Although it lasted a good decade or so, Disney's Renaissance seemed to have ended as fast as it did start. History is clear that from the death of Walt and post-Jungle Book, the animation department took a turn for the worse. Although good in their own right, and especially remembered by certain generations and indeed, many others, they were and are still disregarded as evidenced by their non-Diamond status and also their shoddy treatment otherwise.
So the advent of the Little Mermaid came in the form of the Disney musical which had lost prominence toward the end of the dark age features. Unmemorable songs and less of them overall took their toll on the image and indeed Don Bluth Studios beat them handily more than once.
However, did this critical acclaim get to their heads too fast? Did they end up sticking to a formula instead of trying to advance the medium?
Rescuers Down Under, which I haven't seen, happens to be sandwhiched in between and is indeed also a sequel and doesn't have the same motifs as the rest of the era so I'll ignore it.
Beauty and the Beast came next and we all know how that went. The jewel in the crown next to the original animation feature it became and maybe this set the bar too high?
Aladdin did very well for coming up under the shadow of the Beast, it did better at the box office and was also memorable and critically acclaimed.
The tipping point then seems to be The Lion King, which also shot up in fame and is the newest addition to the Diamond or Classic status. It was also critically acclaimed but perhaps more importantly it broke all records and still holds them for a hand-drawn animated film. In fact it was one of the highest grossing movies of the time and that made anything going after it scrutinized harder and judged harsher. So it was foretold then that Pocahontas fumbled in both aspects.
The other turning point also seems to have come here with the first CGI feature, Toy Story, being released to acclaim and box office success. Was it the new age that stopped the ascent or the continued prosperity of the Renaissance or were the feature films post-Lion King just not good enough? Whether by having to come up against Elton John was a tough task, it seems that the songs post-Lion King were also just not as memorable. I guess all of this is subjective because I personally found Hunchback, Hercules, Tarzan etc quite great, yet they never reached the same height again.
A Bug's Life and Toy Story 2 also entered during this period together with the beginning of Dreamworks foraging into animation quite successfully.
So they say it ended then, before the new millennium had started, but why? Tarzan was a high in their recent lows. Is it because their next film was completely away from the formula? It wasn't even hand-drawn but it was a success. Emperor's New Groove was fantastic but apparently marketed horribly. Tarzan was also the last to feature lots of songs but the singing protagonists had been dropped after Hunchback already. Was Disney forever doomed to have to stick to their formula for success? Were people inherently prejudiced against films that didn't follow that formula?
I guess I may be in the minority but from TENG up until Brother Bear, I really enjoyed their movies, yet the results were mixed and of course it ended with Home on the Range and Disney calling it a day. I guess it also did not help that you had Shrek 2, Finding Nemo and the like all smashing records that Disney only ever got twice with Aladdin and Lion King, almost ten years ago at that stage. But how did all of it happen?
What happened to all the animators? I didn't catch the last documentary but even then it only details from Mermaid to Lion. Why not the rest? Why the stigma? How did the most successful animation studio basically shoot themselves in the foot a second time? Didn't they learn from the first? Should they have diversified from the start so as to not be typecasted into a type of film?
Any insightful answer would be appreciated.
How did the Disney Renaissance end?
-
SwordInTheStone777
- Special Edition
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:46 pm
- Location: Virginia
I really think that Disney set the bar so high for themselves after their 1989-1994 films that they were never able to keep up with it. It doesn't help that Howard Ashman died in 1991; he not only helped make Disney's music successful again, but as one of the producers of The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast, he basically propelled those films to be carried thru] their music. So much so that those films soon found their way on the Broadway stage, as they were essentially formatted.
The stories for their 1995-1999 films were clearly influenced by the earlier Renaissance films, in an attempt to replicate their success. But I saw a sense of watering down in those films. Pocahontas took itself very seriously, in a reported attempt to win the Best Picture Oscar. Hunchback was much more adult than anything Disney had tried in decades, again in an attempt to win big at the Oscars. Hercules basically copied what was learned from Aladdin, without much of the substance. Mulan seemed to make a sincere effort to differentiate itself from its immediate predecessors. I haven't seen all of Tarzan, so I can't say much about it.
It does seem like as time went on, Disney has had a harder time trying to marry the old with the new. They really gunned for something bolder with Hunchback, but held back with Hercules.
Part of it may have been caused by the jumble in the top ranks in 1994. Frank Wells died, and Jeffery Katzenberg left. This sudden imbalance in company management may have made things iffy for the feature animation department's outlook again, as they were already under close scrutiny during the 1989-1994 period.
One could argue that none of Disney's high periods were exactly perfect. Pinocchio, Fantasia, and Bambi, all considered among the film's greatest films failed to find an audience upon their premieres. Alice in Wonderland was a black eye for Disney's rise in the baby boomer period. And of course, The Rescuers Down Under is often ignored when people discuss the Disney Renaissance.
I would say, because of Disney's continued influence on the animation market during 1990's, their 1995-1999 films should be considered part of the Renaissance. There are several reasons why the line should be drawn after Fantasia 2000 was released.
Starting with The Emperor's New Groove, which to me doesn't get enough credit for being completely different from what is normally expected from Disney's films, the company found itself with a more inconsistent track record. Then there was the continued success of Pixar's films, while they weren't trying to mess Disney up at all. Then, there was DreamWork's first true hit with Shrek, after several attempts to copy Disney's 90's hits, and a lame attempt to upstage Pixar with Antz. Not favored by all, including me, but DreamWorks created their own niche, which would later help prove that you didn't have to try to copy Disney, or even Pixar for that matter, in order to make a successful animated feature.
Finally, the influence of Disney's 90's hits had worn off. Warner Bros. had stopped making hand-drawn films, even though they purposely sabotaged any chance at them succeeding. Don Bluth stopped trying to catch up with Disney and dropped out of the game altogether. DreamWorks gave up hand-drawn animation in 2003, only weeks after Disney made the same announcement for their slate. Thousands of animators worldwide were laid off as studios closed down and scaled back. Disney would soon undergo company-wide disarray as it did in the 1980's. The Renaissance definitely ended in 2000.
So in one way, the legacy of Disney's Renaissance was one that would eventually work against the studio. Nowadays, multiple animation studios can succeed with feature films, using their own style of storytelling; the arena is no longer dominated by a single studio the way Disney had for many decades. As for Disney, they're now trying to catch up with the competition that they've influenced in many ways.
The stories for their 1995-1999 films were clearly influenced by the earlier Renaissance films, in an attempt to replicate their success. But I saw a sense of watering down in those films. Pocahontas took itself very seriously, in a reported attempt to win the Best Picture Oscar. Hunchback was much more adult than anything Disney had tried in decades, again in an attempt to win big at the Oscars. Hercules basically copied what was learned from Aladdin, without much of the substance. Mulan seemed to make a sincere effort to differentiate itself from its immediate predecessors. I haven't seen all of Tarzan, so I can't say much about it.
It does seem like as time went on, Disney has had a harder time trying to marry the old with the new. They really gunned for something bolder with Hunchback, but held back with Hercules.
Part of it may have been caused by the jumble in the top ranks in 1994. Frank Wells died, and Jeffery Katzenberg left. This sudden imbalance in company management may have made things iffy for the feature animation department's outlook again, as they were already under close scrutiny during the 1989-1994 period.
One could argue that none of Disney's high periods were exactly perfect. Pinocchio, Fantasia, and Bambi, all considered among the film's greatest films failed to find an audience upon their premieres. Alice in Wonderland was a black eye for Disney's rise in the baby boomer period. And of course, The Rescuers Down Under is often ignored when people discuss the Disney Renaissance.
I would say, because of Disney's continued influence on the animation market during 1990's, their 1995-1999 films should be considered part of the Renaissance. There are several reasons why the line should be drawn after Fantasia 2000 was released.
Starting with The Emperor's New Groove, which to me doesn't get enough credit for being completely different from what is normally expected from Disney's films, the company found itself with a more inconsistent track record. Then there was the continued success of Pixar's films, while they weren't trying to mess Disney up at all. Then, there was DreamWork's first true hit with Shrek, after several attempts to copy Disney's 90's hits, and a lame attempt to upstage Pixar with Antz. Not favored by all, including me, but DreamWorks created their own niche, which would later help prove that you didn't have to try to copy Disney, or even Pixar for that matter, in order to make a successful animated feature.
Finally, the influence of Disney's 90's hits had worn off. Warner Bros. had stopped making hand-drawn films, even though they purposely sabotaged any chance at them succeeding. Don Bluth stopped trying to catch up with Disney and dropped out of the game altogether. DreamWorks gave up hand-drawn animation in 2003, only weeks after Disney made the same announcement for their slate. Thousands of animators worldwide were laid off as studios closed down and scaled back. Disney would soon undergo company-wide disarray as it did in the 1980's. The Renaissance definitely ended in 2000.
So in one way, the legacy of Disney's Renaissance was one that would eventually work against the studio. Nowadays, multiple animation studios can succeed with feature films, using their own style of storytelling; the arena is no longer dominated by a single studio the way Disney had for many decades. As for Disney, they're now trying to catch up with the competition that they've influenced in many ways.
-
Flanger-Hanger
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3746
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:59 pm
- Location: S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters
The Disney "Renaissance" ended when spending and egos within the company inflated to a ridiculous amount and box office returns, for the most part, were not what they used to be.
I don't believe this to be his decision. Fox Animation Studios shut down after the poor returns for Titan AE. He apparently has a script ready to turn Dragon's Lair into a movie, but no one has given him the money for it. I'm sure that if he did have the financial backing to keep making films he would.Semaj wrote:Don Bluth stopped trying to catch up with Disney and dropped out of the game altogether.
And that's what makes them so sad.Semaj wrote:Nowadays, multiple animation studios can succeed with feature films, using their own style of storytelling; the arena is no longer dominated by a single studio the way Disney had for many decades. As for Disney, they're now trying to catch up with the competition that they've influenced in many ways.
-
PatrickvD
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:34 am
- Location: The Netherlands
yeah Howard Ashman's death played a huge role. He was like the reincarnation of Walt himself. Only better. You know how Walt would act out the entire story of Snow White or Pinocchio for his crew to inspire them and show them what he wanted. In similar fashion, Howard played the role of every single character in his films. He was Ursula. He was Ariel. Even Mrs Potts. They were in his mind and he made them come through.
What's happening now, under Lasseter, is the closest thing Disney has come in quite a while to Ashman. Not just the focus on great stories, but in particular interesting characters. The characters need to come to life.
What's happening now, under Lasseter, is the closest thing Disney has come in quite a while to Ashman. Not just the focus on great stories, but in particular interesting characters. The characters need to come to life.
-
Wonderlicious
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:47 am
- Location: UK
- Contact:
First of all, I would like to get aboard my soapbox and remind people of Who Framed Roger Rabbit, which should probably be pinpointed as the one film that really kick-started the revival of interest in Disney animation. I love The Little Mermaid as much as the next guy, but I honestly think that people go a bit overboard with making it seem so much like the one film that saved Disney. Who Framed Roger Rabbit was the first true sign that things were getting better after the whole animation debacle of the 70s and early 80s, and Oliver and Company was reasonably successful. In fact, one might be able to say that the release of old Disney animated classics for the first time on video both helped to fuel some interest in the age-old medium. Of course, throughout the Renaissance, there were still occasional blunders (for example, the poor performance of The Rescuers Down Under theatrically), but the whole period starting from around Who Framed Roger Rabbit in my eyes can be classed as the Disney Renaissance.
Needless to say of which film exactly started it, it has to be said that the most important films are the four most successful fully animated hand-drawn features: The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King. They were the films that really proved how successful fully-animated films could be for modern audiences.
Where the Renaissance ends, though, is debatable. The death of Howard Ashman can be considered a factor, but that doesn't necessarily explain for the success of The Lion King, or even possibly Aladdin, which he ended up having less impact on than with earlier films. One could equally claim the films of the latter half of the decade, most of which seemed to shoe-horn the Disney formula into any old story, ended it. Pocahontas was a decent success, but it drew some strong criticism and didn't do as well as preceding films, and more importantly the film nobody had much hope in (Toy Story). Yet while problems were beginning to show up after The Lion King, they weren't completely hindering success. In fact, all the animated films of the latter half of the 90s were successful in their own right, and it was really only after the new millennium began when Disney animation went into real crash and burn. The development and growth of the 90s, and the consequences with it, really began to show from 2000 onwards; hangovers of executive meddling (films painfully morphing into completely different ones, like with The Emperor's New Groove, as an example), crazy demand ( and a change in public tastes (the type of stories being told in CG) led to a weakening of Disney's brand power.
And now, of course, the once market dominator still has to catch up in terms of popularity with the studios it would have previously beaten to a pulp.
Needless to say of which film exactly started it, it has to be said that the most important films are the four most successful fully animated hand-drawn features: The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King. They were the films that really proved how successful fully-animated films could be for modern audiences.
Where the Renaissance ends, though, is debatable. The death of Howard Ashman can be considered a factor, but that doesn't necessarily explain for the success of The Lion King, or even possibly Aladdin, which he ended up having less impact on than with earlier films. One could equally claim the films of the latter half of the decade, most of which seemed to shoe-horn the Disney formula into any old story, ended it. Pocahontas was a decent success, but it drew some strong criticism and didn't do as well as preceding films, and more importantly the film nobody had much hope in (Toy Story). Yet while problems were beginning to show up after The Lion King, they weren't completely hindering success. In fact, all the animated films of the latter half of the 90s were successful in their own right, and it was really only after the new millennium began when Disney animation went into real crash and burn. The development and growth of the 90s, and the consequences with it, really began to show from 2000 onwards; hangovers of executive meddling (films painfully morphing into completely different ones, like with The Emperor's New Groove, as an example), crazy demand ( and a change in public tastes (the type of stories being told in CG) led to a weakening of Disney's brand power.
And now, of course, the once market dominator still has to catch up in terms of popularity with the studios it would have previously beaten to a pulp.
-
RIPJoeRanft
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 8:33 pm
For me, it ended in 1995.
Toy Story was released. The emergence of Pixar and computer animation began. And in my opinion, Pocahantus was a creative dud that completely dropped the ball on all of the momentum that the studio had been building (And unbelievably, Pocahantus used Disney's A-team, The Lion King had Disney's B-team. Besides some good animation and a strong song or two, there just wasn't anything there memorable or particularly well-done in Pocahantus, while I clearly remember Toy Story blowing everyone away during the holiday season 1995.)
By the end of 1995, I think a large segment of America wanted more Toy Story-type animated films, and they soon would through Pixar and other copycat studios.
Toy Story was released. The emergence of Pixar and computer animation began. And in my opinion, Pocahantus was a creative dud that completely dropped the ball on all of the momentum that the studio had been building (And unbelievably, Pocahantus used Disney's A-team, The Lion King had Disney's B-team. Besides some good animation and a strong song or two, there just wasn't anything there memorable or particularly well-done in Pocahantus, while I clearly remember Toy Story blowing everyone away during the holiday season 1995.)
By the end of 1995, I think a large segment of America wanted more Toy Story-type animated films, and they soon would through Pixar and other copycat studios.
The animated features that came after The Lion King were often just as good, if not even better than said 'record-breaker'. They were better animated than the 1989-1994 films, had fantastic scores (especially Hunchback and Tarzan), and were generally well-received by critics and audiences alike. We tend to forget it, but those films made amazing profits. But we have forgotten about that, because they were not as big as Lion King, which was an unrealistic expectation to begin with. But any other studio would have killed for those kind of box-office numbers are critic's postive ratings.
The reason they are not as prominent in the audience's collective memory is a direct result from Disney's decision to pretend the Renaissance ended after Lion King. To treat subsequent films like shit when it comes to DVD/BluRay releases and merchandising/marketing reïnforces the public in the false conviction that those films were of lesser quality. The reason for this is fairly simple: you can't market all your films as 'masterpieces'. You have to pick out a few titles, and you can sell them over and over again in the millions. You can make an event of the reissuing of such a masterpiece. But if you give all the films the credit they deserve, there's nothing 'special' anymore about a reissue, and why then should the public be excited for them? It's all about creating hype, and Lion King succeeded best in that regard.
That's also the reason why Disney keeps harping that old 'Dark Age' story. If you want to market Little Mermaid as an event, you have to pretent everything that came before it sucked.
I don't think the Renaissance ended because Disney let go of a 'formula'. I don't even know there is such a thing as a formula. It has been said a lot of times, but I think the 1990's films were all very different.
Little Mermaid was a return to Classic Disney, while still being fresh with its active heroine (as opposed to the passive princesses from Walt's days). Rescuers Down Under was a totally different film. It was an adventure film, no songs included, focused on action scenes. Beauty and the Beast was a Broadway musical in the true meaning of the word; not at all like Mermaid. Aladdin was a comedy, a buddy movie almost, very different in tone from the previous films. The Lion King, while really ripped off from a tv series, was presented as this serious, adult Shakespearian drama. Pocahontas was a return to the Mermaid-concept, but with a radical different art style. Hunchback was a much darker, more serious film which deals with heavy themes that were never touched upon in any Disney film.
I could go on, but the point is that there's not really a thing like a Disney formula or 'essence' (sorry, Duster).
The Disney Renaissance ended with Tarzan. After that came Dinosaur, a horrible failure that shouldn't even be in the Classics canon, and originally wasn't. Then the second Fantasia, which was an okay film, but suffered from the so-called 'funny' guest stars, the repetition of Mickey Mouse, too much CGI and too much ADD at the cost of sincerity (Flamingos, Donald Duck). Atlantis was too much an "let's target preteen boys"-film which ripped off a Japanese tv series, and Emperor's New Groove was Disney going Chuck Jones, thus not being Disney anymore. Lilo & Stitch was vintage Disney, a true modern Classic, but couldn't prevent the downfall anymore. Home on the Range was the final nail in the coffin.
The reason they are not as prominent in the audience's collective memory is a direct result from Disney's decision to pretend the Renaissance ended after Lion King. To treat subsequent films like shit when it comes to DVD/BluRay releases and merchandising/marketing reïnforces the public in the false conviction that those films were of lesser quality. The reason for this is fairly simple: you can't market all your films as 'masterpieces'. You have to pick out a few titles, and you can sell them over and over again in the millions. You can make an event of the reissuing of such a masterpiece. But if you give all the films the credit they deserve, there's nothing 'special' anymore about a reissue, and why then should the public be excited for them? It's all about creating hype, and Lion King succeeded best in that regard.
That's also the reason why Disney keeps harping that old 'Dark Age' story. If you want to market Little Mermaid as an event, you have to pretent everything that came before it sucked.
I don't think the Renaissance ended because Disney let go of a 'formula'. I don't even know there is such a thing as a formula. It has been said a lot of times, but I think the 1990's films were all very different.
Little Mermaid was a return to Classic Disney, while still being fresh with its active heroine (as opposed to the passive princesses from Walt's days). Rescuers Down Under was a totally different film. It was an adventure film, no songs included, focused on action scenes. Beauty and the Beast was a Broadway musical in the true meaning of the word; not at all like Mermaid. Aladdin was a comedy, a buddy movie almost, very different in tone from the previous films. The Lion King, while really ripped off from a tv series, was presented as this serious, adult Shakespearian drama. Pocahontas was a return to the Mermaid-concept, but with a radical different art style. Hunchback was a much darker, more serious film which deals with heavy themes that were never touched upon in any Disney film.
I could go on, but the point is that there's not really a thing like a Disney formula or 'essence' (sorry, Duster).
The Disney Renaissance ended with Tarzan. After that came Dinosaur, a horrible failure that shouldn't even be in the Classics canon, and originally wasn't. Then the second Fantasia, which was an okay film, but suffered from the so-called 'funny' guest stars, the repetition of Mickey Mouse, too much CGI and too much ADD at the cost of sincerity (Flamingos, Donald Duck). Atlantis was too much an "let's target preteen boys"-film which ripped off a Japanese tv series, and Emperor's New Groove was Disney going Chuck Jones, thus not being Disney anymore. Lilo & Stitch was vintage Disney, a true modern Classic, but couldn't prevent the downfall anymore. Home on the Range was the final nail in the coffin.
-
Flanger-Hanger
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3746
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:59 pm
- Location: S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters
No, they didn't. Not with the production and advertising budgets they spent. Looking at Hunchback as an example:Goliath wrote:We tend to forget it, but those films made amazing profits.
Budget: $100 million (compared with Lion King's $45 million budget, released two years earlier)
Domestic Gross: $100 million
Foreign: $225 million
Total: $325 million
The film had to rely entirely on international money just to make back its budget, which again did not include advertising like the event in New Orleans to promote the film (which couldn't have come cheap).
Again With Hercules:
Budget: $85 million
Domestic Gross: $99 million
Foreign: $153 million
Total: $252 million
We can see it made much less than Hunchback, and again had a big promotion including sending the Main Street Electrical Parade to NYC with new floats.
Mulan fared better, but still was less than Hunchback, Pocahontas, Lion King etc.
Domestic Gross: $120 million
Foreign: $183 million
Total: $304 million
Tarzan proved to be a big hit with a worldwide total of $448 million, but was followed by a total flop in the form of Fantasia 2000 ($90 million worldwide).
To recap worldwide totals (with budgets):
Lion King: $783 million ($45 million)
Pocahontas: $346 million
Hunchback: $325 million ($100 million)
Hercules: $252 million ($85 million)
Mulan $304 million
Tarzan: $448 million ($130 million, just 5 years after Lion King)
Fantasia 2000: $90 million ($80 million)
The competition would have killed for these numbers because they made them cheaper. Anastasia cost $50 million, Titan AE $75 million, Iron Giant $70 million. etc. while Disney was spending much more.
The numbers speak for themselves, there was a problem with earnings and budgets within Disney, that was caused by themselves. Hopefully they won't repeat their mistakes.
-
milojthatch
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2646
- Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:34 am
While I'm excited to see "Waking Sleeping Beauty" to see how the modern Renaissance started, I really wish I could see the great documentary Sting and his wife made called "The Sweat Box" that would I think put more of a spin on how it died.
I think personally, "Princess and the Frog" really showed that audiences are fickle and that it is hard to know what will and will not be a success in the movie making biz. That film was great, but didn't do so well at the box office. But, if Hollywood knew HOW to make a hit every time, even Disney Animation, they would never make a flop ever again. Just the way it is.
I think personally, "Princess and the Frog" really showed that audiences are fickle and that it is hard to know what will and will not be a success in the movie making biz. That film was great, but didn't do so well at the box office. But, if Hollywood knew HOW to make a hit every time, even Disney Animation, they would never make a flop ever again. Just the way it is.
____________________________________________________________
All the adversity I've had in my life, all my troubles and obstacles, have strengthened me... You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you.
-Walt Disney
All the adversity I've had in my life, all my troubles and obstacles, have strengthened me... You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you.
-Walt Disney
-
RIPJoeRanft
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 8:33 pm
The thing is, people who actually saw The Princess and the Frog liked it a lot. The film was a hit with critics and audiences enjoyed it. It was a throwback to old Disney films, with some fun characters, lovely animaton, and well-done songs. But the box numbers were a letdown. Unfortunately, hand-drawn isn't going to make as much money as a computer animated film at this point. Sad but true. Look at how much dough some of these crappy Dreamworks productions rake in.milojthatch wrote:While I'm excited to see "Waking Sleeping Beauty" to see how the modern Renaissance started, I really wish I could see the great documentary Sting and his wife made called "The Sweat Box" that would I think put more of a spin on how it died.
I think personally, "Princess and the Frog" really showed that audiences are fickle and that it is hard to know what will and will not be a success in the movie making biz. That film was great, but didn't do so well at the box office. But, if Hollywood knew HOW to make a hit every time, even Disney Animation, they would never make a flop ever again. Just the way it is.
-
rj.disney
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:46 pm
- Location: Philippines
- Contact:
Here's a good article on the topic. It's an analysis made before the release of The Princess and the Frog
A lot of people are wondering what would have happened if Pocahontas were released before The Lion King. Would it affect the grosses of The Lion King such that Aladdin would have been the highest-grossing 2D animated film or would Pocahontas be treated like The Rescuers Down Under? (A so-so film in between two greats just like the latter being sandwiched between The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast).
While no real objective argument could be provided regarding the actual quality of the films, as it would depend on personal taste, I do believe that a correlation between a film's public reception and its box office performance does exist.
While I do love Pocahontas, I admit that the public was not that very enthusiastic with it. I remember reading a review of Pocahontas dated back in 1995 before its wide release and the critic(s) argued that it did not seem to have the repeat-business/appeal that The Lion King or Aladdin had. I think it was even Roy Disney who was interviewed and said that they were just expecting Pocahontas to make the same numbers that Beauty and the Beast made (which in fact it did make, although $4M shy of Beauty and the Beast's $145 in terms of domestic domestic takings).
Disney should have seen that the grosses of the first four films which increased film-after-film almost exponentially would have to end and that there was no way to go but down.The Disney Renaissance in Four Charts
26 July 2009
from http://www.madmind.de/2009/07/26/the-di ... ur-charts/
If I were one Disney exec living in the high skies of power at that time, I clearly would have had some nightmares regarding those numbers in the later years. And of course I also would have had massive parties with sex, drugs, Rock’n roll and all the other nasty stuff at the beginning of the so called Disney Renaissance.
Seriously, the revenues of the four first animated movies starting with Little Mermaid are mesmerizing, it goes up and up and up – until it so strikes out in a slope any skier dreams of. Pocahontas – in combination with the rise of 3D – ruined everything for Disney animated movies forever. The only spikes at the end of the line are Tarzan as well as Lilo & Stitch. And those two spiked don’t even come close to the old days of glory.
But it gets even worse for the Disney execs:
The graph above shows the ratio of production costs to grosses. This means that if a movie has a ratio of 200% it earned double the amount of money as it cost (not counting marketing costs or DVD/VHS).
The first big surprise is the fact that Aladdin made much more money for Disney than Lion King – which is kinda obvious since Lion King cost more than twice than Aladdin. (I believe this is an error on the part of the blogger. Aladdin cost $28M to make while Lion King cost $45M) (The other big surprise is the downhill slope which seemingly never ends after Aladdin. With one exception late in the game it only goes down and I wouldn’t be surprised if any exec would have consulted his psychiatric counselor of choice on a daily basis.
Seeing those numbers I hoped for some kind of Deus ex machina regarding those numbers. Just as the viruses and bacteria wiped out the aliens in The War of the Worlds, I hoped that at least the international revenues would reverse everything.
Yeah, sure, world…hate me. My hopes were utterly destroyed, of course. As you can obviously see, everything on the international market (including USA) is more or less the same with only minor differences. Nevertheless there is one interesting detail: Treasure Planet is the only animated Disney movie ever to not even come close to the one hundred percent ratio. This movie truly bombed horribly. Home on the Range is the second lowest movie which almost reaches the mark.
But there is even more for your reading pleasure. Up to now I was working solely with pure economic values for the analysis, yet there are of course other factors like viewer opinion. So the following chart connects both revenues and respective IMDB ratings:
As you can see this graphs at least gives a possible hint to some connection that might exist between ratings and revenues. Since I am still in training to read tea leaves, I leave this chart to your interpretation.
Conclusion
So, what have we learned from these statistics?
One thing is clear: after Aladdin and Lion King, animated movies from Disney went south economically, which Disney never was able to overcome. Although some later movies as Tarzan gained more money than their predecessors, higher production costs diminished potential revenues for Disney, hence reducing the ratio further instead of increasing.
Pocahontas, in every way possible, is the big sin of the Disney Corporation (although the last movie – Home on the Range – ranks even worse regarding IMDB rating). If I were an exec who lived through the hells and horrors of that time and found out those numbers, I certainly would have slugged anyone responsible for Pocahontas.
But that’s only me thinking hypothetically.
A lot of people are wondering what would have happened if Pocahontas were released before The Lion King. Would it affect the grosses of The Lion King such that Aladdin would have been the highest-grossing 2D animated film or would Pocahontas be treated like The Rescuers Down Under? (A so-so film in between two greats just like the latter being sandwiched between The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast).
While no real objective argument could be provided regarding the actual quality of the films, as it would depend on personal taste, I do believe that a correlation between a film's public reception and its box office performance does exist.
While I do love Pocahontas, I admit that the public was not that very enthusiastic with it. I remember reading a review of Pocahontas dated back in 1995 before its wide release and the critic(s) argued that it did not seem to have the repeat-business/appeal that The Lion King or Aladdin had. I think it was even Roy Disney who was interviewed and said that they were just expecting Pocahontas to make the same numbers that Beauty and the Beast made (which in fact it did make, although $4M shy of Beauty and the Beast's $145 in terms of domestic domestic takings).
"Hey Disney, we still exist!"
-Herc and Quasi
-Herc and Quasi
-
milojthatch
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2646
- Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:34 am
I tend to agree.RIPJoeRanft wrote:The thing is, people who actually saw The Princess and the Frog liked it a lot. The film was a hit with critics and audiences enjoyed it. It was a throwback to old Disney films, with some fun characters, lovely animaton, and well-done songs. But the box numbers were a letdown. Unfortunately, hand-drawn isn't going to make as much money as a computer animated film at this point. Sad but true. Look at how much dough some of these crappy Dreamworks productions rake in.milojthatch wrote:While I'm excited to see "Waking Sleeping Beauty" to see how the modern Renaissance started, I really wish I could see the great documentary Sting and his wife made called "The Sweat Box" that would I think put more of a spin on how it died.
I think personally, "Princess and the Frog" really showed that audiences are fickle and that it is hard to know what will and will not be a success in the movie making biz. That film was great, but didn't do so well at the box office. But, if Hollywood knew HOW to make a hit every time, even Disney Animation, they would never make a flop ever again. Just the way it is.
Very interesting stuff there. Maybe this is part just becuase it has been on my mind lately anyway, but what is wrong with us as a society that we base how good a movie is to how much it made at the box office? What does that say about us? I mean, I understand that the studios run on Capitalist mentalities as, after all, we live in a Capitalistic society. That means they want to make film that bring in tons of money back, and base the making of future films on that.rj.disney wrote:Here's a good article on the topic. It's an analysis made before the release of The Princess and the FrogDisney should have seen that the grosses of the first four films which increased film-after-film almost exponentially would have to end and that there was no way to go but down.The Disney Renaissance in Four Charts
26 July 2009
from http://www.madmind.de/2009/07/26/the-di ... ur-charts/
If I were one Disney exec living in the high skies of power at that time, I clearly would have had some nightmares regarding those numbers in the later years. And of course I also would have had massive parties with sex, drugs, Rock’n roll and all the other nasty stuff at the beginning of the so called Disney Renaissance.
Seriously, the revenues of the four first animated movies starting with Little Mermaid are mesmerizing, it goes up and up and up – until it so strikes out in a slope any skier dreams of. Pocahontas – in combination with the rise of 3D – ruined everything for Disney animated movies forever. The only spikes at the end of the line are Tarzan as well as Lilo & Stitch. And those two spiked don’t even come close to the old days of glory.
But it gets even worse for the Disney execs:
The graph above shows the ratio of production costs to grosses. This means that if a movie has a ratio of 200% it earned double the amount of money as it cost (not counting marketing costs or DVD/VHS).
The first big surprise is the fact that Aladdin made much more money for Disney than Lion King – which is kinda obvious since Lion King cost more than twice than Aladdin. (I believe this is an error on the part of the blogger. Aladdin cost $28M to make while Lion King cost $45M) (The other big surprise is the downhill slope which seemingly never ends after Aladdin. With one exception late in the game it only goes down and I wouldn’t be surprised if any exec would have consulted his psychiatric counselor of choice on a daily basis.
Seeing those numbers I hoped for some kind of Deus ex machina regarding those numbers. Just as the viruses and bacteria wiped out the aliens in The War of the Worlds, I hoped that at least the international revenues would reverse everything.
Yeah, sure, world…hate me. My hopes were utterly destroyed, of course. As you can obviously see, everything on the international market (including USA) is more or less the same with only minor differences. Nevertheless there is one interesting detail: Treasure Planet is the only animated Disney movie ever to not even come close to the one hundred percent ratio. This movie truly bombed horribly. Home on the Range is the second lowest movie which almost reaches the mark.
But there is even more for your reading pleasure. Up to now I was working solely with pure economic values for the analysis, yet there are of course other factors like viewer opinion. So the following chart connects both revenues and respective IMDB ratings:
As you can see this graphs at least gives a possible hint to some connection that might exist between ratings and revenues. Since I am still in training to read tea leaves, I leave this chart to your interpretation.
Conclusion
So, what have we learned from these statistics?
One thing is clear: after Aladdin and Lion King, animated movies from Disney went south economically, which Disney never was able to overcome. Although some later movies as Tarzan gained more money than their predecessors, higher production costs diminished potential revenues for Disney, hence reducing the ratio further instead of increasing.
Pocahontas, in every way possible, is the big sin of the Disney Corporation (although the last movie – Home on the Range – ranks even worse regarding IMDB rating). If I were an exec who lived through the hells and horrors of that time and found out those numbers, I certainly would have slugged anyone responsible for Pocahontas.
But that’s only me thinking hypothetically.
A lot of people are wondering what would have happened if Pocahontas were released before The Lion King. Would it affect the grosses of The Lion King such that Aladdin would have been the highest-grossing 2D animated film or would Pocahontas be treated like The Rescuers Down Under? (A so-so film in between two greats just like the latter being sandwiched between The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast).
While no real objective argument could be provided regarding the actual quality of the films, as it would depend on personal taste, I do believe that a correlation between a film's public reception and its box office performance does exist.
While I do love Pocahontas, I admit that the public was not that very enthusiastic with it. I remember reading a review of Pocahontas dated back in 1995 before its wide release and the critic(s) argued that it did not seem to have the repeat-business/appeal that The Lion King or Aladdin had. I think it was even Roy Disney who was interviewed and said that they were just expecting Pocahontas to make the same numbers that Beauty and the Beast made (which in fact it did make, although $4M shy of Beauty and the Beast's $145 in terms of domestic domestic takings).
But for us "common folk," why do WE base box office totals for how good a film is? Case in point, have you ever been in an argument over if a film is good or not, or comparing two or more films and NOT brought it back to box office totals? I'd tend to doubt it. Are the best film really always the most popular films? Are the more popular films always the best film? I hope my point is clear here. Just stuff to think about for whatever it is worth.
____________________________________________________________
All the adversity I've had in my life, all my troubles and obstacles, have strengthened me... You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you.
-Walt Disney
All the adversity I've had in my life, all my troubles and obstacles, have strengthened me... You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you.
-Walt Disney
-
rj.disney
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:46 pm
- Location: Philippines
- Contact:
Mmm, not really for our point of view but Disney's. The second half of the Renaissance (Yes, I consider the films from 1995 to 1999 as part of the Renaissance as well) can still be good examples of successes in terms of artistry like animation and music, it's just that they did not become crowd-drawers like the first four before them. It is Disney who's been basing the success of these films based on grosses alone. I was also in shock when I found out that Waking Sleeping Beauty only covered until Lion King. Add to that Disney's focus on what titles to treat with high regard in terms of home video release. The titles which receive the prestigious releases are those which have been 'successful' in previous home video incarnations. For Disney, what sells is what is successful.milojthatch wrote: But for us "common folk," why do WE base box office totals for how good a film is? Case in point, have you ever been in an argument over if a film is good or not, or comparing two or more films and NOT brought it back to box office totals? I'd tend to doubt it. Are the best film really always the most popular films? Are the more popular films always the best film? I hope my point is clear here. Just stuff to think about for whatever it is worth.
"Hey Disney, we still exist!"
-Herc and Quasi
-Herc and Quasi
-
Flanger-Hanger
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3746
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:59 pm
- Location: S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters
As much as I love the 1995-1999 films, you can't deny the fact that they lack that "eternal" appeal the 1989-1994 ones had.
For example, none of the later characters can even compare with the popularity of Ariel or Simba. And it's not because Disney "treated" them better, it's just a fact that they're more appealing characters to the target audience.
Also, the music. The post-TLK films may have had good soundtrack but again, none could compete with Mermaid, Beauty or Lion King. Heck, Mermaid is still earning new platinum certifications!!
Lastly, the 1995-1999 films did not fare as well on home video, which is good enough reason for Disney not to throw away too much money on their PR nowadays.
For example, none of the later characters can even compare with the popularity of Ariel or Simba. And it's not because Disney "treated" them better, it's just a fact that they're more appealing characters to the target audience.
Also, the music. The post-TLK films may have had good soundtrack but again, none could compete with Mermaid, Beauty or Lion King. Heck, Mermaid is still earning new platinum certifications!!
Lastly, the 1995-1999 films did not fare as well on home video, which is good enough reason for Disney not to throw away too much money on their PR nowadays.
Thanks for all the responses.
I don't have the time to reply properly but would just like to add more to the discussion in general.
It is also Disney's fault since like 'Waking Sleeping Beauty' does, it casts off the rest of the period features. Honestly, I don't know why, yes, maybe they didn't gross that much, maybe they weren't as highly regarded by a group of individuals, but really, that's poor reason.
Lion King is overrated. I think the general sentiment over the years has improved for the rest of the movies and dampened for the premiere ones, probably because the disparity isn't that great and Disney's treatment is off-putting.
I know I for one would love to see a Hunchback documentary or the Sweat Box and makes me anticipate those releases and movies more than another whoring of Belle. Of course I still will see and want to see Beauty and the Beast but it doesn't top the anticipation scale.
Maybe even more confounding is the treatment of movies like Atlantis, weren't the directors of Beauty doing that movie? Are you telling me the directors don't care for their product? For all the mess behind the scenes none of the movies were disasters. Look at Walt's displeasure with Alice doesn't mean there aren't people who think that it's better than features he rated better. The other question is did they leave out Rescuers Down Under in the WSB documentary? I'm assuming so and that would be ridiculous considering it falls in between the features they are actually considering worthy.
That kind of half-baked, biased effort makes me less inclined to watch that documentary and listen to the overwrought praise. Not everyone and everything is perfect. Disney may be Disney but that doesn't mean they don't have flaws and what's so damaging as to reveal them now considering it happened in the past? Why not acknowledge mistakes were made instead of living on the high of the glory days twenty years ago? Similar to that, why the hell do they care so much of what the public thinks?
I know that although they are probably the biggest of all 6 studios they are also the newest and primarily were and are supposed to be kid-friendly considering the assumptions associated with animation, however, that doesn't mean that when some fool thinks Aladdin says "good teenagers take off their clothes" they have to adhere to the fool and change the line. Yes, maybe the lyrics were distasteful even if true, but mishearing of words is ridiculous. SFX for sex? Also as someone mentioned the complaints about PATF and the gearing movies for boys. When you as a director/story artist/screenwriter whatever compromise your story so that you can pander to little boys you should be shot. Tangled is a ridiculous name and proves that Disney still don't know what they are doing.
Yes, they, like any other company want good financial returns but compromising or changing a good story just to appeal to boys or a group that will inherently not see the movie anyway is just plain stupid. Make a good movie and people will see it.
I don't have the time to reply properly but would just like to add more to the discussion in general.
It is also Disney's fault since like 'Waking Sleeping Beauty' does, it casts off the rest of the period features. Honestly, I don't know why, yes, maybe they didn't gross that much, maybe they weren't as highly regarded by a group of individuals, but really, that's poor reason.
Lion King is overrated. I think the general sentiment over the years has improved for the rest of the movies and dampened for the premiere ones, probably because the disparity isn't that great and Disney's treatment is off-putting.
I know I for one would love to see a Hunchback documentary or the Sweat Box and makes me anticipate those releases and movies more than another whoring of Belle. Of course I still will see and want to see Beauty and the Beast but it doesn't top the anticipation scale.
Maybe even more confounding is the treatment of movies like Atlantis, weren't the directors of Beauty doing that movie? Are you telling me the directors don't care for their product? For all the mess behind the scenes none of the movies were disasters. Look at Walt's displeasure with Alice doesn't mean there aren't people who think that it's better than features he rated better. The other question is did they leave out Rescuers Down Under in the WSB documentary? I'm assuming so and that would be ridiculous considering it falls in between the features they are actually considering worthy.
That kind of half-baked, biased effort makes me less inclined to watch that documentary and listen to the overwrought praise. Not everyone and everything is perfect. Disney may be Disney but that doesn't mean they don't have flaws and what's so damaging as to reveal them now considering it happened in the past? Why not acknowledge mistakes were made instead of living on the high of the glory days twenty years ago? Similar to that, why the hell do they care so much of what the public thinks?
I know that although they are probably the biggest of all 6 studios they are also the newest and primarily were and are supposed to be kid-friendly considering the assumptions associated with animation, however, that doesn't mean that when some fool thinks Aladdin says "good teenagers take off their clothes" they have to adhere to the fool and change the line. Yes, maybe the lyrics were distasteful even if true, but mishearing of words is ridiculous. SFX for sex? Also as someone mentioned the complaints about PATF and the gearing movies for boys. When you as a director/story artist/screenwriter whatever compromise your story so that you can pander to little boys you should be shot. Tangled is a ridiculous name and proves that Disney still don't know what they are doing.
Yes, they, like any other company want good financial returns but compromising or changing a good story just to appeal to boys or a group that will inherently not see the movie anyway is just plain stupid. Make a good movie and people will see it.
Last edited by BK on Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Disney renaissance ended when they made a bunch of movies that didn't resonate as well with audiences.
Any other explanation short enough to fit in a discussion board post is way too simplistic. Each individual movie had its own set of circumstances, and whether or not YOU liked it most definitely isn't one of them.
Any other explanation short enough to fit in a discussion board post is way too simplistic. Each individual movie had its own set of circumstances, and whether or not YOU liked it most definitely isn't one of them.
-
The_Iceflash
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1809
- Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:56 am
- Location: USA
I know I never considered Hunchback, Hercules, and Mulan any less of a great film when comparing them to the big 4. I never knew the big 4 were considered the big 4 until I came here. I always put them on the same level. I definately think that Hunchback and Hercules in particular now have an underrated status. To me they were every bit as good as the big 4 animation-wise, story-wise, and music-wise.Goliath wrote:The animated features that came after The Lion King were often just as good, if not even better than said 'record-breaker'. They were better animated than the 1989-1994 films, had fantastic scores (especially Hunchback and Tarzan), and were generally well-received by critics and audiences alike. We tend to forget it, but those films made amazing profits. But we have forgotten about that, because they were not as big as Lion King, which was an unrealistic expectation to begin with. But any other studio would have killed for those kind of box-office numbers are critic's postive ratings.
The reason they are not as prominent in the audience's collective memory is a direct result from Disney's decision to pretend the Renaissance ended after Lion King. To treat subsequent films like shit when it comes to DVD/BluRay releases and merchandising/marketing reïnforces the public in the false conviction that those films were of lesser quality. The reason for this is fairly simple: you can't market all your films as 'masterpieces'. You have to pick out a few titles, and you can sell them over and over again in the millions. You can make an event of the reissuing of such a masterpiece. But if you give all the films the credit they deserve, there's nothing 'special' anymore about a reissue, and why then should the public be excited for them? It's all about creating hype, and Lion King succeeded best in that regard.
That's also the reason why Disney keeps harping that old 'Dark Age' story. If you want to market Little Mermaid as an event, you have to pretent everything that came before it sucked.
I don't think the Renaissance ended because Disney let go of a 'formula'. I don't even know there is such a thing as a formula. It has been said a lot of times, but I think the 1990's films were all very different.
Little Mermaid was a return to Classic Disney, while still being fresh with its active heroine (as opposed to the passive princesses from Walt's days). Rescuers Down Under was a totally different film. It was an adventure film, no songs included, focused on action scenes. Beauty and the Beast was a Broadway musical in the true meaning of the word; not at all like Mermaid. Aladdin was a comedy, a buddy movie almost, very different in tone from the previous films. The Lion King, while really ripped off from a tv series, was presented as this serious, adult Shakespearian drama. Pocahontas was a return to the Mermaid-concept, but with a radical different art style. Hunchback was a much darker, more serious film which deals with heavy themes that were never touched upon in any Disney film.
I could go on, but the point is that there's not really a thing like a Disney formula or 'essence' (sorry, Duster).
The Disney Renaissance ended with Tarzan. After that came Dinosaur, a horrible failure that shouldn't even be in the Classics canon, and originally wasn't. Then the second Fantasia, which was an okay film, but suffered from the so-called 'funny' guest stars, the repetition of Mickey Mouse, too much CGI and too much ADD at the cost of sincerity (Flamingos, Donald Duck). Atlantis was too much an "let's target preteen boys"-film which ripped off a Japanese tv series, and Emperor's New Groove was Disney going Chuck Jones, thus not being Disney anymore. Lilo & Stitch was vintage Disney, a true modern Classic, but couldn't prevent the downfall anymore. Home on the Range was the final nail in the coffin.