Talk:Disney Revival/@comment-5342139-20141021203312/@comment-25097798-20141024002739

Well, believe it or not, it's not always about the money or the popularity.. It's about the story... I tend to think(and I really think that THAT'S what defines the Renaissance and the Revival Era) that the start of those acclaimed eras has to be the revival of Disney Princess/fairytales stories... PatF was the first Disney Princess(AND fairytale) movie since Mulan, Frankly, Disney always made Princess movies the best.. The fact that they returned to a 2D film, even though it doesn't mean anything to you(although it really is and important factor about PatF being in the Revival Era), combined with the fact that Disney made a Disney Princess/fairytale based film, which they hadn't done since Mulan(sorry for repeating myself) is what makes me(and most people) acknowledge PatF as part of the Revival Era.. If Tiana wasn't a popular character, then she wouldn't have become an official Disney Princess... Eilowney and Kida were never made into offical Disney Princesses, cause their movies were just bad... As I said earlier, it's not always about the money... Little Mermaid made 211 million dollars... Does that mean that it's not part of the Renaissance era, just because it wasn't as commercially successful as next Disney movies were?? Princess and the Frog made 267 million dollars.. If anything, it should definitely be a part of the Revival Era.. And please don't start with the "Little Mermaid was made in a different time period, that amount of money was a huge success back then" kind of things.. As I said, money doesn't show anything.. It's always about the story and the quality... Sorry, but Meet The Robinsons wasn't a quality movie, Bolt wasn't a quality movie.. PatF was.