... I promised this was coming... now it's here.

What's one of the first things that you think about when you think of Disney?

For some, that's a quick and easy answer: The Mouse. For others, it's a classic feature such as 'Old Yeller' or 'The Parent Trap', or a visit to the theme park...

...and then there's the rest of us who worship in the church of Disney Animation. I have yet to meet a person in my life who doesn't have a favorite animated Disney movie ~ or several. In all honesty, I can't just one either. I think a great part of the Disney draw is not just a solid story, but the wonderment and escapism found in the bright colors and friendly images presented on-screen.

Disney animation isn't how it used to be though. Everything used to be hand-drawn - hours of artistry and craft brought to artificial life for the amusement and wonderment of all who wanted to see it. Classics like 'Sleeping Beauty', 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs', and 'Pinocchio'...

... who could resist soaring along with the Darling family as they made their way to Neverland? Or crying when the shot rang out across the meadow that felled Bambi's mom? Or melting as Tramp pushed that meatball to Lady? Ah, but the days of those laborious hand-drawn images are gone, as are the charms of those stories.

Oh! Those wonderful features that I watched as I grew up... Even as Disney moved into the modern age and started to work computer modeling into taking on small tasks in the 90's, the beauty and charm of the stories remained. 'Beauty and the Beast', 'The Little Mermaid', 'The Lion King' ~ amazing stories and images that became instant classics. I can't argue that they aren't classics either - they've stood up well for the last few years without feeling repetitive or stale. It *is* a bit daunting, however, that a couple of the most beloved Disney "classics" came out when I was in high school and early college - I'm not that old, after all.

But then the Disney well started to run dry. Sure, they were still releasing movies based on classic stories such as 'Hercules', 'Pocahontas' and 'Mulan', but they almost felt like parodies of the original stories, and all three were met with great criticism when they were released. Never mind that 'Mulan' has grown to be one of Disney's "Princesses" and one of the more favored recent releases - that certainly wasn't the case when it was first released. The stories are still charming, to a degree, they're still Disney (of course), but something is lacking in them. Something that's been lacking for awhile with Disney, and I think they knew it in the animation arm of the corporation.

Then came a little outfit named Pixar.

With Pixar, originality in stories not seen since 'Dumbo' and 'The Aristocats' has returned to the Disney stable ~ 'Toy Story', 'A Bug's Life' ~ released by Disney, but not their idea. They came from the imaginations of John Lassiter and Andrew Stanton. There's another fundamental difference between the two companies as well. Pixar, unlike Disney, has always relied on CGI to put together their features. Disney saw the intelligence in that, and decided a partnership would be smart. Honestly, it's the best corporate move that Disney has made in years (no, this isn't going to be an Eisner bashing party, but if you wish to take aim in the comments section, please feel free).

The two companies continued to collaborate while Disney put out items under their own banner, and while a battle between the two over a contract negotiation raged. When Pixar was just starting to render images for 'Monsters, Inc' and 'Finding Nemo' has just wound its way into Andrew Stanton's imagination, Disney put out things like 'The Emperor's New Groove', and direct to video sequels to 'The Little Mermaid', 'Lion King', and 'Cinderella' - sequels that, for the most part, didn't come close to capturing the irresistible charm and musical hooks of the originals.

While 'Finding Nemo' climbed into animation history for Pixar, Disney put out 'Brother Bear' ~ one of their first forays into using computer imaging for significant amounts of characterization in the films, as opposed to just rendering backgrounds as they had been doing in the 90s. The problem is this: just because something is computer rendered, does not brand it a success. 'Brother Bear' was less than a success by Disney animation standards - the story wasn't appealing to young and old alike, and it's already faded into the background. People aren't talking about it now, and they weren't talking about it when it was released - other than to state what a disappointing and dry story it was.

The charm of the Disney animation storytelling is gone. Maybe a great part of that is in this society that we've built that is driven to be politically correct, they cannot create the caricatures that they used to have. Can you see Disney putting out 'Lady and the Tramp' today with the exact same Tony that they had back then? Or allowing that sultry little dog in the pound sing about the Tramp that way? I can see a whole bunch of people getting up in arms about that one. They don't touch it now because, well, it's a classic and it didn't bother anyone back then. Then there's 'Song of the South' - a true classic piece of live action and animation put together, but Disney has quietly stated that they will never re-release that movie. That's too bad. Blatantly wrong stereotypes aside, that's a great movie with a good story that I wish my children would get to see in their lifetime, but I'm not going to be holding my breath.

It seems that most of the good characterizations and stories have gone away due to the over-politically correct views that have seemed to come into play in society today, and for merchandising. I wonder how many Disney stories have been changed, tweaked, or other unnecessary creatures have been added for the sake of merchandising? I sincerely think that we really didn't need that cute little raccoon in 'Pocahontas' - he was probably added for the sake of having a cute little cuddly thing to appeal to small children that would sell. I'm not saying that Pixar isn't guilty of that either, but somehow their stories are still charming despite the marketing machines that they are. Shouldn't marketing departments be focusing on how to get the movie out there and how to get something marketable out of the movie instead of driving what the story should be like for the sake of having something to market? That's why they're the marketing department and not the storyboard writers, right?

But I digress, if only slightly. Disney and Pixar are parting ways - the original collaboration was a means to an end for both companies, after all. Pixar needed money and some way to get their movies distributed when no one else would put out a, untested, fully CGI movie by a company that had only done animated shorts before. Considering that the movie in question was 'Toy Story', I bet there's a bunch of executives who are still kicking themselves over that one. Disney was in a creative drain at the time and needed some more power in the stable - and it seemed like Pixar had something that would fit the formula: catchy music, larger than life characters, and myriad of marketing potential. Pixar's now going to go out on its own - I wish it the best of luck, but I don't think it needs it because it's got talent... I wish I could say the same for Disney.

With this move into CGI, it makes me wonder what is going to happen to the purists who've worked for Disney and worked in all the hand-drawn departments. When I was in high school, there was a really talented girl that I was friends with named Rebecca Wrigley. Her big dream was to work for Disney as an animator, and none of us doubted that she would do exactly what she wanted to do. It wasn't that she was driven or had the personality to get what she was setting out to do. It was the simple fact that she had talent. Absolutely brilliant talent for capturing an image in her mind and reproducing it flawlessly with pencil, pen, chalk, whatever was handy at the moment. I sat next to her in a couple of our honors classes, and the most fun was Friday afternoons in Brit Lit - we were both bored (having already completed the assignment asked of us earlier in the week, and ahead on all of the reading), in the back of the class, and would go our own routes. She would sketch, and I would write. We'd trade papers every once in a while and critique each other. I, however, never had the ambition that I would be a published writer since I was after money at the time - stocks were the way to go for me (or so I thought at the time). But I had every faith that I would see her name in the credits of a Disney movie as an animator. I cried happily the first time I did, because I knew she had accomplished what she had set out to do. I've pointed her name out to DH and my kids - A & B were awed - WOW, Mom knows an animator. I hope Rebecca has found a place to land with all the changes that have come along in animation in the last 5 or 6 years.

Coming down the line for Disney are two movies that I have absolutely no interest in: 'Home on the Range' and 'Chicken Little' - one has significant computer rendering built in, and the other is their first completely CGI movie. I've seen advance press and clips of 'Home on the Range', and the blitz of commercials has started. The toys are already in stores, the Sing-Along DVD releases tomorrow, and the movie doesn't release until April 2nd. Honestly, this movie should be a case study in advance merchandising. You put out the funniest and catchiest clips from the movie as your trailers, you make sure that all the songs (done up by some of country music's steadiest stars) are out there for the kids to be singing over and over, and you release the cute little piggie and chick toys just a few weeks prior to Easter. Disney used to release their new animated films at the beginning of March - I remember this because they always came out with something around the time I started dating DH, and we'd go see it (an anniversary of sorts for us). This one's been moved to the beginning of April, and I just can't help but think that it's just to capitalize on the cute little barnyard animals that will get stuffed into Easter baskets this year. I suspect the same thing will happen with 'Chicken Little' next year. That's right, Disney is doing up the sky is falling tale in full CGI and as a full-length feature...

...just makes you wonder what they're going to come up with to embellish the story so that they have a few more marketing opportunities.