STASHONE wrote:But they aren't making more money at all. In fact they seem to be in negligance about this as rather than redirecting their sights, they are totally losing focus. Remakes, sequals, budget cuts, exclusive rights to cgi, etc... how's about original concepts, being inventive and imaginative, creating something fresh and tangible? The company built it's foundations on pioneering new styles and incorporating thoughtful means of artistic inspiration into cinema and animation but recently, Disney seems to be making the assumption that today's commercial generation is so caught up in generic pop cultures and big budget media headlines, that we are not able to distinguish between hollow, insincere impressions and substance worthy of Walt Disney's legacy.
Disney films are making more money. I posted the first week sales for some of the DTV sequels on the "Lion King Not Selling?" thread, and believe me, those babies are pulling in the money. (I read somewhere that Lady and the Tramp 2 generated a turnover;
not profit; of half a billion dollars for Disney worldwide). Disney are only loosing money from their other divisions which is bringing down their overall profits. Films and DTV's are performing better than ever.
You know, I saw "Ultimate Muscle" or something for the first time yesterday (some damn awful wrestling cartoon) and whole scenes were shown with no animation. When animation was used, only people's mouths were moving. And I was informed that "Ultimate Muscle" is one of the most popular cartoons on the television at the moment. I thought it was a joke, but apparently it
is one of the most popualr cartoons on at the moment.
People don't care about quality anymore. I'm sorry if this upsets anybody, but it's true.
Is Disney responsible? In a way they are. My own belief is that the glut of cartoons on the television has removed the magic of animation - any animation - from people's minds. They judge the whole genre based on what they can watch every day on the television. Clearly Disney holds some responsibility for this, but so does every other studio. Eisner had no diabolical plan to make this happen - it was almost inevitable in this multi-media age. There's too much of everything readily available, so everything looses it 'specialness'.
The Disney sequels are fine now and you don't have to watch or buy them. The early ones were a little dodgy, and even now the odd slip-up falls through. But given the apparent disinterest in quality animation from the public you should all be greatful that the sequels are as good as they are and seemingly getting better and better with each release as a general trend. The biggest problem with the sequels are the scripts, but some would argue that some of the scripts are stronger than some of the scripts from Walt Disney Feature Animation films.
There is an issue that Disney seem reluctant to make proper sequels to their more recent films which haven't preformed as well. It still hurts me that Atlantis never got a proper sequel. I agree it is not good business just to concentrate on particualar films and characters at the expense of other, weaker properties. Disney should be trying to build the weaker properties up instread of simply ignoring them. Or else you risk over-exposure. And over-exposure generates ill-will. (Again, availability reduces their 'specialness'). Personally I think Disney are wrong to make another Lion King film already, when they have other properties to "exploit" (I guess that word will get some of you going).
I have no feelings about a CGI Pinocchio, as long as Disney don't withold the animated original to make the CGI film the default version for future generations. Unlike some people here, I found nothing wrong with the Psycho remake. I have to question the intent of the makers, but the film did what it said it would, so no one can complain. Everybody knew what they would be seeing before they saw it and could quite easily opt no to see it. In fact watching the original back to back with the modern version is quite enlightening. But it's nothing more than that. I'm not sure it was ever supposed to be more.
There is nothing inheritly wrong with any sequel. Even if it is a sequel to a "happily ever after" ending. All it needs is love, care and attention and a decent original idea as the springboard. Same with CGI remakes. If you think about it, rather than shooting-off from the hip without thinking. There is a potential to do so much more with the original story and characters (which is why I do question the shot-for-shot approach Disney seems to want to take - Disney should be expanding the original, not duplicating it).
Remember some of the comments here about Pirates of the Carribean before it was released? Lots of jokes about movies made on theme park attractions with no story? Sly comments about lack of originality? And yet now the film is the toast of the board. So would you class Pirates as an original film or "generic pop culture"?
When it comes down to it, we'd all like to see new, fresh and original films from Disney all the time. But it's the income from the DTV and sequels that funds the original films.
Plus, originality doesn't always sell. Not true originality. The best 'original' box office hits are all films which follow the same old forumula, featuring the same old box office draws. Thus the onslaught of sequels and interchangable action movies.
Truely original films, like "Memento", "Being John Malkovich" and "Fight Club" did nothing like the box office they deserved, while dross like "Bad Boys II" sweeps up the box office chart.
Another thought, as much as you enjoyed "Finding Nemo", it's not that original - in fact it shares lots of similarities to other Pixar films. A two character buddy movie (Marlin and Dory)? - compare to Buzz and Woody and Mike and Sully. A dangerous quest and rescue in unknown territories? Sounds like the two Toy Story films to me. A rescue of a child? Nemo or Boo?
Right I've had my little rant now. Hopefully its given you all something to think about.
Oh, and I don't think I ever said welcome... so, welcome!