Manyof these have broken families integral to their plots. There’d be no movie if the parents in Parent Trap weren’t separated. Annie and *Oliver Twist[/I} are ABOUT orphans, and thier conditions were established in the source materials. Orphanage is just another obstacle that Pollyanna is supposed the wow her audience by shining through. Jungle Book needs no comment, nither does Cinderella, or any of the other movies based on pre-existing materials that already exablished broken parentages. I’m not familiar with all of these, though.
Hercules is such an anomoly. Because the film began at Hercule’s birth, Hera had to be there (though she isn’t the mother in the real story). But I don’t understand why they rendered two entire Earth parents. Maybe they just had some extra money that year.
Another intact family in Mulan.
Personally, I like Tarzan for family. Tarzan starts with two parents, looses them both, is adopted by his ape mother, rejected by her mate, and accepted by him in the end. Jane is more a traditional Disney hero in that she only has her father - her mother is absent (apparently dead, though she is referenced “Her mother was like that.”)
So, Disney clearly must select scripts featuring broken families in order to keep the costs down. Those cheap bastards…
Look, they could produce any kind of movies they wish. Whether it is integral to the plot or not, there is a significant number of single or no parent live-action movies. Your “it costs too much” idea was nifty as an explanation of that plot device in the animated features, but you really have nothing with which to back it up.
Has Stephen Spielberg ever made a movie that didn’t have either a single-parent kid or a kid in danger? (Besides Raiders of the Lost Ark and 1941)
IIRC, Mulan was actually the first Disney animated movie to show an intact family (human, at least).
Well, baby Herc needed someone to care for him as an infant, once he was made mortal. His foster parents obviously loved him, as did his divine mother and father. Altogether, one of the rare examples of a hero having not one, but two complete families.
Has anyone mentioned Lady and the Tramp? (Too lazy to check through the thread) Darling and Jim Dear have a baby together, and at the end we see Lady, Tramp, and their puppies.
In Treasure Planet, which is adapted from Stevenson’s “Treasure Island”, the main character is fatherless (in the movie, his father abandoned him; in the book, his father dies) but he gains a surrogate paternal figure of sorts in Silver. It falls into the same category as Oliver & Company and The Jungle Book – its adapted from an existing literary source that already did away with a parent, so Disney was not responsible for the “Dead Mother” (or “Dead Father”) in those works.
.:Nichol:.
Both of Mulan’s parents were around and in the movie, but her father was lame – that’s why she felt compelled to take his place.
DD
“Amistad”, “Saving Private Ryan” (Ryan is a young man, but not a kid) to name a couple. It’s been a while since I’ve seen these movies, though, so I could be wrong.
Spielberg makes a little more sense in the single-parent department because his parents divorced when he was a kid and he identifies with it more. For instance, he’s stated that E.T. is more about a kid coming to terms with his parents’ divorce more than anything.
http://www.wordplayer.com/columns/wp28.Pencil.Test.html Read #16
http://www.artyears.com/exclusive/nancy.html Read “How are Film Directors different from those directing animation movies?”
Mulan, the first? Well, the family was intact to a degree in Sleeping Beauty, but as Aurora was removed from her family… Peter Pan has a very intact family in the Darlings, but the plot of the movie (and the book) revolves around Peter’s motherlessness. As someone mentioned, Lady and the Tramp has an intact human family, as does 101 Dalmations (though no children, just puppies).
But, as mentioned here and in the previous thread, this is one of those themes in children’s literature and is hardly unique to Disney. Whether we are talking about the Brother’s Grimm or Mark Twain (or Harry Potter or the Lemony Snickett books), orphans or children with at least one parent absent are a staple.
Why are you arguing with me when obviously you don’t know what you’re talking about? What “plot device”? Ariel’s motherlessness was not a “plot device”. It didn’t affect the story in any way. Her presence was just unnecessary, so they didn’t draw her. Same with Beauty & the Beast. How was Belle’s motherlessness plot device? You don’t know anything about the economy of filmmaking. Studios don’t produce anything they wish, they produce what they NEED to. Writers don’t write whatever they want, they write what’s important to the piece. This goes doubly so for animated films because they’re so much more expensive. It’s not just a “nifty idea” of mine, it’s fact. Why Disney makes so many live-action movies with broken homes is another discussion, but the animated movie question has been answered.
Many of the animated Disney films are based on fairy tales. Being orphaned or living with a single parent is very often a plot device in fairy tales. Particularly when it means that an evil step-parent can then be interjected.
Off the top of my head:
Snow White - Mother dies, evil stepmother takes over.
Cinderella - Mother dies, evil stepmother takes over.
Jack and the Beanstalk - Father is dead or not in the picture, single mother needs help raising money.
I’m sure you can think of a dozen examples. The point is that the orphan or child of a single parent or stepchild is automatically at a disadvantage. This creates impetus for change, and a reason for the story. It gives the hero something to overcome.
I don’t doubt that the economics of animated film favor the tightening of character lists. However the plot device argument can’t be dismissed so easily. It’s got to be a combination.
Bambi’s parents are both alive for the first 2/3 of the movie. The father is there, he’s just busy, being king of the forest and all that, knocking up all the other doe-eyed tail he could get a hold of. He’s there at the end to approve of his son’s progress.
I’ve never seen the film, so I can’t say for sure, but I was under the impression that the myth got kinda mutilated cos, well, the ‘real’ Hercules was a half-deific bastard child. Not something family-friendly Di$ney would touch with a ten-foot pole.
I hate it when they mangle the stories for political correctness, although many of them have encouraged me to actually read the real stories. To wit, I knew ‘Hunchback’ couldn’t possibly be as cheery as they made it, ending-wise. I won’t spoil it cos it’s a heck of a book- go out and read it!
Before you embarass yourself any further, go back and read the OP. It doesn’t say specifically “animated Disney movies.” Your cost premise. which is only minimally supported by the sites you cite, would account for the lack of parents only in the animated features. Disney quite obviously does exhibit the theme in a majority of their movies of both types. Good day to you, sirrah.
instead of looking at Disney, who didn’t even come up with most of these fairy tales, have a look at Grimm brothers and HC Andersen, the people who wrote these stories down (didn’t necessarily invent them as they’re Folk-lore, old popular stories, passed on through generations.
If you really want to know why these fairy tales are the way they are, read “The uses of enchantment” by Bruno Bettelheim.
explains it all
The Emperor’s New Grove is a bit different.
The Emperor Kuzco has no parents mentioned (His father and mother are presumably dead since a) he is the Emperor and b) Yzma was his “mother figure.”)
There * is* however possibly the strongest “traditional” family ever shown by Disney in the Pacha clan. There is a loving mother and father two (third on the way) loving and active kids.
I think someone mentioned this in a previous thread on the subject, or maybe it was a movie review. It’s difficult to write an adventure story where the protagonist is young and has a complete, loving family, because parents are supposed to keep you out of trouble. They’re supposed to protect you from the bad guys. So in order for the kid to have danger or adventure the writer’s got to either seperate him/her physically from the parents (Mulan, Hercules, Alice in Wonderland, Spirited Away…) or make them dead (Harry Potter, Peter Pan, Lilo, …).
Single parents are a good compromise because they can be portrayed as too busy or distracted to help, or bamboozeld by a wicked stepparent. (Snow White, Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, E.T., Iron Giant)
Also single fathers can be nice and overbearingly strict without the softening influence of a mother, (stereotype alert!) causing the child to rebel and run away. (Little Mermaid, Pocahontas?)
So basically, if a kid want to get in trouble AND get out of it on their own without being saved, you’ve got to neutralize the parents somehow. Killing them is the easiest way.
Yup, all that stuff I wrote was pretty much covered in the previous thread. Nevermind… :sheepish: