I just don't get JimHill media

[2099net]

Reading through their latest article now:

"Gnomeo & Juliet" not quite dead yet?
http://www.jimhillmedia.com/articles/02052004.1.htm

For a start, what's all this about English humour? To take an example.

On the other hand, Disney CEO Michael Eisner & WDFA President David Stainton just DIDN'T get the point of "Gnomeo & Juliet." They failed to see the humorous potential of restaging "Romeo & Juliet" -- W. Shakespeare's hot-blooded romantic tragedy -- inside a quaint English garden. How funny it would be to see a concrete garden gnome riding through this tranquil terrain atop his trusty steed ... Which would be a plastic lawn flamingo.

But Hahn (Who spent a couple of years in the U.K. back in the late 1980s, when he was riding herd on "Roger Rabbit." So he GETS English humor) immediately saw all the humor inherent in this premise. More importantly, Don remembered what happened the last time that Disney Feature Animation combined a Shakespearean tragedy with the music of Elton John. After an equally troubled pre-production period, the Mouse ended up with this colossal hit film. Maybe you've heard of it? "The Lion King."

I may be stupid, but I just don't see anything "English" about that. May be the actual concept of Garden Gnomes is somewhat English, but it's not really English humour. I suppose if I would have to describe English humour in a single word, I would use "irony". But I don't see much ironic about garden gnomes especially as recent trends in English humour are towards darker irony (although at a pinch it could be described as slight visual irony). Oh, and we don't have lawn flamingos.

Anyhow enough about this, see what's next:

"David likes to play it safe, Jim. I mean, look at the handful of projects that he's actually put in Feature Animation's production pipeline since he took over for Schumacher in November of 2002. 'The Three Little Pigs,' 'A Day with Wilbur Robinson.' These projects are all based on award winning books."

"Stainton doesn't trust the homegrown stuff. Movie ideas like 'Gnomeo', films that WDFA's own story artists develop right from the get-go, make David nervous. He'd prefer a pre-sold name. Something that will already have some name recognition with audiences. That will hopefully make the finished film that much easier for the Mouse to market & sell."

Well, I know that I've never heard of The Three Little Pigs or A Day with Wilbur Robinson books. And I doubt many people outside of America at all have (and to be honest, how many inside have. A Day with Wilbur Robinson doesn't appear to be flying of Amazon.Com's virtual shelves). But I bet a lot more people have heard of Romeo and Juliet. I'm sure the play on word of Gnomeo and Juliet will come with a lot more initial awareness than A Day with Wilbur Robinson will. To be fair, The Three Little Pigs always has - er - The Three Little Pigs fable to fall back on. I also doubt Disney artists would develop the story from nothing anyhow - I'm sure it would follow the play closely.

But I just don't get all this repeated bashing about Disney playing it safe which seems to come up in the media these days. Is it some sort of lie which if said enough times comes true? Disney are doing anything but playing it safe (IMOHO). If Disney were playing it safe, we'd just be getting "Princess" and "Animal" films from them. And we're getting a lot more.

"You wanna know the really sad part of his attitude? If Stainton had been calling the shots back in the early 1990s, he probably would have taken a pass on 'The Lion King' as well. I mean, "Gnomeo' has virtually the same ingredients as that film. It's based on a famous Shakespearean tragedy. It has a score by Tim Rice & Elton John ... But David just doesn't see the potential in that project."

So does that mean that by comissioning "Gnomeo and Juliet" Disney would, in fact, be "Playing it safe" and "not innovating"? Get your story straight!

[Jack]

I agree that its pretty ridiculous to call basing a film on a previously existing book or story 'safe'. Heck, Walt's first feature film was based on an already existing story, and much of the films to follow were as well.

However, I must say that I don't like the idea of Stainton continually passing up home-grown ideas (if this is true). The two most successful animated films ever (Lion King, Finding Nemo) were original. Why put off new ideas now, when the studio is in dire need of resurgance?

[2099net]

But is Romeo and Juliet "homegrown". I'd guess it's heavily based on the play and therefore, just as much of an adaptation as - say - Disney's little Mermaid which changed Hans Christian Andersons story significantly.

Just what is the definition of a "homegrown" story and an "existing" story?

And to say A Day with Wilbur Robinson will have more awareness than Gnomeo and Juliet is absolutely stupid. Just say "Gnomeo and Juliet" to any of your friends and I guarentee that they will "get" it.

[Jack]

Just what is the definition of a "homegrown" story and an "existing" story?

I think it can come down to a fine line between the two. For instance, Snow White, I'd say, is not homegrown because it follows the original tale's plot closely, and only expands on it. Lion King, while following Shakespeare, still has an original plot and is dissimilar in nature, so I would say that is homegrown.

But it's definately hard to decide sometimes, and in the end, it's subjective.

I can't say wether or not Gnomeo and Juliet is homegrown IMO, because I don't know enough about what the final version would have been. But my point earlier was that if it is true (I'm not saying its fact) that Stainton is passing up "home grown ideas", than I think it's a bad idea.

[Eeyore]

I may be stupid, but I just don't see anything "English" about that. May be the actual concept of Garden Gnomes is somewhat English, but it's not really English humour. I suppose if I would have to describe English humour in a single word, I would use "irony". But I don't see much ironic about garden gnomes especially as recent trends in English humour are towards darker irony (although at a pinch it could be described as slight visual irony). Oh, and we don't have lawn flamingos.

I think you're being a bit too specific here. English humour *is* different. And sometimes when things cross the pond, they just don't work in America. They just don't seem to get it sometimes. We Canucks of course, *always* get it.

I took the article to be that the style of the writing and comedy was english, not just that one little snippet or summary. They had more done than just the outline, did they not?

[2099net]

Well, he's talking of the premise, not the actual script. And the premise is basically "Romeo and Juliet with Gnomes". Sounds no more English or American than, say the "Babysitter turned secret agent" premise of Kim Possible.