Originally Posted By Doobie This topic is for discussion of the February 7th Guest Column on Disney animation. <a href="News-ID107150.asp" target="_blank">http://LaughingPlace.com/News-ID107150.asp</a>.
Originally Posted By adtv06 You hit it right on the nose! Disney is paying way too much attention to the beliefs of critics. It IS all up to the audience. For critics to make the final decision on the outcome tally of a film is like they are making their decisions for us. I personally agree with each of the movie reviews that were brought up, it is sad that they are considered failures. Little Mermaid was a new beginning, Beauty and the Beast was almost live action quality, Aladdin contained all movie styles in one and was hilarious, Lion King was incredibly powerful yet down to earth and included the blockbuster single, Pocahontas had great animation including the amazing tree, The Hunchback of Notre Dame simply left me in awe, Hercules was original in what it brought to the audience, Mulan was the classic forumla with a new twist, and Tarzan had a great story and incredible animation. Each one, while critics have called it a forumla have actually attempted something different and they still do respectable numbers. The problem as mentioned with Emperor was the promotion. A movie these days has to have pretty much the word of mouth/ hit single/ in your face promotion. That is what killed it. As far as Atlantis, I loved the movie. With Disney they each put you in a different time, and the music made it really really mysterious. What killed it, was the release time period as well as its marketing. It was totally unique and different from what it was portraying, but the PG rating as with the Black Cauldron, killed it. And as mentioned, the characters were distant and not able to grab ahold of. Keeping this all in mind it would be a terrible decision to abandon the animation. What would Walt have done? He would have endured, moved to the next step, and as seen with Dinosaur, intertwine the medias together. It is about enjoyment, not $300 million. In that case, I guess every movie is a failure to Titanic, so what is the point in even making movies? Now this is getting me mad. But I won't go on.
Originally Posted By coral_barks Hmm. Seems to me I've heard this whole "make a good movie, no matter the cost, listen to the audience, don't listen to the critics" thing before. Said by a guy named "Walt Disney." Whoever that is....
Originally Posted By ecw I think this article is a bit mislead. Using the phrases "Disney executive" and "Hollywood insider" is a much too vague complaint. Feature Animation is a seperate wing of the Walt Disney Company, with its own executives. Do you mean the Feature Animation executives? Yet, Feature Animation is at the whim (both financially and creatively) of the studio and company executives. Perhaps you mean them? As for "Hollywood Insider" I have no idea who you mean. The trades? The word on the street? The guy who parks Eisner's car? It's much to unclear. Also, your article didn't verge into the most important aspect of Disney's recent Feature Animation films - budgets. You make no mention that Emperor's New Groove or Atlantis: TLE cost many, many, many times what The Little Mermaid cost. So the fact that their Box Offices all made in the mid $80 millon doesn't matter. Mermaid made money. The other two did not. Disney is a business, a business that's out to make money. You can't forget that. In the end they answer to Wall Street and the stockholders. In the future please decided if your article is going to be about a film's content or a film's business. Mixing and merging the two in such a manner is confusing to the Hollywood "outsider" and painfully annoying to the Hollywood "insider". Nobody wins. ecw
Originally Posted By Neologos I have to agree that Disney has become too PC. The primary goal should be to entertain. Often times there is a moral of the story but the moral is a univerally accepted idea such as honesty self sacrifice, standing up to evil, and of course the typical love story. These basic themes speak to heart of mainstream America. Lately these movies have been made for demographics and the "insiders." Sometimes the stories feel almost alien to families. I love Disney I see many of their movies in the theaters. I rarely by the movies anymore other than Pixar. My kids don't really even ask for them. I agree with the artical.
Originally Posted By xqqqqme Not only do I think that the "insiders" have it pretty much right (and I really can't recall a time that any of them branded a Disney animated feature "a failure"...."disappointing" maybe) but what am I to think of a guy who claims to have a handle on the Disney product but continually refers to the company as Walt Disney *Enterprises*?
Originally Posted By fabdisbabe I have to agree that Disney has become too PC. >> What's PC to those who are not being made fun of is simple common courtesy to those who are. Fab
Originally Posted By yensid32 One of the main reasons Disney animated films have been so successful is because you care so much about the characters. They are so well developed. And most importantly, likeable. Why do you think Snow White is still the fairest of them all? You can't help but care for and like her. One of Hunchback's biggest problems was that you really didn't care all that much about some of the main characters. Clopin was really a nothing character. And Esmeralda didn't generate much affection either. She was too strong, too tough - let her take care of herself. Hercules suffered similarly. It may have been as hip as Aladdin, but you cared more for Al, Jasmine and company. Mulan and Tarzan fared much better because, once again, you cared for and about the characters. They were likeable. This is why Pixar's films have been so successful. The characters are so likeable. Kids want to see them again and again, and even buy the toys so they can take them home with them. I also believe Emperor's New Groove will stand the test of time too, because it has the most likeable set of comic villains, in Yzma and Kronk, to have graced the screen in years. You are so right, Disney needs to forget about political correctness and what everybody else is saying and get back to good, solid storytelling, with good, solid, well-rounded (and likeble) characters. This is what sunk Atlantis. Great voice talent, but flat, cardboard thin charaterizations. (I also thought the choice to go new-age was an extremely bad move.) Long live Disney animation!
Originally Posted By CuriosWolfSo I always thought Dinosaur too strongly reminded me of Universal Studios' home video/DVD 'The Land Before Time' series.(Dinosaur even borrow the basic idea of young dinosaurs getting lost in a strange land, finding their way to a dinosaur paradise, and different kinds of dinosaurs learning to work together.) So 'Dinosaur' is not all that original because we already seen it happen before with the 'Land Before Time' series.
Originally Posted By nameless926 I think what Disney is lacking in animation is how long they procress their films. There is not much room for anticipation when a movie is released six months after a holiday release. Although, I confess I think Lilo and Stitch will be well deserved of critical praise. What happened to the good ole' days when movies were released with a two-year span? The fact that more time and consideration was put into the film makes for a satisfying and fun-filled trip to the movies.
Originally Posted By TikiRoomer >>What's PC to those who are not being made fun of is simple common courtesy to those who are.<< All too true, Fabulous Disney Babe. And Disney is still too PC. Being all things to all people does not mean all people are entertained. A few select examples... -Paring down the intentionally "international" cast of Atlantis by one or two might have allowed for some extra character development. -Quietly and tastefully releasing Song of the South on video would make a lot of Disney fans extremely happy. It wold also lift a bit of the mystery and stigma that make the movie out to be some sort of unbelievably racist Uncle Tom-fest. -Cutting up classic animation like Pecos Bill and the Martins and Coys is ridiculous. It insults the artists who created those works far more than any imagined slight to overly sensitive people who take such actions depictions out of context. No, Disney should never make anything like Song of the South again. Yes, Disney should have a little more diversity in their animated humans ALL the time, rather than wait another fifty years to animate an African American (or any other type of ethnic protagonist) in a feature film. But to bury the past is stupid for ways I just don't have the eloquence to get into at this hour. And to sacrifice quality to try and keep everyone, majority AND minority (and I don't mean that in racial terms,) happy never seems to work correctly. In fact, it often makes a mess.
Originally Posted By uruseiranma It was all building: LM: 90 million RDU: N/A, but did not make as much aS LM B&TB: 150 million Alad: 210 million TLK: 300 million At the rte Diseny was going, I thin kthey expected their next film, Pocahontas, to reach $350 million. Ah, the early 90's, when the prospects of becoming an animator were looking better and better. And now, here I am working in 3D, just trying to mdel a human head and make a ball bounce. A year to go, and I must work out concepts. oops, thinking aloud.
Originally Posted By JeffG That trend >had< to peak, though, and it really isn't fair to expect each and every film done by feature animation to outgross the previous one. That initial sequence of building success was really the nearly lost art of feature animation gaining in popularity as the quality of the films improved. That whole sequence can really be extended further back to include "Great Mouse Detective" and "Oliver & Company" as well as Universal's "An American Tail" and "The Land Before Time". Those were really the films that showed that there was still a market for animation, while "Little Mermaid" and particularly "Beauty and the Beast" greatly broadened the audience and acclaim for the genre. Once animation was truly an accepted form of filmmaking again, it was only natural that the pattern of ever-increasing grosses would give way to the more typical patterns seen by every film genre. Even in the post "Lion King" years, Disney Feature Animation has still had a rather spectacular track record both critically and financially. While some of the films have received somewhat mixed reviews, none had truly been panned. In addition, my understanding is that Disney hasn't actually >lost< money on an animated feature since "Rescuers Down Under". Even the ones that did less spectacular business at the domestic box-office eventually were profitable thanks to international runs, video, and merchandising. Despite all that, it seems likely that Disney will eventually have another animated feature that flops completely. One of the realities of filmmaking is that even those with the best of talent and the best of intentions sometimes try things that simply don't work. -Jeff
Originally Posted By TheLionKing I don't care whether it is 2D or 3D or live action. It is story, story and did I mention, story that is the foundation of any movie. If the story does not develop the characters and get you involved, then it will invariably fail no matter how pretty it might look.
Originally Posted By Superstar Limo I wonder how much Emperor's New Groove could have earned if it were properly advertised and plugged.
Originally Posted By jonvn Ok, great. But who is Jim Miles? How does he rate a guest column? Did I miss something?
Originally Posted By basil fan Who is the "you" who doesn't care about Clopin, the "nothing character" in Hunchback (about 10 messages ago)? He's my favorite character from that movie. Disney Dating Tips <a href="http://www15.brinkster.com/wtstsgalor/girls.html" target="_blank">http://www15.brinkster.com/wts tsgalor/girls.html</a>
Originally Posted By jonvn Ok, well, if 19 is a reply to 18, then I have no idea what is being talked about here.
