Originally Posted By Jim This is Jim Miles, whose article has been responded to here. Thank you all for reading and thinking about what I had to say. To clarify a few questions . . . 1. Walt Disney Enterprises is the actual official name of the company. It changed from Walt Disney Productions to the Walt Disney Company, to Walt Disney Enterprises. This last change occured to better reflect the many different aspects of the company--ABC and its subsidiaries, film prodcution, theatre, sports, books (Hyperion), music (Hollywood Records), and others. If you look at the back of your cases for ATLANTIS, you will see a copyright for Walt Disney Enterprises. 2. The article states a variety of thoughts and ideas. There are a few posts here where more was read into my article than what I really wrote. Even then, they are worthy topics of discussion. 3. The term insider is used in reference to the many journalists who interpret and speculate on trends in Hollywood as seen on many television entertainment news programs, internet sites, and print media. For example, for Fox news, Bill McCutty is their entertainment insider, but he also doubles as a speaker for other news topics. With the release of ATLANTIS, many of these people really pulled out all the stops to proclaim the problems at Disney. The actual term insider is not one I created. 4. I would agree that costs have risen considerably, and while I don't have cost totals with me at the moment, I know that ATLANTIS cost about $90 million to make. If we look at final box office gross for both MULAN and TARZAN--which probably cost less money--we still see a respectful profit on the movie alone. For HUNCHBACK and HERCULES, the budgets were surely smaller than that, and though the final box office take was not as large, they must have made money, particularly after video and international releases. The article never states that FANTASIA 2000, THE EMPORER'S NEW GROOVE, or ATLANTIS were financially successful; instead, it explains why their grosses may not have been as large. The last two, as stated in the article, were deemed to have takes that were remarkable when considering the obstacles they faced, for one a severe lack of marketing, and for the other, almost universally bad reviews. But none of them should be considered financial hits. 5. Lastly, who is Jim Miles? I am a writer, among other things, who loves Disney animation and has intensely studied it for many, many years. Thank you all for reading the article. It would be my severe hope that someone from Disney animation would see this article and know that there is hope for Disney animation, and that they would feel good about what they've done despite Hollywood speculation. As with any business, animation goes in cycles. Hopefully, the financial success will return with LILO & STITCH and TREASURE PLANET. If it doesn't, what happens to the Feature Animation Department could be of concern. And to quote another post-er, "Long Live Disney Animation!"
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "Walt Disney Enterprises is the actual official name of the company. It changed from Walt Disney Productions to the Walt Disney Company, to Walt Disney Enterprises. This last change occured to better reflect the many different aspects of the company--ABC and its subsidiaries, film prodcution, theatre, sports, books (Hyperion), music (Hollywood Records), and others. If you look at the back of your cases for ATLANTIS, you will see a copyright for Walt Disney Enterprises." << It is actually a bit more complicated than that. Legally, "Disney Enterprises, Inc." (not "Walt Disney Enterprises") refers to the portion of the company that was not previously part of ABC/Capital Cities. The acquisition of ABC legally was a merger between the two existing corporations known as "The Walt Disney Company" and "ABC/Capital Cities, Inc.", both of which became wholly-owned subsidiaries of a new holding company that was initially called "New Disney". At the completion of the merger, the subsidiary called "The Walt Disney Company" was renamed as "Disney Enterprises, Inc." and the holding company was renamed as "The Walt Disney Company". You can read the details on this in the actual filing as archived on the Security & Exchange Commission's website: <a href="http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/29082/0000898430-96-000382.txt" target="_blank">http://www.sec.gov/Archives/ed gar/data/29082/0000898430-96-000382.txt</a> -Jeff
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan While the Disney animated feature films in the last few years were not box office blockbusters on the scale of The Lion King, over time they will all generate tons of money through video, DVD, re-releases, and whatever whizbang technology of the future replaces DVD. "Counting Disney Out" has been a popular sport throughout the 20th century, and in all likelihood will continue in this century as well. Yet, the company keeps changing and more often than not succeeding despite doom and gloom predictions from the press, websites, stock analysts, what-have-you. I tip my Mouseketeer hat to Disney for taking chances throughout the 90s when there was probably a lot of pressure from bean counters saying "Make 12 more Lion King/Beauty and the Beast clones." Instead, they chose to try new things, and I think they made some great films regardless of the all-important opening weekend gross.
Originally Posted By jhammar007 Good point, Kar2oonMan . . . especially considering that Pinocchio and Fantasia were box office flops when they were first released but now have made millions (not sure of this number . . . just guessing) through VHS, DVD, re-releases and the like.
Originally Posted By Doobie jonvn wrote: <<< Ok, great. But who is Jim Miles? How does he rate a guest column? Did I miss something? >>> I think you got your answer as to who he is. As to how he rates a guest column - it's not that tough. Write an article, send it in and if I like it and think others will get something out of it, it might go up. I think content as much as credentials should determine who can and can't get a column on LP. Especially when there are discussions like this to scrutinize the articles. Doobie.
Originally Posted By jonvn Oh! Ok. No offense, I was just trying to figure out if I should know the name or not. That's a nice feature.
Originally Posted By Kirtai Everything you said was right, but you left out something very important: these straight to video sequels the Disney Factory had been cranking out one after the other. Cash in on the old jokes, get an audience with the old characters, hire some exec who hasn't work since he was an animator on Tron to direct the film and jingle writers to come up with enough songs to fill a CD (only 17.95!), and you've got a few hundred thousand bucks without any creative effort whatsoever. What a brilliant plan! Except there is one flaw- Walt himself despised sequels. He saw them as a cheap cash in, and guess what Disney? So do we. I personally am boycotting the sequels, including their beloved Peter Pan (I guess straight-to-video doesn't make as much money as when you put it in the theater first) and boycotting the movies the sequels are based on. I have given tens of thousands of dollars to Disney, but I refuse to fund this trash.
Originally Posted By Jim Thanks for the clarification, Jeff. My version was intended to be a summary, but apparantly, some of it was wrong. It was an error that I added "Walt," but it was intentional that I left "Inc." out (to make it more readable). When I have some time, I'm going to follow your link. I would also agree on the statement about straight-to-video features. Thanks!
Originally Posted By Mia-D I agree that Disney SHOULD be commended for taking the chances they take. Although the story behind the final version of New Groove is complicated, the final product was a hilarious Avery-esque romp, and was something I had never seen in a Disney animated feature. Fantasia 2000 was a spectacular risk taker, and extremely unconventional. I happened to see it opening day at the Howard Hughes IMAX theater Disney had temporarily set up for the initial run, and I was blown away. Money isn't made through risk taking, OR through rehashing of old material. Money is made in getting people to see a film and getting them to like that film. Story, character, and animation are the three main componets of the most succesful Disney animated films. All of Pixar's features have a)Grand story/storytelling b)extremely likeable/interesting characters and c)animation that blows your socks off. Mulan, Lion King, and Beauty and the Beast all share those characteristics. And as for the "Disney is too pc complaint," Disneybabe had it right. It isn't "too PC." It's just..well...normal. Represenitive of the real world.
