Disney's Wish

[Daniel]

Now streaming.

[EricJ]

Finally got through it on D+:
I know my first impulse seeing the trailer was "Why didn't they just make an Elena of Avalor movie?"--And while I've learned to at least try to give Disney movies the benefit of the doubt (I was defending Treasure Planet twenty years before it was cool, and now like Hercules a bit more than when it opened), wowzers, did I hate this with a murderous passion. As in, it felt like the product of a current regime that overconfidently thought it didn't have to do anything MORE than one.

I had ten pages of complaints about how this movie seemed to represent "the post-Frozen Jennifer Lee era of the studio", and then I looked at the Story and Screenplay credits, and GUESS WHAT.
The big problem with the story is King Magnifico, who seems to be the exact same zero-motivation Deceptively Smug Male Villain that Prince Hans was in Frozen, if Hans had shown his true colors in literally the first five minutes of the movie. I expected the same "Emotional-intelligence solves everything with a hug" ending of the current Disney movies, but no,

Mags gets the same misandrically vindictive flick-off at the end that Hans got for ambitiously trying to fool good smart women.

The only character with any remote complexity to his/her personality in the story is Asha's father, who actually has something to believe in and work for, and even he's saddled in the end with one of the smug "Classic Disney easter eggs" that become truly overbearing and presumptively unearned by the end of the movie.

And oh, the eggs...The big problem, in that what gave Disney movies their pixie dust was a sense of SETTING. Musker & Clements could make a film under the sea, in the Arabian desert, in space or a funny ancient Greece, and where the movie was was as much a character as the story--Even if "Princess & the Frog" had no story or characters to like, at least you never doubted that it was a movie about New Orleans. Whatever magic happened was a particular kind you could only find in that place.
Here, there's no setting, and, oddly enough, no visual sense of wonder that anything magical actually happens. The setting deliberately seems to nudge us that it's set in Tangled's Corona with Sleeping Beauty's forest nearby--and hits us with a few smug jokes about Peter Pan, Cinderella's fairy godmother and even Zootopia--and reminds us how the story grew out of those settings. Instead, the movie says "We're a Disney movie, folks, start applauding!"...Which was the problem with Ron Miller's aimless movies of the late-60s-70s.

With Disney's current story-compass troubles, it feels as if Lee is the new Ron Miller:
Miller didn't know what Walt Would Do, but he did know that Jungle Book was their last hit, and kept the studio running in place remaking Jungle Book for fifteen years until it looked embarrassingly outdated.
Lee, OTOH, is worse: It's not that she doesn't know how to make different films after Frozen and Encanto boosted the studio, this movie feels as if she thinks she doesn't have to know, and that the studio can bank on remaking Frozen and Encanto for the next fifteen years. Not only do we have our Hans, Asha babbles and bumbles like Anna, and everyone sings vaguely Latin Lin-Manuel Miranda-clone songs for lack of story or exposition.

Disney clearly wants some heads to roll for its high-profile failure--The recent proxy fight wants to blame Bob Iger, and the board will probably fire one of the directors.
But if Disney wants the Fifth Renaissance it needs, this movie is all the argument that Jennifer Lee has GOT. TO. GO.

[Ben]

Comments about the vastly underrated Miller and the better-than-remembered 70s films aside (The Rescuers is *not* The Jungle Book!), and not sure what a "Fifth Renaissance" means, but…could this be Best Eric Post Ever!?

Here, have a non-ironic star, or, er, the closest we have:

Spot on about Lee, though. Unfortunately, she has FIII in the works and, until that stops being the golden goose, she’s right in there with Kathy Kennedy as HODs who aren’t going anywhere.

And I still need to see Wish, but all you guys sure aren’t making the prospect easy…!

[EricJ]

Sorry, but had to go back two pages to find a theater review to argue with:

And if more care was taken with the story, this could have been a great movie. If I was in charge of the story, I would have tweaked it a little bit. Sure, still have Asha have her entitlement issue over the wishes, still have The King be possessed by the book BUT somehow get Asha to manage to get all the wishes granted and chaos ensures when it turns out vague wishes aren't good or there are some dodgy wishes. This forces Asha to find a way to de-possess The King so they can work together to save the Kingdom. Asha learns a lesson, The King learns a lesson, the villagers learn a lesson and I don't leave the cinema thinking that once again Disney has unnecessarily villainized another character.

When we got the chicken scene (because it's FUNNY! ), I was going with the Chaos Ensues idea when the well-meaning Star goes around generously granting everyone's wishes one after the other, ridiculous or not. Maggie wants the star Because Power, but is horrified to see the extent of his own wish to be everyone's beloved tyrant, and takes Asha on as a temporary apprentice to try and undo the chaos...But in the end, Asha's father, who only wished to sing good songs, has just the medicine to get people to realize what's Truly Important, and after it's over, now that the townspeople see each other's wishes, they learn how to work together towards them without magic.

I want to see how many people watching this movie for the first time actually came up with BETTER storylines, and how many different ideas we got.

Oh, and when you hire a song writing team at least make sure one of them has experience writing stage musicals (and ideally won a Tony/Olivier for their efforts - I'd even settle for a nomination)

That's one of the big Lee-era problems: 20s Broadway isn't the 80s Broadway that gave us the Little Shop of Horrors songwriters who knew how to throw a story and a unique musical genre of songs together, it's the world where Wicked fangirls have the industry all to themselves, and Frozen felt like a jealously gatekept fan convention for Wickies and "Book of Mormon" fans.
And let's not even get into the Sherman Bros. days of OG Disney, where Walt could give house songwriters the book of Mary Poppins and say "Pick out what chapters would make great musical numbers."

I'll trade a dozen Broadway-startime "Let It Go"''s for just Aladdin's "One Jump", which introduces us to the world, main character and tone of the movie in five minutes, pushes the story along with gags, and, oddly enough for Wish, actually moves.
And hate Hunchback all you want, "The Bells of Notre Dame" is a master class in pushing story exposition through introductory song, as a good old-school Broadway opening number should.

[EricJ]

(If I posted spoilers, please correct, I was only going from Bill's post. )

[Randall]

Rarely has watching a Disney film for the first time felt so daunting a task! Nevertheless, it must be done - hopefully soon (and get it over with!).

And Hunchback was mostly brilliant. No hate coming from here.

[Ben]

Lavern's name and A Guy Like You aside — and even that's endurable — Hunchback is awesome from start to finish.

I have Wish coming on disc to run on the proj, but am tempted to just watch it on D+, just to "get it over with" as you say. How could such a big movie turn out so wrong? I’m intrigued to see, but also wary of the trainwreck it will be…

[Randall]

It has been done.

My son and I watched Wish tonight. My boy admitted to doing it as a "hate watch," given the negative buzz on it.

Me, I was hoping to exercise my superpower - where I can find almost any film endurable and see the positives in it. I think Ben would call that a character flaw.

But this film utterly defeated me. Oh, boy. I am now trying to decide which feeling is strongest - my hatred of Chicken Little, or my disgust about Wish. Yes, it's in my bottom two Disney films ever. It's certainly by far the most disappointing.

This was supposed to be the 100th Anniversary celebration, a film to champion the company and make fans cheer. Instead... what a terrible dud. Almost nothing clicked for me. The worst was the look of the film. Just maybe the film could have come off semi-okay if it just looked better. I thought I was watching a DreamWorks Netflix show. Oh my gosh, why does Wish look so incredibly cheap? There's minimal texturing, with everyone looking smooth, like their clothes are quite literally painted on to their bodies. The backgrounds and foregrounds are often totally disconnected; that is partially due to everything being in total focus, and lighting that often fails to bring things to life. The uninspired colour choices leave the film looking boring much of the time, and many times the foreground and background actually blend together colour-wise in a green-purple mush. The backgrounds are utterly lifeless - stars don't twinkle, and water doesn't ripple or reflect anything. Perhaps this is due to going for a static "storybook look," but it's been done much better in countless other Disney films.

The direction is also bland. Action largely moves left-to-right, with the "camera" staying in the midground. Things meant to look awesome, like the wish bubbles, remain pedestrian and unworthy of interest. "Jokes" and "funny business" fall flat. Ideas are underdeveloped. I did understand the king's motivation, but it's passed over so fast that I'm not surprised people missed it. The whole thing is just sad.

There's a kernel of a good idea in there. I like the notion of people gullibly giving up their wishes, and therefore leading mundane lives devoid of promise, only to reclaim their wishes and banish the one who would deny them their dreams. That's really an awesome idea, and the ending almost made it work, in the single best scene of the film. But this script was simply not ready, the animation was too rushed or simply underfunded, and the direction was not up to the task of making the film interesting. It's just a sorry misfire, with awkward references to past films - references that mostly don't work in any way.

Instead of a celebration, Wish is more like a death knell.

What would I have done differently? Definitely give the king a more fleshed-out backstory and clear motivation. Skip the Star character altogether, and let Asha be the hero all by herself. Dump the talking goat, and make the humans more interesting. Get rid of all the lame jokes and business that doesn't work. Forget the references to past films unless they have real meaning. Move the "camera" and vary the shots more. Also, integrate the songs more meaningfully with the story, with musical styles that better suit the film.

And make the film look like it actually cost $200M!! Where did the money go?!? With better visuals, Wish would have had the opportunity to at least seem good.

[EricJ]

]There's a kernel of a good idea in there. I like the notion of people gullibly giving up their wishes, and therefore leading mundane lives devoid of promise, only to reclaim their wishes and banish the one who would deny them their dreams. That's really an awesome idea, and the ending almost made it work, in the single best scene of the film. But this script was simply not ready, the animation was too rushed or simply underfunded, and the direction was not up to the task of making the film interesting.

Thinking back on John Lasseter coming into Disney's 00s malaise, looking at the end of Meet the Robinsons and pulling it out of development hell, I can just picture Lasseter looking at that ending scene where the point finally came together and saying "Make THAT film." He knew what gave a Disney film feels and gravitas to stay with us.
Ironically, one of the few guys in the last twenty years who truly GOT Disney films was sacrificed on the altar of the movie industry's fascination with thinking Jennifer Lee's millions and shmillions of box office would usher in a new age of Power Women in Hollywood. Who don't really get why anyone else would watch a Disney movie.

(And when Simon--the one who wished to be a knight--tries to be redeemed at the end, I was not only thinking "Wait, so they were actually a thing? ", but in a further kill-frenzy over Lee's Linda-Woolverton-like habit of portraying all male characters as either evil gaslighting creeps or lovably pathetic broken goofs who need women to dress, feed and civilize them--In Simon's case, saying "All I wanted was to be less pathetic and deserve you, so I thought the king-guy could Fix me, 'cause Love Is A Fixer-Upper... "
Why do we get all the neurotic ones?)

What would I have done differently? Definitely give the king a more fleshed-out backstory and clear motivation. Skip the Star character altogether, and let Asha be the hero all by herself. Dump the talking goat, and make the humans more interesting. Get rid of all the lame jokes and business that doesn't work.

You can't have a movie be "wondrous" one minute, and then try to pull self-deconstructive Emperor's New Groove jokes out of a hat the next. The jokes with the animals (the deer can't get out of Asha's way, because he's caught in the headlights! ) feel like the Chicken Little product of hipster animators trying to invoke AND satirize Aurora's forest pals at the same time, because of some DreamWorks-fed self-boredom gag about Disney princesses and animals.
Otherwise, we could have had a sidekick more interesting than a nameless goat (at least Sofia the First's Clover had Wayne Brady, that's something!) who seems to be his own cynical new-animator gag satirizing wacky animal sidekicks. Esmeralda's Djali, he ain't.

And Star gave off so many vibes of Morph from Treasure Planet, he deserved to have something to do. Think we all wished he could cut loose, cause some well-meaning chaos, and make himself as memorable a cute money-critter as he should have been.
As it is, the movie is almost as static, earthbound and magic-free as Hunchback or Frozen's attempt to animate a future stage musical, except that everyone just stands around too much for even that.

[Ben]

Instead of a celebration, Wish is more like a death knell.

Ouch!

So, not an 8/10, then?

Oh, man, I do need to see this. As terrible and awful as it sounds, this has somewhat spurred me on a bit more. It can’t be *that* bad, can it? Or is it just that disappointing? It always amuses me that Rand hates ChickLit so much and yet enjoys the very similar Jimmy Neutron. I’m not sure what is the "worst" Disney film for me, and I certainly don’t "hate" any of them, though a few recent ones have to find me in the right mood for, and even though I did find Frozen II interminable, I'll even give that another go before the third one comes along.

Certainly things have felt a little downhill after the surprise of Tangled, a few highlights aside, but maybe Wish is the one to really break things?


And Eric…stop bashing Hunchback! Never designed as a future stage musical, it really is as close to perfection as the renaissance got in terms of technique. It’s an awesome film.

[Randall]

Thinking back on John Lasseter coming into Disney's 00s malaise, looking at the end of Meet the Robinsons and pulling it out of development hell, I can just picture Lasseter looking at that ending scene where the point finally came together and saying "Make THAT film."

Boy, does that nail it. Yes! The whole point of the film coalesces in the end, but without much to enjoy prior to that. That ending begged for a better film to lead up to it. I actually went back and watched it again immediately, because it reminded me of what a good Disney film could be, and of what Wish could have been in stronger hands. The direction of that scene was still bland, but you could see what they were trying to do, and it pretty much worked.

The film's structure could have worked better, too, if an example of the wish-taking had occurred before all the talk about wishes being "held" and "granted." It didn't make much sense to me initially. And when we finally saw what it meant, it felt less like a reveal and more like, "Well, why didn't you show us that before? That would have really helped." Some mystery in a plot is good, but the plot shouldn't be a mystery, if that makes sense.

So, not an 8/10, then?

It felt like a 3/10 to me. Yeah. Maybe 2/10.

Is it "that bad?" I'm trying to figure out how much it failed due to the story, and how much it failed for me due to the tragically bland visuals. I really do think that better visuals could have just about saved it, and at least brought it up to being a 6/10, mediocre type of film. (I'd say that Frozen II is a 5/10, by comparison.) When watching Wish, I felt like the characters looked like a combination of (original) Shrek villagers, and members of the CGI crowd in Hunchback - but with blander colouring and less personality.

Wish's plot "idea" is fine, really, but it needed to be structured and fleshed out better. It also needed better supporting players that make a stronger and more positive impression. The film feels like "Asha, the bad guy, and then there's everyone else." Sure, everyone in town is devoid of dreams/wishes, but they could still show some personality. The Star could also have certainly worked better, as Eric notes, if it had more to do and some form of personality as well.

I do see the comparison with Chicken Little and Jimmy Neutron. But while CL has 10x higher quality animation, JN has similarly fun visuals, but also more appealing characters, and a more cohesive plot and tone.

Aside from Wish, I am not really down on the state of Disney animation. Films like Moana, Zootopia, Wreck-It Ralph, and Big Hero Six have been a credit to the studio. Raya was still pretty good (though mediocre), I loved Encanto (though it's an odd duck), and even Stange World had a fun and unique story, with cool art design. There have been bigger missteps like the Ralph and Frozen sequels, but mostly the original films have continued to captivate me. Wish just feels like it was rushed out the door.

[Farerb]

Disney as we knew it is dead, it's currently a completely different studio that uses the same name and makes the same bland CGI trash like other studios do nowadays, and the only reason people still give them the benefit of the doubt is only because 100 years ago they made art, but that was another lifetime. No one from the Disney Renaissance still works there, and certainly no one from Walt's era. It's time to move on.

[Farerb]

Oh, and when you hire a song writing team at least make sure one of them has experience writing stage musicals (and ideally won a Tony/Olivier for their efforts - I'd even settle for a nomination)

That's one of the big Lee-era problems: 20s Broadway isn't the 80s Broadway that gave us the Little Shop of Horrors songwriters who knew how to throw a story and a unique musical genre of songs together, it's the world where Wicked fangirls have the industry all to themselves, and Frozen felt like a jealously gatekept fan convention for Wickies and "Book of Mormon" fans.
And let's not even get into the Sherman Bros. days of OG Disney, where Walt could give house songwriters the book of Mary Poppins and say "Pick out what chapters would make great musical numbers."

I'll trade a dozen Broadway-startime "Let It Go"''s for just Aladdin's "One Jump", which introduces us to the world, main character and tone of the movie in five minutes, pushes the story along with gags, and, oddly enough for Wish, actually moves.
And hate Hunchback all you want, "The Bells of Notre Dame" is a master class in pushing story exposition through introductory song, as a good old-school Broadway opening number should.

Disney's music severely changed with Frozen, which had more popish quality to it rather than the grand style of the 90s music with films like Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King and Hunchback. And then everything post Frozen just tried to repeat the success of Let it Go and write songs that fit the radio more than a Disney film. Wish was a new low for bringing people that have no experience with musicals, but then for Moana 2 they're bringing people whose greatest achievement was a TikTok Bridgerton musical. Do they not know that Alan Menken is still alive?

[ShyViolet]

Disney as we knew it is dead, it's currently a completely different studio that uses the same name and makes the same bland CGI trash like other studios do nowadays, and the only reason people still give them the benefit of the doubt is only because 100 years ago they made art, but that was another lifetime. No one from the Disney Renaissance still works there, and certainly no one from Walt's era. It's time to move on.

This!!

(I still hope for things to get better, though.)

[Ben]

I’d argue that the "modernisation" of music in (and) Disney films stated with Tangled. When Will My Life Begin and others are just as radio-friendly as Love Is An Open Door, etc. They even had a bona fide pop star voicing them!

And Frozen II is a 5/10!? Woah, I really need to lower my quality threshold, don’t I? Now *that* film felt like an interminable 2 or 3 to me! Gosh, how low can I go with Wish then!?

As for Disney Animation on the whole, well, Burny Mattinson only just died, so he really was the end of an era. The studio was still making "art" and good films into the 2000s, but since then it’s been a mix of highs and lows. I agree with all the sequels, though, that the magic is tarnished and, like with many/most/all studios now, it all just feel like product rather than great or even good filmmaking.

I made it to 100 loving Disney Animation, but from now on I’ll be much more picky as to which titles I continue to collect or follow. As with a lot of stuff, it’s all getting too fragmented and "bits and pieces" here and there, due to the changing media landscapes, anyway, so things have to be extra special thesedays.

As I’ve said before, too many people celebrate too much mediocrity. And, sadly, too many creators are happy just churning out "good enough" product.