I'm not sure if this belongs in Off-Topic of General Discussion being as I'm going to be talking about Home on the Range but I decided Off-Topic was best.
Well the weekend takings are in and they're a disappointing $14m. This compares to $70m for Finding Nemo, $35m for Lilo and Stitch (half of Nemo's) or even $15m for Return to Never Land or $14m for The Jungle Book 2.
It's clear from the opening weekend takings that the fact this is a traditionally animated film has hurt its box office potential. Nothing else people claim affects a film's performance can have affected the opening weekend's earnings.
Various excuses for Disney's traditional animation decline have been banded about, and here's my take on them all:
1] "It's the story and/or characters that matter, not the medium". Well, nobody actually knows enough about the story or the characters for the opening weekend of a movie. The story is more or less a mystery. I don't deny that story is important for word of mouth and repeat custom. But for the opening weekend, the story's influence on the takings is minimal.
2] "Disney's ruined their reputation with the crass commercialisation of the sequels". To this I have only two words "Scooby Doo". Is there any other Warner Bros property that has been commercialised more? From crass TV cartoons in the 80's, to non-stop stripping on Boomerang, to DTV animated sequels being released now, to a new cartoon series on television, to games, action figures, toys, food, clothing. Scooby is way more commercialised than any Disney property, sequel or no sequel. Yet more people going to see a Scooby Doo movie (even after the disappointment and critical kicking of the first)
3] "The Critical response is unfair and puts people off". I do actually agree with this to some extent. It has, from what I can see, got some unfair reviews. I also think that critics must influence what the public sees to some extent. Or else, why do people read the columns or watch them of television? But again I point to Scooby Doo. The first movie got a severe critical kicking and the sequels got an even worse bashing. But still people are going to see it.
4] "Everyone knows Home on the Range is the last traditionally animated film from Disney, and it's putting people off". Well, I would argue that the knowledge this is the last traditionally animated film from Disney should actually encourage more business. After all, there's no such thing as bad publicity (or so they say). Besides, most of this publicity and news is a direct result of Roy Disney's appearances on television and press releases. Isn't Roy supposed to be working to "Save" Disney.
5] "The release date is wrong. It's more of a summer movie". Now, I don't actually know what defines a "summer movie", but I doubt this film would do better in the summer – not with all the other high-profile films scheduled to be released then.
6] "Its too crude and inappropriate for young children". It may or may not be (I haven't seen it of course) but again Scooby Doo 2 seems to be keeping the audience. Plus, Shrek did okay too didn't it?
It is true that the fact it's traditionally animated has hurt its opening box office. Again, I accept that critics are not the be all or end all, but look at some of the comments:
"...More than a few discouraging words could be said about its dull animation. The once-great Mouse House needs to keep up with the Joneses."
Am I missing something here? Keep up with who? Oh yes, CGI films!
"The animation is flat and uninspiring – looking no better than a typical Saturday morning cartoon. Doesn't Disney know about shading?"
Again, I may be missing something here, but how many Disney films in the past have used shading? How many have used shading extensively? But what do we know that does use shading? That's right – CGI!
"Doesn't rise above anything you’re likely to see on an average Saturday morning."
In fact, reading a number of reviews online, the only time I can see anybody mentioning the animation is to say something negative. Not one single reviewer (that I have read) praises the animation. Compare that to the comments about Finding Nemo, a quick flick through RottonTomatoes shows:
"A gem, popping with cool tropical colors and wondrous sea creatures."
"Pixar's employees, masters of computer-generated animation, capture the look of the ocean like no artists before."
"It's business as usual -- the usual being stunning visuals, a charming story, and a dab of emotional resonance thrown in for good measure."
"I challenge any adult to ignore the artistry of the amazing opaque jellyfish floating through the ocean. The animation is incredible."
"So advanced - with lifelike motion and imagination-tingling artwork stroked with a silicon paintbrush - that it makes its predecessors come off as crude, ancient scrawlings on a cave wall."
"Although Finding Nemo reaches a new watermark in animation, it doesn't have the endearing characters or driving plot of Toy Story and Monsters, Inc. But then, classics are tough acts to follow."
"Pixar's masterpiece. It feels dizzy with color and drunk on its own otherworldly creation. Sure, it derives most of its splendor from what actually exists on our ocean floors, but that doesn’t make it any less wondrous."
Need I go on?
Businesses have to follow trends. The overwhelming trend these days is away from handdrawn animation. Scooby Doo opted to go live action and CGI rather than a fully animated movie. Looney Tunes: Back in Action opted to go live action and handdrawn and bombed.
Walt himself followed trends. He started making shows for television. Because the public's expectations changed. He stopped making theatrical shorts. Because the market would no longer support them. I don't agree with Disney stopping handdrawn animation, but I don't disagree with Disney making CGI movies.
People need to stop comparing "new" Disney with "old" Disney. They need to compare "new" Disney with the world "new" Disney exists and competes with.
Opening Weekends and 2D/3D animation trends
Opening Weekends and 2D/3D animation trends
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
Wow 2099net, that was one great speech here. There are not many people that think like you, but I sure am one of them! I agree with EVERYTHING you say. I think too many people are wanting the old Disney to come back, well times have changed and only CGI with a good story is going to save Disney. CGI is the future, and handdrawn animation is the past. Just look at the videos, they are being replaced by the dvds slowly but it is happening! I bet you will get a lot of reactions on this from the "Handdrawn animation supporters" but I support you all the way!
You got a good point about alot of things. Like Scooby Doo: Everyone thinks that 70s trends appeal to my generation (whatever)
Also you're right about story. Considering how kiddiesh Snow White and Pinocchio was, it is in fact a major mystery how they became popular films
And as with HOTR Disney could've at least gave it a better weekend to premiere. (By now we should realize that any 2nd rate animated feature doesnt stand a chance premiering the same weekend as a live action adaption of a popular comic book series (HellBoy)
And true, I thought that the fact that this was the last animated 2D film by Disney would give the film more attention and recognition than its getting right now. Plus, it's the first film in a long time that has the real feel of a Disney film.
I would see it myself if I wasn't a 20 year old anti social college student. I'm such a nerd. Thank goodness for movie piracy!
Also you're right about story. Considering how kiddiesh Snow White and Pinocchio was, it is in fact a major mystery how they became popular films
And as with HOTR Disney could've at least gave it a better weekend to premiere. (By now we should realize that any 2nd rate animated feature doesnt stand a chance premiering the same weekend as a live action adaption of a popular comic book series (HellBoy)
And true, I thought that the fact that this was the last animated 2D film by Disney would give the film more attention and recognition than its getting right now. Plus, it's the first film in a long time that has the real feel of a Disney film.
I would see it myself if I wasn't a 20 year old anti social college student. I'm such a nerd. Thank goodness for movie piracy!
-
PatrickvD
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:34 am
- Location: The Netherlands
Very well said... couldnt agree more. But if in the long run the story is the one thing that counts, Disney won't be improving with Chicken Little. They might have a big opening weekend, but if it suck, it will drop hard...
But I guess we'll just have to wait and see. There are SO many CGI movies coming that I don't think they will all reach blockbuster status like most have had over the last few years (All Pixars, Shrek, Ice Age)... some will flop..
But I guess we'll just have to wait and see. There are SO many CGI movies coming that I don't think they will all reach blockbuster status like most have had over the last few years (All Pixars, Shrek, Ice Age)... some will flop..
Don't get be wrong - story is important for word of mouth and repeat viewings. But none of that matters for the opening weekend.
As for CGI films. Some will flop. There's just so many as you say. And when the crash comes, it will be hard (I predict). And you're right, the first to flop could be Chicken Little.
Depending on how you look at it, you could see the next few years as being an exciting time for animation.
As for CGI films. Some will flop. There's just so many as you say. And when the crash comes, it will be hard (I predict). And you're right, the first to flop could be Chicken Little.
Depending on how you look at it, you could see the next few years as being an exciting time for animation.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
-
PatrickvD
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:34 am
- Location: The Netherlands
It is definitely going to be interesting times for animation... At least we can trust in Pixar for good movies. Looking forward to their stuff.. especially Cars. I saw a teaser poster somewhere a while back, looked really cool.2099net wrote:Don't get be wrong - story is important for word of mouth and repeat viewings. But none of that matters for the opening weekend.
As for CGI films. Some will flop. There's just so many as you say. And when the crash comes, it will be hard (I predict). And you're right, the first to flop could be Chicken Little.
Depending on how you look at it, you could see the next few years as being an exciting time for animation.
Well, Jimmy Neutron make only $5m less than Brother Bear at the US Box Office. The thing is it cost less than half of Brother Bears production cost ($25m against an estimated $80m) so it wasn't really a flop, and part of the reason a film for Jimmy Neutron was made was to absorb the costs of modelling the characters, props and locations for the television series. so it served its purpose.
Final Fantasy was a flop (I think I read somewhere recently it still hasn't made back the production cost) but most people don't consider it an animated film being as it looked so "realistic". I know that's a silly thing to say, but it's not lumped with other CGI animations, it has a totally different look and feel.
Dinosaur did actually make equal to it's production cost at American cinemas (but of course, this doesn't equal a profit when the various theater deductions etc are taken out) but I'm sure it did okay on home video and various television showings too. It's $137m US takings are nowhere near Treasure Planet's $38m for example.
Final Fantasy was a flop (I think I read somewhere recently it still hasn't made back the production cost) but most people don't consider it an animated film being as it looked so "realistic". I know that's a silly thing to say, but it's not lumped with other CGI animations, it has a totally different look and feel.
Dinosaur did actually make equal to it's production cost at American cinemas (but of course, this doesn't equal a profit when the various theater deductions etc are taken out) but I'm sure it did okay on home video and various television showings too. It's $137m US takings are nowhere near Treasure Planet's $38m for example.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
-
PatrickvD
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:34 am
- Location: The Netherlands
Dinosaur made over 200 million on the international market. So combined, it made about 350 million worldwide. So it actually broke even in its cinema run. So with the dvd release and merchandise included, Dinosaur was actually really profitable.
It wasnt that big of a flop. In fact, its BoxOffice performance was similair to that of Ice Age, a movie that has been called a huge hit.... doesnt make sense to me... and besides, Dinosaur was a better movie (not good, but better than Ice Age) it's too confusing lol....
It wasnt that big of a flop. In fact, its BoxOffice performance was similair to that of Ice Age, a movie that has been called a huge hit.... doesnt make sense to me... and besides, Dinosaur was a better movie (not good, but better than Ice Age) it's too confusing lol....
you can thank the success of Ice Age to the brainless who likes staring at CGI for an hour. Although Ice Age was a good movie in my bookPatrickvD wrote:Dinosaur made over 200 million on the international market. So combined, it made about 350 million worldwide. So it actually broke even in its cinema run. So with the dvd release and merchandise included, Dinosaur was actually really profitable.
It wasnt that big of a flop. In fact, its BoxOffice performance was similair to that of Ice Age, a movie that has been called a huge hit.... doesnt make sense to me... and besides, Dinosaur was a better movie (not good, but better than Ice Age) it's too confusing lol....
I just though up a new topic. It'll be up in five minutes at Off-Topic
-
goofystitch
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2948
- Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 1:30 pm
- Location: Walt Disney World
2099net,
Before your post, I firmly stood behind my belief that the CG films had done better than 2D because of better stories, but you have made me change my mind. You should be a professional journalist because you are very convincing. I am a bigger fan of 2D than CG animation, but I guess the times have changed. It will be interesting to see if CG animation will completely wipe out 2D animation. (Disney didn't say never to another 2D film.)
Before your post, I firmly stood behind my belief that the CG films had done better than 2D because of better stories, but you have made me change my mind. You should be a professional journalist because you are very convincing. I am a bigger fan of 2D than CG animation, but I guess the times have changed. It will be interesting to see if CG animation will completely wipe out 2D animation. (Disney didn't say never to another 2D film.)
I'm currently watching and reviewing every Disney film in chronological order. You can follow along at my blog, The Disney Films, and also follow me on Twitter.
Dur - what do you have to prove here, James? This is a forum of Disney fans - not exactly serious stuff. Yet here you're posting a research paper citing the reasons for the downfall of HD animation. And all but deifying CG animation. WTF, mate? 
All your reasoning is valid, don't get me wrong, but it's so cold and removed - very business-like. Felt like you were giving a power-point presentation to a bunch of execs. I'd like to see you post this at Animation Nation to see what actual people in the "biz" would say to it. But wait - those are mostly HD animators. Too biased, huh?
I just wanna know what your reason is in posting this. I know you consistantly like to play Devil's Advocate, but are you making a serious attempt at justifying Disney's move to exclusive CG-animated films? I mean, sure it makes good business sense right now, but in the long run? Fat chance.
Disney is a shepherd no longer. It's completely and absolutely the sheep now. Anything for a buck. And that's just sad, imo. I betcha anything that when their fail-proof venture into CG films does fail, they'll just cease in making anything in-house anymore. They'll just become a full-on distribution company. 'Cause that's the safest and easiest way to make a buck on films. And we all know what the Rat worships now. The Almighty Dollar. Or the Bottom Line. Take your pick.
I sure hope Eisner's successor - whenever they come on board - has more respect for the company than this.
All your reasoning is valid, don't get me wrong, but it's so cold and removed - very business-like. Felt like you were giving a power-point presentation to a bunch of execs. I'd like to see you post this at Animation Nation to see what actual people in the "biz" would say to it. But wait - those are mostly HD animators. Too biased, huh?
I just wanna know what your reason is in posting this. I know you consistantly like to play Devil's Advocate, but are you making a serious attempt at justifying Disney's move to exclusive CG-animated films? I mean, sure it makes good business sense right now, but in the long run? Fat chance.
Disney is a shepherd no longer. It's completely and absolutely the sheep now. Anything for a buck. And that's just sad, imo. I betcha anything that when their fail-proof venture into CG films does fail, they'll just cease in making anything in-house anymore. They'll just become a full-on distribution company. 'Cause that's the safest and easiest way to make a buck on films. And we all know what the Rat worships now. The Almighty Dollar. Or the Bottom Line. Take your pick.
I sure hope Eisner's successor - whenever they come on board - has more respect for the company than this.
Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: "Too late."
~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Hi, Paka. I hope my post didn't upset you too much, it wasn't my intention to upset anybody. It was just my intention to get people to actually think about the issues facing Disney today. I see a lot of "parroting" on this and other forums, and I'm not sure people are thinking about what they are actually repeating.
I've admitted before that I like to play Devil's Advocate, but I do believe in everything I type - even if I can believe and understand the opposing viewpoint. And it is possible to entertain two viewpoints, or present debate about something without resorting to media-friendly, single sentence sound bites. That's the biggest fault with modern society - everything has to be broken down into bite-sized chunks to appeal to the masses with little thought for the reasoning or logic behind them. And that's true for everything from the sorry state of today's politics to Roy Disney's supporters.
It's all very well repeating the sound bite friendly "It's the story that matters" or "Disney's DTVs are blanding the brand". Yeah, they sound good, but nothing as complex as Disney's current fall from grace can be explained in print-friendly single sentences. And the problem certainly cannot be fixed as easily as people seem to think. I see things like "It's the story" or "I would revitalize Disney animation". Well, nobody but nobody sets out to make a bad film. Even Ed Wood didn't set out to make a bad film. I know there's an issue with executive meddling at Disney, but no one at Disney wants to make a bad film. If people knew how to spin a good story or "revitalize" animation, don't you think they would be doing it now?
I don't dispute that the story matters. It does (but that said, I still think some of Disney's earlier animated films have weak stories). Finding Nemo (and the Lion King before it) only did such phenomenal box office due to repeat custom and word of mouth. While it's possible some of the repeat custom for Finding Nemo was because people wanted to see the visuals again, I'm pretty sure the bulk of the repeat custom was down to the story and characters. But it's pointless having a good story if the medium is turning people away before they have seen it.
And the medium is turning people away. I've read a number of Home on the Range reviews online and out of about fifteen, not one has commented on the animation other than to say "The last of Disney's hand drawn animation" with no real comment on the quality, or, more worryingly, to criticize it. Not one has a single, positive comment about the animation. Now, that alone shows Disney have more to worry about than story. People aren't seeing Home on the Range because the animation method doesn't appeal to them anymore.
It's odd, Home of the Range appeals to me more than lots of CGI films. And I'm Hercules' biggest cheerleader. I think Disney's Hercules has some of the best animation Disney has ever done. But that film, like Home on the Range seems to suffer from the same problems; the minimal line work, flat coloring and unrealistic, out of proportion, stylistic designs put people off or make them think it's "cheap". In a world where the realism of the water in Finding Nemo, or the reflections on Buzz's helmet in Toy Story gain people's attention, stylish designs which actually take advantage of the medium of animation are slowly being sidelined. Something like Destino will never appeal to the masses, just like to some extent Fantasia 2000 would never appeal to the mainstream audience.
When I compare Home on the Range with Antz or Ice Age I undoubtedly prefer Home on the Range. Both of the CGI films suffered from (in my opinion) appalling character designs. (As an aside, I complained about the Ice Age designs on here before and somebody said the drawn designs looked much better. I wouldn't say that they were fantastic, but after making an effort to see some of the drawn designs I can say that they were certainly more appealing). Princess Fiona in Shrek looks creepy to me in some of her scenes.
I'm no fan of Shrek as I've stated many times. It looks appealing most of the time, particularly to me, the locations and environments. I'm not sure about some of the human characters but visually I have few complaints. But I hate the story, I hate the crude humor and I hate the silly parodies – some of which have already aged the film.
So I'm not an enthusiastic CGI supporter. I recognize its worth as a tool and I recognize (sadly) its appeal to the modern filmgoer. There's no reason why Disney shouldn't make CGI films. As for animation, the actual animation of the characters in Finding Nemo is indisputably fantastic, so there's still a need for skill with CGI. Oddly, very few of the comments on the Finding Nemo reviews mention character animation…
I can't see Disney going the full distribution only route. Perhaps they will distribute more external films and cut down on their own, but I cannot see full production of Disney animated films stopping. Disney's biggest asset is it's back-catalog and its an asset that needs to continue to grow is Disney is to remain successful.
I'm not an Eisner detractor, but I'm not his supporter either. If you want me to criticize Eisner I can do over a number of issues, I can do (and have done at various times in the past).
It was stupid of Disney to spend all that money setting up the "Secret Lab" computer effects division and then shutting it down after the perceived failure of Dinosaur. If nothing else, such a division would have been useful to have for Disney's upcoming films – The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, King Arthur and the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels. Also, while the technicians who worked there may not have been capable of doing full blown character animation for Disney's upcoming CGI films, I'm pretty sure they could have offered invaluable advice and knowledge.
It was also stupid of Eisner to totally close down handdrawn animation in America. I always thought that Disney should have been able to release on traditionally animated film every three years or so – alternating with CGI. I also think that now, with all the Disney owned TV channels and DVD that Theatrical shorts made with a medium range budget could be supported. Having Disney's animation division making shorts would allow them to experiment and learn, creating techniques that could be used in their films. The shorts would make money back when released with other Disney movies, shown on television and included on DVD releases. I think a new Donald Duck short before Pirates of the Caribbean II would go down a storm with the audience.
Other silly Disney mistakes include releasing TV episode compilations as DTVs and labeling them as "movies". Releasing DTVs like Cinderella 2 and Belle's Magical World which are neither TV episodes nor movies. Refusing to release proper television animation collections on DVD. Spending a reported $200m on promoting all three Lion King films. I also think leaked reports about upcoming animated film projects indicate Disney are readying far too many animated films for release over the next few years. There's bound to be a CGI crash, and given the number of films Disney plans on releasing, Disney will be a casualty.
I've admitted before that I like to play Devil's Advocate, but I do believe in everything I type - even if I can believe and understand the opposing viewpoint. And it is possible to entertain two viewpoints, or present debate about something without resorting to media-friendly, single sentence sound bites. That's the biggest fault with modern society - everything has to be broken down into bite-sized chunks to appeal to the masses with little thought for the reasoning or logic behind them. And that's true for everything from the sorry state of today's politics to Roy Disney's supporters.
It's all very well repeating the sound bite friendly "It's the story that matters" or "Disney's DTVs are blanding the brand". Yeah, they sound good, but nothing as complex as Disney's current fall from grace can be explained in print-friendly single sentences. And the problem certainly cannot be fixed as easily as people seem to think. I see things like "It's the story" or "I would revitalize Disney animation". Well, nobody but nobody sets out to make a bad film. Even Ed Wood didn't set out to make a bad film. I know there's an issue with executive meddling at Disney, but no one at Disney wants to make a bad film. If people knew how to spin a good story or "revitalize" animation, don't you think they would be doing it now?
I don't dispute that the story matters. It does (but that said, I still think some of Disney's earlier animated films have weak stories). Finding Nemo (and the Lion King before it) only did such phenomenal box office due to repeat custom and word of mouth. While it's possible some of the repeat custom for Finding Nemo was because people wanted to see the visuals again, I'm pretty sure the bulk of the repeat custom was down to the story and characters. But it's pointless having a good story if the medium is turning people away before they have seen it.
And the medium is turning people away. I've read a number of Home on the Range reviews online and out of about fifteen, not one has commented on the animation other than to say "The last of Disney's hand drawn animation" with no real comment on the quality, or, more worryingly, to criticize it. Not one has a single, positive comment about the animation. Now, that alone shows Disney have more to worry about than story. People aren't seeing Home on the Range because the animation method doesn't appeal to them anymore.
It's odd, Home of the Range appeals to me more than lots of CGI films. And I'm Hercules' biggest cheerleader. I think Disney's Hercules has some of the best animation Disney has ever done. But that film, like Home on the Range seems to suffer from the same problems; the minimal line work, flat coloring and unrealistic, out of proportion, stylistic designs put people off or make them think it's "cheap". In a world where the realism of the water in Finding Nemo, or the reflections on Buzz's helmet in Toy Story gain people's attention, stylish designs which actually take advantage of the medium of animation are slowly being sidelined. Something like Destino will never appeal to the masses, just like to some extent Fantasia 2000 would never appeal to the mainstream audience.
When I compare Home on the Range with Antz or Ice Age I undoubtedly prefer Home on the Range. Both of the CGI films suffered from (in my opinion) appalling character designs. (As an aside, I complained about the Ice Age designs on here before and somebody said the drawn designs looked much better. I wouldn't say that they were fantastic, but after making an effort to see some of the drawn designs I can say that they were certainly more appealing). Princess Fiona in Shrek looks creepy to me in some of her scenes.
I'm no fan of Shrek as I've stated many times. It looks appealing most of the time, particularly to me, the locations and environments. I'm not sure about some of the human characters but visually I have few complaints. But I hate the story, I hate the crude humor and I hate the silly parodies – some of which have already aged the film.
So I'm not an enthusiastic CGI supporter. I recognize its worth as a tool and I recognize (sadly) its appeal to the modern filmgoer. There's no reason why Disney shouldn't make CGI films. As for animation, the actual animation of the characters in Finding Nemo is indisputably fantastic, so there's still a need for skill with CGI. Oddly, very few of the comments on the Finding Nemo reviews mention character animation…
I can't see Disney going the full distribution only route. Perhaps they will distribute more external films and cut down on their own, but I cannot see full production of Disney animated films stopping. Disney's biggest asset is it's back-catalog and its an asset that needs to continue to grow is Disney is to remain successful.
I'm not an Eisner detractor, but I'm not his supporter either. If you want me to criticize Eisner I can do over a number of issues, I can do (and have done at various times in the past).
It was stupid of Disney to spend all that money setting up the "Secret Lab" computer effects division and then shutting it down after the perceived failure of Dinosaur. If nothing else, such a division would have been useful to have for Disney's upcoming films – The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, King Arthur and the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels. Also, while the technicians who worked there may not have been capable of doing full blown character animation for Disney's upcoming CGI films, I'm pretty sure they could have offered invaluable advice and knowledge.
It was also stupid of Eisner to totally close down handdrawn animation in America. I always thought that Disney should have been able to release on traditionally animated film every three years or so – alternating with CGI. I also think that now, with all the Disney owned TV channels and DVD that Theatrical shorts made with a medium range budget could be supported. Having Disney's animation division making shorts would allow them to experiment and learn, creating techniques that could be used in their films. The shorts would make money back when released with other Disney movies, shown on television and included on DVD releases. I think a new Donald Duck short before Pirates of the Caribbean II would go down a storm with the audience.
Other silly Disney mistakes include releasing TV episode compilations as DTVs and labeling them as "movies". Releasing DTVs like Cinderella 2 and Belle's Magical World which are neither TV episodes nor movies. Refusing to release proper television animation collections on DVD. Spending a reported $200m on promoting all three Lion King films. I also think leaked reports about upcoming animated film projects indicate Disney are readying far too many animated films for release over the next few years. There's bound to be a CGI crash, and given the number of films Disney plans on releasing, Disney will be a casualty.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
Whoa - holy compositional posts, Batman!! 
Hehe... just kidding! Thanks for that, Netty - intelligent and level-headed responses are always refreshing.
My observations on the whole business of Disney and animation are mostly frustrated ones. I think Walt would have slayed the market in this Age of Information. He probably would have been one of the first major companies to utilize the internet, and he no doubt would have been fascinated by CG animation. He probably would have been the first to experiment with it and push its capacity, imo. I dunno how he'd deal with home video, but there probably would be some sort of wise compromise hammered out, a la his venture into television. And to think of what kind of DVDs we'd get if he were around... *drool*
LOL - Walt also likely would have realized the niche for both formats, though - and would've produce films catered to either style - he wouldn't have made films in CG just for novelty's sake. And you can bet your bum that he would have experimented with CG until he had a team of knowledgable animators, like the Silly Symphonies trials before the big venture of Snow White.
Anyhoo, it's all a very frustrating spectacle to me, as I said before. There are no pioneers like Walt around anymore. If there are, they sure ain't in the position to lead a monstrosity like the Disney corporation. But to think of what could have been, instead of the countless business slip-ups and mediocre efforts at films we've been seeing in the past decade. I still shake my head in wonder when I think, for example, of Disney letting a project like Lord of the Rings slip through its fingers - and now New Line and Warner Bros. are laughing all the way to the bank.
But now I think Disney has spread itself too thin, and is taking too many faster, cheaper, safer ways out in its business. To quote a local exercise equipment dealer - "Why buy new, when slightly used will do?" Disney's just following trends and spinning the "formulas" that "work" at this point. My fear is that they're just gonna cannalize themselves until there's nothing left, then crash. Dunno how or when they'll "crash," but they will. Just like modern society in general.
And I don't think we'll have to wait until Chicken Little to witness the folly of "fail-proof" CG. Come this fall we've got Father of the Pride and Shark Tale. Color me cynical, but I'm all but positive that both projects will do mediocre at best, if not fail dismally. Shark Tale has a terrible premise - especially for a supposed "family film" (a parody of mob films? WTF?). It also has appalling character designs (talk about anthropomorphization gone horribly wrong! O_o), and DreamWorks has so far hawked the crap out of the celebrity voices (you gotta check out the updated website!
). Father of the Pride is getting plunked right into Friends' old Thursday spot - not a very good move, imo. Puts way too much pressure on it. And the premise wasn't the greatest to begin with, but now it's become downright awkward with Roy's tiger incident last October. They're gonna have that hanging over the show the whole time - can't make a lot of jokes about bitter cats wanting to eat the humans now, I guess. They'll now probably have to settle for taking digs at The Lion King whenever they can.
But anyway, I'm just rambling now. I'm sure I had some other point(s) to make, but I can't remember. O_o And I have to go make dinner. And I've probably reached my smilie-per-post limit for this reply!
LOL
Hehe... just kidding! Thanks for that, Netty - intelligent and level-headed responses are always refreshing.
My observations on the whole business of Disney and animation are mostly frustrated ones. I think Walt would have slayed the market in this Age of Information. He probably would have been one of the first major companies to utilize the internet, and he no doubt would have been fascinated by CG animation. He probably would have been the first to experiment with it and push its capacity, imo. I dunno how he'd deal with home video, but there probably would be some sort of wise compromise hammered out, a la his venture into television. And to think of what kind of DVDs we'd get if he were around... *drool*
LOL - Walt also likely would have realized the niche for both formats, though - and would've produce films catered to either style - he wouldn't have made films in CG just for novelty's sake. And you can bet your bum that he would have experimented with CG until he had a team of knowledgable animators, like the Silly Symphonies trials before the big venture of Snow White.
Anyhoo, it's all a very frustrating spectacle to me, as I said before. There are no pioneers like Walt around anymore. If there are, they sure ain't in the position to lead a monstrosity like the Disney corporation. But to think of what could have been, instead of the countless business slip-ups and mediocre efforts at films we've been seeing in the past decade. I still shake my head in wonder when I think, for example, of Disney letting a project like Lord of the Rings slip through its fingers - and now New Line and Warner Bros. are laughing all the way to the bank.
But now I think Disney has spread itself too thin, and is taking too many faster, cheaper, safer ways out in its business. To quote a local exercise equipment dealer - "Why buy new, when slightly used will do?" Disney's just following trends and spinning the "formulas" that "work" at this point. My fear is that they're just gonna cannalize themselves until there's nothing left, then crash. Dunno how or when they'll "crash," but they will. Just like modern society in general.
And I don't think we'll have to wait until Chicken Little to witness the folly of "fail-proof" CG. Come this fall we've got Father of the Pride and Shark Tale. Color me cynical, but I'm all but positive that both projects will do mediocre at best, if not fail dismally. Shark Tale has a terrible premise - especially for a supposed "family film" (a parody of mob films? WTF?). It also has appalling character designs (talk about anthropomorphization gone horribly wrong! O_o), and DreamWorks has so far hawked the crap out of the celebrity voices (you gotta check out the updated website!
). Father of the Pride is getting plunked right into Friends' old Thursday spot - not a very good move, imo. Puts way too much pressure on it. And the premise wasn't the greatest to begin with, but now it's become downright awkward with Roy's tiger incident last October. They're gonna have that hanging over the show the whole time - can't make a lot of jokes about bitter cats wanting to eat the humans now, I guess. They'll now probably have to settle for taking digs at The Lion King whenever they can. But anyway, I'm just rambling now. I'm sure I had some other point(s) to make, but I can't remember. O_o And I have to go make dinner. And I've probably reached my smilie-per-post limit for this reply!
LOL