Page 2 of 3

Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 6:58 pm
by Paka
I agree with Chris and Ernest wholeheartedly. Especially your lovely soapbox speech there, Chris! :lol:

Everything that I would say has been said. Yes, Disney is a business - always has been - but the spirit is gone. The innovation is gone. It's truly become an assembly-line studio that does not try nor dare anymore. Because that's too risky. You want to make money, to please the investors in your company. To keep them happy. (Why something as unsure as the film industry would be gambled on by businesses, I don't know, but...) And so the easist (and most half-assed) way of doing that is milking and rehashing past successful formulas. It's a safe and cowardly way out to making money. *gag*

However, a bit of advice to Ernest and Chris - when it comes to the business of Disney and the issue of cheapquels, 2099net will play Devil's Advocate until the cows come home. ;)

Arrrgh..

Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 6:59 pm
by happy puppy
I applaud and totally agree with chrisrose and Ernest - Disney cheapquels SUCK and should be destroyed. Anyone who might even think...even for a second that Walt would consider such a practice in today's age doesn't know a damn thing about the man at all. Alive or not, Walt had integrity and was smart and creative enough not to repeat himself for cheap cash.
2099net wrote:Plus quality issues or not, more people went to see The Jungle Book II than Treasure Planet. I'm not saying Jungle Book II was a better film, but more people clearly wanted to see it. The sequels are popular. All business works on a supply and demand basis... and there's obviously a demand for sequels.
The demand is NOT there, as far as I'm concerned, for Disney classics to be remade. Today's audiences are so dim witted, they will watch whatever you put in from of them. Disney Execs wanted Treasure Planet to fail and actively did their best to make sure it flopped, due to many reasons (that's been discussed here before).

JB2 did better from a financial standpoint because it was cheap to produce and they used the money they saved in production to slog the hell out of it. Does that make it right? Does that make it a good film? Hell, no. Disney CAN and SHOULD do better.

A project like Treasure Planet was doomed because it cost too much to acquire the level of quality the film-makers wanted. Disney spent nothing on advertising it and they don't keep the stores stocked with enough copies, another way of proclaiming it a failure.

Go to your local WalMart sometime - tell me how many copies they have in stock of JB2, Cinderella 2, etc - and compare that number of copies to Treasure Planet, or better yet The Rescuers. If the the demand for JB2 is so great, how come they have a million copies still on the shelves? If JB2 sells at all, it's because it's the only bloody thing available.
2099net wrote:He's dead and thus about 30 years behind the times. Things were different when Walt was alive. Nobody had home video. TV showings of his animated films were rare and nobody could record them or purchase the VHS even if they did watch them. So Walt could re-release his films and still get sizable box office. How do you know what Walt would do once this revenue was unavailable? After all re-releasing the films is like making a sequel in that the basic idea is for the audience to "spend more time with their favourite characters".
Sorry, but that's pure crap. Re-releases expose a new generation of moviegoers to a classic, and to let the old fans relive the experience of seeing it in a real theater again. There's a big difference.

If Walt were alive today, I cannot begin to imagine the things he'd be doing. Can you imagine what the internet would be like if Walt had access to it? He would have embraced it far quicker than anyone else, and would probably had advanced the technology before anyone else too.
2099net wrote:It's been scrapped, the technology wasn't up for it at this point in time.
Amazing, isn't it? Bambi was made over 60 years ago by a small group of people with no kind of 'technology' at all. And they still can't make it better today. Of course, even if the 'technology' was up to snuff, it still wouldn't help.
2099net wrote:But I'm sure Disney will try again in a year or two time? And why not? If the finished result looks handdrawn, what difference does it make to the viewer?
If you want it to look handdrawn, why not just draw it by hand?

Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 7:22 pm
by Jens
Nobody can demand ANYTHING. We should be happy Disney is still alive, and if you don't think that way you can't call yourself a true Disney fan. Really, all people do nowadays is nag about this and that, while they don't even have a clue WHY it's that way. Disney CAN'T AFFORD to make quality movies every month! I agree that they are like affraid of something but I would rather see a great movie between Cheap movies rather than seeing Disney go broke and quit! I'm sorry but I totally disagree with all of you that agree with Chrisrose and Ernest. Disney doesn't have any choice. Just be satisfied with what you got, you could have less. Always remember that! :roll:

Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 7:32 pm
by chrisrose
Jens wrote:I disagree with you chrisrose. First of all, the world has changed! The Walt Disney Company has more pressure of shareholders now. They didn't have that in the past so they could always create a great new movie all the time.
If I'm not mistaken, Walt was under pressure too, from bankers and such. It's not like he had a lot of support from the industry to create great new movies all the time. They encouraged him to make easy money, to make sequels, and he resisted.
Jens wrote:When most people hear Disney they won't think "Great Animation, Great Story, Great Movies!". They will think "Only for kids".

And why do you think that is? Could it be perhaps because the current Disney company is AIMING "only for kids"? We've heard repeatedly that's their target audience now... 4-10 year olds (and their unwitting parents). This isn't just limited to the cheapquels either. Even the DVD releases of the Classics are being targetted at children, not at intelligent adults or collectors. Hence the insubstantial making of featurettes for those with short attention spans, the teenybopper music videos, games, etc.
Jens wrote:Just think about it, when younger people go see a movie and come back from it and tell their friend what they saw they will get more "attention" from their Friends if they have seen The Lord of the rings or even a Pixar movie! It's all about that right now. Younger people didn't care in the past that they were seeing a Disney movie, but times have changed!

I beg to differ. I remember several of my "too cool" friends derisively saying Disney movies (and "cartoons" in general) were for kids... and this was during the Second Golden Age of Animation... when we all know MANY younger people (and teens and adults) were showing up in droves to see The Little Mermaid, Beauty & The Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King.

So there have always been people who dismissed Disney as "uncool" or too childish, etc. But there are certainly more people of that opinion NOW, because these days there aren't any Beauty & The Beasts or Aladdins being made that appeal to adults as well as kids. Oh you can argue that movies like Atlantis were made for teens and adults. But that movie had so many plot problems and superficial characters, and lacked heart....it obviously didn't click with most people. Audiences didn't connect with it the way they connected with the others I mentioned.

The point is, I don't buy the "times have changed" excuse. There have always been naysayers. Making quality films has always been a challenge. One that Walt rose to. While Eisner is content to exert minimum effort.

Jens wrote:And by the way, you can only judge movies seperate you know. You can't just go saying "All sequels are bad" because they really aren't. Of course you have an opinion of yourself but if you are a real Disney fan there should be some sequels that you liked seeing.
I didn't say ALL sequels are bad. But all cheapquels are definitely crappy. The Rescuers Down Under is a quality movie and I enjoyed both the story and animation very much.

Jens wrote:If Walt would be alive now, Disney would be dead. Come on, you think he could handle this world now? I don't think so!

Wow...you've really given up on the world, huh? Your statement just proves that we need a Walt Disney, now more than ever.

Walt was a groundbreaking pioneer. There's no doubt in my mind that he'd continue to break new ground if he were still alive. It's very sad that some people have become so jaded and cynical about the world today that they can't dream of making it better... or believe in someone like Walt, one of the greatest Dreamers the world has ever known.

Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 7:55 pm
by Jens
chrisrose wrote: If I'm not mistaken, Walt was under pressure too, from bankers and such. It's not like he had a lot of support from the industry to create great new movies all the time. They encouraged him to make easy money, to make sequels, and he resisted.
Ah yes, but do you are actually saying it yourself there... Some bankers and non-supportive industry will not stop someone from making quality movies. But right now they have to share a part with those people. If they make more money they will have more money themself, even if they have to hand in a part to the shareholders!
chrisrose wrote:And why do you think that is? Could it be perhaps because the current Disney company is AIMING "only for kids"? We've heard repeatedly that's their target audience now... 4-10 year olds (and their unwitting parents). This isn't just limited to the cheapquels either. Even the DVD releases of the Classics are being targetted at children, not at intelligent adults or collectors. Hence the insubstantial making of featurettes for those with short attention spans, the teenybopper music videos, games, etc.
That's just it! Because Disney IS aiming for kids right now. They saw the problem I said long before everyone did! I'm not saying all their movies are actually for kids but with the majority of the movies being for kids they certainly aren't making themself popular with youth.
chrisrose wrote:I beg to differ. I remember several of my "too cool" friends derisively saying Disney movies (and "cartoons" in general) were for kids... and this was during the Second Golden Age of Animation... when we all know MANY younger people (and teens and adults) were showing up in droves to see The Little Mermaid, Beauty & The Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King.
I'm not talking about the time when movies like TLM, Beatuy & The Beast, Aladdin and TLK were in theatres. I'm talking about present time! You can believe it or not but a lot has changed between that time and now. Like I said, Disney has an image of being for kids!
chrisrose wrote:I didn't say ALL sequels are bad. But all cheapquels are definitely crappy. The Rescuers Down Under is a quality movie and I enjoyed both the story and animation very much.
Well I don't think they're all as good as the originals but they are not all crappy. You're doing it again, they are all crappy you say!
chrisrose wrote:Walt was a groundbreaking pioneer. There's no doubt in my mind that he'd continue to break new ground if he were still alive. It's very sad that some people have become so jaded and cynical about the world today that they can't dream of making it better... or believe in someone like Walt, one of the greatest Dreamers the world has ever known.
Haha! Yes and with dreaming you can't get far in this world. What is the reason they were putting Roy out of the picture of management? Yes, he was too much like his uncle! He didn't have any ideas that could not let Disney go broke. He was a risk-man, and you know what happens when you risk too much. Just let him dream and start a website called Savedisney.com :p Dreaming is good, but you have to wake up sometimes and think about reality. This is reality.

Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 8:20 pm
by chrisrose
Jens wrote:I'm not talking about the time when movies like TLM, Beatuy & The Beast, Aladdin and TLK were in theatres. I'm talking about present time! You can believe it or not but a lot has changed between that time and now.

Um, if you're going to make a statement like "times have changed", doesn't that mean that you're prepared to examine both the PAST and the PRESENT?

So if you don't want to talk about the way things were, I don't see how you can say that "a lot has changed between that time and now". Sorry, just doesn't make sense.

Jens wrote:Like I said, Disney has an image of being for kids!
Yes and like I said, there have always been people who viewed Disney as being "only for kids", and the only thing that's changed is that NOW the Disney company is no longer fighting that image. They're choosing to aim for the kids. In the past Disney movies have appealed to many adults as well as children, and it could be that way again.
chrisrose wrote:I didn't say ALL sequels are bad. But all cheapquels are definitely crappy. The Rescuers Down Under is a quality movie and I enjoyed both the story and animation very much.
Jens wrote:Well I don't think they're all as good as the originals but they are not all crappy. You're doing it again, they are all crappy you say!
Yup. That's what I say, alright! All the low-budget cheapquels produced as quickly as possible by assembly-line animators in other countries who don't have the time (or inclination, probably) to get inside the characters skin and act (like the Nine Old Men and other truly great animators try to do) - all these cheapquels are crappy.

chrisrose wrote:Walt was a groundbreaking pioneer. There's no doubt in my mind that he'd continue to break new ground if he were still alive. It's very sad that some people have become so jaded and cynical about the world today that they can't dream of making it better... or believe in someone like Walt, one of the greatest Dreamers the world has ever known.
Jens wrote:Haha! Yes and with dreaming you can't get far in this world. What is the reason they were putting Roy out of the picture of management? Yes, he was too much like his uncle! He didn't have any ideas that could not let Disney go broke. He was a risk-man, and you know what happens when you risk too much. Just let him dream and start a website called Savedisney.com :p Dreaming is good, but you have to wake up sometimes and think about reality. This is reality.

That's funny. Walt was a Dreamer AND a Doer. He made his dreams REALITY. He proved that dreaming big (and working hard) CAN get you "far in this world".

Now I'm gonna have to quote you and say "if you're really a TRUE Disney fan" ...well, how can you BE a Disney fan if you don't admire what Walt Disney accomplished?

If he hadn't taken all the risks he took in his lifetime... THEN there would be no Disney!

I'm gonna try not to respond to any more of your comments Jens, because honestly, your stance just doesn't make sense to me. And your world-view is pretty depressing.

Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 8:23 pm
by chrisrose
I just wanna say thanks Paka and happy puppy ... You make me feel more optimistic about the world. The human race IS worth saving after all!

;)

Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 8:27 pm
by happy puppy
Jens wrote:Ah yes, but do you are actually saying it yourself there... Some bankers and non-supportive industry will not stop someone from making quality movies. But right now they have to share a part with those people. If they make more money they will have more money themself, even if they have to hand in a part to the shareholders!
Ok, I know that wasn't directed to me, but that made no sense. No sense at all.
Jens wrote:Haha! Yes and with dreaming you can't get far in this world. What is the reason they were putting Roy out of the picture of management? Yes, he was too much like his uncle! He didn't have any ideas that could not let Disney go broke. He was a risk-man, and you know what happens when you risk too much. Just let him dream and start a website called Savedisney.com :p Dreaming is good, but you have to wake up sometimes and think about reality. This is reality.
Ok, are you a Disney fan? Really? I know that everyone is entitled to their opinions and everything..but that is the stupidest and most Eisnerish thing I have ever read.

You question the fandom of those of us who remain true to Walt's philosophies, visions and spirit - and then you say that? Walt didn't just dream, you know...he was a doer too. He ignored those who said things were impossible. If he had listened to those people (and to people like YOU), there would be no Disney today. And like you said...be thankful for what you have, because you could have nothing.

If Roy was too much like his uncle, then he's the greatest man on the earth today. The world would be a better place if we had more people like that.

Let me tell you something...Walt was one of the most brilliant men of our time. Not only was he an excellent storyteller, he knew how to get the job done, and he did it better than anyone else.

I would have loved to work for him. Today's managements should take a clue from Walt and practice the way he ran his studios in the 30s and 40s...Walt was so ahead of his time in every way. There is so much corporate bull and millions of wasted hours and dollars in the current busines world, and what do they have to show for it? Substandard product. This is the world we have now, and it really sucks.

Long live the dreamers.

Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 9:00 pm
by Jens
Like I said, I don't have anything against dreamers. But be real, it's not easy to dream of something and make it come true this day. Of course you can try, and I guess they should. But a lot of people don't see that it isn't easy to just jump to creating quality movies all of a sudden.

I'm a very optimistic person, but I'm only telling the truth here. I wish Disney the best and I really hope Roy will come back. What I said about Roy getting out is not my opinion. It's just he hard truth. I didn't make that up or something!

Eisner is just not a dreamer and is a common manager of a company. He manages Disney like any other company manger would do. But it isn't like any other company... there's magic involved ;)

Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 9:19 pm
by happy puppy
Jens wrote:Like I said, I don't have anything against dreamers.
No, actually what you said was "Haha! Dreaming will get you nowheres!" and your tone unmistakably implied that dreamers were wasting their time.
Jens wrote:But a lot of people don't see that it isn't easy to just jump to creating quality movies all of a sudden.
Nobody said anything about expecting results immediately. Walt and his animators spent years working on films to make them perfect. It's that kind of attention to detail that is lost today.
Jens wrote:I'm a very optimistic person, but I'm only telling the truth here. I wish Disney the best and I really hope Roy will come back. What I said about Roy getting out is not my opinion. It's just he hard truth. I didn't make that up or something!
No, I know you didn't make it up. However, if you actually feel that way, you might want to make that clearer. Your tone made it sound like you supported the decision to oust Roy, and I had to react to that.
Jens wrote:Eisner is just not a dreamer and is a common manager of a company. He manages Disney like any other company manger would do. But it isn't like any other company... there's magic involved ;)
Um...yeah. Magic when Walt ran the company, not Eisner. Eisner's in charge of the wrong company. And yes, he is very, very common.

Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 9:27 pm
by Jens
You can dream, but you can't perform an action with dreaming ;) That's what I was trying to say. It's all in the mind, and it's great that you can see all those things acomplished in your mind but it's not in reality.

I do not support that Roy has quit Disney. Disney needs a Disney!

Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 10:19 pm
by Ernest Rister
"I disagree with you chrisrose. First of all, the world has changed! The Walt Disney Company has more pressure of shareholders now."

Tell me - when was Disney forced to go public and offer shares of stock in exchange for investment?

1984 - when Eisner took over?

Or in the early 40's, when WWII cut off Disney's foreign market and the studio had to grapple with insolvency?

(cue Jeopardy theme)

Disney of today has more pressure from shareholders now? That's like saying Pixar is under more pressure today than two years ago. Pixar is a public company, too. Just like disney was in the 40's. Not to be indelicate, but there is no other way of saying it - you don't know what you're talking about.

"They didn't have that in the past so they could always create a great new movie all the time."

See? Disney was forced to become a public company in the 40's. You think it is a new thing.

"However, they already had many shareholders when Beauty and the Beast and other "modern" classics were released. Well society has changed too."

Yeah -- they expect new and better products. Walt always rose to that challenge. You think re-dressing the Swiss Family Robinson Treehouse at Disneyland as "Tarzan's Treehouse" is an example of "new and better"? Or simply redressing an older attraction and trying to pawn it off as a "new attraction"? You know why the submarine rides at Disneyland are closed? Because they were intedning to re-dress the ride as an "Atlantis: the Lost Empire" ride. But then the movie went belly up because it wasn't that great. Now the entire ride exists in llimbo. Better to let the ride stagnate than admit failure! (cough! sarcasm!)

You think making cheap low-budget sequels to classic films like Peter Pan is "new and better"?


Maybe I should re-frame this question.

How do you think Orson Welles and Joseph Wankiewicz would have felt about a sequel to Citizen Kane? How do you think Frank Capra would have felt about someone making a sequel to It's a Wonderful Life"?

Why is Walt Disney's film legacy any different?

Film critics and movie fans across this globe would raise holy hell if someone made a sequel to Citizen Kane or It's a Wonderful Life. Yet you passive "we're lucky to get anything" Disney fans sit by passively and watch as Eisner makes sequels to Bambi, Dumbo, Cinderella, Lady and the Tramp, Peter Pan, The Jungle Book, and 101 Dalmatians. What will it take to finally piss you off? How low does the Eisner regime have to go?

Walt Disney's film legacy deserves RESPECT. Just as much RESPECT as the achievements of Welles and Capra. What is wrong with Disney fans that they turn into lobotomized robots willing to accept low-budget made-for-five-year-olds sequels to the films of Walt Disney? What's wrong with you "fans"? These cheapquels are an artistic abomination, they lower the value of the Disney brand name, they cheapen the reputation of Disney animation, and yet you stay silent, and you even DEFEND the things.

WAKE UP.

When did Disney Animated Features begin to decline in box office revenue?

Can you name the year?

I can.

1994. The year Pocahontas was met with great dissatisfaction.

You know what else streeted in 1994?

The very first "direct-to-video" animated feature. Return of Jafar.

Coincidence?

Perhaps. But as more and more direct-to-videos were made, the Disney films struggled at the box office. Disney was glutting the marketplace, and by the late 90's, and certainly over the last few years, we've seen Disney cut their own throats by pumping hordes of low-budget garbage onto video, and then double the sin by releasng these low-budget monstrosities in theaters!

Do you know why new Disney animated features always did well in theaters after Walt's death, going all the way up to Pocahonats? They were "event" titles. Like a new Spielberg film. Robin Hood was the highest-grossing anmated film ever released in 1973. Same thing with the Rescuers in 1977. Same thing with The Fox and the Hound in the early 80's and Oliver and Company in 1988 and the Little Mermaid in 1989. They were special.

By pumping out low-budget garbage starting in the mid-90's, Disney cut their own throats. They won brief profits, but look what has happened to them in the long term.

Now look at Pixar. They don't rush product to market. They invest their heart and soul into their products. They are now enjoying the "event" status that used to be reserved for Disney animation. You think it is a coincidence? You think "the world has changed"? No. No. No.

Greed has destroyed Disney animation. It's the 1970's all over again. Why invest money to make a live-action film as good as 20,000 Leagues or Swiss Family Robinson or Mary Poppins, when you can fart out low-budget garbage like Million Dollar Duck or Unidentified Flying Oddball? Why invest resources in making something special like Beauty and the Beast, when you can spend 1/5th as much making a cheapquel to The Jungle Book?

"It has been said before on this forum and I will say it again. Younger people don't think Disney Movies are cool anymore."

Disney used to make FAMILY films, not CHILDREN'S films. Jungle Book 2 is a "kiddie" film. Made for pre-school and pre-tweener children. Compare it to Snow White - a film that scares the bodily fluids out of pre-schoolers. Look at Fantasia. Look at Pinocchio. Look at Bambi. Kiddie films? I think not.

"When most people hear Disney they won't think "Great Animation, Great Story, Great Movies!". They will think "Only for kids"."

And the direct-to-videos play right into that crap, and that is why most "direct-to-video" films feature the CHILDREN of existing Disney characters. Lion King II, Lady and the Tramp II, Little Mermaid II, etc.

"Just think about it, when younger people go see a movie and come back from it and tell their friend what they saw they will get more "attention" from their Friends if they have seen The Lord of the rings or even a Pixar movie! It's all about that right now."

Kids are not stupid. They appreciate great movies. You make a whole bunch of crap, they will not want to watch your crap, and will opt for the current cool thing. This has ALWAYS been the case, it isn't a modern thing. If Disney was making great movies, they wouldn't have this problem. Instead, the kids are being bombarded with low budget crao.

"Younger people didn't care in the past that they were seeing a Disney movie, but times have changed!"

Wrong! The low-budget crap made in the 70's eroded the Disney brand name, steadily and surely. That's why the 1970's and 1980's are considered the "dark years" for Disney animation, leading to the "rebirth" in the early 90's. Just read Leonard Maltin's book, "The Disney Films". He spells it all out, clearly and with little room for misunderstanding.

"Because of this Disney was having losses in the past and lost a lot of money. That's why they didn't want this to happen anymore and they decided to release their movies continuetly so they keep getting money and will not go broke."

Say what? In order to boost the value of their stock, they began releasing their animated classics onto home video, forgoing future profits for a one-time boost. Problem was, they eventually ran out of classic titles, and had to start making low-budget crap to plug the holes. Disney used to release one or two classic titles onto home video a year. In 1999, Disney released over ten animated films onto DVD in a six-month period.

"Yes, the quality of their movies have gone downhill but just think of it this way...."

I disagree -- their new animated features are almost peerless in their production values. Fantasia/2000, Dinosaur, Atlantis, and especially Treasure Planet -- all of these have been technically state-of-the-art. Why did they fail?

A glut of crap with the name "Disney" on it.

<<Month 1: Cheap Movie
Month 2: Cheap Movie
Month 3: Great Movie
Month 4: Cheap Movie
Month 5: Cheap Movie
...>>

Thank you for proving my point.

"And by the way, you can only judge movies seperate you know. You can't just go saying "All sequels are bad" because they really aren't. Of course you have an opinion of yourself but if you are a real Disney fan there should be some sequels that you liked seeing."

Yeah - Fantasia/2000, made by Walt's nephew. Not the equal of Walt's 1940 film, but still , a labor of love and integrity.

"About that whole CGI thing... CGI can be as great as 2d you know"

What's 2-d? Oh - you mean "hand drawn". See, that's another way modern audiences are being brainwashed. Instead of calling Walt's films "hand-drawn" animation, they are now being referred to as "2-D" animation, like some sort of outmoded computer software. There is more humanity and creativity and achievement and talent and human spontaneity in the single scene of Bambi stepping into snow for the first time than there is in the entire 90 minutes of Shrek.

"I really don't know what all the fuss is about. They can make it look like hand drawn and the possibilities are amazing."

Animation is not about the "look" -- it is about the "movement". Ani-mation. From the greek "animato", meaning -- "to give life". Disney animation is CHARACTER ANIMATION. Not movement with no purpose, but movement to express an inner life, a character, an emotion, a person.

"And even if they don't make some CGI movies "handdrawn like" they can still look great."

Sure, but CGI and hand-drawn animation are two different art forms. Hand-drawn animation is an interpretation of movement. CGI is inherently literal movement, a description of a known quantity in space. It's not the same thing. Bambi is an idea. A CGI Bambi would be like a CGI puppet show. It's not the same thing. Think about it.

"Just look at these images from Kingdom Hearts here."

I've played Kingdom Hearts. But that game proves my point. Squaresoft's CGI models may resemble the Disney characters, but they don't *move like* the Disney characters.

"If Walt would be alive now, Disney would be dead. Come on, you think he could handle this world now? I don't think so!"

Then you are a child, with no real knowledge of who Walt Disney was, or what he was capable of.

Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:18 am
by 2099net
Firstly, Walt Disney did change his views depending on the general situation of the world around him. When television was first released, Walt (like most other studio heads) declared that he would never produce programmes for television.

He soon changed his mind when he needed the money to build Disneyland didn't he?

Even then, he said that his animated movies would never be shown in their entirity on television, because it would stop people going to see the cinema re-releases. Again he soon changed his mind when he saw that television in general was contributing to falling box office results in general.

I repeat again, nobody knows what Walt would have done, because he's dead. He died when entertainment options were simpler. And he's gone back on his word before. (He even made more Three Little Pigs shorts after his famous "You can't top pigs with pigs line").

As for the re-release market disappearing. It has. That revenue stream has gone. Are you forgetting it was that revenue that kept the company afloat in the early years? When a revenue stream disappears you need to find an alternative. Are you really suggesting that Disney should never have sold their films to television or on home video just so that could continue to re-release them in theaters?

It is true to say both the world and Disney have changed since Walt's death. Disney may of had shareholders before, but, here's what's important. Business itself has changed. Shareholders don't want to sit on their shares anymore. They expect faster and bigger returns all the time. Disney is just another company trading on the stock market. And every company on the stock market has to answer to the shareholders. (I don't like this fact, but it's what Western business is based upon).

When Eisner was hired, Disney was fighting a battle to remain independent. Many companies were looking to take over the company. Do you really think a studio can exist in this day and age just by releasing a major motion picture once every two to three years? What happens when one of two of the major films fail in a row? How to they keep a constant revenue stream going into the business? Even Disney's early classics lost money on their initial releases. No one can guarentee a hit, not even Disney. But to keep a studio going, you need those major movies to succeed.

That's why the cheap late 70's movies were made. They didn't have the money to invest, but needed to release product in order to survive. It didn't (really) work. Even if they did put all their money into one animated film of the utmost quality, would it of worked? Sleeping Beauty lost money on its initial release. Pinocchio lost money on it's initial release. Lots of Disney animated movies lost money on their initial releases. By releasing the DTV products, Disney have multiple incomes. This means that they are spreading the risk, so are less reliant on getting a single "hit" film. Plus the profits can go back into feature animation.

Had Disney stuck to its early 1980's business model, releasing an animated film every 1 - 2 years and a handful of live action movies, I have no doubt what-so-ever Disney today would no longer exist. It would be part of Fox, or Time Warner or any other large media conglomerate. In short, Disney had to become a conglomerate itself to keep its identity. I don't know if this was the lesser of two evils or not. But either way, Disney today would be different from Walt's day.

Take Dreamworks for example. Dreamworks were threatened with a hostile take over for a period about 18 months ago. (I think they had to go back and borrow more money from the banks to hold it off). They've just sold their entire music business. I'm sure that has something to do with getting funds to help keep the company independent (because every loan violates the integrity of a company). Small studios, like small companies in other businesses just cannot compete with big business these days.

You may say, what about Pixar? They seem to do alright releasing a single film a year? I say, okay. We'll talk about Pixar if/when they have a flop or two under their belt. I'm sure the takeover vultures will begin circling.

Secondly, I'm well aware of the Treasure Planet situation (re: management). But I wasn't aware of any significant extra advertising and promotions for Jungle Book 2, and it took more money. It didn't just make more profit because the film was cheap. It took more money. How you can claim this means the demand isn't there is beyond me. Did people just find themselves drawn to the theater against their will? Sure, you could argue it's the audience's fault because they're "dim" but - newsflash - everything is dumbing down. Have you watch television lately? Even the news is dumbing down. Have you seen Fox News lately? It's where the money is.

I'm not saying Eisner is god. I want him to go. And while I support the idea of sequels, I'm not blind to the fact that most are simply average or below average. But too many people here seem to be living in fairy-land. Any company needs to make money. Especially in this day and age when meargers and takeovers are common.

Disney (the company) may have sold its soul by accepting public shareholders, but Disney would most likely be dead if it didn't.

Disney may be producing too many DTV sequels. But Disney would probably be unable to fund new Feature animation if their major income was from an infrequent series of animated films (the last few of which underperformed).

People are going to have to accept this. Roy is going to have to accept this, because in the real world - where investers live - he's given no creditable alternative to keeping Disney running the way it currently is. All he's doing it repeating emotional soundbites designed to appeal to the general public with no thought as to how he actually run the business.

My final thought. I find it incredibly selfish that when people talk about Disney being greedy or "loosing it's integrity", they only consider minor issues like the sequels or theme parks. When it comes down to it, the feature animations are still being made and the parks are still running and (once again) attracting investment. Disney "Greed" goes far above the trivial "Should a sequel to Cinderella ever have been made?"

What about all the child labour Disney employs to make your cheap, disposable Disney caps, t-shirts and beanies? What about all the environmental damage being done in Hong Kong where the latest Disney park is being built? Even Roy, who seems to be basing his whole argument against Eisner on Disney "greed" hasn't mentioned any of these, bigger, more important issues. And until he does, I'm afraid his argument is fatally flawed. I'm sure we would all agree Walt's number one priority wouldn't be the animation buildings, but making sure children aren't exploited for a cheap buck.

Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2004 4:13 am
by 2099net
chrisrose wrote:
jens wrote:Well I don't think they're all as good as the originals but they are not all crappy. You're doing it again, they are all crappy you say!

Yup. That's what I say, alright! All the low-budget cheapquels produced as quickly as possible by assembly-line animators in other countries who don't have the time (or inclination, probably) to get inside the characters skin and act (like the Nine Old Men and other truly great animators try to do) - all these cheapquels are crappy.
So you think it's the fault of the animators. How insulting. I suppose Burbank has something in the water that makes people better animators? I'm fed up of people who think only WDFA can produce "masterpeice" animation.

You can critisise the animation of these "cheapquels" (I hate that word) but don't critisise the animators. The only reason the animation isn't upto WDFA standards is money. Bacause money equels time. And time equals quality product.

Considering Return to Neverland was made for 1/7th (yes, one seventh) the cost of Treasure Planet, I'm sure Disney Australia could produce something equal (if not better) than WDFA if given the same time and budget privileges.

The money spent on Treasure Planet was obscene. I know some of it may be due to managment. I know some of it may have been spent on purpose. But it was obscene. Disney cannot go on making animated films for that amount of money (or even half that amount on money). It just stands to reason.

Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:58 pm
by Ernest Rister
Treasure Planet's budget was half the budget of Dinosaur, and 2/3 that of Tarzan. Glen Keanne is on record stating that the penny-pinching he witnessed during the making of Treasure Planet set a new standard for executive interference. Treasure Planet failed because the film was made for the wrong audience -- young male tweens and teens. Male Tweeners and Teens have been told their whole lives that animated films are "for kids" -- young men want to put aside their childhood and be seen as men. That's why the charge of being "immature" has such a sting in High School.

It is socially unsafe for American teenagers to be "into" Disney or Disney animation. Anime is "cool" because it is adult (nudity, graphic violence, etc.). Disney animation is seen as "for kids", hence, it is about as safe for a American teenage male to come to school wearing a dress as it is for them to praise a "Disney cartoon".

And yet, here was Disney making a film aimed at American teenage males. Just like Don Bluth with Titan A.E. (flop) and Dreamworks with Sinbad (flop). For an animated film to "go over", it must cast as wide a net as possible. Disney must target everyone, not a narrow market. Disney knows that the largest segment of the movie-going audience is teenage males, and so they tried to make a film for that audience. But these same people didn't even show up for Final Fantasy: the Spirits Within. Making animation for this target age group is extreme folly. Treasure Planet, Final Fantasy, Titan AE, Sinbad -- none of these were terrible, they were simply made for a target audience that had no interest in them in the first place.

It's not the $100 million that Disney spent on Treasure Planet that is obscene -- what's obscene is the fact that the modern Disney executives apparently do not understand the audience for animation in the first place.

Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2004 5:16 pm
by chrisrose
chrisrose wrote:Yup. That's what I say, alright! All the low-budget cheapquels produced as quickly as possible by assembly-line animators in other countries who don't have the time (or inclination, probably) to get inside the characters skin and act (like the Nine Old Men and other truly great animators try to do) - all these cheapquels are crappy.
2099net wrote:So you think it's the fault of the animators. How insulting. I suppose Burbank has something in the water that makes people better animators? I'm fed up of people who think only WDFA can produce "masterpeice" animation.

No I didn't say it was the fault of the animators. Obviously they don't have that much input or power, so how can it be their fault?
2099net wrote:You can critisise the animation of these "cheapquels" (I hate that word) but don't critisise the animators. The only reason the animation isn't upto WDFA standards is money. Bacause money equels time. And time equals quality product.
Yes that's what I said. They don't have the TIME. And when I said they probably don't have the inclination either, I wasn't insulting the animators. It just stands to reason that they aren't as emotionally invested in the characters they're animating as the Nine Old Men (for instance) were. I'm not saying they're BAD animators. I'm saying, why should they care and try to get inside the characters skin when these aren't their original creations? It's not like they have much input into the stories/characters. It's not like this is their own vision that they're passionate about and invested in. They're just re-drawing other animators creations and rehashing other people's stories. I'm guessing they're AWARE of the fact that they're making inferior sequels, and not works of art. Are you suggesting these cheapquels are a labour of love for them?

2099net wrote:Considering Return to Neverland was made for 1/7th (yes, one seventh) the cost of Treasure Planet, I'm sure Disney Australia could produce something equal (if not better) than WDFA if given the same time and budget privileges.
Right. I didn't say that the animators Disney hires in other countries are incapable of producing great films. They might have the skills. But I stand by what I originally said. These DTV cheapquels are NOT great films. They are crappy. I don't appreciate you twisting my words around. Me placing all the blame on the animators would be like blaming factory workers for pumping out inferior...oh I don't know...shoes or something. They're just doing their job, over-worked and under-paid. I don't blame the workers. I blame those in power who make the decisions to lower the standards and cut corners.
2099net wrote:The money spent on Treasure Planet was obscene. I know some of it may be due to managment. I know some of it may have been spent on purpose. But it was obscene. Disney cannot go on making animated films for that amount of money (or even half that amount on money). It just stands to reason.

Didn't you just say that money equals time and time equals quality product? And now you're condoning Disney NOT spending money on animated films? So basically you're agreeing with me that the CHEAPquels are crappy quality.

Oh and regarding an earlier post of yours...I must disagree with you that the money being saved by producing cheapquels, is then being put back into Feature Animation. How can you make that claim when Eisner has fired so many animators in order to save money? And decided to make only CGI films, again to save money. Doesn't seem like they want to put much money into their big "Event" animated films. I don't think you can justify the cheapquels by arguing that they help pay for the Great Quality animated films. Quality is suffering all around.

Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2004 7:19 pm
by Paka
2099net wrote:How you can claim this means the demand isn't there is beyond me. Did people just find themselves drawn to the theater against their will?
Funny you should say that, Netty. Because there's a grain of truth to that question, if you examine RtN's and JB2's times of release.

This period, from the beginning of January to about mid-March, is generally considered a "down time" by mainstream Hollywood - a slow, cool period between the stress of the holidays and the onslaught of, first the major spring holidays like Easter, then the beginnings of the summer film season. Many films released from January through March are usually B-film types at best - there's not a lot to be had at the box office, so put the cheapies out now. *shrug*
But anywho, Disney did the same thing with their theatrical releases of tv series adaptations or cheapquels. They proved "successful" because, not only were they so cheap to make that even weak returns would have made money, but because they had little in the way of competition from other "family" films. Return to Neverland came out when Snow Dogs was a month old, Jimmy Neutron was two months old, and the weak Big Fat Liar was losing audiences fast at a week old. The only family film of arguable quality that was out at the time was Beauty and the Beast on the IMAX; but it was a re-released old film, limited to only 68 theatres, and was nearly as old, release-wise, as Jimmy Neutron. And there would be no threat from Ice Age for a full four weeks.
So, the "down time" of the year is actually a good niche for low-budget films to fill in - since the lethargic returns mean profit, and the lack of competition ensures they'll be seen by undistinguishing families. So, in addition to Return to Neverland, the other low-budget, poor-quality family films out at the time - Big Fat Liar and Snow Dogs (sorry, indianajp!), made a profit as well.

Hell, it gets even worse a year after. If you want evidence that families are pretty desperate for new entertainment in the Jan-March period, look at Kangaroo Jack. This absolute abomination of a film had a #1 opening weekend, and turned quite a tidy profit before its run ended. And that has to be one of the poorest excuses for a family film ever made. The talk show Late Night with Conan O'Brien even bashed it for a whole week by including unflattering KJ references in their skits and monologues.
So, when a "family film" as terrible as Kangaroo Jack can turn a profit in that down time (I worked at a theatre during that time - pretty much the only patrons we were getting were for KJ), you know Jungle Book 2 would when it arrived on the scene exactly a year after Return to Neverland - smack-dab in the middle of February.
It's kind of like the "there's nothing else good on" syndrome that happens when you watch tv. You'll end up watching crap just because it's on. And that's what happened with these oft-referenced cheapquels - they came out when all the good holiday films were old and seen, and before the major spring-summer films hit the market.

So, if Disney wanted to squeeze as much money and promotion out of those films as they could, they succeeded in spades. Preying upon the ignorance and desperation of a plebeian public. :roll:

Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:19 am
by 2099net
chrisrose wrote:
2099net wrote:The money spent on Treasure Planet was obscene. I know some of it may be due to managment. I know some of it may have been spent on purpose. But it was obscene. Disney cannot go on making animated films for that amount of money (or even half that amount on money). It just stands to reason.

Didn't you just say that money equals time and time equals quality product? And now you're condoning Disney NOT spending money on animated films? So basically you're agreeing with me that the CHEAPquels are crappy quality.

Oh and regarding an earlier post of yours...I must disagree with you that the money being saved by producing cheapquels, is then being put back into Feature Animation. How can you make that claim when Eisner has fired so many animators in order to save money? And decided to make only CGI films, again to save money. Doesn't seem like they want to put much money into their big "Event" animated films. I don't think you can justify the cheapquels by arguing that they help pay for the Great Quality animated films. Quality is suffering all around.
A few of the sequels are crappy quality. Primarily they're "sequels" that I wouldn't label as such. Such as Belle's Magical World and Tarzan and Jane. Also a few of the "proper" sequels have been poor. I can only guess at what must have been going on behind the scenes for Hunchback 2 - from the normally reliable Disney Tokyo.

Most of the sequels are average - average animation and average stories.

But there's more to enjoying an animation than the actual quality of the animation. I think Return to Neverland is better than the original Peter Pan because it actually has a story with a beginning, middle and an end. Scamp's Adventure and Patch's London Adventure are all of above average quality too. And all three of the sequels I've just mentioned have animation well above the current standards (television and most non-disney movie animation).

As for the money argument. Of course the sequels need more money spent on them if they are to achive WDFA quality. It's unfair to do a like-to-like comparison when the playing fields aren't level. However, did Treasure Planet really need the reported $140m spent on it? People have to have a little common sense. Disney could produce the best animated film ever and spend $300m on it. A true epic and a true work of art. It doesn't mean the $300m is justified or ultimately worth it. Even the commentary on the Lion King DVD keeps mentioning areas the filmmakers had to cut back on (mainly effects) to keep the budget down.

Fantasia 2000 took 2 years to go into profit. I believe The Emperor's New Groove took 4 and needed television sales to be accounted before turning a profit. Atlantis underperformed (I have no profit figures for this) and I doubt Treasure Planet is in profit yet. Only Lilo and Stitch made a profit in a reasonable period of time. Ultimately Disney may have been better off putting the money used to make these films into a high interest bank account. A company expects sizable returns on its investments. That's not belittling the art. It's a fact. (Most 'art' performances in the world today - such as ballet and opera have to rely on state aid. It doesn't make them any less artistic, but it makes them unprofitable. Poor returns do not mean lower quality "art").

All of the profits from the sequels go into the big melting pot. Some (most?) of the money may just fund more sequels, but any additional input to the studio helps. So yes, I do maintain the money from the so-called "cheapquels" have helped to keep WDFA alive. Because despite this "losing" period, we've still had Feature Animation films made, with Feature Animation budgets. What's more, we've had expensive live action films like Pirates of the Caribbean ($125m) - a massive gamble (media wisdom was Pirate movies don't sell). I'm sure these investments were justified by Disney's overall revenue returns - including their DTV division.

As for the traditional animation shut-down and CGI start-up. Who can say if this would happen with the sequels or not. Dreamworks is doing the same. They're (in theory) cheaper (I've not seen this in practice though) and they are popular.

I still think the biggest problem is the easy availability of animation on TV more than a handful (as that's all it is) of DTV sequels of mixed quality. Have you seen the latest news on Animated-News? ( http://www.animated-news.com/archives/00000602.html ) Stunts like that, more than a small number of animated "movies" does more to "devalue" theatrical animation in the eyes of the public; Toon Disney, Cartoon Network, Jetix... Cartoons are available 24 hours a day, 365 days a week. (Oh, and by the way, these cartoon channels are one example of how the media has changed since Walt's day, when the only cartoons on tv were almost exclusively limited animation Hanna-Barbera or re-released cinema shorts). I also think computer games which give the player the ability to "be" the "cartoon character" is another contribution to animation's devaluing.

I don't claim the DTV's have no effect on the public's perception, but I think a lot of people here are overstating their importance and influence given the current state of multi-media. After all, we all know that if "Home on the Range" is successful, there will be a animated series, constantly in syndication, which will get much more media exposure than a DTV sequel.

Paka, you raise an interesting point. But then the question has to be "Why doesn't Disney open one of their feature animated films at this time of year themselves? Would it not be guarenteed to score big box office?"

Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2004 4:00 am
by Ernest Rister
"But there's more to enjoying an animation than the actual quality of the animation."

Hence the popularity of alot of anime titles.

"I think Return to Neverland is better than the original Peter Pan because it actually has a story with a beginning, middle and an end."

(cough! sputter!)

Walt Disney's Peter Pan doesn't have a beginning, a middle, and an end? That's a unique opinion. Please elaborate.

"Scamp's Adventure and Patch's London Adventure are all of above average quality too. And all three of the sequels I've just mentioned have animation well above the current standards (television and most non-disney movie animation)."

I refuse to be a party to making sequels to the films of dead artists who refused to make sequels to their films. The only animated features that Walt wanted continued beyond original release were Fantasia and Saludos Amigos. I think making a sequel to Disney's interpretation of Peter Pan - complete with actors trying to mimic the original voice artists - is as morally wrong as making a sequel to Citizen Kane, with people in make-up trying to resemble Welles, Cotton, and Moorehead. It's like making a Casablanca 2 using computer technology to replicate Bogart. Its morally wrong. It's artistic theft. I don't CARE about the revenue stream of the consumer products division, ESEPCIALLY from a company as wildly diverse in their revenue streams as the modern Disney company. This is nothing more than exploitation of the Disney legacy - pure and simple. Strip-mining classic works of tremendous cutltural import for a cheap, quick buck. Disney can make cheapquels to all the modern Disney films they want. Go ahead and make Lion King V and Aladdin Part XII. Just stay the hell away from making cheapquels to the films of DEAD ARTISTS.

"As for the money argument. Of course the sequels need more money spent on them if they are to achive WDFA quality. It's unfair to do a like-to-like comparison when the playing fields aren't level. However, did Treasure Planet really need the reported $140m spent on it?"

$100 million for production, $40 million for marketing. That's still less than the $170 million spent on Tarzan, and half that of the $200 million spent on the woeful Dinosaur. Dinosaur should have been a smash -- why did it stall out? Terrible writing. Great eye-candy, terrible dialogue. I fear Disney is going to learn the hard way that technology is not the fire that moves the masses...it's the writing and the integrity of the storytelling. Pixar rules the roost right now because their movies have integrity in spades. Not the CGI -- the quality of the writing and the storytelling are the selling points. They've combined that with great production values to create a trusted brand name. Hello! Who does that sound like?

Walt Disney.

<<People have to have a little common sense. Disney could produce the best animated film ever and spend $300m on it. A true epic and a true work of art. It doesn't mean the $300m is justified or ultimately worth it.>>

No one is arguing that Disney needs to be reckless in the manner you suggest. What people ARE arguing is that Disney is hurting their brand name by creating poor, low-budget, made-for-children sequels to their classic titles.

"Even the commentary on the Lion King DVD keeps mentioning areas the filmmakers had to cut back on (mainly effects) to keep the budget down."

And Bambi was pared down substantially after Fantasia flopped. It's not the money -- it's the integrity that's in question.

"Fantasia 2000 took 2 years to go into profit."

Fantasia 2000 was a loss leader. It was not made with an eye for profit.

"I believe The Emperor's New Groove took 4 and needed television sales to be accounted before turning a profit."

Emperor's New Groove had a $100 million budget, $25 million of which was wasted development on Kingdom of the Sun. It grossed $90 million in the US alone, and grossed $125 million in home video sales in it's first four weeks. Again, not even counting the rest of the world markets.

"Atlantis underperformed (I have no profit figures for this)"

$100 million budget, $60 million gross in US markets, twice that in world markets, long before home video came into play.

"Only Lilo and Stitch made a profit in a reasonable period of time."

It outgrossed Spielberg's Minority Report. A year later, Eisner was pulling the plug on hand-drawn animation.

"Ultimately Disney may have been better off putting the money used to make these films into a high interest bank account."

No -- modern film companies make their living now maintaining and building a library of titles. Film companies measure their individual year based on how well their new films are received, but it is the exploitation of existing catalog titles that now makes up the largest bulk of profit for the big five film studios.

"A company expects sizable returns on its investments. That's not belittling the art. It's a fact. (Most 'art' performances in the world today - such as ballet and opera have to rely on state aid. It doesn't make them any less artistic, but it makes them unprofitable. Poor returns do not mean lower quality "art")."

If Disney wants a return on their investment, they need to stop glutting the marketplace and they need to return to artistic integrity in their work...no "for the kids" sequences and characters in the middle of serious films like Hunchback, Pocahontas, Atlantis, Mulan and Tarzan.

"All of the profits from the sequels go into the big melting pot."

Like the ESPN profits? Like the Theme Park profits? Like the Cruise Ship profits? Like the publishing arms? Music arms? Miramax? Ad revenues from their multiple cable channels? Computer software? Hotels? Home video? And on and on and on? Is THAT the pot you're talking about?

"Some (most?) of the money may just fund more sequels, but any additional input to the studio helps. So yes, I do maintain the money from the so-called "cheapquels" have helped to keep WDFA alive."

And I maintain that the glut of crap has helped KILL the hand-drawn traditions of WDFA.

"Because despite this "losing" period, we've still had Feature Animation films made, with Feature Animation budgets."

And we're looking at the last one coming up in a few weeks -- Home on the Range. WDFA riding off into the sunset in favor of CGI. Fat lot of good those cheapquels did.

"What's more, we've had expensive live action films like Pirates of the Caribbean ($125m) - a massive gamble (media wisdom was Pirate movies don't sell)."

Massive gamble? If you're looking at making your money back in the North American market alone - maybe. But filmmaking is now a world market, and the average budget for a studio feature film is around $75 million now. $125 million sounds steep, but only if you're trying to recoup all your money in the North American sector, not even considering home video and ancilliary markets. I think you've been reading too many issues of Entertainment Weekly.

"As for the traditional animation shut-down and CGI start-up. Who can say if this would happen with the sequels or not. Dreamworks is doing the same. They're (in theory) cheaper (I've not seen this in practice though) and they are popular."

DreamWorks is popular? Sinbad? Road to El Dorado? Spirit? Emperor's New Groove outgrossed all three.

"Paka, you raise an interesting point. But then the question has to be "Why doesn't Disney open one of their feature animated films at this time of year themselves? Would it not be guarenteed to score big box office?"...

See the coming opening of Home on the Range.

Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2004 4:50 am
by 2099net
Ernest Rister wrote:"I think Return to Neverland is better than the original Peter Pan because it actually has a story with a beginning, middle and an end."

(cough! sputter!)

Walt Disney's Peter Pan doesn't have a beginning, a middle, and an end? That's a unique opinion. Please elaborate.
I've discussed this on the board before, so I'll be brief. The beginning. What's all that with the shadow? What does it have to do with the rest of the film? Peter enters the film on a plot-point, for no real reason, and it's never mentioned again. The middle. What's with all the indian stuff? What's with Hook kidnapping Tiger Lilly? What does this have to do with the beginning or the end of the movie. Is it needed to tell the story? The end. Wendy decides she wants to move out of the nursary, something she was dead against at the start of the film. But why? What aspect of neverland changed here mind? Is there even any indication in the rest of the film what could of changed her mind? I'll probably write a DIScussions on the two Peter Pan movies in the near future.(I can guess you don't want to read my Alice in Wonderland DIScussion article!)

Almost everything in Return to Neverland has a reason for being there. Jane has a proper arc. The story's beginning ties in not only with Jane's arc but also the ending. It says something important about growing up. I still says Return to Neverland is a much better "story" with a much better moral or message (come to think of it, what is Peter Pan's moral?), but that's only my opinion (and I may be in the minority, but I'm not the only one who holds it)

I've skipped the rest, not because I didn't read it, but I can see we are never going to agree.
Ernest Rister wrote: $100 million for production, $40 million for marketing. That's still less than the $170 million spent on Tarzan, and half that of the $200 million spent on the woeful Dinosaur. Dinosaur should have been a smash -- why did it stall out? Terrible writing. Great eye-candy, terrible dialogue. I fear Disney is going to learn the hard way that technology is not the fire that moves the masses...it's the writing and the integrity of the storytelling. Pixar rules the roost right now because their movies have integrity in spades. Not the CGI -- the quality of the writing and the storytelling are the selling points. They've combined that with great production values to create a trusted brand name. Hello! Who does that sound like?
So you say Treasure Planet has $40m on advertising? I'm sure that's more than Jungle Book 2 got and hardly Disney wanting to "bury the movie" like some have stated.

Dinosaur cost as much as it did because there was considerable investment in the technology (didn't Dinosaur create the "Secret Lab"?). Of course Eisner in a classic piece of mis-management shut the division down soon after Dinosaurs failure. I bet the secret lab would come in handy for the Pirates of the Caribbean and its upcoming sequels eh Eisner? (See I can critisise him :)).
Ernest Rister wrote:
"Fantasia 2000 took 2 years to go into profit."

Fantasia 2000 was a loss leader. It was not made with an eye for profit.

"I believe The Emperor's New Groove took 4 and needed television sales to be accounted before turning a profit."

Emperor's New Groove had a $100 million budget, $25 million of which was wasted development on Kingdom of the Sun. It grossed $90 million in the US alone, and grossed $125 million in home video sales in it's first four weeks. Again, not even counting the rest of the world markets.

"Atlantis underperformed (I have no profit figures for this)"

$100 million budget, $60 million gross in US markets, twice that in world markets, long before home video came into play.

"Only Lilo and Stitch made a profit in a reasonable period of time."

It outgrossed Spielberg's Minority Report. A year later, Eisner was pulling the plug on hand-drawn animation.
Grosses are not profits. Of the $60m in US markets for Atlantis, Disney would be lucky to get half. Even less for international releases. Home Video sales have even less profit in the gross. The manufacturer, distributor, retailer and talent all get a cut (the retailer gets the second biggest which is why so many DVDs can be heavily discounted).

But yes, I agree that "unofficially" these films likely turned in a profit in from cinema releases alone, especially when all the associated merchandising sales are taken into account. The thing is Disney accounts run differently.
Ernest Rister wrote: "Ultimately Disney may have been better off putting the money used to make these films into a high interest bank account."

No -- modern film companies make their living now maintaining and building a library of titles. Film companies measure their individual year based on how well their new films are received, but it is the exploitation of existing catalog titles that now makes up the largest bulk of profit for the big five film studios.
Actually, most modern film companies make their living by maintaining and building a library of titles and characters and concepts that they can merchandise (which includes franchises and sequels). It's just the way it is today. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it's how the business is.

More snipping
Ernest Rister wrote:"All of the profits from the sequels go into the big melting pot."

Like the ESPN profits? Like the Theme Park profits? Like the Cruise Ship profits? Like the publishing arms? Music arms? Miramax? Ad revenues from their multiple cable channels? Computer software? Hotels? Home video? And on and on and on? Is THAT the pot you're talking about?
All of the income does go into the melting pot and makes Disney's quarterly reports look more (or less) healthy. Decisions are made on these quarterly reports. Of course, most of the theme park profits are probably used to reinvest in the parks, likewise the ESPN, Cruise and other profit centers. However, a general healthy profit does enable more freedom when it comes to making decisions for major investments.

More snipping
Ernest Rister wrote:"What's more, we've had expensive live action films like Pirates of the Caribbean ($125m) - a massive gamble (media wisdom was Pirate movies don't sell)."

Massive gamble? If you're looking at making your money back in the North American market alone - maybe. But filmmaking is now a world market, and the average budget for a studio feature film is around $75 million now. $125 million sounds steep, but only if you're trying to recoup all your money in the North American sector, not even considering home video and ancilliary markets. I think you've been reading too many issues of Entertainment Weekly.
Pirates was a gamble. Remember all the negative remarks about the film before it was made. "A film from a theme park ride? What ever next?" In fact, some people compared such an origin to being "worse than the sequels".

If $125 isn't such a gamble, why don't all films cost $125m? Even today, most films don't make their money back for over 5 years.
Ernest Rister wrote:"As for the traditional animation shut-down and CGI start-up. Who can say if this would happen with the sequels or not. Dreamworks is doing the same. They're (in theory) cheaper (I've not seen this in practice though) and they are popular."

DreamWorks is popular? Sinbad? Road to El Dorado? Spirit? Emperor's New Groove outgrossed all three.
No I mean CGI is popular. Not Dreamworks. What else could explain Shrek's success? (Which I find way more offensive than most Disney sequels)

I notice you haven't addressed my general television point. Television animation is something Walt never had to compete with in his day. Do you agree the glut on Disney (and non Disney) cartoons has some bearing on animated film's box office takings?
Ernest Rister wrote:"Paka, you raise an interesting point. But then the question has to be "Why doesn't Disney open one of their feature animated films at this time of year themselves? Would it not be guarenteed to score big box office?"...

See the coming opening of Home on the Range.
So why has it taken Disney so long to do this?