Nice analysis. Remember not to confuse Disney and Pixar when you talk about this topic. Until Disney bought Pixar in 2006 and Pixar’s head John Lasseter took over the animation sectors of both companies, Disney was merely the company that distributed Pixars films (in charge of producing & marketing etc.) while the Pixar team actually developed and created them.
Even nowadays, Pixar has a unique presence. Touchstone Pictures on the other hand is merely a band name used by Disney to release some of their darker material. And they are made by the exact same people as those who make live-action Disney films. (You wouldnt expect to see films like “Good Morning, Vietnam” and “The Princess Diaries” released under the same studio so that’s how they got around that – a GREAT case study in branding by the way). Funnily enough, the darker Pirates of the Caribbean series is an interesting break to that formula.
So in short, you’d be able to talk about their films under one roof. But I must trip you up when you clump together Disney and Pixar films so effortlessly. They are two very different companies which had who polar philosophies towards animated films at that time. (Pixar was all about quality, while Disney head Michael Eisner and his executive cronies kept on sucking all the creative content out of the films in order to make them more “marketable”). This culminated in the god awful films Home on the Range (2004) and Chicken Little (2005), which were made after all the talent at Disney had either quit, died, or been fired. But much heartbreak ensued earlier, such as the bastardisation of The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) and The Kingdom of the Sun – which became Emperor’s New Groove (2000). Sad really…
So yeah. Two different companies. Two very different histories. Two extremely different teams working on them. Please try to keep that in mind when analysing these films. Only when you know the true context of these films can you aptly critique them.