- Hey, brother! Ben, one of the video ideas I've had just rolling around in my head for the past three, maybe four years is just to fully explain
the Disney Renaissance. We've talked about it in bits
and pieces over the years, and you probably have a pretty
good idea of when it happened and what movies are included in it. For the most part, though, I think people just think of
it as a series of animated hits by Disney in the 90s, failing
to recognize why it started, why it ended, and why it's more than just a series of good movies in a row. Why it was really more of a movement, and indeed a Renaissance, and
how these movies are connected in a lot of different ways. And no, I don't mean in some big universe, "Pixar Theory" kind of way, but more in terms of theme,
and style, and scope. Today, we explain the Disney Renaissance. (dramatic music) ♪ Hey brother ♪ Okay, so what even is it? The Disney Renaissance refers
to the years 1989 through 1999 and the animated movies
Disney created at that time. There were 10 in total,
including and in order, "The Little Mermaid,"
"The Rescuers Down Under," "Beauty and the Beast," "Aladdin," "The Lion King," "Pocahontas," "The Hunchback of Notre Dame," "Hercules," "Mulan," and "Tarzan." And if I had to bet, I'd
say you've probably heard of at least nine of those, "The rescuers down what, huh?" It's actually really good. Anyway, even if you don't know what it is, I'm sure you've heard the
phrase "Disney Renaissance" before, and if you've ever thought like, "Wow, that's a pretty
generous-sounding title, Disney," well, I have to say, for
a while, I kind of agreed. But it's actually not just
a bunch of "self important, (harrumphs) Renaissance!" Renaissance is actually
a very appropriate title because prior to that,
Disney had been going through its own dark age for some 20+ years. In fact, the animation department itself was at risk of just going under, which probably sounds crazy, right? I mean, Disney being the entertainment behemoth that it is today,
owning Pixar, and Marvel, and "Star Wars," and a
whole host of other things you were probably unaware of, like, how could they have
ever been on hard times? But back in the 70s and 80s,
that was exactly the case. See, in terms of animated movies, Walt Disney himself
literally invented the game. The first full-length animated movie ever was "Snow White" in 1938, and it unwittingly set the tone for so much of Disney's future. It was the first fairytale movie they did, which was of course what
they would eventually go on to be famous for,
it was the first princess, there was singing, there was
an overly dramatic villain. I mean, I know it feels obvious, but at the time, they didn't
know what was gonna work, and that is a lot to get
right just on your first try. And they didn't slow down, churning out other
classics like "Pinocchio," "Fantasia," "Dumbo," and "Bambi," all making up what is known as the "Golden Age of Disney." From there, though, World
War Two started happening, and so in general, there
was just a lot less money going around for
things like animated movies. Not that they didn't make some,
but I just have a hard time believing that you ever heard
of, or even seen any of these. I mean, I know I personally have not. But then postwar would launch
the Silver Age of Disney, with classics like
"Cinderella," "Sleeping Beauty," "Lady and the Tramp," and
"Alice in Wonderland," among a host of others. Big-budget animation
was back in full swing and things looked great,
but then Walt himself died, and the last movie he ever
worked on, "The Jungle Book," would end the Silver Age
and begin the Bronze Age. Or if you prefer and you
want to be a little bit more dramatic, some people also call it "The Dark Age."
(thunder clapping) Now don't be misled, just
calling it "The Dark Age" doesn't mean that these are bad movies. I'm sure you have some of
your very own favorites from this group, and I
know I personally do. "Great Mouse Detective,"
if you haven't seen it, check it out, it's awesome. But Disney was just struggling to find its way without Walt. There's no songs, no
princesses, no fairy tales. They're just throwing stuff at the wall and hoping it would stick,
and in the meantime, suffering some pretty
massive personnel losses. Namely, a guy named Don Bluth, a Disney animator who left
Disney and took with him about 20% of the other animators at Disney to found his own company,
Don Bluth Productions. And they immediately started
churning out heavy competition in the form of "The Secret of Nimh," "An American Tail," and
"The Land Before Time," all of which beat their Disney competition at the box office. Meanwhile, back at Disney, they released a film called
"The Black Cauldron," which cost them $44 million to make and only earned back 21. That is a loss of $23
million, and it put the future of the animation department
at Disney in jeopardy. But then came "The Little Mermaid," directed by John Musker and Ron Clements. These two had recently worked together on "The Great Mouse
Detective," which ended up making enough money to save the studio, and it was immediately succeeded
by "Oliver and Company," the studio's most successful
film in over a decade. But that brings us back
to "The Little Mermaid," which Walt Disney Studio
chief, Jeffrey Katzenberg, was convinced wasn't going to do that well at the box office because
it was a "girl" movie. But, oh my gosh, was he wrong
because "The Little Mermaid" changed everything, bringing
in $84 million domestic, Disney finally found their
formula and it took off. Clements and Musker designed
"The Little Mermaid" to feel like a Broadway musical, with its huge musical numbers being the tent poles of the whole story. They also reintroduced the princess trope and put her in the ocean,
which, by its very nature, gives you an immense sense of scale. And all of these things would go on to be trademarks of the Disney Renaissance. So now let's talk about
the movies themselves and all the cool, different
ways they are connected, starting with scale. Unlike their predecessors,
the Renaissance movies make sure you know the size and scope of the adventure about to
happen early and often. And they do this by
establishing massive worlds for the characters to exist in. And giving you such a vast space accomplishes quite a bit
of things all at once. It lets you know how far-reaching the decisions of all of
the characters could reach. It shows you what's at
stake and demonstrates the size of the challenge our heroes are about to have to overcome. When Aladdin looks up at the palace, it's easy to understand how insignificant he and everyone who isn't
the royal family really is. When Mulan sees a mountain-sized army charging down at her and
her few remaining comrades, you understand the kind
of danger they are in. The glamor and size of the ballroom in "Beauty and the Beast" shows
you how grand of an effect Belle has had on the Beast and how much of a change
she's had on the castle, which until very recently,
was quite run-down. But probably my favorite has
to be this one right here in "The Lion King" when Mufasa
is showing Simba the kingdom. The kingdom itself is massive and wide, but the way Mufasa is framed,
he appears even larger, the true king of it all. Next to him, however,
is his small cub, Simba, who by comparison, does
not look up to the task, but because he is sitting next to Mufasa, you also understand how much
potential he has as well. Also, I'm just gonna point this out now, they're doing this from
atop a very large rock, which just so happens to
be another very weird theme throughout the Disney Renaissance. Like, seriously, I don't know why, but Disney obviously felt the need for all of their characters
to have a big, giant rock to go stand on because
it's in, like, every movie. Pride Rock is the best example, but Beast holds Gaston over one, Aladdin gets thrown off
one, Pocahontas poses, Quasimodo and Herc sing,
Mulan just blows one up, and Franklin rescues this
lovely Eagle from one. Show of hands, who actually already knew that that kid's name was Franklin? Do you know how I can tell you're lying? Because his name's actually Cody! In any case, the giant rocks,
as random as they seem, are just another tool
Disney has in their belt to demonstrate the vastness of the worlds. The bigger the world,
the bigger the story, the greater the adventure, the more memorable the characters. But the real magic doesn't just come from showing you the size of the world. What Disney Renaissance
movies do is bring you into the world, they let you experience it and move through it in real time. And not just by having the scene change to different locations,
but literally often following behind a swinging
character, or sometimes a bird. These shots are all over the place, and are often some of the
most exciting and epic shots of the movie, and
are important because moving through the space
is how they let you, the audience, experience the world and feel like you are truly a part of it. And these big, sweeping
shots also represent another aspect of the Disney Renaissance, which is the utilization
of emerging technology. In this case, CGI. That very mentality is what
put Disney animation on the map all those years ago to be
the first studio to ever make a feature-length animated
film with "Snow White." Throughout the "Dark
Age," Disney just clung to its old ways, utilizing new
technology to try and accomplish old techniques cheaper and faster. And this is why a lot
of those movies end up looking scratchy or else
have a lot of really heavy black lines. The Renaissance, on the other hand, took a different approach. Rather than trying to cheapen old ways, they embraced new styles of animation. Their first big success
with this actually came before the Renaissance started in "The Great Mouse
Detective," where they used CGI for the iconic gears inside of Big Ben. And while that was extremely effective, future movies wouldn't
just experiment with CGI in single scenes, they would
put it front and center in the middle of the most epic moments. The Cave of Wonders and
the escape from within? (exhales sharply) Nailed it. The ringing of the bells in the opening scenes of "Hunchback?" (exhales sharply) Nailed it! Herc fighting the hydra,
Tarzan branch-surfing, I mean, these are huge, iconic moments that aren't just enhanced by, but are also made possible by embracing new styles of animation. I mean, just watch this huge zoom to open "The Rescuers Down Under." I mean, seriously, the shot is so cool! It goes on forever! Okay, can I just have
a brief pause to, like, geek out a little about
"The Rescuers Down Under?" Why does nobody talk about this movie? I mean, look, look at
this fall right here, hook at this height! He looks so high up, and
he's riding an eagle, and skating on water, and
jumping off of a waterfall! I mean, God, this animation is awesome, and I'm not, like, cherry-picking these from all over the movie, all of that is just in
the first seven minutes! All right, that's enough of that. Back to cool CGI elsewhere! Let's talk about the
Beast's ballroom again, and his big dance with Belle
because this is another great example of CGI raising
this scene to new heights. Compare it, for example,
to "Sleeping Beauty's" big dance scene. I mean, it's just a static
shot of them dancing. It's boring. Even the characters are falling asleep. On the other hand, "Beauty
and the Beast" feels magical, and epic, and huge! This is the moment their
relationship has been building up to the whole movie! Belle is in the yellow
dress, it's like, "Yeah!" Although I will say, just to
be fair to "Sleeping Beauty," that later on in "Beauty and
the Beast" they actually take frame-for-frame reused
animation for the final dance. Again, in front of just a
really static, non-moving crowd. Although, speaking of
crowds, that is another area where CGI would vastly
improve, and to great effect. Like when Quasimodo swings
in to save Esmeralda, or when the whole country
of China bows to Mulan. These are huge moments of
victory for these characters and they're so memorable because Disney was pushing the envelope. But never do I think this was more true than in the case of the
avalanche in "Mulan" and the stampede in "The Lion King." For "Mulan," they had
to develop a new program called "Attila" so that they
could autonomously animate the over 2000 Huns on screen at once. And for "The Lion King," it
took them over three years to animate the stampede. And again, they had to
invent new technology so that they could
properly animate the dust happening in the stampede. Oh, that glorious dust. But what brings all these movies together isn't just the style of the animation. It's also the stories and
the characters themselves. Each of these movies has
very similar character roles and story beats, which can make them very familiar and comfortable, if not maybe just a touch
repetitive at times. For example, a vast majority
of the Renaissance movies involve the main
character pretending to be something they're not, like
a prince, or not a prince, or a human, or a man, or a gorilla or else they literally
changed into something else, like a beast or a mortal, and
in pretty much every case, the character's a main motivation is to overcome this mistaken identity, or to be recognized
for who they truly are. And doing this pretty much always involves overcoming a very over-the-top, extremely memorable Disney villain. I mean, nobody does villains
like the Disney Renaissance, like, nobody, even today's Disney villains have nothing on them. See, like, nowadays, the
whole mistaken identity thing has also been extended to the villains, and the misdirect and
plot twist big reveal of who it is at the end is very trendy. (gasps) Oh my God, it
was Professor Callahan? (gasps) Oh my God, it was
Assistant Mayor Bellwether? What? Not Hans! Te Ka? Nah, she's not a villain,
she's just missing her heart. See what I mean? But back then, there was no
mistaking who the villains were right from the get-go. They were big, and bad, and huge, and egotistical, and awesome. I mean, just the phrase "Disney villain" is like its own genre of character. When I say the phrase, "Disney villain," who comes to mind first? Because I bet it's someone
from the Renaissance. For me, it is Jafar, Scar, and Ursula. Not only are the Renaissance villains a rebirth of the original big bads, like the evil witch and Maleficent, but they reinforce another
theme of the Renaissance as a whole, which is the
complete lack of moral ambiguity. The good guys are good
and the bad guys are bad. I don't think anyone was
leaving the theaters back then being like, "Well, you know,
I know he was the bad guy, but I do think Scar had a point." Very different story today. I mean, I dare you to just
go on YouTube and type in, "Was Thanos right?" Speaking of the good guys though, they had their own set of tropes, because you had better believe
that in all of these movies, there was a very attractive
couple that could definitely fall in love and probably
involve some royalty. Because once Disney realized how popular the princesses were, (exhales sharply) well, they just couldn't not use them. Sure, Nala, Esmeralda,
Meg, and Jane are all just totally getting the shaft in terms of the official Disney Princess branding, but they are all still very
present in those movies and still act in the exact same roles. Okay, we have big scope,
new CGI, crazy fun villains, princesses, really big rocks,
love, romance, royalty. What else are we missing? Um...
(fingers snapping) Oh, the songs! (Ariel vocalizing) Yeah, if anything really
ties these movies together more than anything else,
it's the musical numbers. As I said earlier, Ron
Clements and John Musker wanted "The Little Mermaid" to
feel like a Broadway musical. And after it was successful,
the idea caught on in a big way. Each movie would have its very
own style of music and stuff, but they all would hit the
same categories of songs. There's your classic
"yearning for more" song, the love song, the villain
song, the showstopper, and, of course, the buddy song. Not only did these songs all tend to hit the same kind of story beats, which again, helps them feel more familiar, but they are all extremely catchy, and most importantly, help tell the story. These aren't just musical
numbers for the sake of having a song in the movie, they help advance the plot
in a fun, over-the-top way that makes the movie
memorable after it's over. It can often be difficult
to go see a movie over, and over, and over again, but do you know what's not difficult? Just listening to the music
over, and over, and over again. And it's not even just
that the movies had songs and that those songs
hit similar story beats that made them feel connected, it's the fact that the
same people were working on a lot of the songs in different movies. Alan Menken in particular left a big mark on the Renaissance, acting as the composer and songwriter for "The Little Mermaid," "Beauty and the Beast,"
"Aladdin," "Pocahontas," "Hunchback," and "Hercules!" God, can we just take a
second to applaud that? Like, jeez.
(hands clapping) And that idea doesn't stop at the music, it also goes for directing. John Musker and Ron
Clements didn't just do "The Little Mermaid," they also did "Aladdin" and "Hercules." Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise did both "Beauty and the Beast" and "Hunchback," and Mike Gabriel worked on both "Rescuers Down Under" and "Pocahontas." Just between those five guys, I've covered over half of the
movies in the Renaissance, and all worked with Alan Menken. I mean, it's no wonder the
movies all feel connected. They just, they literally are! And the results speak for themselves, I mean, just look at these numbers. As a whole, the Renaissance
earned $1.4 billion domestic and $3.3 billion worldwide. For comparison's sake,
combined, all of the movies of The Dark Age did just
$356 million domestic. That's less than just "The Lion King." The Disney Renaissance didn't just save the animation department at Disney, it also inspired other studios to create their own animation departments to try and replicate what Disney was doing. And while mostly they were unsuccessful, there were a few gems in there,
like "Anastasia" out of Fox, or "The Prince of Egypt"
out of Dreamworks. But if everything was going so well, you might be wondering, "Why did it end?" You could say that they
just finally abandoned their classic formula when they did "The Emperor's New Groove," I mean, there's no songs, well,
except for the one. ♪ Kuzco ♪ I think we can all
agree that's mostly just an extension of Kuzco's ego more than a really big plot point. And he has no love interest, either. Yeah, there's a really awesome villain, and yeah, he does have a
case of mistaken identity... - (sobs) Llama face! - But by the end of the movie, he's right back where he started, just with a different perspective on life. Kuzco doesn't set out on a
mission for self discovery, he just sort of
inadvertently ends up on one against his will, and it
turns out better for him. And either way, whatever,
I think we can all agree that "The Emperor's
New Groove" is actually the best Disney movie
of all time, all right. Right, right, right, right, right? You agree with me, right? Cool. But really, I don't
think that's the reason. The real reason is, I think, just the new emerging technology of the day, namely, fully computer-animated movies. By the year 2001, Pixar had
started making movies as well, and had already released
"Toy Story," "Toy Story 2," "Monsters Inc," and "A Bug's Life," and they were all crushing it. This was all before Disney owned Pixar. Not to mention a Dreamworks, which was founded by Jeffrey Katzenberg, who had left Disney in the
middle of the Renaissance because then-CEO, Michael
Eisner, wouldn't promote him, came out with his own fully
computer animated movie, perhaps you've heard of it, "Shrek." Also crushed it! Meanwhile, Disney had "The
Emperor's New Groove," "The Lost City of Atlantis,"
and "Lilo and Stitch." And while they are very
much beloved movies to many, they just weren't putting up the numbers, and so, Michael Eisner shut
down the 2D animation department and instead said, "We're
going full-bore with the fully computer-animated stuff." Which might've been a good
idea, but it just seemed like Disney did not know what they were doing in comparison to Dreamworks and Pixar. They ended up buying one
of those studios, Pixar, and after 10 years of floundering with their own animation department,
they finally found success with, guess what, Princesses! Who saw that coming? Anyway, guys, that is the story
of the Disney Renaissance, and how even though, individually, each of the movies is great, the whole is greater than
the sum of its parts. Hope you guys learned something today. This is the video I've been
wanting to make forever, so thanks for sitting
through the entire thing. If you want to learn even more
about the Disney Renaissance, I'll include some links to
some other various sources. I learned a lot making this video. You can check those out in
the description down below. Ben, my question for you and
everyone else is, of course, what is your favorite
Disney Renaissance movie? Let me know in the towel
section down below. Thanks so much for watching today's video. Please remember to leave a like on it if you haven't already, and
subscribe so you don't miss any future Disney action from us. If you want to see how
"The Great Mouse Detective" saved Disney, you can check
out this video right here. Or if you want to know the history between "A Bug's Life" and
"Antz," you can check out this video right here. But, Ben, that's all I've
got time for today, man. I will see you in another life, brother.
