Roy Disney and Stanley Gold resign! Eisner next?

[2099net]

Since when is " 4 to 10-year-olds and their parents" narrowing the age range? If Stainton meant films that appeal to "4 to 10 year olds" exclusively he would of said "4 to 10 year olds" and nothing else."

It narrows the age range because it excludes the 11-19 year olds, it excludes most 20-30 year olds, and it excludes most adults over the age of 40.

No it doesn't. He's talking about the core audience ("The basic or most important part; the essence"). By definition the core is not exclusive - it's part. What's more, his interperatation of the core audience isn't likely some made up audience by him - it's will have been determined by research and satistics based on past Disney films, including Walt's. He is more than likely stating a "fact".

The implication is that unless you are aged 4-10 or a parent of a child age 4-10 then you are not likely to go see a Disney movie. I do not believe that to be true.

I'm sure research of past Disney movies shows this. Remember we're talking satistics. There may be many people who would, but they will be a relative small percentage. I interperate it has him just saying well make films that appeal to children, but will appeal to ALL AGES, including their parents and other adults.

Also, I never said that Stanton said exclusively 4-10 year olds; however your argument that he implied anthing more is pretty weak. Why would he suggest that the movie would appeal to a 30 year parent, but not to a 30 year old non-parent? Is there some reason why a 30 year old parent like animated movies better than a 30 year old non-parent? The only logical reason that he included "and their parents" is because he believes that the movie would appeal to the parents simply because it is a movie that they can comfortably take their 4-10 year old child to see. Do you honestly think that he meant that parents of children age 4-10 would want to go see the movie without taking their children along?

No, but percentage wise, I think the people over 25 with no children (or other smaller family members) to take with them who do go to see a Disney film will be reasonably small.

Walt Disney strived to provide entertainment for ALL AGES and he succeeded. People of all ages enjoy the classic animated and live action Disney movies. I believe that Roy Disney's desire was to continue to follow in that tradition. Over the past 10 years, the Disney company has lost many creative people who have also wanted to follow that tradition and as a result, the quality of Disney movies has faltered.

If Stanton is going to focus on a core audience of 4-10 year olds and their parents, then he is not going to produce movies that appeal to all ages and thus he is the wrong person for the job.

So should he have said "We make films that have historically mainly appealed to 4-10 year olds who often go with their parents, and the parents enjoy the films to. Oh by the way, being as we make films that appeal to parents (and incidently lots of other adults) there's also a number of teenagers and senior citizens who enjoy our films, but in all honestly the numbers of these who actually pay to go to see the films is quite a small percentage compared to the children and parents who often go to see the films on a family outing. So we shouldn't specifically target this lower percentage and instead we should continue to make films like the big successful Disney animated films of the past - before we tried to specifically attract the teenage boys as well, because actually we were doing better before because we got a wide section of the public to enjoy our films with out doing anything special for them."?

Where does he say he's not going to to provide entertainment for ALL AGES? Where does it say anybody who's not in the core audience will find nothing to like in the films?

He says a single sentance to get a quite complex idea across. And he gets the concept across well enough.

I ask again, was Atlantis and Treasure Planet which attempted to expand the existing core audience of Animated Disney films successful or not?

To me, his comment sounds like he wants to return to Walt's tradition. And all the closed minded people on this forum can do is bash him for it without seeing any of his films. It takes more than a single reported (most likely out of context) quote to determine how a person is going to run a company.

[Rebel]

So Rebel, do you think it was "incredibly dumb" for non-Stainton Disney Feature Animation to make Atlantis and target older boys more then 4-10 "year olds and their parents" - what with the no singing, science-fiction, lots of explosions film?

I'm 100% convinced this is all he is talking about - Disney made a film like Atlantis thinking it would appeal to the traditional Disney core audience, while adding another demographic to the core audience, but ultimately it satisfied no one (or not as many people). Nobody can dispute that about Atlantis. Or Treasure Planet with the solar surfing and the space pirates etc. Going back to the "core" audience will most likely mean more "traditional" Disney films will be made, appealing to all ages - not less.

I do not see any relevance between my statement and the failings of Atlantis or Treasure Planet.

First of all, what I said that it is incredibly dumb when a studio decides that they have to add in some more "adult" elements in order to make an otherwise G rated movie into a PG, PG-13, or R rated film.

Obviously that statement has nothing to do with Atlantis which was a G rated movie. Also I do not think it really applies much to Treasure Planet either; it might if they intentionally sought to get a PG rating, but as far as I know, that is not the case.

Regardless, the problems with Atlantis and Treasure Planet are definitely not the result of Disney trying to make movies that appeal to all ages. As you stated yourself, part of the problem with those movies was an intentional effort to target a specific age group. Any time that the Disney studio has tried to appeal to a specific age group, the resulting movies have been less successful than when they have tried to make a movie for all ages. There are also several other bad decisions that led to those two movies being less successful. Although both included excellent animation, the stories were rather weak and drawn out. Atlantis seemed to try to rely too much on having quirky characters rather and funny one liners rather than trying to develop a quality story. Treasure Planet was loosely based upon a classic story, but the movie focused more upon gimmicks like solar surfing than it did on the story. It is as if they thought that since boys like skateboarding and surfing then they will automatically like this movie because we have solar surfing in it; however it takes more than that to make a good movie. The problems with these movies comes from thinking too shallow and ignoring the potential to appeal to a wider audience. They also have too much focus on merchandising.

Atlantis and Treasure Planet could have both been very successful movies if they had more depth. Focusing on ages 4-10 does not sound like a plan to add more depth. Children ages 4-10 can enjoy a shallow movie with some quirky characters, but teenagers and adults will not enjoy it so much. Parents of 4-10 year olds will always be glad to have G rating movies for their children to watch, but the parents themselves are not necessarily going to enjoy watching movies for themselves. The traditional Disney movies did not focus on ages 4-10 and their parents; they were made to appeal to everyone.

[2099net]

So Rebel, do you think it was "incredibly dumb" for non-Stainton Disney Feature Animation to make Atlantis and target older boys more then 4-10 "year olds and their parents" - what with the no singing, science-fiction, lots of explosions film?

I'm 100% convinced this is all he is talking about - Disney made a film like Atlantis thinking it would appeal to the traditional Disney core audience, while adding another demographic to the core audience, but ultimately it satisfied no one (or not as many people). Nobody can dispute that about Atlantis. Or Treasure Planet with the solar surfing and the space pirates etc. Going back to the "core" audience will most likely mean more "traditional" Disney films will be made, appealing to all ages - not less.

I do not see any relevance between my statement and the failings of Atlantis or Treasure Planet.

My question about Atlantis and Treasure Planet (which I enjoyed enormously by the way) was a response to critisisms of this quote from Stainton:

"If you make a movie for everybody, you are making a movie for nobody."

Atlantis/Treasure Planet were obviously attempts to make movies which were specifically designed to appeal to "everybody" in that they were intended to keep the normal Disney audience and add to (not replace with) older teenage boys (who are probably Disney's lowest demographic percentage - but that's only a guess).

But people again are taking this comment to mean "Dumb down the films. Include nothing for the adults." I take it to mean "return to traditional Disney values".

First of all, what I said that it is incredibly dumb when a studio decides that they have to add in some more "adult" elements in order to make an otherwise G rated movie into a PG, PG-13, or R rated film.

Obviously that statement has nothing to do with Atlantis which was a G rated movie. Also I do not think it really applies much to Treasure Planet either; it might if they intentionally sought to get a PG rating, but as far as I know, that is not the case.

But they sought to bring in more viewers, just like raising a certificate is supposed to.

Regardless, the problems with Atlantis and Treasure Planet are definitely not the result of Disney trying to make movies that appeal to all ages. As you stated yourself, part of the problem with those movies was an intentional effort to target a specific age group.

Well, I would say "additionally target a specific age group". I'm sure they didn't want to throw away the "4-10-year-olds and their parents" money at the expense of getting more teenage money.

Any time that the Disney studio has tried to appeal to a specific age group, the resulting movies have been less successful than when they have tried to make a movie for all ages. There are also several other bad decisions that led to those two movies being less successful. Although both included excellent animation, the stories were rather weak and drawn out. Atlantis seemed to try to rely too much on having quirky characters rather and funny one liners rather than trying to develop a quality story. Treasure Planet was loosely based upon a classic story, but the movie focused more upon gimmicks like solar surfing than it did on the story. It is as if they thought that since boys like skateboarding and surfing then they will automatically like this movie because we have solar surfing in it; however it takes more than that to make a good movie. The problems with these movies comes from thinking too shallow and ignoring the potential to appeal to a wider audience. They also have too much focus on merchandising.

Well, I enjoyed Atlantis and I think Treasure Planet is more than loosely based on a classic story. In some respects is the most faithful adaptation of the essence of the story I've seen.

Atlantis and Treasure Planet could have both been very successful movies if they had more depth. Focusing on ages 4-10 does not sound like a plan to add more depth. Children ages 4-10 can enjoy a shallow movie with some quirky characters, but teenagers and adults will not enjoy it so much. Parents of 4-10 year olds will always be glad to have G rating movies for their children to watch, but the parents themselves are not necessarily going to enjoy watching movies for themselves. The traditional Disney movies did not focus on ages 4-10 and their parents; they were made to appeal to everyone.

Well, your probably right about Atlantis, but I found no depth lacking in Treasure Planet. I'm aware that there's lots of related and unrelated reasons why they failed (especially Treasure Planet, which did deserve to do better) but again he's putting a complex idea into a single sentance (and I'll agree he probably doesn't do this as well and there's no reason why my take on his quote should be anymore right than anybody else's).

[Jack]

Since when is " 4 to 10-year-olds and their parents" narrowing the age range? If Stainton meant films that appeal to "4 to 10 year olds" exclusively he would of said "4 to 10 year olds" and nothing else.

He could be perfectly justified in saying so if that was his intent - after all most of the mechandise (which is jast as important for getting movies to turn a profit) is aimed at 4 to 10 year olds. "4 to 10 year olds" have enough "pester power" these days to get to see anything they want.

He specifically said "and their parents" and was talking of the "core" audience - not the exclusive audience. He said nothing wrong. It's all being taken out of context.

I can see your point, but I think you are over-analyzing what he said.

His saying that the film's core audience should be young children and their parents implies that they should be striving to appeal to those specific demographics.

Walt's quote:

"When we make films, we try not to think of appealing to children or adults: just that clean, uspoiled spot deep down in every one of us that maybe the world has made us forget, and our films can help to recall."

I rest my case.

[2099net]

Well, I think some people are under-analysing what he said

In all honestly, the quotes are virtually worthless without being involved in the full conversation they were taken from. They are not worth starting calls for Stainton to resign over.

Can we all agree before anybody puts the boot-in it would be wise to see what the content of the actual films are first?

[Jack]

Yes, you are right that we should'nt pre-judge and should wait to see how the films are first. I'm not saying Stainton will suck, I'm just saying that his quote implies something that goes against Walt's philosophy. He may or may not have meant it to though.

[disneyfella]

Let me explain myself. I don't think we should be calling for Stanton's resignation because of this quote, I think we should be calling for his resignation because of a TON of things going on with Disney animation since he came in (that I'm NOT going to talk about) that would make Walt turn in his grave! Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, and I'm simply saying I don't trust the guy with Walt Disney Feature Animation. I'll take your advice though, 2099net, and hold off on the picketing and petitions until I see what kind of movie this guy can turn out. I'm not prejuding him though based on film quality, but rather the way he's running the department. Now I know I'm not an authority as to how things should be run, but a few of my friends were Disney feature animators and now they're not because of this man..............and for no reason other than to put MORE money in Michael Eisner's pocket. I think Michael is proud of finding another stooge to do his dirty work, and the whole thing completely makes me sick!



'END OF LINE!'

[Jack]

BTW, trying to appeal to everyone WAS NOT the reason for the dissapointing grosses of Atlantis and Treasure Planet - I think its just that most thought that the films weren't all that great.

Some say its because they tried to appeal to young males too much, but thats doubtful: Most recently, Aladdin had a central male character and mainly appealed to boys, and was very successful at the box office. Movies like Peter Pan and Tarzan are arguably more likely to appeal to boys than gi rls as well and both were successful too.

[Disney Guru]

If Roy Leaves and Eisner takes over I will be very sad .

Roy Can't Quit Does anyone know Roys Adress. I know that I would like to send him a letter telling him what I feel about it . Because I just don't want him to quit. Disney won't be the same without him.

[Captain Hook]

If Roy Leaves and Eisner takes over I will be very sad .

Roy has quit, as well as Stan Gold. This makes me want to but now I feel !!! Stupid Eisner, I'm almost ready to boycott Disney movies. It's a shame that Disney is having such a problem, it sounds like with Miramax and Pixar also (I guess we knew about Pixar).

Hook

[Rebel]

My question about Atlantis and Treasure Planet (which I enjoyed enormously by the way) was a response to critisisms of this quote from Stainton:

"If you make a movie for everybody, you are making a movie for nobody."

Atlantis/Treasure Planet were obviously attempts to make movies which were specifically designed to appeal to "everybody" in that they were intended to keep the normal Disney audience and add to (not replace with) older teenage boys (who are probably Disney's lowest demographic percentage - but that's only a guess).

But people again are taking this comment to mean "Dumb down the films. Include nothing for the adults." I take it to mean "return to traditional Disney values".

I disagree that Atlantis and Treasure Planet were attempts to provide entertainment that would appeal to everyone.

If they really wanted Treasure Planet to appeal to everyone then they would not have allowed it to go PG; there are a lot of parents of 4-10 year olds who will not allow their children to go to anything other than G rated movies.

Perhaps Atlantis tried to appeal to everyone by including a broad range of characters in hopes that everyone would be able to find at least one character to like and a range of jokes to try to address different kinds of humor, but they forgot that the most important thing -- the story.

Regardless, I do not see how you can interpret "If you make a movie for everybody, you are making a movie for nobody." to mean a "return to traditional Disney values." The Disney tradition is to make movies that appeal to everybody.

[STASHONE]

I don't really have time to join in this debate right now but I just want to point out 2 quick things...

1) Snow White was NOT the first full-length animated feature ever produced. That's a nice little fabrication that Disney likes to bank on.

2) Snow White was 100% absolutely not intended for children. The vast majority of people who attended the premiere were NOT children. Try to name one theatrical feature released in the 1930's, with the sole target directed specifically towards children... it didn't happen. It would have failed miserably.


Furthermore, Stanton's a sucker; he has no business heading Disney's feature animation unit with the perceptions he carries towards the art.

Obviously you cannot ever make a movie for everyone because you'd be compromising the honesty of the film, however, to limit the direction of Disney films to young children and their parents is doing just that. I don't have time to get into any of this cause Im just leaving my apartment but I'll try to post later tonight. These sort of topics are interesting and the board could use more of them rather than "Who's your favorite princess" threads, etc.

~ p.

[STASHONE]

Btw, check this out: http://www.animated-news.com/archives/00000377.html

[Dumbobuzz]

This is my first post but I have read with great interest this discussion room for months. This topic is very interesting and I would like to put my two cents in.

I think it is easy to say that Michael Eisner needs to go, the hard part is what will restore Disney in the image that we remember or imagine it to be?

Roy listed the cheaping of the theme parks and the image of the quick buck. Personally I agree with this remark. When I first went to Disney World in 1977 at the age of 10 it was a magical place. Everything was pristine and painted, you did not see workers except at their stations, and food places were fast & prompt. Lately within the past 10 years the Magic Kingdom has shown signs of needing fresh paint, workers not using the tunnel system to its fullest by being seen out and about, and the food has decreased in appeal while prices have increased. I still love visiting WDW and do so at an average of 4 times a year, I just think some of the staff cutbacks have hurt the image.

The animation department should be expanded not cut back. Why not offer the 5-10 minute cartoon before movies? This artform is perfect for our on the go society with everyone wanting snipets. Pixar has created some wonderful cartoons that I truly enjoy on the DVD's. The cartoons create a number of marketing opportunities and product exposure along with network and cable programming and future DVDs and other media offerings.

The ABC network should look at cutting prime time shows by 5 or 10 minutes. In England shows are 15 minutes long in some instances. At the current time I see too many network shows that have one or two funny lines but can not sustain it for 30 minutes. People will watch a quality show but we are not receiving that on network or cable for the most part. The 10:00 fox late local news is gaining more viewers and higher ratings than the 11:00 network new shows. Fight them and give network the 10:00 to 10:15 to locals and then do a 45 minute "adult" themed show with quality writing and acting like NYPD Blue.

Roy's removal is disappointing and I hope that he does come back in some form. I think with certainity that Michael Eisner is on the backside of his career at Disney. The 50 cent question is what do we want out of the future? These are some of my suggestions; I do not claim to be an expert just a lover of Disney and the magic.

[2099net]

Let me explain myself. I don't think we should be calling for Stanton's resignation because of this quote, I think we should be calling for his resignation because of a TON of things going on with Disney animation since he came in (that I'm NOT going to talk about) that would make Walt turn in his grave! Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, and I'm simply saying I don't trust the guy with Walt Disney Feature Animation. I'll take your advice though, 2099net, and hold off on the picketing and petitions until I see what kind of movie this guy can turn out. I'm not prejuding him though based on film quality, but rather the way he's running the department. Now I know I'm not an authority as to how things should be run, but a few of my friends were Disney feature animators and now they're not because of this man..............and for no reason other than to put MORE money in Michael Eisner's pocket. I think Michael is proud of finding another stooge to do his dirty work, and the whole thing completely makes me sick!



'END OF LINE!'

I'm not disputing any of this - bad things are happening at Disney animation. Nobody can deny this. But Disney were shutting down their animation studios before Stanton was appointed.

In his resignation letter Roy comments on Eisner's micro-management style. I'm not disputing that Stanton has come on board and made some changes - all new bosses do that when then come on board. But do you really think the big, major, shut-down the department decisions had anything at all to do with Stanton? If Roy couldn't stop it, why should Stainton be expected to stop it? He may or may not be at a higher level than Roy was (I don't quite understand the corporate structure) but he is also the new boy.

Blaming Stanton for following what are - more than likely - pre-determined and pre-arranged business decisions made by people higher-up seems wrong. He's had the position for a few months - not long enough to forumulate and execute fiendish masterplans.

It's okay to be disappointed that he seemingly didn't put up any resistance to these changes, but it doesn't really matter one way or another - Eisner would have just appointed somebody else who wouldn't have objected. I don't see this as a reason to hate him.

It's also okay to be disappointed with some of the things we are hearing about him. All stories are based on facts. But some of this disappointment seems to be outright hostility - which I think is unfair when the man hasn't had change to showcase any of his films yet.

He supposedly "fixed" Chicken Little after shutting it down for a while - yet nobody here is mentioning that - they're just concentrating on the negative.

I guess he knew before taking the job what the situation with the animation departments would be - but he decided to take the job. You could see this as him being simply an extention of Eisner's policy, or you could see it as a man being handed a challenge and being determined to make the best of a "bad job".

[2099net]

I don't really have time to join in this debate right now but I just want to point out 2 quick things...

1) Snow White was NOT the first full-length animated feature ever produced. That's a nice little fabrication that Disney likes to bank on.

2) Snow White was 100% absolutely not intended for children. The vast majority of people who attended the premiere were NOT children. Try to name one theatrical feature released in the 1930's, with the sole target directed specifically towards children... it didn't happen. It would have failed miserably.

Well, Premiere's are different aren't they? The majority of people who attend premieres of films aimed at familes or children these days aren't children are they?

OK - so you don't like the phrase Children's film. Would "family film" suit you more. Because, gasp, most of the business for family films come from "4-10 year-olds and their parents" going to see the film. You can moan and complain as much as you want, but I'm sure that there is much evidence to support the fact that the bulk of people paying to see a Disney film (any Disney film - including those made under the infallible Walt Disney's supervision) at the theater are in the age range of 4-10 or the parents of such children.

Off the top of my head - and this is just off the top of my head - I'm not an expert on movies from the 20's and 30's, I can think of one such film - the Paramount Silent version of Peter Pan (from 1927?) This was, under no doubt a children's film (or family film if you prefer) because even J M Barrie classes his play and novel as such himself.

Furthermore, Stanton's a sucker; he has no business heading Disney's feature animation unit with the perceptions he carries towards the art.

Obviously you cannot ever make a movie for everyone because you'd be compromising the honesty of the film, however, to limit the direction of Disney films to young children and their parents is doing just that. I don't have time to get into any of this cause Im just leaving my apartment but I'll try to post later tonight. These sort of topics are interesting and the board could use more of them rather than "Who's your favorite princess" threads, etc.

~ p.

Again, I request everybody on this forum actually takes a lesson in the English language so that they can understand what he reportedly said. At no point does anything he says indicate limiting the films to the audience stated.

Why would you even think he was limiting the audience? How would he even do this considering the need to appeal to children and adults? Produce mindless crap like Barney? Or the teletubbies? How can you possibly create a film with an appeal limited only to young children and their parents. It's impossible! It makes no sense. It's illogical.

[Jens]

This is a quote of a piece of post from "The Adjustor" at another forum and I think it's very well said. In my opinion it totally reflects the "failure" of movies like Treasure Planet and the aiming for specific ages by Disney.

Disney's recent string of failures in traditional animation (not including Lilo & Stitch, of course) ties in very closely with, say, the failure of Titan AE and Sinbad. The fact is that you simply CANNOT make an animated feature in the US whose target audience is teenage boys. Face it: Titan AE, Atlantis and Treasure Planet were all targetting the teenage boy demographic. Sci-fi, action, adventure...they bombed because no teenage boy in his right mind would go out and spend his allowance or otherwise hard-earned cash, and hang out with friends at an animated movie. (Yes, I know there are some out there who would, but there aren't enough for $100M in box office take) Think of the peer pressure. Which kid is portrayed more as 'cool', a 16-year old who went to see Sinbad, or a 16-year old who saw Matrix Reloaded?

[Maerj]

Again, I request everybody on this forum actually takes a lesson in the English language so that they can understand what he reportedly said. At no point does anything he says indicate limiting the films to the audience stated.

Why would you even think he was limiting the audience? How would he even do this considering the need to appeal to children and adults? Produce mindless crap like Barney? Or the teletubbies? How can you possibly create a film with an appeal limited only to young children and their parents. It's impossible! It makes no sense. It's illogical.

All good points Netty. Everyone was down on Stanton after that article came out, Stanton wasn't even quoted as saying everything that was in it! Some of that was from the writer of the article, not Stanton himself, which I did try to explain when it was released. If you go back and look at it you will see that some of those statements are not in quotations.

Wasn't Stanton the guy who pushed them to make Hunchback of Notre Dame? That turned out to be one of the Animated Classics that was deifinitely not made with small children in mind. All I am saying is give the guy a chance before starting one of these online witch hunts.

[trekkie]

Yeah, it is so sad. As somebody who grew up on Disney, this whole thing angers me. Eisner definately needs to go. He is a disease on the company and has been since 1995. Since Frank Wells tragic death in 1994, he's had no one to keep him in check, and so Eisner has been free to show his true colors. And they're not pretty. They're d@mn ugly.
Eisner has micro-managed the company to death. He needs to go NOW!

[Rebel]

How would he even do this considering the need to appeal to children and adults? Produce mindless crap like Barney? Or the teletubbies? How can you possibly create a film with an appeal limited only to young children and their parents. It's impossible! It makes no sense. It's illogical.

I agree that there is not a lot of sense in doing it, but it is certainly not impossible. There have been many movies made to only appeal to young children and their parents.

Since you mention Barney, lets take "Barney's Great Adventure" as an example. IIRC, box office returns were a little over $11 million and the production budget was around $15 million -- not exactly a success. Obviously the producer's of this movie were targeting a core audience of young children and their parents and pretty much no one else. For some more examples, how about the 3 different Care Bears movies?

There is no question that it is possible to target young children and their parents; the question is whether or not Disney should try to target them. As far as I am concerned, the answer is a resounding NO.

It is important to remember that children ages 4-10 are a signifigant part of the audience, but that should not be the primary focus of the movie.