t***@gmail.com
2018-05-19 17:59:37 UTC
https://lebeauleblog.com/2018/05/19/whys-it-remembered-anastasia-1997/
https://lebeauleblog.com/2018/05/19/whys-it-remembered-anastasia-1997/
There was a time when Disney had a virtual monopoly on animated features. Occasionally, a Don Bluth would come along and enjoy some degree of success, but Disney was always ready to crush its competition at the first sign of weakness. Following Disney’s Renaissance of the 90’s, animation became hot and every major studio wanted a piece of that family box office action. Most of the non-Disney movies from that period are largely forgotten, but Anastasia endures. Kevthewriter wonders why.
Of all 90’s animated films, Anastasia sure has a strange relationship with Le Blog as 3 of the 4 actresses who played the title character had their own What The Hell Happened? articles. Why did it take 4 actresses to play the title character? Because the movie not only does the cliché 90’s animated thing of having the title character have a different person do their singing voice but it also begins with the title character’s childhood and the younger version of Anastasia has a separate person doing her singing voice. By the way this is also the only time, from my recollection at least, that Young Anastasia sings.
Nothing against Lacey Chabert but I find it hard to believe Kirsten Dunst’s singing voice is so horrid they had to get someone else to sing for 30 seconds. Especially when Angela Lansbury would be singing over her anyway. But on the positive side it means that Meg Griffin is technically a Disney princess now.
Well if the FOX/Disney deal goes through.
But, for some reason, this movie seems to be remembered, if for nothing else, than for being the DEFINITIVE movie that people always confuse for being a Disney movie. Sure almost all animated movies get confused for being Disney movies at times but, of all of the animated films, at least from the 90’s, it seems to be the one that gets confused for being from Disney (well soon we might be saying originally from Disney) the most.
Now, if you are even slightly aware of this movie, you might say this is due to the fact that it wears its Disney influence on its sleeve. And while that is true it is hardly the only 90’s animated film that tried to bank off of Disney’s success. There was also The Swan Princess, Quest for Camelot, Don Bluth’s own Thumbelina, The animated King and I where The Kralahome is an evil sorcerer and The Prince is now a teenager who falls in love with a servant girl and there are a bunch of animal sidekicks (look it up), many studios were trying to get a piece of the Disney pie. Even if an animated movie wasn’t directly influenced by Disney they were at least somewhat Disney-ish as most animated films around that period were musicals and at least had a couple Disney cliches in them (i.e. wacky sidekicks or a slow ballad over the end credits).
Yet while some people might have mistaken these movies for Disney movies too, they have been more or less forgotten while Anastasia seems to still be remembered to this day as that one movie everyone thinks is a Disney movie even though it isn’t (for now). Not only that but it has a Broadway musical out right now. So why has this movie persisted in people’s memories while the likes of Thumbelina and Quest for Camelot have fallen by the wayside in people’s memories?
Well, one thing that helps is that it’s the most critically and financially successful of the Disney wannabes…even if it wasn’t THAT critically or financially successful. Critics liked the movie for the most part but it was controversial because it was taking a very dark period in Russia’s history, The Russian Revolution, and sanitizing it by making it a kid-friendly musical with magic, musical numbers, and a talking bat which made more than a few historians squirm and made quite a few people annoyed with it. Controversy aside, though, it did get much better reviews than stuff like The Swan Princess, Thumbelina, or Quest for Camelot, which were all blasted by critics and ignored by most people over the age of 10.
https://lebeauleblog.com/2018/05/19/whys-it-remembered-anastasia-1997/
There was a time when Disney had a virtual monopoly on animated features. Occasionally, a Don Bluth would come along and enjoy some degree of success, but Disney was always ready to crush its competition at the first sign of weakness. Following Disney’s Renaissance of the 90’s, animation became hot and every major studio wanted a piece of that family box office action. Most of the non-Disney movies from that period are largely forgotten, but Anastasia endures. Kevthewriter wonders why.
Of all 90’s animated films, Anastasia sure has a strange relationship with Le Blog as 3 of the 4 actresses who played the title character had their own What The Hell Happened? articles. Why did it take 4 actresses to play the title character? Because the movie not only does the cliché 90’s animated thing of having the title character have a different person do their singing voice but it also begins with the title character’s childhood and the younger version of Anastasia has a separate person doing her singing voice. By the way this is also the only time, from my recollection at least, that Young Anastasia sings.
Nothing against Lacey Chabert but I find it hard to believe Kirsten Dunst’s singing voice is so horrid they had to get someone else to sing for 30 seconds. Especially when Angela Lansbury would be singing over her anyway. But on the positive side it means that Meg Griffin is technically a Disney princess now.
Well if the FOX/Disney deal goes through.
But, for some reason, this movie seems to be remembered, if for nothing else, than for being the DEFINITIVE movie that people always confuse for being a Disney movie. Sure almost all animated movies get confused for being Disney movies at times but, of all of the animated films, at least from the 90’s, it seems to be the one that gets confused for being from Disney (well soon we might be saying originally from Disney) the most.
Now, if you are even slightly aware of this movie, you might say this is due to the fact that it wears its Disney influence on its sleeve. And while that is true it is hardly the only 90’s animated film that tried to bank off of Disney’s success. There was also The Swan Princess, Quest for Camelot, Don Bluth’s own Thumbelina, The animated King and I where The Kralahome is an evil sorcerer and The Prince is now a teenager who falls in love with a servant girl and there are a bunch of animal sidekicks (look it up), many studios were trying to get a piece of the Disney pie. Even if an animated movie wasn’t directly influenced by Disney they were at least somewhat Disney-ish as most animated films around that period were musicals and at least had a couple Disney cliches in them (i.e. wacky sidekicks or a slow ballad over the end credits).
Yet while some people might have mistaken these movies for Disney movies too, they have been more or less forgotten while Anastasia seems to still be remembered to this day as that one movie everyone thinks is a Disney movie even though it isn’t (for now). Not only that but it has a Broadway musical out right now. So why has this movie persisted in people’s memories while the likes of Thumbelina and Quest for Camelot have fallen by the wayside in people’s memories?
Well, one thing that helps is that it’s the most critically and financially successful of the Disney wannabes…even if it wasn’t THAT critically or financially successful. Critics liked the movie for the most part but it was controversial because it was taking a very dark period in Russia’s history, The Russian Revolution, and sanitizing it by making it a kid-friendly musical with magic, musical numbers, and a talking bat which made more than a few historians squirm and made quite a few people annoyed with it. Controversy aside, though, it did get much better reviews than stuff like The Swan Princess, Thumbelina, or Quest for Camelot, which were all blasted by critics and ignored by most people over the age of 10.