers Down Under
#20 - Lilo & Stitch
#19 - Alice in Wonderland
#18 - The Fox and the Hound
#17 - The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh
#16 - Robin Hood
#15 - Pinocchio
#14 - Mulan

Tier One:
#13 - Sleeping Beauty
#12 - Bambi
#11 - Cinderella
#10 - Aladdin
#9 - The Jungle Book
#8 - Dumbo
#7 - The Little Mermaid
#6 - Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
#5 - Peter Pan
#4 - 101 Dalmatians
#3 - The Hunchback of Notre Dame
#2 - The Lion King
#1 - Beauty and the Beast

So it's really difficult to put the films into exact order. Without a more thorough investigation into each film, it's hard to say which of two very close in quality is better. I'm not dead set on the exact positions in this list, but it's pretty close, I think.

The following films in the official list of Disney features were unable to be ranked because (1) they're obviously terrible and I haven't gotten around to seeing them as a result, (2) I regrettably haven't seen them yet, (3) they're computer animated, or (4) they're really just an extended short film. I'll let you figure out which reason(s) applied: Saludos Amigos, The Three Caballeros, Make Mine Music, Fun and Fancy Free, Melody Time, The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad, The Black Cauldron, Dinosaur, Fantasia 2000, Atlantis: The Lost Empire, Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, Home on the Range, and Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons, Bolt, Tangled, and Winnie the Pooh.

UPDATE: See the recent changes.

It's An Animation Celebration! (sorry...)

I saw a documentary a while back called The Pixar Story (available on Instant Netflix). In an interview with Bob Iger (the new C.E.O. of Disney and Michael Eisner’s replacement) he spoke about the troubles Disney has had the past ten years or so.

While it is true Eisner presided over the production of some of the best work the Walt Disney Company has ever done, beginning around 1994 he began slowly driving the company into the ground. Eisner is responsible for the departure of Jeffrey Katzenberg (who left to head Dreamworks Animation), the shift of Disney’s focus to The Disney Channel (i.e., Lizzie McGuire, Even Stevens, Hannah Montana, and the like), and, as Roy E. Disney (Walt Disney’s nephew) said upon his Eisner-induced resignation, the devolution of Disney into a “rapacious, soul-less” company.

In the interview, Iger recounted how shortly after he took over, during the daily Main Street Parade at Disney World, he realized which floats were getting the loudest cheers. They were the classic Disney films like Snow White, Cinderella, and Pinocchio and the classic contemporary films like Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, and The Lion King (largely the work of the Jeffrey Katzenberger Eisner forced out).

The difference between these and some of the not-so-classic Disney features like Brother Bear, Oliver & Company, and Treasure Planet, it seemed to Iger, was quite simply the story-telling. Where Eisner had decided to end all production of traditional animation in favor of Pixar-style 3D, Iger realized the reason Pixar had been trouncing Disney at the box office from the beginning wasn’t the animation style, but that they knew how to create realistic, compelling characters and tell good stories.

Iger said that this epiphany is in fact what led him to end the Eisner-instigated Disney/Pixar feud and effectively merge the two companies, putting Pixar in charge of Disney’s creative side, leaving the current Disney people in charge of the marketing and business side.

Iger has it exactly right. I think (at least implicitly) we all recognize the two great eras in animation—the First and Second Golden Ages. The first includes the great early Disney features:

Tell me your heart didn’t swell as you scrolled past all those pictures.

Disney's work from Snow White in 1937 through Sleeping Beauty in 1957 (or perhaps One Hundred and One Dalmations in 1961) was the best it ever did. This First Golden Age of Animation was not limited to feature-length films, however. This is also the age of Looney Tunes and Tom & Jerry.

From then on Disney did good work, but it wasn't of quite the same caliber as what had come before (perhaps due to Walt Disney's death in 1966). This era saw the release of The Sword in the Stone, The Jungle Book, The Aristocats, Robin Hood, The Rescuers, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, The Fox and the Hound, The Black Cauldron, The Great Mouse Detective, The Brave Little Toaster, and Oliver & Company.

I know some of you are screaming at the computer screen right now. Many of these are near and dear to my heart as well (especially Sword in the Stone, Winnie the Pooh, and Fox and the Hound), but I think it is safe to say that, on the whole, they don't carry the weight of a Cinderella or a Bambi.

But we said there are two Golden Ages. In 1989 Disney released The Little Mermaid, ushering in a new era of classic animation:

Earlier we said that it was around the release of The Lion King in 1994 that Eisner began the downward spiral—the features got progressively worse: A Goofy Movie, Pocahontas, Hercules, Mulan, Tarzan, Dinosaur, The Emperor's New Groove, Atlantis, Lilo & Stitch, Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, Home on the Range, Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons.

Granted, while a couple of these don't quite count as they're in 3D, and a couple are pretty good (like Mulan, Tarzan, and Lilo & Stitch), even to the point that I would include them as part of the Disney Renaissance. Nevertheless, it's the trend that's important, which peaked with The Lion King. It's no wonder Eisner decided to focus on The Disney Channel, direct-to-DVD sequels, and merchandise. Perhaps it is no coincidence that it was in 1995 that Pixar released Toy Story and began its seemingly endless stream of instant hits, filling the void Eisner created. All I can say is thank God Pixar has taken over.

Consider the following chart:

The red bars are those films which are generally considered to be a part of the Golden Age of Disney; the green are those of the Disney Renaissance; and the blue everything else. While there is definitely some overlap amongst the three categories (for example, Sleeping Beauty grossed less at the Box Office than Mulan, and Mulan earned less than Dinosaur, the general trend is pretty clear.

But Box Office earnings aren’t necessarily (certainly not on their own) the best indicator of a film’s quality. Let’s look at RottenTomatoes’ ratings for all the Disney films:

Here we notice a much denser sample, and even more overlap, but I would argue that these are anomalous ratings which could be reasoned out on a case-by-case basis. Nevertheless, here again, the average rating for each category obviously favors the films of the First and Second Golden Ages.

Of course, like the First Golden Age, the Second was not limited to the big screen either. The late 80s and 90s saw the best cartoons for television ever produced. It is these that we will consider in the upcoming sequel to this post: "Saturday Morning Classics."