but look at the ratings...the more animated features that were produced each year...2-3 per year, the less quality...what Disney did was take their finely honed and talented staffs and split them up sending some to Florida and left some in California...they then hired a bunch of rookies and proceeded to churn out under-developed stories...there is no arguing that after The Lion King things took a turn for the worse...and if you watch Pocahontas and the Lion King DVDs you will see Lion King was the film nobody wanted to be assigned to...they all wanted to move forward with Pocahontas...and don't forget they started testing the waters with low-budget films released in the off-season...(*) means you neglected to mention these theatrical releases...
The Little Mermaid: 1989
*DuckTales The Movie: Treasure of the Lost Lamp: 1990
*The Rescuers Down Under: 1990
Beauty and the Beast: 1991
Aladdin: 1992
The Lion King: 1994
*A Goofy Movie: 1995
Pocahontas: 1995
*James & The Giant Peach: 1996
The Hunchback of Notre Dame: 1996
Hercules: 1997
Mulan: 1998
*Doug's First Movie: 1999
Tarzan: 1999
Fantasia 2000: 1999
*The Tigger Movie: 2000
*Dinosaur: 2000
Emperor's New Groove: 2000
*Recess: School's Out: 2001
Atlantis: The Lost Empire: 2001
*Return To Neverland: 2002
Lilo and Stitch: 2002
Treasure Planet: 2002
*The Jungle Book 2: 2003
*Piglet's BIG Movie: 2003
Brother Bear: 2003
*Teacher's Pet: 2004
Home on the Range: 2004
Pooh's Heffalump Movie: 2005
Chicken Little: 2005
with this hectic release schedule, going to see a Disney animated movie once a year in the summer became less of an "event"...many of these movies were easily forgettable, or just plain forgotten...
Lasseter Brings back the animated short to Disney?
-
Lars Vermundsberget
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 1:50 pm
- Location: Norway
This is a highly valid point, of course. The higher output of other ("non-classic") animation products was a way of bringing in more money, but they weren't able (and weren't really trying, either) to make each one of these "other" titles an "event". And the "classics" from this period are also part of that big picture, unfortunately.
I can see that point, and I used to think it, but I'm not so sure now. Why should Disney films be different from any other genre. Each Disney film itself isn't even the same - Atlantis is as far from Home on the Range as you can get. Nobody will compare Batman Begins to The Wedding Crashers remake movie. Just because they're both of the Disney titles are animated shouldn't make any difference.
This year, the success of X-Men 3 and relative failure of V For Vendetta isn't going to stop people from going to see Superman Returns. But all are films based on comic strips. Nor will Mission Impossible III influence the Superman figures, or the any of those action films influence Pirates of the Caribbean 2. Why do we always insist things are different for animated movies? It just shows narrow vision and thinking.
While poor films or any genre generally do get forgotten or ignored, the cream should always rise to the top. A good film shouldn't need to be seen as being an attractive viewing option simply because its release is seen as "special".
This year, the success of X-Men 3 and relative failure of V For Vendetta isn't going to stop people from going to see Superman Returns. But all are films based on comic strips. Nor will Mission Impossible III influence the Superman figures, or the any of those action films influence Pirates of the Caribbean 2. Why do we always insist things are different for animated movies? It just shows narrow vision and thinking.
While poor films or any genre generally do get forgotten or ignored, the cream should always rise to the top. A good film shouldn't need to be seen as being an attractive viewing option simply because its release is seen as "special".
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
-
Lars Vermundsberget
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 1:50 pm
- Location: Norway
Well, there is a (too?) strong tendency among Disney fans towards thinking that the Disney "classics" are something very special, or should be, at least. Disney marketing has, of course, been very happy to nurture that notion further. The "classics" don't exist in an total "cultural vacuum", though; in a world all alone by themselves. But I still think that idea is justified to some degree, since the "art of Disney animated features" is a very specialized one, after all.2099net wrote:Why do we always insist things are different for animated movies? It just shows narrow vision and thinking.
Whether the high output of various sorts of Disney animation after the mid-90s really has anything to do with the whole problem could be hard to tell. Has the "cake" to be divided between a higher number of projects become proportionally larger?
The question of resources assigned to a single project has a lot to do with whatever "problem" there is. But even more, I guess, it is about "management style" - we'll see from now on if there'll be good consequences from what's happening in that particular field now.