"But there's more to enjoying an animation than the actual quality of the animation."
Hence the popularity of alot of anime titles.
"I think Return to Neverland is better than the original Peter Pan because it actually has a story with a beginning, middle and an end."
(cough! sputter!)
Walt Disney's Peter Pan doesn't have a beginning, a middle, and an end? That's a unique opinion. Please elaborate.
"Scamp's Adventure and Patch's London Adventure are all of above average quality too. And all three of the sequels I've just mentioned have animation well above the current standards (television and most non-disney movie animation)."
I refuse to be a party to making sequels to the films of dead artists who refused to make sequels to their films. The only animated features that Walt wanted continued beyond original release were Fantasia and Saludos Amigos. I think making a sequel to Disney's interpretation of Peter Pan - complete with actors trying to mimic the original voice artists - is as morally wrong as making a sequel to Citizen Kane, with people in make-up trying to resemble Welles, Cotton, and Moorehead. It's like making a Casablanca 2 using computer technology to replicate Bogart. Its morally wrong. It's artistic theft. I don't CARE about the revenue stream of the consumer products division, ESEPCIALLY from a company as wildly diverse in their revenue streams as the modern Disney company. This is nothing more than exploitation of the Disney legacy - pure and simple. Strip-mining classic works of tremendous cutltural import for a cheap, quick buck. Disney can make cheapquels to all the modern Disney films they want. Go ahead and make Lion King V and Aladdin Part XII. Just stay the hell away from making cheapquels to the films of DEAD ARTISTS.
"As for the money argument. Of course the sequels need more money spent on them if they are to achive WDFA quality. It's unfair to do a like-to-like comparison when the playing fields aren't level. However, did Treasure Planet really need the reported $140m spent on it?"
$100 million for production, $40 million for marketing. That's still less than the $170 million spent on Tarzan, and half that of the $200 million spent on the woeful Dinosaur. Dinosaur should have been a smash -- why did it stall out? Terrible writing. Great eye-candy, terrible dialogue. I fear Disney is going to learn the hard way that technology is not the fire that moves the masses...it's the writing and the integrity of the storytelling. Pixar rules the roost right now because their movies have integrity in spades. Not the CGI -- the quality of the writing and the storytelling are the selling points. They've combined that with great production values to create a trusted brand name. Hello! Who does that sound like?
Walt Disney.
<<People have to have a little common sense. Disney could produce the best animated film ever and spend $300m on it. A true epic and a true work of art. It doesn't mean the $300m is justified or ultimately worth it.>>
No one is arguing that Disney needs to be reckless in the manner you suggest. What people ARE arguing is that Disney is hurting their brand name by creating poor, low-budget, made-for-children sequels to their classic titles.
"Even the commentary on the Lion King DVD keeps mentioning areas the filmmakers had to cut back on (mainly effects) to keep the budget down."
And Bambi was pared down substantially after Fantasia flopped. It's not the money -- it's the integrity that's in question.
"Fantasia 2000 took 2 years to go into profit."
Fantasia 2000 was a loss leader. It was not made with an eye for profit.
"I believe The Emperor's New Groove took 4 and needed television sales to be accounted before turning a profit."
Emperor's New Groove had a $100 million budget, $25 million of which was wasted development on Kingdom of the Sun. It grossed $90 million in the US alone, and grossed $125 million in home video sales in it's first four weeks. Again, not even counting the rest of the world markets.
"Atlantis underperformed (I have no profit figures for this)"
$100 million budget, $60 million gross in US markets, twice that in world markets, long before home video came into play.
"Only Lilo and Stitch made a profit in a reasonable period of time."
It outgrossed Spielberg's Minority Report. A year later, Eisner was pulling the plug on hand-drawn animation.
"Ultimately Disney may have been better off putting the money used to make these films into a high interest bank account."
No -- modern film companies make their living now maintaining and building a library of titles. Film companies measure their individual year based on how well their new films are received, but it is the exploitation of existing catalog titles that now makes up the largest bulk of profit for the big five film studios.
"A company expects sizable returns on its investments. That's not belittling the art. It's a fact. (Most 'art' performances in the world today - such as ballet and opera have to rely on state aid. It doesn't make them any less artistic, but it makes them unprofitable. Poor returns do not mean lower quality "art")."
If Disney wants a return on their investment, they need to stop glutting the marketplace and they need to return to artistic integrity in their work...no "for the kids" sequences and characters in the middle of serious films like Hunchback, Pocahontas, Atlantis, Mulan and Tarzan.
"All of the profits from the sequels go into the big melting pot."
Like the ESPN profits? Like the Theme Park profits? Like the Cruise Ship profits? Like the publishing arms? Music arms? Miramax? Ad revenues from their multiple cable channels? Computer software? Hotels? Home video? And on and on and on? Is THAT the pot you're talking about?
"Some (most?) of the money may just fund more sequels, but any additional input to the studio helps. So yes, I do maintain the money from the so-called "cheapquels" have helped to keep WDFA alive."
And I maintain that the glut of crap has helped KILL the hand-drawn traditions of WDFA.
"Because despite this "losing" period, we've still had Feature Animation films made, with Feature Animation budgets."
And we're looking at the last one coming up in a few weeks -- Home on the Range. WDFA riding off into the sunset in favor of CGI. Fat lot of good those cheapquels did.
"What's more, we've had expensive live action films like Pirates of the Caribbean ($125m) - a massive gamble (media wisdom was Pirate movies don't sell)."
Massive gamble? If you're looking at making your money back in the North American market alone - maybe. But filmmaking is now a world market, and the average budget for a studio feature film is around $75 million now. $125 million sounds steep, but only if you're trying to recoup all your money in the North American sector, not even considering home video and ancilliary markets. I think you've been reading too many issues of Entertainment Weekly.
"As for the traditional animation shut-down and CGI start-up. Who can say if this would happen with the sequels or not. Dreamworks is doing the same. They're (in theory) cheaper (I've not seen this in practice though) and they are popular."
DreamWorks is popular? Sinbad? Road to El Dorado? Spirit? Emperor's New Groove outgrossed all three.
"Paka, you raise an interesting point. But then the question has to be "Why doesn't Disney open one of their feature animated films at this time of year themselves? Would it not be guarenteed to score big box office?"...
See the coming opening of Home on the Range.
Dreaming is good, but you have to wake up sometimes and think about reality. This is reality.
).