%20%20--%3E%0A%3Csvg%20version%3D%221.1%22%20id%3D%22Layer_1%22%20xmlns%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2000%2Fsvg%22%20xmlns%3Axlink%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F1999%2Fxlink%22%20x%3D%220px%22%20y%3D%220px%22%0A%09%20viewBox%3D%220%200%20684.6%2068.1%22%20style%3D%22enable-background%3Anew%200%200%20684.6%2068.1%3B%22%20xml%3Aspace%3D%22preserve%22%3E%0A%3Cg%3E%0A%09%3Cpath%20d%3D%22M444.1%2C29.3h-17.4v14.5h17.4V29.3z%20M36.4%2C68.1l29.3-50.8V0H50.4L32.9%2C36.8L15.5%2C0H0v68.1h16.7V45.8l12.4%2C22.3H36.4z%0A%09%09%20M49.1%2C68.1h16.6V23.4L49.1%2C52.1V68.1z%20M76.6%2C68.1h45V53.8H93.3V41.6h21V27.1h-21V14.8h28.3V0.1h-45V68.1z%20M175.6%2C68.1h17.3v-68%0A%09%09h-16.5v40.3L150%2C0.1h-17.6v68h16.7V27.7L175.6%2C68.1z%20M235.8%2C14.8h15.4V0.1h-47.4v14.7H219v53.2h16.8V14.8z%20M290.3%2C45.9h-17.1%0A%09%09l7.5-15.6h2L290.3%2C45.9z%20M298.7%2C68.1h18l-32.2-68h-5.7l-32%2C68h18l3.3-7.1h27.1L298.7%2C68.1z%20M325.2%2C68.1h46.2V53.8h-29.6V0.1h-16.7%0A%09%09V68.1z%20M423.7%2C14.8h27.2V0.1H407v68h16.7V14.8z%20M462%2C68.1h46.2V53.8h-29.6V0.1H462V68.1z%20M564.8%2C34.1c0%2C10.7-7.2%2C19.2-18.5%2C19.2%0A%09%09c-11.4%2C0-18.5-8.5-18.5-19.2s7.1-19.2%2C18.5-19.2C557.6%2C14.9%2C564.8%2C23.4%2C564.8%2C34.1%20M580.6%2C34.1c0-19-14.2-34-34.3-34%0A%09%09c-20.2%2C0-34.3%2C15-34.3%2C34c0%2C19%2C14.1%2C34%2C34.3%2C34C566.4%2C68.1%2C580.6%2C53.1%2C580.6%2C34.1%20M604.8%2C20.5c0-4.1%2C3.3-6.2%2C6.7-6.2%0A%09%09c4.4%2C0%2C6.6%2C3%2C6.6%2C6.6h14.7C631.8%2C9.1%2C625.1%2C0.1%2C611%2C0.1c-12%2C0-21.7%2C9.3-21.7%2C20.6c0%2C10.9%2C5.9%2C15.9%2C16.7%2C19.8%0A%09%09c5.2%2C1.8%2C11.5%2C3.2%2C11.5%2C8c0%2C3.3-2.4%2C5.5-6.4%2C5.5c-3.6%2C0-6.6-3-6.6-6.7h-15.2c0%2C11.5%2C7.9%2C20.8%2C21.8%2C20.8c12%2C0%2C21.6-9.3%2C21.6-20.6%0A%09%09c0-10-5.3-16.4-16.7-19.8C610.6%2C26.1%2C604.8%2C25.3%2C604.8%2C20.5%20M670%2C20.9h14.7C683.8%2C9.1%2C677.1%2C0.1%2C663%2C0.1c-12%2C0-21.7%2C9.3-21.7%2C20.6%0A%09%09c0%2C10.9%2C5.9%2C15.9%2C16.7%2C19.8c5.2%2C1.8%2C11.5%2C3.2%2C11.5%2C8c0%2C3.3-2.4%2C5.5-6.4%2C5.5c-3.6%2C0-6.6-3-6.6-6.7h-15.2c0%2C11.5%2C7.9%2C20.8%2C21.8%2C20.8%0A%09%09c12%2C0%2C21.6-9.3%2C21.6-20.6c0-10-5.3-16.4-16.7-19.8c-5.4-1.6-11.3-2.4-11.3-7.2c0-4.1%2C3.3-6.2%2C6.7-6.2C667.7%2C14.4%2C670%2C17.3%2C670%2C20.9%0A%09%09%22%2F%3E%0A%3C%2Fg%3E%0A%3C%2Fsvg%3E%0A)
The ‘90s were a golden era for the rom-com, taking the romance genre from John Hughes-style teen dramas to wacky hijinks, magical chaos, and the swoonworthy enemies-to-lovers trope. The girls had opinions, and the guys had major character arcs, forcing them to grow up and prove their love. Meanwhile, Disney movies were also experiencing a revival, with the Disney Renaissance developing heroines who were truly the main characters of their stories.
Think you can tell the difference between ‘90s rom-coms and Disney movies? Try out this 20-question quiz to see if you can identify the quotes:
The success of both of these genres definitely had an impact on each other, with many ‘90s rom-coms namedropping Disney characters and many Disney movies pushing back against the very stereotypes that so many rom-coms were riffing off of.
With that in mind, some of the plots and dialogue were incredibly similar between rom-coms and the Disney movies that came before and after them.
More Disney Quizzes:
Add Mental Floss as a preferred news source!
How Rom-Coms and Disney Movies Fared at the Box Office
While the Disney Renaissance and the ‘90s romantic comedy era probably helped each other out on a social level, they were still somewhat rivals when it came to box office sales, in that both were a generally safe choice for a family outing—depending on the age rating. So, how did the two compare when set against each other?
Looking at the top-grossing movies per year, Disney movies definitely beat out rom-coms in ‘90s box-office success. In fact, three (or four, if you count Pixar) Disney movies won out as the highest-grossing films for their years. Most of the other top films were action and thriller movies, with the only non-Disney romance taking a top spot being Titanic.
1990 | 1991 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Home Alone | Beauty and the Beast | Aladdin | Jurassic Park | The Lion King | Toy Story | Independence Day | Titanic | Saving Private Ryan | Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace |
But the overall financial picture is a bit more interesting. Pretty Woman was the highest-grossing rom-com of the ‘90s, earning more than Disney’s two lowest-grossing animated films combined. But funnily enough, the $178,406,268-earning flick was distributed by Disney’s Touchstone Pictures. However, many of Disney’s most successful animated films made more money than all of the rom-coms that came out that year put together.
Year | Film | Box Office Gross |
|---|---|---|
1990 | The Rescuers Down Under | $27,931,461 |
1991 | Beauty and the Beast | $248,822,606 |
1992 | Aladdin | $346,492,782 |
1994 | The Lion King | $771,055,561 |
1995 | Pocahontas | $141,580,605 |
1996 | The Hunchback of Notre Dame | $100,138,851 |
1997 | Hercules | $99,112,101 |
1998 | Mulan | $304,320,254 |
1999 | Tarzan | $448,191,819 |
While Disney movies were generally more successful than rom-coms, the risk factor was often much higher. The Lion King made more than ten times its budget of $45,000,000 in its initial release, but The Hunchback of Notre Dame just barely made more money than it spent.
Rom-coms, on the other hand, tended to have much lower budgets, so the threshold for success was also lower. For example, Sliding Doors only made $11,841,544 but was considered successful because it made nearly double its $6 million budget.
Whether you could immediately tell the difference between the Disney quotes and the ones from rom-coms in this quiz, you probably recognized some of the iconic films that have made the romance genre so rich. So box office earnings aren’t the only thing that matters for cultural nostalgia, after all.
Continue to challenge yourself here at Mental Floss by keeping up with our quiz section.