DVDizzy Forum

And I am still worried for the movies' sakes!

C'mon, Disney! We actually WANT you to keep hand-drawn animation alive, not bury it again! We actually WANT to see The Snow Queen in its hand-drawn glory! Not have it canceled and/or CGI-fied!

How stupid can Disney actually be? Have the company no desire to restore the Disney name after countless of crappy DVD-sequels and Disney Channel crap? They should make more animated classics (like Rapunzel and the Snow Queen), they should stick with the classic fairytale title for their fairytale-movies and they should not be embarassed of making fairytales (or 2D movies in general) - it's a part of their history: Disney should do it, and only Disney can do it. I loved the idea of another movie based on Hans Christian Andersen fairytale and with music by the legendary Alan Menken and I am hoping that Disney will come to their senses and make this happen.

The Princess and the Frog is making more money than The Little Mermaid did back in 1989-1990, and that movie was the start of a new reneissance for Disney. Now they should keep making animated movies. Maybe some of them will be huge financial successes, maybe some of the will perform decent and maybe some again will fail. They will be making money anyway, but the problem seem to be that for Disney the profit is never high enough. And then they will make more Hannah Montana-crap to cash inn quick cash, but in the end that will only hurt the Disney brand, Disney's future and their future movies.

Someone at Disney should be very ashamed of what they have done to the company.

Prince Edward wrote:Someone at Disney should be very ashamed of what they have done to the company.

Or do you mean someone who used to WORK for Disney, but ended up ruining the company and stepping down in 2005? And if you don't know who I mean, I mean Michael "Buttheaded Scrooge" Eisner. God, I wish he NEVER became chairman of the company in the first place!

DisneyJedi wrote:

Prince Edward wrote:Someone at Disney should be very ashamed of what they have done to the company.

Or do you mean someone who used to WORK for Disney, but ended up ruining the company and stepping down in 2005? And if you don't know who I mean, I mean Michael "Buttheaded Scrooge" Eisner. God, I wish he NEVER became chairman of the company in the first place!

You have a very good point there, but I am also thinking about the guys that runs Disney at present: Stabbing The Chronicles of Narnia-franchise in the back, talk and talk about the return of Disney-animation but then cancelling movies like The Snow Queen, making Hannah Montana and Disney Channel what people in general think about when they hear the name Disney... The list goes on.

I keep telling my friends that they need to have some faith in Disney and that Disney will have a comeback regarding quality over the coming years. I tell them Disney have seen the light and have stopped making straight to DVD-sequals and that they want to make animated movies and release them in cinemas again, but my friends remains sceptical. Not all that strange when one takes into consideration that Disney the last 10 years have been all about sequals, Disney Channel and merchandising (at least it seems that way for those out there who are not die-hard fans like us). Disney had so many great movieideas planned for the coming years, but now it seems that they have become afraid and once more turns to the tweens to get cash.

I shall "make a wish upon a star" for the sake of Disney's future, and I hope The Snow Queen will be made eventually...

Well, they'd BETTER not cancel the project, or else I'm booking a flight down to their Studios and when I get there, I plan to knock some sense into them to make them see straight!

Prince Edward wrote:

DisneyJedi wrote: Or do you mean someone who used to WORK for Disney, but ended up ruining the company and stepping down in 2005? And if you don't know who I mean, I mean Michael "Buttheaded Scrooge" Eisner. God, I wish he NEVER became chairman of the company in the first place!

You have a very good point there, but I am also thinking about the guys that run Disney at present: Stabbing The Chronicles of Narnia-franchise in the back, talk and talk about the return of Disney-animation but then cancelling movies like The Snow Queen, making Hannah Montana and Disney Channel what people think about when they hear the name Disney... The list goes on.

I keep telling my friends that they need to have some faith in Disney and that Disney will have a comeback regarding quality over the coming years. I tell them Disney have stopped making straight to DVD-sequals and that they want to make animated movies and release them in cinemas again, but my friends remain sceptical. Not all that strange when one takes into consideration that Disney the last 10 years have been all about sequals, Disney Channel and merchandising (at least it seems that way for those out there who are not die-hard fans like us).

I'm personally of the opinion Disney needs out outsider - somebody unfamiliar with the current culture (and people) and not afraid to take prisoners and judge people on their merits. They need to come in, take a long hard look at the company and start slashing & burning what (and who) is not helping the people and start re-building.

A great opportunity to rebuild was missed by putting Iger in place - Mr. Nice Guy, while repairing some relationships, has basically maintained the status quo without really shaking anything up baring Dick Cook... where he put the Disney channel in charge.

In reality, what Iger is trying to turn the company into a clearing house for content instead of a center of creativity and it's going to end up robbing Disney of whatever soul it has left.

Disney needs fresh vision and fresh creativity and needs to focus on building in house talent and retaining it. The only way this can be achieved is with a battle and a LOT of bodies.

You mean Iger's turning into what Eisner became?

DisneyJedi wrote:You mean Iger's turning into what Eisner became?

He is of the same mold. A continuation of the status quo, just with better people skills/less personality.

drnilescrane wrote:

DisneyJedi wrote:You mean Iger's turning into what Eisner became?

He is of the same mold. A continuation of the status quo, just with better people skills/less personality.

Great. Just what we need. Another chairman to finish something that Eisner started, AKA the downfall of classic Disney animation!

The Killing Of A Queen By A Princess...
http://blueskydisney.blogspot.com/2010/ ... ncess.html

Some of the commenters there make some good points:

Anonymous wrote:I am willing to cut [Lasseter] a lot of slack, but every film that's been touted as his proving ground has been an underwhelming performer... clearly the guy can only do so much and cannot work miracles. I do believe that the stories in Bolt and PATF were much weaker than they should have been despite his insistence that story is king.

I personally like Bolt and love TP&tF, but it's an interesting point- how many "flops" must WDFA have before Lasseter takes the heat that he probably deserves?

perfectly flawed wrote:I personally believe it will take time and patience for the audience to rediscover the magic of Disney at the animation standpoint. "Rapunzel" is probably our saving grace if we want to see more fairy tales coming out of the Mouse ouse, the pressure must be on...

But, at the same time, if Rapunzel does well, will it be due to the fact that it's CGI? That the heroine is all into grrrl-power? If Rapunzel does a lot better than TP&tF, then why will that be, other than the animation method...could the "controversy" surrounding TP&tF have anything to do with it? Damned if they do, damned if they don't...

Mike Luzzi wrote:Disney did a lot of press for this film, but maybe putting the word "Princess" in the title was a poor business move. What is wrong with "The Frog Prince?" (I suspect that Princess was desireable to link the title to their ever popular franchise and with that move they alienated the boys)

But are [stereotypical] boys interested in seeing a film about a prince?!?

J wrote:...movie viewing public has changed. They don't want a repeat of the 90's they want something new. A reminder of the classics is one thing, but down right trying to recreate the entire 90's is stupid.

Was TP&tF's intent to "recreate the '90s"? I mean, does hand-drawn fairy tale have to = the '90s? Snow White, Cinderella, and Sleeping Beauty are hand-drawn fairy tales, and they don't = the '90s. (And The Little Mermaid was the '80s, anyway.) I think that the public, then, needs to not think of hand-drawn Disney fairy tales as being associated with the '90s...except that the '90s had a couple (a couple!) hand-drawn Disney fairy tales.

Doopey wrote:The last few years are littered with quality Disney films that failed to find a broader audience.

I agree- I mean, granted, I do genuinely like all the DACs, but movies like The Emperor's New Groove, Atlantis, and Treasure Planet are great films...what is the reasoning behind their unsuccessful box office runs?!?

Rafa wrote:Those higher ups and all those idiots should just shut up and let them have half a chance of producing a movie slate rather than panicing after every movie and causeing upheaval after upheaval.

I agree, in the sense of Disney catering to people complaining during the production of TP&tF, catering to outside people just so Disney doesn't offend others. Disney, TP&tF wasn't the first situation you've been in where your movies have offended others...and I mean, if TP&tF was so offensive, why did Anika Noni Rose, Oprah Winfrey, Jennifer Lewis, etc., agree to participate?!? I mean, if the script was so offensive, you'd think that they would've quit. Someone is going to be offended by everything. You can't please EVERYONE. There is just no way you can.

Cory Gross wrote:Unfortunately, when Disney does do some experimentation, nobody wants to go see it. Fantasia was a flop for crying out loud. Atlantis and Treasure Planet were already mentioned, and are perfect examples of films that aren't any worse than anything from the classic era, but just didn't fly because they weren't fairy tales. But then you get this thing where people don't want to see Disney fairy tales anymore either.

I agree- again, damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Anonymous wrote:What's wrong with creating a "girlie" film? When movies try to appeal to too many demographics, they end up appealing to no demographic. Just alternate between boys and girls - make a Lion King for every Beauty and the Beast!

I agree (but I also think, why does B&tB have to be a "girly" film? Why does TLK have to be a film for "boys"? Just because the lead characters are a female and a male, respectively?). But, yeah, maybe Disney does need to space out it's films more...I mean, you'd go from Enchanted to TP&tF to Rapunzel to Pooh to The Snow Queen, and THEN King of the Elves, while Pixar gets all the male audience (not to mention Chipmunks and whoever else from competitors... ). *edit* Okay, Bolt was between Enchanted and PT&tF, so I can't fault Disney for that.

(Sorry if it's weird that I quoted a lot of people from a blog, but I felt that there were a lot of things I felt strongly about, and wanted to hear all of your thoughts on the statements. I did end up posting my thoughts there, too, though.)

************************
Although this is Enchanted/Enchanted II related, it made me think about the whole TP&tF-did-so-poorly-we-don't-want-to-make-girly-features-anymore thing:

http://blueskydisney.blogspot.com/2010/ ... tment.html

But despite the fact that [Enchanted] was a hit, it turned out to not be the blockbuster that Disney was hoping for(Budget: $85 mil, Domestic: $127.8 mil, International: $212.7 mil).

How much was Disney hoping for?!?!? Enchanted was a pretty freaking big hit. We just can't win with the money-hungry suits.

Seriously, they need to stop expecting every single movie with animation to be as big as the Lion King. the hits come when your not really expecting it.

They thought and hoped Pocahontas would be a hit for them, and didn't expect the Lion King to do that well. That right there shows they need to lower their expectations money wise, and make their movies the best they know how to. Don't put so much into focus groups and what you think the public wants, because its a battle your never win. You cannot predict these things. Unless your dealing with the lowest common denominator like Alvin and the chipmunks or something like that.

Kyle wrote:Seriously, they need to stop expecting every single movie with animation to be as big as the Lion King.

That's what I whisper-screamed to the computer screen while reading some of those things. Seriously, UGH. I mean, how much money do they want? As long as it makes a good amount more than the production costs (and, yes, marketing costs- we can't forget that, since that can be a good $10-$15 million), then don't be so greedy- why does Disney call everything a flop now?

I agree with the above comments!
I get the sad impression that they have no clue what the want at Disney and lack self-confidence. Come on people, look at Walt your founder! He never lost courage despite setbacks, he always knew what het wanted to do. He had a goal to aim for.
So sad Roy Disney jr. is no longer among us either, he had the right spirit.

Meanwhile I wonder in how far you can blame Disney's lack of marketing strategy and in how far you can blame the audience. If they prefer to watch drivel like Alvin and the chipmuncks, what can you do about that?

They also seem to tend to forget that these movies keep earning them money for god knows how many more decades to come. Snow White is almost a century old and still making them big amounts of cash and there's no sign of slowing down. It's classic status is only getting bigger and bigger as time passes...

I hope this doesn't get shelved... again. I'm glad it's going to be made in hand-drawn animation. I like CGI, but these kinds of films just wouldn't work in CGI. Though I might commit blasphemy by saying this, 'cause Rapunzel looks very promising, even though it's a fairytale film in CGI.

I can also remember seeing a really, really bad animated version when I was very young, even then I didn't like it, can't imagine what my current opinion on it would be.

I hope this becomes very succesful - even though it's a little premature of me to be hoping for something like that.

blackcauldron85 wrote:

Kyle wrote:Seriously, they need to stop expecting every single movie with animation to be as big as the Lion King.

That's what I whisper-screamed to the computer screen while reading some of those things. Seriously, UGH. I mean, how much money do they want? As long as it makes a good amount more than the production costs (and, yes, marketing costs- we can't forget that, since that can be a good $10-$15 million), then don't be so greedy- why does Disney call everything a flop now?

Valid point! Perhaps the suits at Disney have been spoiled by the box office for such movies as Pirates of the Caribbean, The Lion King, Finding Nemo and the first Narnia-movie. So now everything that does not make at least 500 million dollars is considered a flop? But then again, they are making a sequal to Enchanted (box office 340-something millions). They seem a bit inconsistent when it comes to deciding if movies are sucsessful or not.

Disney need to understand that every movie they release can't be a blockbuster, and that they should continue to make both CGI and traditionally animated movies even though every movie they make won't be a huge hit. They will earn money none the less, and at the same time people will regard the Disney name with a positive view.

Sorry, I haven't been keeping up.... but I really hope it's not canceled... That's a load of crap!

I think it is a flop. Making 113 million dollar while your movie cost 105 million to make can't be called making a profit. Remember, Disney also spends a lot on advertising, so the actual money spent is even higher. This isn't called greed, it's running a business.

KubrickFan wrote:I think it is a flop. Making 113 million dollar while your movie cost 105 million to make can't be called making a profit. Remember, Disney also spends a lot on advertising, so the actual money spent is even higher. This isn't called greed, it's running a business.

I thought it made $167-78 million?

But anyways, I think I get the deal. Whoever decided to release it the same time as Avatar and AatC2 must WANT Disney to fail!

The problem with "The Princess and the Frog" is it was touted as a return to form, but word of mouth was lukewarm. The movie is pleasant enough, but when compared to the classics, it doesn't live up. The storytelling was subpar; honestly, so was the animation and music. Compare the visual design to "Tarzan" or "Atlantis". "The Princess and the Frog" looks closer to the DTV sequels.

I don't really think it's fair to have the fate of 2D riding on one film. I agree with others, studios don't always know what's going to be an instant success or not. Obviously it isn't just the art medium, because "Meet the Robinsons" and "Bolt" didn't fare much better than "The Princess and the Frog", did they? The "Disney" brandname is suffering. People trust Pixar, people know what they're getting with Dreamworks... Disney has been incredibly inconsistent for the last ten years.

I'll be really upset if "The Snow Queen" is canceled. I'm not really looking forward to "Pooh", and I want 2D to be given more of a chance.