Pasta67 wrote:What did they do to him that time? Geez, you'd think they would have learned their lesson. Is it because they didn't pay him enough or is it because they put "starring Robin Williams" things in all their commercials?
That song sounds interesting.
I've heard the song before. Yeah, it's. . . interesting, to say the least.
What was the whole deal with that the first time around, anyway? Wasn't it something about them using his voice for a toy without his permission? It's been a while and my memories are fuzzy. . .
Anyway, didn't he agree to work for scale in the original Aladdin? It seemed like Disney thanked him by giving him an origianl Picasso or something. And if that incident ticked him off so much, why did he agree to do King of Thieves? I honestly don't see Disney making him a huge offer for a direct-to-video sequel.
Sunset Girl wrote:What was the whole deal with that the first time around, anyway?
It was something along the lines of what you said. Here's more or less the full story:
IMDB (Who's always right :roll: ) wrote:Robin Williams provided the voice for the Genie, at union scale rate (the lowest legal pay rate a studio can give an actor), on the terms that his voice was not used for merchandising and that the Genie character not take up more than 25% of the space of a poster, ad, billboard, or trailer. When these wishes were not granted, he withdrew his support for Disney and the film. As a result, he was not available for the direct-to-video sequel The Return of Jafar or the Aladdin TV show (Dan Castellaneta filled in as the voice of the Genie for these productions). In an attempt to get back on good terms with Williams, Walt Disney Co. CEO Michael Eisner apologized to Williams with a peace offering of an original Picasso painting. Still angered and betrayed by Disney, Williams would not accept the gift. It was not until Jeffrey Katzenberg was fired and a new producer hired did Williams return to Disney. Promises were made to right wrongs, and Williams was so touched that he came back as the Genie for the second DTV sequel Aladdin and the King of Thieves. Disney was so thrilled that they threw out the previously completed recording sessions with Castellaneta.
I didn't know that Castellaneta had already finished his lines. I learned something new today. What I still don't know is what Disney did to make him mad the second time around.
That was a very interesting article. I learned a lot from that. But it wasn't something that Disney did during AatKoT production that made Williams not come to Disney again, though. Thanks, Henski.
I forgot to mention that the theory that the public doesn't want to sit through a musical is totally FALSE as well. Look at all these recent musical movies.... Chicago, Phantom, Moulin Rouge, the upcoming Rent... They all did AMAZINGLY well, and in my opinion in spite of some lackluster casting choices (what was with the casting of the Phantom? what kind of favors did he have to do to get that part, especially with his wretched singing voice) It totally blows my mind that execs at Disney (I think it was Eisner, in fact) actually had the nerve to say that nobody wants to see musicals anymore. Bah humbug
Well, we're mostly worried that children will not want to sit through a musical. We know that adults can, but children audiences are not the same as when we were kids.
Pasta67 wrote:Well, we're mostly worried that children will not want to sit through a musical. We know that adults can, but children audiences are not the same as when we were kids.
I totally agree. As much as I liked "Lilo and Stitch," Emperor's New Groove" and "Tarzan," I do prefer it when the characters sing the songs; not Phil Collins, Sting, etc. I feel a deeper connection with the characters that way.
I guess the only reason behind it that I can think of is that it is cheaper to pick song writers to sing the songs then have to pay for more vocalists to come in and sing for the characters if the people doing the voices can't sing.
However, it has come to my attention that Disney is no longer making hand-drawn animated films and replacing it with computer animated films because "Brother Bear," "Home on the Range," and other more recent films haven't maintained that magic it once had, therefore losing interest in the public (mostly due to the fact that Disney, for the most part, isn't very good at coming up with their own storylines). Which I think is bogus. Don't get me wrong, as much I love the computer animated stuff, I like hand-drawn animation better. Computer animation is nice, but the hand- drawn animation when done correctly is so much more pleasing and more facinating. When I look at the computer animation I always think, "It's computer animation, it's supposed to look good." But if someone can draw something and make it look real let alone good, then I believe that is more meaningful and personal because it was made by a human, not a human created program. Now, I'm not saying that computer animation doesn't take any skill, indeed it takes a lot of skill, but I just prefer the hand-drawn stuff.
As for the stories, if the writters can't come up with a good plot, there are plenty of other stories that they can work with. They just need to be more creative.
"Jungle Book" saved Disney after it was being threatened, "Little Mermaid" did the same, so what's stopping them (Disney), now? It's been done before, and they can do it again. But to completely cease production all together is stupid...not to mention the fact that it broke my heart.
Well, that's my two cents. [/i]
Last edited by TimonRoxMySox on Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Shenzi Marie, please. I know what you're thinking; 'We're too different,' 'it'll never work,' 'what will the children look like?'"
I hope Disney makes one more high quality musical, like Beauty and the Beast. That would be really great. The recent Disney movies had nice animation but nothing like the 90s.
Hmm. . . interesting article, but I'm confused about the Picasso. . .
Maybe my memory is wrong, but I could have sworn that I read about him being given the Picasso as a gift before the film was even released as a "thank you," making it impossible to be an apology. And I repeat, I read this in a book before the film was even released. I remember being confused at the time of why Robin's name was not mentioned; now I know. I think he's being a little too bitter here.
SuicideSeaside wrote:
Pasta67 wrote:Well, we're mostly worried that children will not want to sit through a musical. We know that adults can, but children audiences are not the same as when we were kids.
That's true. Children get bored during songs.
Eh, it depends on the song. A lot of boys get squirmy through the ballads but the girls seem to love them. And kids do hit a certain age where everything embarrasses them, including admitting to liking songs, but hopefully they grow out of that.
Disney needs to start taking some advice from Pixar. Back when Disney was great, it would take them 4 years (likely even more) to make a movie, most of which was story development. That number slowly became less and less, and with the advent of DVD, it seems like each movie is only getting about 2 years of work, less for the direct to video stuff. That's half the time! If the story isn't good, it doesn't matter how much money you throw in it, the movie would still be bad. Look at Atlantis! Tarzan! Treasure Planet! They threw all the money in special effects that weren't necessary to progress the story! Then look at Emperor's New Groove. It cost them a ton because they kept getting to far along in the process of animating and pre production and they kept realizing the story was terrible. They kept starting over when they never should have started. Thank god it turned out as well as it did.
Now here comes the new guys, Pixar. Everyone says they can't make a bad movie, and every single one of their films are blockbusters. How can they do this? Are they lucky? Heck no. They learned from the best, Disney. Well, Walt Disney I should say. They make their movies like Walt used to make his. They spend at least 2 years just on story, before any animation is ever made. They make sure the story is rock solid before even attempting to animate. Thats what Disney has forgotten over the years.
Pixar and early Disney (Snow White, Pinnochio) share a very common history. Snow White came out of nowhere, blew everyone away and made the company famous. Every movie after that just seemed to get better and better. Look at Pixar. Toy Story came out, blew everone away, and now every movie seems like it just keeps getting better. Hopefully Pixar won't follow Disney's lead and decline into a corporation only concerned about money and losing the true meaning behind it all: To make people happy. That's what it's all about anyway, and to me, Disney had forgotten that a long time ago.
If the pressure of releasing one movie per year was forgoten, people would enjoy more the movie because it will be something not so usual, as the olympic games, and also Disnety would have enough time to make this movie better.
What to do instead of the not-so-good movies per year?
put back on the big screen some forgotten classic as Oliver & Company or others
Yeah! I would like them to show some Disney movies in theaters that I wasn't able to see when they first came out. I'm still kicking myself for not seeing Lion King in theaters again when it came to IMax. Oh well, I saw it the first time in theaters.
"Shenzi Marie, please. I know what you're thinking; 'We're too different,' 'it'll never work,' 'what will the children look like?'"
Plus, Disney shut down their animation studio, thanks to Eisner! He laid off everyone! How rude is THAT?
When Eisner took over in 1984 (BTW that's the same year the Disney Black Diamond video series was launched!), he wasn't so bad. My favorite Disney film, "The Great Mouse Detective" was released in 1986, then. A good thing is, because of the failure of "The Fox And The Hound" and "The Black Cauldron," "The Great Mouse Detective" did much better, getting a better box office value and good critic reviews (Siskel and Ebert gave it a "Two Thumbs Up!"). It looked like Disney would do much better after all.
Now, the audience is SO picky, they'll only watch an animated film if it was done by Pixar or Dreamworks. NO WONDER "Looney Tunes Back In Action" (sorry, I'm also a WB Animation fan) bombed terribly; today's audiences aren't interested in Looney Tunes! Disney and WB have been rivals for years, since the 1930s. And I must admit, I DO like Pixar films, except for "Finding Nemo." That one I can do without.
I think Disney should reopen their animation department and go back to their "renaissance" style like on "The Little Mermaid" and such.
Logoliker2004 wrote:NO WONDER "Looney Tunes Back In Action" (sorry, I'm also a WB Animation fan) bombed terribly
Off topic:
I agree with everything else you mentioned, and I'm a huge Lonney Tunes fan, but Back in Action flopped because the actors did poorly. I loved the Toon gags and slapstick jokes but the live action was awful (so was the basic story and script).
"See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve." - The Joker
Logoliker2004 wrote:NO WONDER "Looney Tunes Back In Action" (sorry, I'm also a WB Animation fan) bombed terribly
Off topic:
I agree with everything else you mentioned, and I'm a huge Lonney Tunes fan, but Back in Action flopped because the actors did poorly. I loved the Toon gags and slapstick jokes but the live action was awful (so was the basic story and script).
So why did it need "actors" in the first place? Because Warners had no confidence in a non-CGI animated movie.
The recent Disney movies had nice animation but nothing like the 90s.
