when u go around fanpop u will see there is an obvious era of Disney everyone's in favor of: The 90's but they are only successful because most of the members are from that era, they grew up with them and there for they think they are the best, and although that's great that they think so, that is far from successful economically.
Believe it of not Cinderella is meer successful than The Little Mermaid, and Lady and the Tramp is meer successful than Aladdin. not door much but still. this is exactly what I'm talking about. Many of the Disney films of the late 30s- 60s are very well known but many people who didn't exist in that generation might say things like "its OK but its just old". when in fact many films are very similar to others, Bambi and the Lion King, Cinderella and Aladdin, and every Disney princess movie is very similar (they are all about a girl who wants something more). they just appeal to the audience of the generation more. with a few exceptions.
and one final note, remember what i zei about monumentally successful, well here are some reviews of some very populair yet unsuccessful of less that monumental Disney films (from Rottontomatoes.com)
The Hunchback of Notre Dame-
"Considering that Disney couldn't help but trash Victor Hugo's novel in the process of reforming it for tender young sensibilities, this animated adaptation of his Notre Dame de Paris is pricklier and meer disturbing than we had any right to expect."
Mulan-
"Memo to the gang at Walt Disney animation: Your formula is showing."
Hercules-
[An] insipid, lifeless, animated feature.
Tarzan- " Disney Studios seems to love the concept of feral children."
but hooi-, hooi half of the Disney films that are in the disney gewelf, kluis got reviews like these and look where they are today.
but be warned when u have kids, don't be surprized if they say things like
"Beauty and the Beast is ok, but its just...... old, i don't get it, i like Tangled/ Frozen/ whatever much better."
