Iger sucks
-
SpringHeelJack
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3673
- Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:20 pm
- Location: Boston, MA
- Contact:
Don't call them cheapquels? Why shouldn't I? That's what they were, cheap sequels made with half the talent,soul, and budget a sequel needs to be worthy. Only the Lion King 1 & 1/2 in my opinion had animation comparable to the original, but the rest (story, score etc), still didn't quite justify it.
-
ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
-
blackcauldron85
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 16705
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:54 am
- Gender: Female
- Contact:
So, I'm reading "Mouse Tracks", a book about the history of Disney's record labels. Yesterday I read a section on Annette, and it mentioned how she was the first person to be heavily marketing by Disney, with paper dolls and whatnot...so, even back in the day, Disney heavily marketed their talent. Just saying.
-
Loomis
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 6357
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:44 pm
- Location: Sydney, Australia ... where there is no Magic Kingdom :(
- Contact:
I think we should put them both in a steel-cage death match. That would decide who was the best/worst. Not practical, sure, but conclusive.
Behind the Panels - Comic book news, reviews and podcast
The Reel Bits - All things film
Twitter - Follow me on Twitter
The Reel Bits - All things film
Twitter - Follow me on Twitter
You have to understand a huge commercial giant like Disney cannot have its path altered in mid-course. Disney as a company is like one of those huge oil tankers which require over half a mile to turn around.
The fact that Pixar has been bought-in and has, to all extents and purposes, the new Walt Disney Feature Animation is the biggest change one could hope for. I'm pretty convinced that that would happen regardless of who was running the company - it's perfectly clear Pixar and Disney are the ideal match, its also pretty clear everybody else did, especially both Eisner and Jobs. Ever wonder why Jobs' was so vocal about his Disney negotiations but said nothing at all about negotiations with other studios? Ever wonder why although a few, short meetings between Jobs/Pixar and other studios were reported, no information leaked out, yet Disney's meetings seemed to be reported/leaked/commented upon regularly? To me, it's inconceivable that Pixar were ever even considering another studio partner (but obviously had to do some due diligence for back-up options.
[Warning "rant" ahead - skip if you want]
It just appears that Eisner was unwilling to pay what Jobs wanted, and so the excessive whining began in order to destabilize Eisner and to a certain extent even Disney. As a result, Eisner was toppled, Disney (arguably) overpaid for Pixar and with Jobs' excessive Disney shares and position on the board, he gets Disney to help build his iTunes empire (Disney properties are always first to be added when new iTunes formats are introduced). Thankfully, it appears iTunes isn't going to be the digital delivery monopoly people were predicting a few years back.
[Rant over]
So in short, I don't really credit Iger with the Pixar buyout. I accept that he may have given Pixar more "control" than Eisner did (I'm particularly thinking of Lasseter's imagineering job) but let's face it, no matter who was in-charge, the Pixar crew would have got significant management of what was Disney Feature Animation. You don't spend large amounts of money, and then fail to use the assets you've bought in.
Going back to my first point, while I wouldn't expect Disney to change overnight under Iger in that I would expect its television, film and home video divisions to be more or less similar to what they were, I would have expected some smaller, low budgeted, quirky stuff to have turned up by now. After all, why not? High School Musical was basically a low budgeted quirkly television movie which unexpectedly became huge.
Everything now, absolutely everything, seems to nothing more than a formula.
All the Disney channel shows are formulaic - look at the Disney Channel shows... they're interchangeable and from what I understand, even the young actors are interchangeable turning up on each others shows now and then.
Their home video releases are formulaic and (sadly) appear to be slapped together with little thought or enthusiasm. I'm sure between us, we could easily guesstimate the contents of seven out of every ten DVDs to be released for the rest of this year.
I know this will offend some people, but even their "big" return to hand drawn animation is formulaic - I think The Princess and the Frog has huge potential to be a flop simply because of its nature, people are expecting far to much from it. Look at all the posts on this forum about the film. In this case, that fact that is it perceived as being close to Disney's golden formula, may backfire as people already seem to be overtly emotionally invested in the 'idea' and 'concept' of the film, they're already effectively writing the film in their head. Expectations are high, and high expectations are rarely met - even if the film is great - it still will disappoint those expecting more.
I don't think Iger has really done anything to set him apart from Eisner. In fact, Disney today, to me, feels more corporate and formulaic. I know some will pounce on DisneyNature as being something new from Iger, but really, its just Disney wanting to grab some of the huge success that came from Planet Earth and March of the Penguins. The initial release from DisneyNature makes this blatant - a bought in fusion of Planet Earth and March of the Penguins.
DTVs haven't finished - they've just changed their focus - If I understand correctly the Tinker bell DTVs (which supposedly Lasseter didn't want done) have already had a fifth title added. The Buddy franchise is storming ahead on DTVs - so much so that even now, less than halfway through the year they've announced their Christmas Buddies movie.
To some extent, the DTVs to Disney animated classics had come to a semi-natural end anyway and probably required a rest. There was only a few titles without sequels (although the lack of an Aristocats or Rescuers DTV sequel/prequel does seem illogical)
Disney under Iger isn't looking to either the future or more importantly, to it's past. It is only looking to its present, and seeking to duplicate that, again and again and again. It doesn't matter if we get tired of what they do, every three or four years there'll be a new audience. Just as Hillary Duff all but vanished, so will Miley Cyrus or the Jonas Brothers - because Disney's prime concern is creating and selling fads.
The fact that Pixar has been bought-in and has, to all extents and purposes, the new Walt Disney Feature Animation is the biggest change one could hope for. I'm pretty convinced that that would happen regardless of who was running the company - it's perfectly clear Pixar and Disney are the ideal match, its also pretty clear everybody else did, especially both Eisner and Jobs. Ever wonder why Jobs' was so vocal about his Disney negotiations but said nothing at all about negotiations with other studios? Ever wonder why although a few, short meetings between Jobs/Pixar and other studios were reported, no information leaked out, yet Disney's meetings seemed to be reported/leaked/commented upon regularly? To me, it's inconceivable that Pixar were ever even considering another studio partner (but obviously had to do some due diligence for back-up options.
[Warning "rant" ahead - skip if you want]
It just appears that Eisner was unwilling to pay what Jobs wanted, and so the excessive whining began in order to destabilize Eisner and to a certain extent even Disney. As a result, Eisner was toppled, Disney (arguably) overpaid for Pixar and with Jobs' excessive Disney shares and position on the board, he gets Disney to help build his iTunes empire (Disney properties are always first to be added when new iTunes formats are introduced). Thankfully, it appears iTunes isn't going to be the digital delivery monopoly people were predicting a few years back.
[Rant over]
So in short, I don't really credit Iger with the Pixar buyout. I accept that he may have given Pixar more "control" than Eisner did (I'm particularly thinking of Lasseter's imagineering job) but let's face it, no matter who was in-charge, the Pixar crew would have got significant management of what was Disney Feature Animation. You don't spend large amounts of money, and then fail to use the assets you've bought in.
Going back to my first point, while I wouldn't expect Disney to change overnight under Iger in that I would expect its television, film and home video divisions to be more or less similar to what they were, I would have expected some smaller, low budgeted, quirky stuff to have turned up by now. After all, why not? High School Musical was basically a low budgeted quirkly television movie which unexpectedly became huge.
Everything now, absolutely everything, seems to nothing more than a formula.
All the Disney channel shows are formulaic - look at the Disney Channel shows... they're interchangeable and from what I understand, even the young actors are interchangeable turning up on each others shows now and then.
Their home video releases are formulaic and (sadly) appear to be slapped together with little thought or enthusiasm. I'm sure between us, we could easily guesstimate the contents of seven out of every ten DVDs to be released for the rest of this year.
I know this will offend some people, but even their "big" return to hand drawn animation is formulaic - I think The Princess and the Frog has huge potential to be a flop simply because of its nature, people are expecting far to much from it. Look at all the posts on this forum about the film. In this case, that fact that is it perceived as being close to Disney's golden formula, may backfire as people already seem to be overtly emotionally invested in the 'idea' and 'concept' of the film, they're already effectively writing the film in their head. Expectations are high, and high expectations are rarely met - even if the film is great - it still will disappoint those expecting more.
I don't think Iger has really done anything to set him apart from Eisner. In fact, Disney today, to me, feels more corporate and formulaic. I know some will pounce on DisneyNature as being something new from Iger, but really, its just Disney wanting to grab some of the huge success that came from Planet Earth and March of the Penguins. The initial release from DisneyNature makes this blatant - a bought in fusion of Planet Earth and March of the Penguins.
DTVs haven't finished - they've just changed their focus - If I understand correctly the Tinker bell DTVs (which supposedly Lasseter didn't want done) have already had a fifth title added. The Buddy franchise is storming ahead on DTVs - so much so that even now, less than halfway through the year they've announced their Christmas Buddies movie.
To some extent, the DTVs to Disney animated classics had come to a semi-natural end anyway and probably required a rest. There was only a few titles without sequels (although the lack of an Aristocats or Rescuers DTV sequel/prequel does seem illogical)
Disney under Iger isn't looking to either the future or more importantly, to it's past. It is only looking to its present, and seeking to duplicate that, again and again and again. It doesn't matter if we get tired of what they do, every three or four years there'll be a new audience. Just as Hillary Duff all but vanished, so will Miley Cyrus or the Jonas Brothers - because Disney's prime concern is creating and selling fads.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
-
Flanger-Hanger
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3746
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:59 pm
- Location: S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters
Just some thoughts from me:
- Iger apparently listen to Lassater's complaints about the upkeep of WDW and saw for himself these issues while visiting. Of course I can't confirm this second hand tidbit, but if it's true, it at least shows that Iger is willing to listen despite not really begin much of a creative force. If Disney had a creative/business executive model, I wouldn't mind seeing Iger in the "Roy" spot, but it's kind of sad to see only him and not someone else. History has shown that running Walt Disney Productions/Company is a two person job.
- DTVs hurt the brand of Disney animation. Plain and simple, whether you liked them or not, they did. It's one of the points brought up in the documentary "Dream On Silly Dreamer".
- Disney Channel tweens starts isn't the issue, it's that it's only tween stars and fads. There is no variety in programing and even Disney has deemed their first cable channel only suitable for girls ages 7-14 by creating a separate channel for boys. The fact that Disney Stores only sell this tween stuff and nothing really for adults (even if they want it) is not good.
- Iger apparently listen to Lassater's complaints about the upkeep of WDW and saw for himself these issues while visiting. Of course I can't confirm this second hand tidbit, but if it's true, it at least shows that Iger is willing to listen despite not really begin much of a creative force. If Disney had a creative/business executive model, I wouldn't mind seeing Iger in the "Roy" spot, but it's kind of sad to see only him and not someone else. History has shown that running Walt Disney Productions/Company is a two person job.
- DTVs hurt the brand of Disney animation. Plain and simple, whether you liked them or not, they did. It's one of the points brought up in the documentary "Dream On Silly Dreamer".
- Disney Channel tweens starts isn't the issue, it's that it's only tween stars and fads. There is no variety in programing and even Disney has deemed their first cable channel only suitable for girls ages 7-14 by creating a separate channel for boys. The fact that Disney Stores only sell this tween stuff and nothing really for adults (even if they want it) is not good.
DTV's didn't hurt anything people that create stuff like dream on silly dreamer are morons. Even if those sequels had been done as feature animation people would still gripe. Everyone here makes me think I am wrong about DTVs No one complained about the Aladdin or TLM sequels to my knowledge.
Walt's dead and his never coming back. The company can do whatever it wants.
It's okay for everyone else's Disney dreams to come true but not mine? sad
Walt's dead and his never coming back. The company can do whatever it wants.
It's okay for everyone else's Disney dreams to come true but not mine? sad
-
Flanger-Hanger
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3746
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:59 pm
- Location: S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters
The peopled interviewed in that documentary were Disney feature animators themselves including much respected Andres Deja. They shared the reactions they got from the public from the DTVs and their negative opinions on them.
Just because you personally liked them did not mean they created a huge disrespect for Disney animation in the eyes of the public (which they did, I'm sorry if that hurts you).
I'm glad you think you came blame Iger for all your Disney woes but the pixe dust you snort will never change the fact that many things are/were out of his control and cannot be blamed for.
Mr. Toad's Wild Ride closed several years before Iger came aboard, and that you blame him for that action while ignoring the many issues that exist with WDW in it's current state (mainly, attraction and show upkeep not begin what they should be on top of numerous other problems discussed at length on other sites) discredits any personal whining you do on this site.
Just because you personally liked them did not mean they created a huge disrespect for Disney animation in the eyes of the public (which they did, I'm sorry if that hurts you).
I'm glad you think you came blame Iger for all your Disney woes but the pixe dust you snort will never change the fact that many things are/were out of his control and cannot be blamed for.
Mr. Toad's Wild Ride closed several years before Iger came aboard, and that you blame him for that action while ignoring the many issues that exist with WDW in it's current state (mainly, attraction and show upkeep not begin what they should be on top of numerous other problems discussed at length on other sites) discredits any personal whining you do on this site.
-
thesnakeguy
- Member
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:40 am
Yes, the company can do whatever it wants. It can hurt its business by producing cheapquels if we want and Ultimate Disney has been kind enough to give us a forum where people can express there unhappiness with that poor business decision. Likewise, people like you can argue how great they are.bradhig wrote:DTV's didn't hurt anything people that create stuff like dream on silly dreamer are morons. Even if those sequels had been done as feature animation people would still gripe. Everyone here makes me think I am wrong about DTVs No one complained about the Aladdin or TLM sequels to my knowledge.
Walt's dead and his never coming back. The company can do whatever it wants.
It's okay for everyone else's Disney dreams to come true but not mine? sad
Stop playing the victim. You have every right to express your opinion, but you don't have the right for everyone to agree with that opinion. My Disney dream is for Disney to make nothing but quality stuff and to know that if something says Disney on the label that I should buy it because if it says Disney it must be good. I am sorry my dream conflicts with yours. Unfortunately your dream has been winning. You got your Cinderella II churned out and your dream of a sequel has been fullfilled. It is my dream that hasn't been. I am not against sequels I am against Cheapquels. No one is complaining that Toy Story III is coming out.
The reason Pixar has been so successful is because they always put the story first and the back it up with a quality production. Disney used to be that way. Hopefully they are re-dedicating themselves to that vision and we can expect nothing but quality from Disney in the future.
Lots of people complained about the Aladdin and Little Mermaid sequels.
-
singerguy04
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2591
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:40 pm
- Location: The Land of Lincoln
I'm not directly opposed to creating sequels, but i wish that some of them would've been done with more support. In my opinion the DTV's fall into 3 categories; The ones that made absolutely no sense to make, The ones that came close to being enjoyable but still fall short, and the ones that were great ideas and I think deserve more recognition.
In my opinion films like Cinderella II, Tarzan II, Fox and the Hound 2, and Beauty and the Beast: Belle's Magical World should have never existed and therefor fall into the nonsense catigory. With these films more than anything their story makes no sense. Given that Cinderella II and BatB:BMW weren't exactly made to be sequels in the way they were, but they are still shotty stories and the fact that they weren't picked up as a series on their own only suggests to me that they wouldn't be good films on their own to begin with. Tarzan II and FatH 2, had ok animation but they are just dumb concepts to begin with. I don't agree with anyone who argues that the DTV's somehow hurt the originals, but if there were to be any films they could use for that argument these would be the 2 i'd have no argument for.
Most of the DTV's fall into the came close but still didn't reach their full potential catigory. The Hunchback of Notre Dame II comes to mind especially. All in all, it's story wasn't horrible and the music was so so but what absolutely killed it was the lack in quality of animation. The originaly is by far one of the most beautiful films Disney has ever turned out and to follow it up with what looks like 3rd grade drawings of Notre Dame is just pathetic. The Return of Jafar suffers from this problem as well except the story and music are awesome in my opinion. Another pair of good examples are Bambi II and Ariel's Beginning. They have great animation (in fact I pretty much had no faith in the DTV's until I got Bambi II) and the music really isn't bad either, but their stories by far were some of the biggest disappointments I've had with Disney. There seemed to be great story ideas hitting people in the face because they were so obvious but were simply ignored. Why the creators of Ariel's Beginning didn't include Ursula at all is something that will always puzzle me. Some other examples are Brother Bear 2, Pocahontas II: Journey to a New World, and The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea.
Now for the ones that in my opinion are excellent examples of why the DTV's should've been allowed to continue. Cinderella III: A Twist in Time, The Lion King sequels, and Kronk's New Groove. These are all films that I either watch as much as the originals or more than the originals. They all have good stories behind them, comparable animation to either the originals or to some of the better animation we have now-a-days, and some fun music. Cinderella III is a film I very much enjoy. Part of why I enjoy it is at it's discredit because some parts are just ridiculous, but for the most part I found it very enjoyable with lots of heart and introduces a new side to Cinderella that no one was able to see in the original. As a character I feel it made her more attractive, especially for younger audiences. The Lion King sequels overall speak for themselves in my opinion. Kronk's New Groove probably rose some of your eyebrows but I feel that out of all the sequels this one matches the original the closest in spirit.
There are a lot of films that I left out, but that's just because these are the ones that comes to mind first and I guess I feel the strongest about. Overall my opinion of the DTV's is that they never were a horrible thing, but many could've been done much better. I'm always going to wonder now since Cinderella III and Ariels Beginning were, despite some weaknesses, a lot stronger than most of the past DTV's what future DTV's might've done.
Now Eisner vs. Iger.... I don't either were horrible. Sure both have made some decisions that aren't that great, but do we honestly think they are going to please everyone with every decision they make. Let's not forget that beyond us fans there is also the company and everyone involved with the company that these men have/had to please. I can't imagine the amount of pressure that is on them for that. We're also going through a recession which is something that the company has never had to experience before. Although I don't like Hannah Montana at all, I don't think that it's a horrible idea that Disney has put this much focus on it. Sure it wont last forever, but it sells now so why not milk it?
In my opinion films like Cinderella II, Tarzan II, Fox and the Hound 2, and Beauty and the Beast: Belle's Magical World should have never existed and therefor fall into the nonsense catigory. With these films more than anything their story makes no sense. Given that Cinderella II and BatB:BMW weren't exactly made to be sequels in the way they were, but they are still shotty stories and the fact that they weren't picked up as a series on their own only suggests to me that they wouldn't be good films on their own to begin with. Tarzan II and FatH 2, had ok animation but they are just dumb concepts to begin with. I don't agree with anyone who argues that the DTV's somehow hurt the originals, but if there were to be any films they could use for that argument these would be the 2 i'd have no argument for.
Most of the DTV's fall into the came close but still didn't reach their full potential catigory. The Hunchback of Notre Dame II comes to mind especially. All in all, it's story wasn't horrible and the music was so so but what absolutely killed it was the lack in quality of animation. The originaly is by far one of the most beautiful films Disney has ever turned out and to follow it up with what looks like 3rd grade drawings of Notre Dame is just pathetic. The Return of Jafar suffers from this problem as well except the story and music are awesome in my opinion. Another pair of good examples are Bambi II and Ariel's Beginning. They have great animation (in fact I pretty much had no faith in the DTV's until I got Bambi II) and the music really isn't bad either, but their stories by far were some of the biggest disappointments I've had with Disney. There seemed to be great story ideas hitting people in the face because they were so obvious but were simply ignored. Why the creators of Ariel's Beginning didn't include Ursula at all is something that will always puzzle me. Some other examples are Brother Bear 2, Pocahontas II: Journey to a New World, and The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea.
Now for the ones that in my opinion are excellent examples of why the DTV's should've been allowed to continue. Cinderella III: A Twist in Time, The Lion King sequels, and Kronk's New Groove. These are all films that I either watch as much as the originals or more than the originals. They all have good stories behind them, comparable animation to either the originals or to some of the better animation we have now-a-days, and some fun music. Cinderella III is a film I very much enjoy. Part of why I enjoy it is at it's discredit because some parts are just ridiculous, but for the most part I found it very enjoyable with lots of heart and introduces a new side to Cinderella that no one was able to see in the original. As a character I feel it made her more attractive, especially for younger audiences. The Lion King sequels overall speak for themselves in my opinion. Kronk's New Groove probably rose some of your eyebrows but I feel that out of all the sequels this one matches the original the closest in spirit.
There are a lot of films that I left out, but that's just because these are the ones that comes to mind first and I guess I feel the strongest about. Overall my opinion of the DTV's is that they never were a horrible thing, but many could've been done much better. I'm always going to wonder now since Cinderella III and Ariels Beginning were, despite some weaknesses, a lot stronger than most of the past DTV's what future DTV's might've done.
Now Eisner vs. Iger.... I don't either were horrible. Sure both have made some decisions that aren't that great, but do we honestly think they are going to please everyone with every decision they make. Let's not forget that beyond us fans there is also the company and everyone involved with the company that these men have/had to please. I can't imagine the amount of pressure that is on them for that. We're also going through a recession which is something that the company has never had to experience before. Although I don't like Hannah Montana at all, I don't think that it's a horrible idea that Disney has put this much focus on it. Sure it wont last forever, but it sells now so why not milk it?
Your dream sucks.bradhig wrote:DTV's didn't hurt anything people that create stuff like dream on silly dreamer are morons. Even if those sequels had been done as feature animation people would still gripe. Everyone here makes me think I am wrong about DTVs No one complained about the Aladdin or TLM sequels to my knowledge.
Walt's dead and his never coming back. The company can do whatever it wants.
It's okay for everyone else's Disney dreams to come true but not mine? sad
A few points I'd like to make:
1. "Dream On, Silly Dreamer" was created by animator Dan Lund. Of course when you interview such WDAS animators like Andreas Deja who were told their very style of drawing - their life force - must now be changed to computerized drawings, they will speak ill of the company (and therefore DTVs). This is a Michael Moore style documentary (and I'm a democrat, so don't get all worked up) - we think it is 'fair and balanced' - but would there not be a different spin if they interviewed animators from DisneyToon? How about the kids these films were intended for? This film seemed to mainly be disenchanted animators - so of course they'd 'prove' DTVs were hurting the theatrical features.
And did you really go in unbiased? Did you watch it thinking "this could make me like the DTVs" or did you start in thinking "this will confirm why I hate DTVs"?
2. Just an observation - there was a lot of films in the Disney canon not tapped into yet for sequels (nearly half of the released features):
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Pinocchio
Dumbo
Make Mine Music
Fun and Fancy Free
Melody Time
The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad
Alice in Wonderland
The Sword in the Stone
The AristoCats
Robin Hood
The Black Cauldron
The Great Mouse Detective
Oliver & Company
Dinosaur
Treasure Planet
Home on the Range
Chicken Little
The Wild
Meet the Robinsons
BOLT
Mind you, there were plans (these are all confirmed, not rumors):
Snow White had a spin-off in production known as "Disney's Dwarfs" - the male-oriented kin to "Disney's Fairies".
Dumbo II was in production and concept art is shown on the latest Dumbo DVD.
The AristoCats II was in production and involved an abduction on a cruise liner.
Treasure Planet was supposed to have both a sequel and TV series.
Meet the Robinsons 2: First Date was in production.
3. We never seem to acknowledge who these films are for: kids!
They aren't for Disney buffs who know the original coloring and aspect ratio of every canon film either because A) they saw it in the theater upon release or B) own the original LaserDisc/VHS. This isn't for the Disney historians who can recite the whole canon in order, and name most, if not all, of the release years. They weren't for the Disney fanatics who pay $75 to belong to the D23 club and make annual pilgrimages to Walt Disney World. They weren't for Disney hobbyists who collect Disneyana sculptures and who care who is running the company. They were for kids! Kids, who whether Aurora was pricking her finger on a spindle in the original Sleeping Beauty or chasing chickens around in Disney Princess Enchanted Tales: Follow Your Dreams, was the same princess they loved.
These films are for kids who don't understand coloring, aspect ratio, or Disney history. What they understand are characters - the recognizable Disney characters they love and adore and can't get enough of. These films are not for the Disney elitists like many at this forum, they were for kids (many who can't even type yet).
Walt Disney didn't make his films just for adults, he made them for everyone. So the fact Disney elitists beat down the films isn't right - millions of kids enjoy the DTVs, and that's their right. If you didn't like them, you should have ignored them. At the end of the day, they employed many animators at Disney who now don't have a job.
4. Who cares some were childish? Disney's attempts at adult features always pale critically and financially:
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Atlantis: The Lost Empire
Treasure Planet
... all attempted to tap into a more adult sector of Disney's fanbase and by monetary and critical standards, failed.
Even WALL-E faced a lot of complaints from parents who said their kids were bored.
I am a neophyte Disney buff - not as knowledgeable as many of you - but on my way there. I'm also a child at heart. So I like many of the DTVs. Is that so wrong of me? Many of you seem to think it is.
1. "Dream On, Silly Dreamer" was created by animator Dan Lund. Of course when you interview such WDAS animators like Andreas Deja who were told their very style of drawing - their life force - must now be changed to computerized drawings, they will speak ill of the company (and therefore DTVs). This is a Michael Moore style documentary (and I'm a democrat, so don't get all worked up) - we think it is 'fair and balanced' - but would there not be a different spin if they interviewed animators from DisneyToon? How about the kids these films were intended for? This film seemed to mainly be disenchanted animators - so of course they'd 'prove' DTVs were hurting the theatrical features.
And did you really go in unbiased? Did you watch it thinking "this could make me like the DTVs" or did you start in thinking "this will confirm why I hate DTVs"?
2. Just an observation - there was a lot of films in the Disney canon not tapped into yet for sequels (nearly half of the released features):
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Pinocchio
Dumbo
Make Mine Music
Fun and Fancy Free
Melody Time
The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad
Alice in Wonderland
The Sword in the Stone
The AristoCats
Robin Hood
The Black Cauldron
The Great Mouse Detective
Oliver & Company
Dinosaur
Treasure Planet
Home on the Range
Chicken Little
The Wild
Meet the Robinsons
BOLT
Mind you, there were plans (these are all confirmed, not rumors):
Snow White had a spin-off in production known as "Disney's Dwarfs" - the male-oriented kin to "Disney's Fairies".
Dumbo II was in production and concept art is shown on the latest Dumbo DVD.
The AristoCats II was in production and involved an abduction on a cruise liner.
Treasure Planet was supposed to have both a sequel and TV series.
Meet the Robinsons 2: First Date was in production.
3. We never seem to acknowledge who these films are for: kids!
They aren't for Disney buffs who know the original coloring and aspect ratio of every canon film either because A) they saw it in the theater upon release or B) own the original LaserDisc/VHS. This isn't for the Disney historians who can recite the whole canon in order, and name most, if not all, of the release years. They weren't for the Disney fanatics who pay $75 to belong to the D23 club and make annual pilgrimages to Walt Disney World. They weren't for Disney hobbyists who collect Disneyana sculptures and who care who is running the company. They were for kids! Kids, who whether Aurora was pricking her finger on a spindle in the original Sleeping Beauty or chasing chickens around in Disney Princess Enchanted Tales: Follow Your Dreams, was the same princess they loved.
These films are for kids who don't understand coloring, aspect ratio, or Disney history. What they understand are characters - the recognizable Disney characters they love and adore and can't get enough of. These films are not for the Disney elitists like many at this forum, they were for kids (many who can't even type yet).
Walt Disney didn't make his films just for adults, he made them for everyone. So the fact Disney elitists beat down the films isn't right - millions of kids enjoy the DTVs, and that's their right. If you didn't like them, you should have ignored them. At the end of the day, they employed many animators at Disney who now don't have a job.
4. Who cares some were childish? Disney's attempts at adult features always pale critically and financially:
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Atlantis: The Lost Empire
Treasure Planet
... all attempted to tap into a more adult sector of Disney's fanbase and by monetary and critical standards, failed.
Even WALL-E faced a lot of complaints from parents who said their kids were bored.
I am a neophyte Disney buff - not as knowledgeable as many of you - but on my way there. I'm also a child at heart. So I like many of the DTVs. Is that so wrong of me? Many of you seem to think it is.
-
Flanger-Hanger
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3746
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:59 pm
- Location: S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters
It's nice to know Neal, that you couldn't be bothered to do a search on say, Cinderella 3 and see that I liked it.
They were for kids, how nice. Doesn't that alone hurt the image the Disney is enjoyable for everyone? You're pandering to a crowd to get get a fast buck. Do these DTVs even have staying power? Never mind constancy in terms of quality.
Yes all attempts by Disney to attract adults fail. Hence why Pirates of the Caribbean was forgotten because of it's G-13 rating, why Touchstone films like Splash or Pretty Woman went nowhere and why Pleasure Island at WDW lasted 18 years. You also bring up Treasure Planet which was it's own can of worms from a marketing campaign run by Eisner during the "Save Disney" campaign that could have been better, but that's another story.
There is nothing wrong with YOU liking the DTVs, it's everyone else. 12% of critics liked Batman and Robin, but that doesn't change the fact that 88% of critics didn't. Talk to anyone outside these boards on their opinion of these films and it will not be good. They were mocked (Aladdin 4 Jafar Made Need Glasses) for a reason.
They were for kids, how nice. Doesn't that alone hurt the image the Disney is enjoyable for everyone? You're pandering to a crowd to get get a fast buck. Do these DTVs even have staying power? Never mind constancy in terms of quality.
Yes all attempts by Disney to attract adults fail. Hence why Pirates of the Caribbean was forgotten because of it's G-13 rating, why Touchstone films like Splash or Pretty Woman went nowhere and why Pleasure Island at WDW lasted 18 years. You also bring up Treasure Planet which was it's own can of worms from a marketing campaign run by Eisner during the "Save Disney" campaign that could have been better, but that's another story.
There is nothing wrong with YOU liking the DTVs, it's everyone else. 12% of critics liked Batman and Robin, but that doesn't change the fact that 88% of critics didn't. Talk to anyone outside these boards on their opinion of these films and it will not be good. They were mocked (Aladdin 4 Jafar Made Need Glasses) for a reason.
Kids who don't know $h!+ from shinola about branding, quality, craft -- I DON'T CARE IF TODDLERS SIT AND WATCH CINDERELLA 2. I CARE ABOUT THE ADULT WHO BUYS IT, WATCHES IT WITH THEIR LITTLE SPAWN CHILD, AND THINKS, "WOW, That's a piece of crap! Disney animation is for kids and so is hand drawn animation! Meanwhile that new CGI film I just watched, I enjoyed tremendously! I'll spend money on that, and give up on that old kiddie stuido."They were for kids! Kids, who whether Aurora was pricking her finger on a spindle in the original Sleeping Beauty or chasing chickens around in Disney Princess Enchanted Tales: Follow Your Dreams, was the same princess they loved. These films are for kids who don't understand coloring, aspect ratio, or Disney history.
Seeing as how kids don't work and don't buy movies, you grow your market by appealing to all audiences, and the most important segment of all is the adult demographicm because they have the money!
-
singerguy04
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2591
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:40 pm
- Location: The Land of Lincoln
Oh and that explains the multi-million dollar industry directed to child entertainment... 
give me a break, parents buy what their children enjoy that they don't see as morally corrupt. Parent's don't give a crap about any of the DTV sequels as long as their kids enjoy them. I doubt most parents have even sat down and watched most of the DTV's. Saying that parents needed to enjoy the DTV's as much as their children is just silly in the sense that they sold pretty well as they were.
We can go around and around disagreeing with what went wrong with the DTV's but they happened and they're here to stay.
The one thing I'm concerned about is how Iger can prove himself to us that he is a good fit for Disney. I think it's important that we all start looking forward. One of the biggest reasons why I loved Meet the Robinson's was it's message "Keep Moving Forward". This was always a dream Walt had and I think this is exactly what the company is attempting to do. I don't think much of what the company has done lately is blasphemous to Walt's legacy because Walt invited change. He loved new technologies and exploring new formats and ways to entertain. In buying Pixar, Disney committed itself to great entertainment and by placing Pixar's highest developers in high positions in the company it's a promise towards valuable family entertainment since that's what Pixar has been able to do since 95 while Disney has been, well failing. I think that many of us don't give newer projects a chance.
give me a break, parents buy what their children enjoy that they don't see as morally corrupt. Parent's don't give a crap about any of the DTV sequels as long as their kids enjoy them. I doubt most parents have even sat down and watched most of the DTV's. Saying that parents needed to enjoy the DTV's as much as their children is just silly in the sense that they sold pretty well as they were. We can go around and around disagreeing with what went wrong with the DTV's but they happened and they're here to stay.
The one thing I'm concerned about is how Iger can prove himself to us that he is a good fit for Disney. I think it's important that we all start looking forward. One of the biggest reasons why I loved Meet the Robinson's was it's message "Keep Moving Forward". This was always a dream Walt had and I think this is exactly what the company is attempting to do. I don't think much of what the company has done lately is blasphemous to Walt's legacy because Walt invited change. He loved new technologies and exploring new formats and ways to entertain. In buying Pixar, Disney committed itself to great entertainment and by placing Pixar's highest developers in high positions in the company it's a promise towards valuable family entertainment since that's what Pixar has been able to do since 95 while Disney has been, well failing. I think that many of us don't give newer projects a chance.
-
ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI