A comparison of animated film: Disney studios vs Ghibli studios

i haven't seen all the ghibli films yet (something i'm going to work on today actually!) but i wholly disagree with any ghibli plot being "simple" whatsoever. hind sight is 20/20, so if you think you could run out and create a ghibli-par film, have at it. aesthetically, i think ghibli beats disney 100%. the landscapes and scenery in every ghibli flim are breathtaking, often expertly contrasting whatever trivial or light hearted sequence currently occurring during the film. i don't think one could notice every intricate detail in a ghibli movie without watching it at least five times.

disney may be eager to create their villains, but those villains don't have much depth past "obvious bad guy, obvious bad guy motive." if you've ever watched howl's moving castle, you're not really sure who is bad/good until the very end of the movie, as everyone has their own motives and back stories that slowly unravel throughout the film. i wouldn't say ghibli more so shies away from creating dastardly villains, but moreso that they're "realistic" villains and less magical ones, if that makes sense. like, jaffar is an obvious villain who wants to rule the kingdom himself and rule the world once he becomes a genie - in howl's moving castle there's moreso a gaggle of villains, the ruling kingdom that howl left (i've only seen this film once, so i can't really recall specific character names) and the fat lady that cursed sophie. those are all interpersonal relations and conflicts though, and so as a whole it's a 'villainous scheme' but there isn't one clear cut antagonist.

TOTORO is probably the "simplest" and most definitely the cutest of the ghibli flims, without any real villain at all - and perhaps no real plot at all. you're taken into the lives of two girls struggling to adjust to a new life, while their mother remains sick, and somehow come to appreciate/communicate with nature in a way they never thought possible, but deeply respected all the same. it's a very feel good movie, and even the mere stress of mei's being missing is tragic, as would anyone feel if a small, helpless member of their family had gone missing in an attempt to matter, to help their sick mother because they too care just as much!

disney is really good at highlighting moral tones and ideas for kids - ghibli is really good at doing the same for all ages, and overall has a much more mature tone and understanding of human character/does a better job of humanizing animals and their personalities.

ALSO, i find it kind of disgusting how nearly every disney film doesn't have a mother figure - she's either mysteriously gone, dead, or isn't mentioned at all. like what the fuck. the only mother that sticks around the entire movie is simba's mother, but she's a fucking tiger, so who cares. jasmine's mother is never once mentioned (i'm pretty sure??) i think ariel's mother is mentioned maybe once (and actually exists in later sequels, but who cares) bambi's mother dies within the first 20 minutes, cinderella is stuck with her awful STEP mother and step sisters, bell only has her eccentric father, etc. at least ghibli appreciates both parents.
 
I'm trying not to think that all of you are stupid, but you then took my quote which I edited to say was not serious(you can't even say you didn't see it because you quoted it), and took it seriously while stating that it was "pretty cut and dry." The point of me saying that was so he could realize what it sounds like when you simplify things that much and say that it's the extent of it. Oh, and I'm being a douchebag to him because he's acting like one. Somehow I don't think my "show person what they sound like" thing is working out.

As for the whole depth thing, hiding stuff isn't super deep, it's just not in your face. Deep is a bullshit word that really just means subtle and/or thought provoking. That can really be anything, it's not special and there's no objective measure of it. And, of course, it's not at all synonymous with quality.

Yes, but there's a difference between being inspired by something and literally using the exact same story and even the exact same title. Like they couldn't even come up with new names for most of the movies (besides Lion King and whatnot obvs).

Yeah, because all of those stories were the same. They ripped Hunchback of Notre Dame, Jungle Book, Little Mermaid, and Hercules, just to name a few, right from the source. But all that matters is the title, right?
 
or maybe it's just an all-encompassing synonym, i'm not sure why you're getting so riled up about it. that's sort of the definition, too? anything "in your face" would be considered superficial - anything you have to actually digest to understand can be considered "deep" as it's not as easily understood, ie isn't something you could glean everything from the "surface" of the content.

however deep a meaning you discover is up to you, but there's no "bull shit" in considering something to have more depth than something else. merely saying things are being "hidden" sounds really childish, like OH WELL I FOUND IT AND IT WAS EASY TO FIND SO THAT'S NOT VERY DEEP AT ALL IS IT. i'm really not sure what your deal is man!!
 
Yeah, because all of those stories were the same. They ripped Hunchback of Notre Dame, Jungle Book, Little Mermaid, and Hercules, just to name a few, right from the source. But all that matters is the title, right?
I'm kind of disturbed right now, because you're trying to say that those Disney movies AREN'T nearly complete copies of the original stories when they basically are. The only basic difference between Disney's version of Little Mermaid and the original story is that Ariel dies at the end in the story. Obviously there's no singing crabs in the original story, but that's just Disney adding their trademark cuteness.

The Jungle Book as well is just a carbon copy. I've only read parts of the actual Jungle Book, but it's definitely all just the same. Boy is raised by wolves, befriends a bear, fights a tiger, etc.

Can't comment on Hercules. That's one of those Disney movies that I really don't know very well at all. I own it, but have only watched it like twice because I found it kind of meh.

inb4 "i was being sarcastic you're an idiot", because that's your fail-safe.
 
It's funny because if any arguments were to come out of this thread, I would've expected it to be Disney fans VS Weeaboos on which type of animation is 'the master race'. Not even close.
 
or maybe it's just an all-encompassing synonym, i'm not sure why you're getting so riled up about it. that's sort of the definition, too? anything "in your face" would be considered superficial - anything you have to actually digest to understand can be considered "deep" as it's not as easily understood, ie isn't something you could glean everything from the "surface" of the content.

Your definition can apply to pretty much everything, the only things that you don't have to digest to get the full experience are things made for babies. That's been my entire point. And I'm not getting riled up, you're just interpreting it that way probably because you disagree with me. Basically you're just saying "u mad".

however deep a meaning you discover is up to you, but there's no "bull shit" in considering something to have more depth than something else. merely saying things are being "hidden" sounds really childish, like OH WELL I FOUND IT AND IT WAS EASY TO FIND SO THAT'S NOT VERY DEEP AT ALL IS IT. i'm really not sure what your deal is man!!

I didn't say anything like that at all. My point was that depth is not necessarily good or special so the treatment the word gets, IMO, is ridiculous. Especially when artists try to increase their depth levels by hiding things more and adding more things to hide, when they could've made things less subtle and expanded on them further, making them more thought provoking. What bothers me the most is how "deep" things result in these huge circlejerks where people forfeit actual discussion to talk about how much they liked stuff.

@Tyts it's not a failsafe, you're just really bad at picking up on stuff. And I could just as easily say that you saying that is a failsafe in case you didn't get it. For once, you actually did. Alright, Little Mermaid wasn't the best example, the only thing that was really that different was the ending. I was mistaken in Jungle Book, apparently it was the sequel that had the animals slaughter a bunch of people (although they made a Jungle Book 2 and that doesn't happen).
 
Disney's classic animated films translate better to musical; and that's pretty much exactly what they are-- western style musical/theatrical. Clever/memorable music with a simple, one-dimensional, yet visually flashy/dramatic setting to establish scenes for the music.

Ghibli on the other hand, is more in line with painting or poetry-- story telling by showing, rather than telling. Ghibli's ability to express and capture so much, while saying very little, is simply true mastery of the craft of animation. Ghibli's stories are easy to understand, needing nothing in the way of verbal explanation, and yet have complexity that make you think and wonder to fill in all that goes unsaid. Stories like "Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi" (spirited away), "Karigurashi no Arietti" (The borrower, Arietty) and "Totoro" are clearly built for a child audience, and yet they also have complicated themes that make adults think.

As others have said, Ghibli generally not making easily identifiable villains is another telling characteristic of their stories.

Then you can go off the deep end with Ghibli-- you're not going about to show your kids "Grave of the Fire Flies" for instance, though it's a film I almost feel like every American and Japanese person should watch in their life times.


<><>

I think Pocahontas and Mononoke Hime is a good example of contrast between the two.

While both are stories of man's interaction with, and need to control nature-- the presentation and method is totally different.

Pocahontas shows a typical, shallow, white-and-black western view of man's relationship with nature-- "Evil white man destroy nature! It's evil! Come have a healthy dose of tree hugging and singing to the moon so you can love the small forest creatures!"

Mononoke Hime on the other hand has a much more complex and philosophical take on the relationship. It shows the need of men to use nature to live; our dependency on nature. It shows our greed and power to disturb nature yes; but also shows how we are ultimately helpless before it-- how nature is far bigger than us. All without singing a single hippy song.
 
@Chou you're painting Disney films as just a musical where everything is made just to set up the music numbers, and I really do not think that's fair. And you seem to be implying that the target audience for a film is directly relative to its quality, when that's not necessarily true. I also disagree that anyone needs to watch GotF but that's another matter entirely.
 
Mononoke Hime especially has a special place in my heart, as it has to be one of the most beautiful pieces of animation ever; it's like a painting.

I even took the time to go REALLY out of the way, to the southern island in Japan called Yakushima-- the setting Mononoke Hime is based off of!

yakushima1.jpg


Yakushima receives more rainfall than anywhere else in Japan. At sea level, it looks like a typical tropical island. I know, "typical tropical island", lol-- but I'm from Hawaii, and at the beach level, Yakushima doesn't look all that different from my native neck-of-the-woods.

Go up into the mountains though, and the forest totally changes. Truly a magical place

edit: Food is the worst in the whole country though. I think I'd rather eat Mononoke Hime's re-chewed beef jerky. lol

@DrRobotnik-- well, musical numbers is just about the only thing in Disney films worth talking about... if we're comparing them to Ghibli... I mean, I like a good musical; so I consider that a compliment.

Also, GotF is good for awareness of the war for a generation that didn't know it. I also think that any American who goes to Japan should take the time to go to Hiroshima and see the Nuclear Bomb Dome museum.
 
@DrRobotnik-- well, musical numbers is just about the only thing in Disney films worth talking about... if we're comparing them to Ghibli... I mean, I like a good musical; so I consider that a compliment.

I really wouldn't say that, the films are still excellent adaptations of their stories. To me, the musical numbers aren't that big of a deal, and this is coming from a guy who generally hates musicals. The main difference is that Ghibli shows a lot more than it tells whereas Disney has more of a balance, and I think that's also worth talking about.

Also, GotF is good for awareness of the war for a generation that didn't know it. I also think that any American who goes to Japan should take the time to go to Hiroshima and see the Nuclear Bomb Dome museum.

If it's about the war, I know there was one made about the effect it had on Japanese civilians but I forget the name. I'm going to have to watch it again, but from what I remember it was a better depiction of what you're saying.
 
Because I feel like it, here's a ranking of my favorite Disney and Ghibli movies (no Pixar included):

1. Beauty and the Beast
2. Spirited Away
3. Princess Mononoke
4. The Lion King
5. Grave of the Fireflies
6. Aladdin
7. Howl's Moving Castle
8. My Neighbor Totoro
9. The Little Mermaid
10. Castle in the Sky
 
The Lion King / Kimba stuff is practically a myth propagated through out of context screenshots. I've seen Kimba, I've also seen Hamlet, and the fact of the matter is that both Kimba and the Lion King are Hamlet (superficial) plot point for plot point. It's just one of those things people see online, don't really look into, and then repeat to try and sound smart. It'd be like saying High School Musical ripped off West Side Story.
 
ALSO, i find it kind of disgusting how nearly every disney film doesn't have a mother figure - she's either mysteriously gone, dead, or isn't mentioned at all. like what the fuck. the only mother that sticks around the entire movie is simba's mother, but she's a fucking tiger, so who cares. jasmine's mother is never once mentioned (i'm pretty sure??) i think ariel's mother is mentioned maybe once (and actually exists in later sequels, but who cares) bambi's mother dies within the first 20 minutes, cinderella is stuck with her awful STEP mother and step sisters, bell only has her eccentric father, etc. at least ghibli appreciates both parents.

I don't know how true this theory is, but supposedly the reason Disney movies "kill off" the mother is because Walt Disney felt guilty for the death of his own mother since the new house he had bought her after Snow White became a hit had a gas leak that caused her to die of asphyxiation. It's kind of twisted in a way, but that's always what I had thought had been the reason for the absent mother figure.

I haven't really seen any Studio Ghibli movies after Spirited Away gave me nightmares for months (her parents turning into pigs still haunts me to this day) so I can't really comment, but I do think people are taking unfair shots at Disney. While Ghibli's stories are aimed at an older audience and are therefore more intricate, Disney appeals to the general public. As a teenager I still enjoy watching a good Disney movie.

Even if some the stories are just animated and cute versions of already existing stories, they are still told in a compelling and engaging way. In the same way that people don't consider movie adaptations of books "rip offs", I wouldn't consider any Disney adaptation a rip off (barring the Lion King's striking similarities to that other animal kingdom Hamlet movie). They add a rich and new world to the stories. If you're going to bash on Disney for reselling stories that have already been told, then classics like West Side Story should be treated with the same disdain. There are plenty of stories that have been told and retold, and that's no reason to criticize them. Half the story is how it's presented, and Disney definitely sells the presentation to all audiences.

I hope this made sense????
 
vonFielder, have you actually seen Kimba? It has... very little to do with Hamlet OR TLK. In fact I'm curious about what plot point you would consider similar to Hamlet outside of the father dying in it... it's basically about a lion that learns about human culture and then tries to get the jungle animals and humans to live in harmony with each other and shit like that. It's true that saying TLK ripped off Kimba is stupid (though originally Disney was going to make Simba a white lion), but only because they have nothing to do with each other beyond standing on cliffs, a ghost in the sky and the father dying in both.

Anyway, has anyone here seen Lilo and Stitch? It's one of those Disney movies I feel is really underrated, the stuff with Lilo and her sister works really well on an adult level I thought.
 
vonFielder, have you actually seen Kimba? It has... very little to do with Hamlet OR TLK.

Most of the superficial things it shares with TLK it very much shares in common with Hamlet (death of father who shows up later in spirit, etc.). But otherwise I agree.
 
even though i believe ghibli movies are superior objectively, i still love disney movies to death. lion king/aladdin are two of my favorites, and i recently re-watched the little mermaid as i hadn't seen it in over ten years. i used to swim in my uncle's pool with both my feet jammed into a diver's flipper just to pretend i was a mermaid *_*
 
If you gave me a choice between any Miyazaki movie and any animated Disney movie, I would probably choose the Ghibli. Besides the fact that the only time I watch a movie and do nothing else is in the theatre, I think Disney is just not as engaging. I don't really feel any tension, and maybe that's because they are mostly not humans or too disproportionate to be seen as such. That said, I really like Hercules.
 
Most of the superficial things it shares with TLK it very much shares in common with Hamlet (death of father who shows up later in spirit, etc.). But otherwise I agree.

Eh. They're more superficial than that though. His dad doesn't show up in spirit, iirc it's only his mother who does. And his dad was killed by a hunter, not any kind of relative or anything that could link it back to Hamlet. His mother also dies, etc. It's just a story that has no more to do with TLK than it does with any other animated movie, except they both happen to star at least one lion.

Anyway, I'm just being anal retentive here, we both agree on this shit, heh. Sorry.

Edit: Come to think of it, it's been a long fucking time since I've seen any Kimba, does the father show up in spirit in the series? I think that might've only happened in one of the movies that was released post-TLK...
 
even though i believe ghibli movies are superior objectively

If you don't know it for a fact it's not objective, just saying.

edit: I should probably actually contribute. I thought we were just going to be comparing the two companies and stuff, but this...this sucks. A lot of you are just like "Ghibli so deep Disney is for kids", even the people who compliment them, and that's not right. Now, onto the actual thought; I prefer Disney because it has an even balance of showing and telling, whereas Ghibli shows a lot but tells barely anything. I really do not like things that rely so heavily on visuals because I think that it's less efficient, and it has to rely a lot more on the quality of the animation than something that doesn't. The main difference between the two is that Disney wants to tell you a story and Ghibli wants to take you on an adventure. Both do both but they each do one better than the other, but overall I'd rather be told a story.
 
Oh, shit, TVTropes! You sure showed me. You have objectively proven that Ghibli is superior in literally every way, by linking to a bunch of autistic teenagers obsessing over patterns in cartoons! Alright, thread over.

vvvSeconded
 
my two cents

i feel like disney movies are easier to understand and watch due to the amount of subtext in most ghibli films, which isnt a bad thing. sometimes sitting through a ghibli film seems like a chore in comparison to the more lively and upbeat nature of disney films
 
Oh, shit, TVTropes! You sure showed me. You have objectively proven that Ghibli is superior in literally every way, by linking to a bunch of autistic teenagers obsessing over patterns in cartoons! Alright, thread over.

vvvSeconded

What an immature, uninformed response. "Show, Don't Tell" is a widely accepted writing principle. If you don't like TVTropes, here's a few more links that condemn the practice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show,_don't_tell (inb4 "ew wikipedia three year olds wrote that article!!11")
http://www.dailywritingtips.com/show-dont-tell/
http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/show-dont-tell-whiteboard-writing-lesson
http://www.sfwriter.com/ow04.htm

It is fact that Disney employs more tell than show. The characters explicitly state the morals of the stories:

Adult Simba: I know what I have to do. But going back means I'll have to face my past. I've been running from it for so long.

Genie: But oh, to be free. Not to have to go "Poof! Whaddaya need," "Poof! Whaddaya need," "Poof! Whaddaya need?". To be my own master. Such a thing would be greater than all the magic and all the treasures in all the world. But what am I talking about? Let's get real here, that's never gonna happen. Genie, wake up and smell the hummus.

Aladdin: [singing] Riffraff. Street Rat. I don't buy that! If only they'd look closer. Would they see a poor boy? No, sirree! They'd find out there's so much more to me!

Ariel: [regarding King Triton, as Sebastian watches, unobserved] If only I could make him understand. I just don't see things the way he does. I just don't see how a world that makes such wonderful things could be bad.

Gaston: Were you in love with her, Beast? Did you honestly think she'd want you when she had someone like me?
 
Back
Top