How did the Disney Renaissance end?

[DisneyAnimation88]

Does anyone think it could have anything to do with the departure of Jeffrey Katzenberg from Disney? He left after the Lion King which several people here have pinpointed as the film that marked the end of the renaissance so did Disney suffer from the loss of someone who had been so prominent in their recent successes? That's not necessarily my opinion but I'm curious as to whether anyone considers that a possible reason for the decline in success of Disney's animated films.

Looking at that chart, it rankles with me to see that Treasure Planet did so badly after Disney pulled it from theatres without giving it a chance. I love that film and the treatment it received shows the lack of care the people in charge of Disney had for animation.

[Elladorine]

Does anyone think it could have anything to do with the departure of Jeffrey Katzenberg from Disney? He left after the Lion King which several people here have pinpointed as the film that marked the end of the renaissance so did Disney suffer from the loss of someone who had been so prominent in their recent successes?

That's especially interesting when you consider how successful his current company has become in animation.

[mawnck]

Does anyone think it could have anything to do with the departure of Jeffrey Katzenberg from Disney? He left after the Lion King which several people here have pinpointed as the film that marked the end of the renaissance so did Disney suffer from the loss of someone who had been so prominent in their recent successes?

I keep hearing that a big reason Pocahontas turned out the way it did was Katzenberg trying way too hard for another Best Picture nomination. Remember, he left after The Lion King was *released*. Other movies were already in the pipeline.

Again, I think you're looking for a single factor in a situation where there were no single factors. Katzenberg has always run Dreamworks, and they certainly haven't been accused of having a golden age, although check back in a few years. On the other hand, he was reportedly very hands-on with The Lion King, which turned out all right.

If Disney had been doing the same things wrong in every movie during the recent "slow period" you might be able to make an argument that there was one overriding factor (whether it was Katzenberg leaving or Eisner staying or fluoride being added to Burbank's tap water or whatever). But I just don't see a pattern in the movies. And there's no reason there should be a pattern - each one was made by a different set of people with a different set of circumstances.

This is also why I just can't get into the "Disney should/shouldn't be doing princess movies" thing. We're not the boss of them. They can do whatever they want to, and face whatever consequences there are. Whatever they do, I'd just like for them to do it good.

[Super Aurora]

Katszenberg also left because of a certain high position he wanted but didn't get, after Frank Wells died. This also happen during Lion King.

[DisneyAnimation88]

I'm not looking for a single factor, I'm just throwing out another point of view. Like I said, that is not my opinion and I agree that there is not one single reason why the renaissance ended. I'm going on information from the book "DisneyWar" which only says Katzenberg left before the premiere of the Lion King and doesn't mention anything in regards to his involvement in Pocahontas so I can't comment on that.

I do think Katzenberg leaving changed the dynamic of Disney animation, even if it didn't necessarily end the renaissance. A lot of things have been said about him but there's no denying he was a workaholic who threw himself into helping make the films he supervised at Disney, even if he initially wanted nothing to do with animation. For me, one of the better qualities of the special features on the Beauty and the Beast blu ray is that the company invited him back to contribute his interviews and that several others, like Don Hahn and the film's directors, appreciated what he brought to the table. Considering he founded and manages Disney's biggest competitor in animation today, I thought it was good to see that any bad blood from either party has been left in the past.

Having looked at it though, is it a coincidence things seemed to begin to go downhill after he left? For me personally, the renaissance extends until Tarzan in terms of the success of the films Disney released so I don't really believe that but it might be worth taking into consideration.

[DisneyAnimation88]

Katszenberg also left because of a certain high position he wanted but didn't get, after Frank Wells died. This also happen during Lion King.

That's a good point. Would the company have been in better hand with Eisner or Katzenberg at the helm? Regardless, Katzenberg was not tactful in the aftermath of Wells' death but the politics in the company at the time are rediculously complicated and it depends on whether you believe the Eisner or Katzenberg version of events.

[Goliath]

We tend to forget it, but those films made amazing profits.

No, they didn't

Yes, they did. You provided the numbers yourself (although you didn't provide the budget for Mulan):

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)

For some reason I don't know, but can only guess about, you're really grasping straws to 'prove' the post-TLK films were financial failures, while they were anything but. You try to draw all kinds of 'extra costs' in that you wouldn't use to measure the succes of the pre-TLK movies. The numbers (your numbers) are convincing, no matter how hard you try to trivialize factors like 'foreign gross' (like we all know, that's not important at all... right?)

Does anyone think it could have anything to do with the departure of Jeffrey Katzenberg from Disney?

That's especially interesting when you consider how successful his current company has become in animation.

The succes of DreamWorks and Katzenberg is hugely overrated. The studio had a few hits (mainly Shrek), but it also had a lot of box-office bombs, and almost all of their films got terrible reviews, even the Shrek-sequels. DreamWorks has had as much a hit-or-miss pattern as Disney, but less people have noticed because of the Shrek-franchise. The fact that they're now back into the spotlights with How to train your dragon doesn't mean they didn't have their fair share of miserable failures.

All in all -and this is also in response to Flanger-Hanger- I think statistical graphics like those posted on the previous page give a misleading picture. It makes it look like a $145 million profit is pocket-money, just because Lion King was the one film that garnered a whole lot more --thus having a higher stat in the picture. It overshadows everything else, and like somebody else said, it was to be expected. Good things can't last forever. To say subsequent films performed badly, even though they made more or just as much as pre-TLK films, is ridiculous. It's only greediness on Disney's part.

And to come back to the point of measuring a film by its box office performance: Pinocchio, Fantasia and Bambi all lost money at the box office in their initial run. Did Walt Disney disown them? They he put them in a vault and never release them again? Did he pretend they didn't existed? No, he kept faith in them and kept reissuing them, until they became the big hits they are todays. But when some films in the late 1990's didn't perform as well as expected by the money-hungry Disney executives, they decided to hide them from the public and never speak of them again. No second chance for them. Imagine Walt having thought like that...!

@ BK: You're new here and I already like your posts! Welcome to UD!

[Flanger-Hanger]

Goliath, I'll elaborate further how movies make money so that you can better understand the numbers I quoted.

What money a movie makes does not go directly through the company. It's split between theatre chain owners and the distributors. How much each party gets is based on how long a movie is in release. This is why opening day weekend totals are so critical as that's the point where distributors get the most amount of money, after which it goes in the direction of the theatre chains.

To compensate for the split movies have to make multiple times their budget (generally 3 times) to cover both production (which I listed) and marketing, which can cost an arm and a leg onto itself.

Using the general formula, Hunchback would had to have made approx. $300 million in order to cover its costs. This would mean its profit from theatrical earnings was $25 million. Not much to get excited about, and Hercules didn't even make 3 times its budget.

Its a crazy system, but in general that's how it works. Most movies don't accomplish this, but for blockbuster releases it's expected.

[Elladorine]

That's especially interesting when you consider how successful his current company has become in animation.

The succes of DreamWorks and Katzenberg is hugely overrated. The studio had a few hits (mainly Shrek), but it also had a lot of box-office bombs, and almost all of their films got terrible reviews, even the Shrek-sequels. DreamWorks has had as much a hit-or-miss pattern as Disney, but less people have noticed because of the Shrek-franchise. The fact that they're now back into the spotlights with How to train your dragon doesn't mean they didn't have their fair share of miserable failures.

I'm not just speaking of financial or even critical success, as I agree they've been hit or miss. But what other studio has even come close to the name they've made for themselves when it comes to the general public? They've been such a big influence that even Disney themselves have scrambled to draw their audience back from them. Just look at the marketing for Tangled and see how many people are making comparisons to Shrek. Disney used to be at the top. Now other studios have captured the public's interest.

[The_Iceflash]

The succes of DreamWorks and Katzenberg is hugely overrated. The studio had a few hits (mainly Shrek), but it also had a lot of box-office bombs, and almost all of their films got terrible reviews, even the Shrek-sequels. DreamWorks has had as much a hit-or-miss pattern as Disney, but less people have noticed because of the Shrek-franchise. The fact that they're now back into the spotlights with How to train your dragon doesn't mean they didn't have their fair share of miserable failures.

I'm not just speaking of financial or even critical success, as I agree they've been hit or miss. But what other studio has even come close to the name they've made for themselves when it comes to the general public? They've been such a big influence that even Disney themselves have scrambled to draw their audience back from them. Just look at the marketing for Tangled and see how many people are making comparisons to Shrek. Disney used to be at the top. Now other studios have captured the public's interest.

Yeah, but how much faith do we really have in the audience? 'Alvin and the Chipmunks' among others come to mind.

[Elladorine]

Yeah, but how much faith do we really have in the audience? 'Alvin and the Chipmunks' among others come to mind.

Does it matter if the audience has good taste? Studios will continue to greenlight what they think will bring in the most money.

[toonaspie]

Multiple factors...some greater than others...and small things that would effect the company as a whole.

[DisneyAnimation88]

I would agree that Dreamworks are overrated. Even the Shrek franchise they ruined with sub-standard films that were nowhere near as good as the first two. One of my problems with them is that they are too much of a "Hollywood" animation studio; by that I mean they do things like base their advertising campaigns on the voice-actors they use like Will Smith in Shark Tale. Credit to Disney, I've always thought they concentrate far more on the directors and creative forces behind the films rather than who's voices are featured.

Perhaps I'm simply too blindly loyal to Disney but I don't think any animation studio will overtake them. I accept Disney has faults but I'm happy the quality of the animated films they are making is improving, if the reaction to Princess and the Frog and Tangled (according to critics and people who've seen the film) is anything to go by.

Ultimately, I think the end of the renaissance has nothing to do with a decrease in quality in the films of the time. I've always thought Hunchback of Notre Dame is far better than Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King. Perhaps I'm in a minority in thinking that, but I don't understand how films like HOTD and Tarzan can be deemed as inferior in quality to the films of the renaissance.

[Elladorine]

Perhaps I'm in a minority in thinking that, but I don't understand how films like HOTD and Tarzan can be deemed as inferior in quality to the films of the renaissance.

I definitely wouldn't call them inferior films, but I've always said they've had less universal appeal to general audiences; perhaps that's where one of the many issues lies. The public doesn't always want a complex, intelligent film, especially if its animated.

Disney feels they have to cater to their wholesome image. Dreamworks can cater to what they feel a modern audience expects. And I don't mean to keep focusing on Dreamworks, as I understand there were many more factors in the decline of the renaissance films at Disney. It's just that regardless of whether or not one likes them, their prominence in the last decade can't be denied.

[Flanger-Hanger]

Perhaps I'm simply too blindly loyal to Disney but I don't think any animation studio will overtake them.

Are you including or excluding Pixar? If you aren't I'd point to them as the company that's unquestionably taken over Disney as the #1 brand in animation today.

[DisneyAnimation88]

I definitely wouldn't call them inferior films, but I've always said they've had less universal appeal to general audiences; perhaps that's where one of the many issues lies.

I should have chosen my words more carefully; what I meant was some people don't consider them as good as the films of the renaissance.

Flanger-Hanger, I grouped Disney and Pixar together in my last post.

[Goliath]

Goliath, I'll elaborate further how movies make money so that you can better understand the numbers I quoted. [...]

Oh please, drop the condescending tone. I *know* how movies make money. I'm just saying foreign gross isn't totally irrelevant, like you said it was. I also said you didn't calculate advertising costs into the succes of pre-TLK movies, but did so with post-TLK movies. You seem to have an alterior motive to cast the post-TLK movies in a negative light.

I've always thought Hunchback of Notre Dame is far better than Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King. Perhaps I'm in a minority in thinking that, but I don't understand how films like HOTD and Tarzan can be deemed as inferior in quality to the films of the renaissance.

We are in agreement!

[Flanger-Hanger]

Oh please, drop the condescending tone. I *know* how movies make money.

Well you've inserted tone where it wasn't intended.

I'm just saying foreign gross isn't totally irrelevant, like you said it was.

I did?

I also said you didn't calculate advertising costs into the succes of pre-TLK movies, but did so with post-TLK movies.

Well given that pre-Lion King cost much less than subsequent films I assumed advertising costs were not relevant because the advertising budgets were not added on top of greatly inflated production budgets (and did not consist of major events like a screening in Central Park, and event in New Orleans or a parade in NYC) and Lion King and Aladdin's earnings were enough to reassure that any related costs in producing/distributing films were covered.

You seem to have an alterior motive to cast the post-TLK movies in a negative light.

And you seem too offended by the idea to listen to anyone else's opinion, be that mine or the individual who took the time to develop those charts to better explain a business person's perspective on the issue. You should know by now I don't care much for Lion King, so what's the incentive or motive for me to cast animated movies released afterwords (that I like better) in a negative light?

I've tried to explain my stance with reasoning and numbers and you accuse me of "alterior motives". I know you can develop better counter arguments, but if your resorting to that I'll see no point in continuing in replying to your posts in this discussion.

[Goliath]

And you seem too offended by the idea to listen to anyone else's opinion, be that mine or the individual who took the time to develop those charts to better explain a business person's perspective on the issue.

Preposterous. Just because I disagree with you or the person who posted those charts to develop a certain narrative, doesn't mean I don't listen to you. I understand very well it represents a business person's perspective, but I'm just saying he/she would be wrong --all in my opinion, of course.

[Lazario]

Goliath is truly a mystery wrapped in an enigma coughed up by a crusty old man living in the mouth of some 24/25 y/o guy named Mark. Who treats all products of entertainment as though they are a fine wine. And strikes me, consequently, as about as lively a person as someone sitting on a wooden bench slowly letting a glass of wine breathe.