The Disney Golden Years Formula

Not the original golden years, but rather the rebirth of Disney animation that brought us what are now animated classics-turned Broadway musicals...

The same formula was used over and over again, but it worked so well because they knocked it out of the park every time. Not a clunker in the whole bunch. I'm so glad I grew up when I did so I could enjoy these in succession as a kid/teen and see them evolve on stage and screen once again.


The Little Mermaid ('89)

SHOWSTOPPER: Under The Sea

LOVE SONG: Part of Your World


Beauty and the Beast ('91)

SHOWSTOPPER: Be Our Guest

LOVE SONG: Beauty and the Beast


Aladdin ('92)

SHOWSTOPPER: Friend Like Me

LOVE SONG: A Whole New World


The Lion Ling ('94)

SHOWSTOPPER: I Just Can't Wait To Be King

LOVE SONG: Can You Feel The Love Tonight

Updated On: 10/16/20 at 04:24 PM

I always thought "Savages" was the showstopper in that formula. I remember, even as a kid, how brilliant that song was. Showing that each side thought the other was a savage. Ugh, still one of my favorites. And Hunchback.

The formula you're describing is actually more extensive - and also less original - than you suggest.

It's not just "love songs" and "showstoppers." Though those are often central to those movies, I would argue that the "I want" songs (Part of Your World, Go the Distance, Reflection, Out There, etc.) are often the anchoring cores of those films, and often the most iconic and emotionally resonant. But in addition to those, you also often have the "villain song" (also, more generally speaking, the Disney Villain archetype also had its Renaissance during that period, and they're considered something a dying breed - replaced with "twist villains," or no villains at all).

But these iconic song formulas ("I want" songs, love songs, showstoppers, villain songs, etc.) aren't something that was invented by Disney. The reason the Disney Renaissance happened in the first place was largely because of their employment of classic principles of musical theatre. Before the Disney Renaissance, Disney had plenty of animated movie-musicals, but the song-placements tended to be less thought-out, and the songs themselves weren't rooted very deeply in nuanced storytelling. They were just often just hummable anthems sung by a chorus, or fun ditties to liven up the comedic scenes. And the few character-driven songs tended to be very generic in terms of their content.

It was really the late, great Howard Ashman who stepped in (at one of the lower points in Disney's animation studio), and became a driving artistic force behind these movies, and it was largely his doing that the films became rooted in the principles of musical theatre, which prioritized storytelling through music more than anything else. The recent documentary about Ashman explores this very effectively.

And after Ashman died, his successors (especially Alan Menken) carried on that legacy through the end of the Disney Renaissance (though you could argue that Tarzan breaks the mold - and Tarzan, perhaps not coincidentally, is widely regarded as the final film in that era).

My favorite Disney topic! It's absolutely Ashman that brought the Broadway formula to Disney, and if you haven't seen the documentary about him yet, DO IT. The even more legendary career that man could have had if he wasn't taken so early legit upsets me at times.

However I'd argue that the actual Golden Age (Cinderella-Jungle Book or so) right up until their Dark Age (Aristocats-right up to Little Mermaid) wasn't actually bad, it just had different story telling structure. They weren't "musicals" but were "movies with music". The songs didn't forward the plot but commented on it. Not a bad thing, just different as that kind of storytelling is it's own art form. Keep in mind that many of those songs are now considered jazz standards or at the very least, part of the Great American Songbook and if you mull it over, it makes sense. Those movies were made in a time when that's how music was used to tell stories.

And I'll always argue that Tarzan is a great film. Some say it's not a musical so it's terrible. You're right, it's not a musical, it wasn't conceived that way so...what's the issue exactly? Instead of a Broadway musical formula, it harkens back to a "movie with music" formula, only difference being that the songs are third person. Outside of Kala's ONE sung line, it works. The Toy Story films and Brave uses this formula and it also works to great effect.

JennH said: "However I'd argue that the actual Golden Age (Cinderella-Jungle Book or so) right up until their Dark Age (Aristocats-right up to Little Mermaid) wasn't actually bad"

"Some say it's not a musical so it's terrible. You're right, it's not a musical, it wasn't conceived that way so...what's the issue exactly?"



I'm not sure if these points are meant to be directed at me, given my comments about both Tarzan and the Golden Age films, but if so: I should clarify that I never said any of those films were bad. In particular, I LOVE Tarzan, and I love the music in Tarzan! I was just remarking that the film marked a transition point from musicals into non-musicals, while also marking the transition out of the Renaissance.

As for the Golden Age and Silver Age films: I totally acknowledge what magnificent achievements they were, and I totally agree that the use of music isn't bad, it's just different. The songs still stick with you, but in a different way: instead of being tied to a poignant character-driven emotion, they're tied to a broader sense of wonder and magic. I will say that I personally prefer the former, and in general I prefer the newer style of storytelling. Maybe it's because of my generation, although I was raised on films from across the Disney eras. I think the Golden Age and Silver Age lack a certain narrative cohesion and depth that's present in the Renaissance, and part of that is connected to the use of music; they make up for those qualities in other ways, and as you point out, the use of music is very deliberate: that's why I wouldn't think to call the films bad. But I generally prefer the latter personally.

BwayLB said: "^ So did Lilo and Stitch and Brother Bear"

OH YES. Both are on my list of majorly under appreciated Disney movies. I think L and S falls even further from the "movie with music" formula because it has only has two or so original songs, and the rest is almost a jukebox...which is perfect considering it's all Elvis tunes to show us more about Lilo, but I still hesitate to call it a movie with music. Brother def falls into that category and of course it's once again Phil Collins :)

JBroadway-Oh def not directed at you, I should have clarified. It was a general statement as I've noticed that's the issue I've heard from those who don't like Tarzan. I just find that argument odd as research on production of it shows that it was never conceived as a 'musical'. Like the creatives behind it, I also can't see Tarzan as a singing character myself, but that could also be just because I love the movie as is since it works on it's own.

ScottyDoesn'tKnow2 said: "Is Mulan the first Disney musical to have different people working on the music/lyrics for the songs and for the underscore?"



Lion King had Elton John on the songs, and Hanz Zimmer on the incidental scoring

(also, I'm assuming you're just talking about the Reniassance musicals, as I'm guessing there were probably many earlier Disney films that had different people on the songs and incidental scores - though I could be wrong about that)