DVDizzy Forum

I hope this does happen sometime in the future...

Im getting so annoyed with endless CGI Films being released!

Disneykid wrote:

Isidour wrote:well...it migth get back, but will the stopries be as good as the "old good ones" or as crappy as the new ones?

I'm willing to get the new movies will be as good as the Disney movies we all know and love because now the filmmakers will have artistic freedom to say what they want as opposed worrying about how marketable a story or cast will be. Lasseter cares about story first. Eisner's primary concern was always about stock and budgets. I'm not completely blaming him, though, because there was a reason why he was the financial person when he teamed with Frank Wells; it's his forte. I'm just glad we have someone running animation, now, who cares about quality firsthand (hence why the Disney films produced when Roy Disney and Frank Wells were around were so good).

Well...considering that in Eisner´s time were created "The Little Mermaid", "The Lion King", "The Beauty and the Beast" and of course, "Aladdin"...well,I don´t trust in names anymore

Isidour wrote:Well...considering that in Eisner´s time were created "The Little Mermaid", "The Lion King", "The Beauty and the Beast" and of course, "Aladdin"...well,I don´t trust in names anymore

Well, during those years Eisner was basically "running the business" - not "micromanaging" the animation department...

Lars Vermundsberget wrote:

Isidour wrote:Well...considering that in Eisner´s time were created "The Little Mermaid", "The Lion King", "The Beauty and the Beast" and of course, "Aladdin"...well,I don´t trust in names anymore

Well, during those years Eisner was basically "running the business" - not "micromanaging" the animation department...

Exactly, which is what I had said in my post. Eisner was partners with Frank Wells. Wells was the creative side of the duo while Eisner was the financial. Wells died during the post-production of The Lion King which goes back to your comment, Isidour. We have Frank Wells to thank for the "big four" in animation during the late 80s/ealry 90s because he let Roy Disney have creative control over animation and allowed the filmmakers to produce what they felt was right. Once Wells died, Eisner slowly began to minimize Roy's role until Roy was no more than a corporate icon like Mickey, hence his leaving. Since Eisner's forte was in business, he was always pressuring filmmakers to create films that catered to specific demographics and were easily marketable, the only exception being Hunchback because he was a huge fan of the novel.

Disneykid wrote:Exactly, which is what I had said in my post. Eisner was partners with Frank Wells. Wells was the creative side of the duo while Eisner was the financial. Wells died during the post-production of The Lion King which goes back to your comment, Isidour. We have Frank Wells to thank for the "big four" in animation during the late 80s/ealry 90s because he let Roy Disney have creative control over animation and allowed the filmmakers to produce what they felt was right. Once Wells died, Eisner slowly began to minimize Roy's role until Roy was no more than a corporate icon like Mickey, hence his leaving. Since Eisner's forte was in business, he was always pressuring filmmakers to create films that catered to specific demographics and were easily marketable, the only exception being Hunchback because he was a huge fan of the novel.

Well, if everyone blames Eisner for Disney's downfall in animation, shouldn't someone like fire him or something? I mean, apparently, no one likes him, and since he minimized Roy's "job", as you can say, and then Roy finally left, wouldn't people be more anxious to fire him. I mean, if you can fire people in Eisner's position?

TheSequelofDisney wrote: Well, if everyone blames Eisner for Disney's downfall in animation, shouldn't someone like fire him or something? I mean, apparently, no one likes him, and since he minimized Roy's "job", as you can say, and then Roy finally left, wouldn't people be more anxious to fire him. I mean, if you can fire people in Eisner's position?

He's gone. Bob Iger is now in charge, and things look to be taking a turn for the better, under his leadership. Let's hope that great things come from this, and from John Lasseter heading up Feature Animation!

Fireball232 wrote:I hope this does happen sometime in the future...

Im getting so annoyed with endless CGI Films being released!

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I am getting rather tired of the regular CG movies. Now there's going to be Dreamworks' Over the Hedge, which I have high expectations for. I'm also looking forward to Meet the Robinsons and Rapunzel Unbraided. Otherwise I'm not really enthusiastic about anything else.

I can hardly wait for the 2D Animated Frog Princess though!!!!

MadonnasManOne wrote:

TheSequelofDisney wrote: Well, if everyone blames Eisner for Disney's downfall in animation, shouldn't someone like fire him or something? I mean, apparently, no one likes him, and since he minimized Roy's "job", as you can say, and then Roy finally left, wouldn't people be more anxious to fire him. I mean, if you can fire people in Eisner's position?

He's gone. Bob Iger is now in charge, and things look to be taking a turn for the better, under his leadership. Let's hope that great things come from this, and from John Lasseter heading up Feature Animation!

I guess that's all good for us then, huh?

Well, considering some people may not like what I'm going to post, I'll post it in white, so the people who want t o read it will highlight it:

I think some people here are just misinterpeting what the article says. Unfortunately, 2D animation really isn't back.

First of, they're only making 1 2D animated movie!!!(well 2, if you count Enchanted, which is mostly live-action) 2D animation isn't really back like in 1989 when The Little Mermaid was finsihed and had plans for "The Rescuers Down Under", "Beauty and the Beast", "Aladdin", "The Lion King" and probably others. And there's not EVEN a RELEASE DATE. For all we know, it could get out in 2012!

Then, RC & JM say they going to get the story ready for the end of 2006. Well plans can change. Who knows what could happen, they could have story problems(if Lasseter is harsh as Katzenberg when both of those guys made Aladdin), get delayed, and maybe even cancelled(i.e. A Few Good Ghosts).

Even if they DO finsih the story in time, that faces with the problem of how are they going to get these animators? Remember most of them got RESIGNED or LEFT FOR COMPUTERS!!! After hard times, are most of them really going to come back when so many 3D films HAVE been making money?

That also leaves with the problem if it will be successful and make money, because will audiences really want to see it. Even if it does turn out to be successful, do you really think they're start making more 2D films all of a sudden. Remember, that still leaves us with the problems with they still have computers!!!

Oy, such a lot of typing, so what's my point? Well, just because they're scheduling(remember no release date) to release 1 hand-drawn animated film, does NOT mean 2D animation is back. And unless every 3D film for they next 6 years is a flop(but c'mon would people really tire of fart jokes?) I doubt they'll get many animators to keep it living.

Okay, my grump pants essay is over.

Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:Well, considering some people may not like what I'm going to post, I'll post it in white, so the people who want t o read it will highlight it:

I think some people here are just misinterpeting what the article says. Unfortunately, 2D animation really isn't back.

First of, they're only making 1 2D animated movie!!!(well 2, if you count Enchanted, which is mostly live-action) 2D animation isn't really back like in 1989 when The Little Mermaid was finsihed and had plans for "The Rescuers Down Under", "Beauty and the Beast", "Aladdin", "The Lion King" and probably others. And there's not EVEN a RELEASE DATE. For all we know, it could get out in 2012!

Then, RC & JM say they going to get the story ready for the end of 2006. Well plans can change. Who knows what could happen, they could have story problems(if Lasseter is harsh as Katzenberg when both of those guys made Aladdin), get delayed, and maybe even cancelled(i.e. A Few Good Ghosts).

Even if they DO finsih the story in time, that faces with the problem of how are they going to get these animators? Remember most of them got RESIGNED or LEFT FOR COMPUTERS!!! After hard times, are most of them really going to come back when so many 3D films HAVE been making money?

That also leaves with the problem if it will be successful and make money, because will audiences really want to see it. Even if it does turn out to be successful, do you really think they're start making more 2D films all of a sudden. Remember, that still leaves us with the problems with they still have computers!!!

Oy, such a lot of typing, so what's my point? Well, just because they're scheduling(remember no release date) to release 1 hand-drawn animated film, does NOT mean 2D animation is back. And unless every 3D film for they next 6 years is a flop(but c'mon would people really tire of fart jokes?) I doubt they'll get many animators to keep it living.

Okay, my grump pants essay is over.

I was wondering when you would come along to spout your usual negative thoughts. Thanks for always delivering.

Yay! That's great!!! I'm so happy!

Well, I read in another article (can't quite remember where, though) that The Frog Princess wouldn't be the only 2-D animated film at Disney, and they will continue to crank out films in that medium. The article said, though, that each 2-D film will be about 3 or 4 years apart due to the smaller animation staff Disney currently has. Hey, if I have to wait 3 or 4 years in between movies to get something akin to the glory days, so be it. To be honest, I think one of the biggest downfalls of 2-D was the alarming rate at which Disney was churning them out. They weren't special event movies anymore like the films of the 90s were.

Disneykid wrote: To be honest, I think one of the biggest downfalls of 2-D was the alarming rate at which Disney was churning them out. They weren't special event movies anymore like the films of the 90s were.

I agree with that statement, Disneykid. I think that some level of anticipation has to be built, by spacing the films out, rather than banging them out, one right after the other. Too much of a good thing tends to lessen the impact.

Okay Im sooo happy 2-D anitmation is coming back becuz I tell ya I am so sick of seeing only CGI trailers now in theaters I mean I went to see Cars which I thoight was a great movie but every single preview was for CGI movie..I mean I like CGI but I have a higher appreciation for 2-D Anitmation. But I have one question....WHose this Eisner dude I've been hearing about?

Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote: I think some people here are just misinterpeting what the article says. Unfortunately, 2D animation really isn't back.

Well now that you brought it up, I meant to post in that other thread (what was it? I can't remember) about the Toon studios in Australia - did Toon just get closed down? And if so, why (if they are bringing back 2-D) would they close the 2-D Toon Australia studio? Of course one might speculate that they want to re-tool Burbank Animation and keep the 2-D studio closer to home, but otherwise, closing Toon in Australia doesn't really give one much hope that they intend to broaden 2-D animation.

jeremy88 wrote:WHose this Eisner dude I've been hearing about?

Eisner Overview for you and Sequel:

(I forgot where I got this brief history. I know some of it is from Wikipedia. Anyone here is of course free to correct it)

When Walt Disney died of lung cancer in 1966, his brother Roy took over as chairman of the company. Disney World in Florida opened in 1971; that same year Roy Disney also passed away. With both patriarchs gone, Roy's son, Roy E. Disney, was left as the primary individual shareholder of Disney stock. In 1984, he allied himself with the wealthy Bass family to purchase a controlling interest in the company. Disney and the Basses appointed two executives from rival studios, Michael Eisner from Paramount and Frank Wells from Warner Brothers, to run the company, ushering in a new phase in the company's history.

Eisner comes aboard When Michael Eisner joined the Walt Disney Company in 1984, the company was in the midst of a troubled period. That year, the company had a flagging film division that produced few hits. Eisner, then a chief at Paramount Pictures, seemed a natural to take control of this area. Having helped restore Paramount to its former glory, he had already cemented his status as a legend in the industry.

Eisner spurred growth by engaging in what would have previously been considered some very un-Disney-like activities. With a wealth of more "grownup" entertainment acquisitions such as the Miramax and Touchstone film companies, as well as a new corporate strategy that sought to aggressively grow the company and its holdings worldwide, Eisner guided Disney back into the big leagues. The new CEO helped prove that Disney could be far more successful by expanding beyond its cute and cuddly corporate stance -- the company has been very successful at maintaining the kid-friendly identity of its various Walt Disney-branded properties, while also producing adult-themed fare.

The 1990s, however, saw the end of Eisner's honeymoon. Disney president Frank Wells, Eisner's close friend and right hand man, died in a helicopter crash in 1994. That tragedy foreshadowed a rash of corporate shakeups. Just after Wells' death, Jeffery Katzenberg left the film unit he helped to revitalize in a huff after not being promoted to Wells' former position. Passed over for Mike Ovitz, Katzenberg struck out on his own and founded the Dreamworks film studio with Steven Spielberg and David Geffen. Ovitz, Eisner's longtime friend and co-founder of the Creative Artists Agency, entered the company riding high on a reputation as "the most powerful talent agent in Hollywood." However, Ovitz, never got a chance to get comfortable in his new role. In December 1996, he too packed his bags after just 16 months on the job. Allegedly, Ovitz's departure was caused largely by personality clashes between Eisner and his new lieutenant. As a result, Eisner took on more and more duties himself.

In 2003, Roy Edward Disney, also the son of co-founder Roy Oliver Disney, resigned from his positions as Disney vice chairman and chairman of Walt Disney Feature Animation, accusing Eisner of micro-management, failures with the ABC television network, timidity in the theme park business, turning the Walt Disney Company into a "rapacious, soul-less" company, and refusing to establish a clear succession plan, as well as a string of box-office movie failures starting in the year 2000. (Text of resignation letter)

On March 3, 2004, at Disney's annual shareholders' meeting, a surprising and unprecedented 43% of Disney's shareholders, predominantly rallied by former board members Roy Disney and Stanley Gold, voted to oppose the reelection of Eisner to the corporate board of directors. This vigorous opposition, unusual in major public corporations, convinced Disney's board to strip him of his chairmanship and give that position to former U.S. Senator George Mitchell. However, the board did not give Eisner's detractors what they really wanted: his immediate removal as chief executive.

As criticism of Eisner intensified in the wake of the shareholder meeting, however, his position became more and more tenuous, and on March 13, 2005, Eisner announced that he would step down as CEO one year before his contract expired. On September 30, Eisner resigned both as an executive and as a member of the board of directors, and, severing all formal ties with the company, he waived his contractual rights to perks such as the use of a corporate jet and an office at the company's Burbank headquarters. Eisner's replacement was his longtime lieutenant, Bob Iger.

Eisner's struggle to maintain control of the legendary entertainment company was the subject of journalist James B. Stewart's bestselling book DisneyWar.

Disneykid wrote:Hey, if I have to wait 3 or 4 years in between movies to get something akin to the glory days, so be it. To be honest, I think one of the biggest downfalls of 2-D was the alarming rate at which Disney was churning them out. They weren't special event movies anymore like the films of the 90s were.

Here's something that may interest you on that point (which I also agree with), that culmulated to the death of 2D animation:

Jim Hill wrote:This decades-old process really came under fire in the late 1990s, right after "The Lion King" 's phemonenal success. When Disney management decided that releasing just one animated feature every year wasn't enough. That WDFA would have to begin gearing up production, start churning out two brand-new animated features each year. One to be released during the summer months, the other to bow during the holiday season.

In order to meet this extremely ambitious production schedule, a number of WDFA projects that weren't really ready to roll got greenlit anyway. With the hope that -- as these films moved through the production pipeline -- Disney's animators would be able to identify each film's individual story problems and then make the appropriate changes.

The only problem was ... Disney Feature Animation poured tens of millions of dollars into producing films like "Kingdom of the Sun" and "Sweating Bullets," only to have these films melt down right in the middle of production. Then WDFA would have to mount these extremely expensive rescue operations -- spending even more millions to turn these troubled films into "The Emperor's New Groove" and "Home on the Range."

Even successful animated films like Disney's 1999 release, "Tarzan," racked up millions in unnecessary production expenses because that project was greenlit before all of that movie's story problems were resolved. I know of one studio vet who spent an entire year -- on full salary, mind you -- playing solitaire on his WDFA office computer, waiting for Disney's development team to sort out all of "Tarzan" 's story problems.

http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/ ... 2/435.aspx

If we do see a return of "2D", I'd say two or three "classics" in a decade would be just fine.

I think that producing one 2-D animated feature every two years would be the perfect medium.

3-4 years is too long - I'm 29 right now....that would mean there would only be five movies released by the time I'm 50! Plus, Dreamworks etc... would make a killing because they're releasing at least two movies a year.

But if Disney could make one outstanding animated feature every two years - maybe two and a half, on the scale of Beauty and the Beast....that would be the ultimate dream. They could still have a different staff of people churning out one quality CGI film a year.

A low release frequency would be all right, IMO, if the results were really, really good. Come on, Disney - please impress me! It's been a while, I think...