End of Disney animated films?

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

Like Mr. Toad I don't perfer a type of animation towards another! Whether it's 2D, 3D or even 4D, did you ever wonder what the D stands for? It stands for Don't matter and Don't Care! Each type of animation is great in it's own way! Traditional animation is great because you respect the artist's hard work and you like CG animation because it looks so realistic! Luckly there are guys like Brad Bird who can make great stories whether you gave them traditional animation(Iron Giant) or computor animation(The Incredibles).

[Disney-Fan]

The DTV movies do not explain the success of CGI though. Thats the reason. Even bad CGI movies were kicking the pants off of very good 2D movies. The only 2D movie that was way into production had huge story problems. If there was a point to pull the plug, they picked the right place. I really think Walt would have made the same decision. He was all about the innovation and keeping ahead of the competition.

It does, actually... While 2D animation was premiering every Tuesday, CGI only got between 1-3 movies released each year. You may quote me on this in the future: When we see DTVs in CGI and more stupid stories like Ice Age CGI will start to flop. What then? Pull the plug on CG too?

[Isidour]

maybe after the i be to common to bring people to the movie theaters a new director or poducer wil make 2D hand-draw movies and he will triumph as a new Walt

[rodis]

Brother Bear - Worldwide profit: $250,397,277
Lilo and Stitch - Worldwide profit: $273,144,151

Compare this to, say, The Little Mermaid:
Worldwide profit: $211,343,479

Not bad now is it?

Comparing between "The Little Mermaid" and these two films, is like comparing between apples and oranges. Mermaid came off a string of flops that Disney had during the 70's and 80's. It quickly became one of Disney's biggest hits ever; needless to say its $222 million box-office take was huge for its time, and as evident, it was the highest grossing animated film up to that time. Not only that, it also generated huge numbers in merchandise, home video, soundtrack, etc. It was an overwhelming success that Disney could just not repeat after "The Lion King" with its further animated classics.

1) Little Mermaid paled in comparison to Aladdin, Lion King and Beauty and the Beast

It's more like: The Little Mermaid paled compared to Beauty and the Beast, which paled compared to Aladdin, which paled compared to The Lion King which ultimately led to Pocahotas being regarded as a failure, although it in no means was.

In retrospect, The Lion King damaged Disney almost as much as it contributed to them. By being the unmatchable success that it was, it set too high standarts for future Disney films which were overlooked for not grossing the $600 million "The Lion King" did. If not for Lion, no-one would have called the $350 million gross of "Pocahontas" and Hunchback 'disappointing'. But I guess that was a great headline for the press back in the day.

[chaychay102royal]

Brother Bear - Worldwide profit: $250,397,277
Lilo and Stitch - Worldwide profit: $273,144,151

Compare this to, say, The Little Mermaid:
Worldwide profit: $211,343,479

Not bad now is it?

Comparing between "The Little Mermaid" and these two films, is like comparing between apples and oranges. Mermaid came off a string of flops that Disney had during the 70's and 80's. It quickly became one of Disney's biggest hits ever; needless to say its $222 million box-office take was huge for its time, and as evident, it was the highest grossing animated film up to that time. Not only that, it also generated huge numbers in merchandise, home video, soundtrack, etc. It was an overwhelming success that Disney could just not repeat after "The Lion King" with its further animated classics.

1) Little Mermaid paled in comparison to Aladdin, Lion King and Beauty and the Beast

It's more like: The Little Mermaid paled compared to Beauty and the Beast, which paled compared to Aladdin, which paled compared to The Lion King which ultimately led to Pocahotas being regarded as a failure, although it in no means was.

In retrospect, The Lion King damaged Disney almost as much as it contributed to them. By being the unmatchable success that it was, it set too high standarts for future Disney films which were overlooked for not grossing the $600 million "The Lion King" did. If not for Lion, no-one would have called the $350 million gross of "Pocahontas" and Hunchback 'disappointing'. But I guess that was a great headline for the press back in the day.

Those are very good points.

[ichabod]

Brother Bear - Worldwide profit: $250,397,277
Lilo and Stitch - Worldwide profit: $273,144,151

Compare this to, say, The Little Mermaid:
Worldwide profit: $211,343,479

I honestly don't take too much notice of the figures at Box Office mojo, they hardly ever seem to be accurate

I know for a fact the Brother Bear has made at least double the figure you show, because I remember reading an article when it passed the $600,000,000 million worldwide mark, being only Disney's 6th film to do so. I also feel it is worth noting that The Little Mermaid figure is the total for 2 theatrical releases, the 1989 and 1997.

[Disney-Fan]

I know for a fact the Brother Bear has made at least double the figure you show, because I remember reading an article when it passed the $600,000,000 million worldwide mark, being only Disney's 6th film to do so.

Yeah, I also remembered a higher figure. And thanks, you just helped prove my point. Disney, despite what management says, can make a good, successful (2D) movie with the right balance of story and good animation. It really has nothing to do with the medium (well, almost nothing).

2D animation dead? I don't think so...

[Wonderlicious]

I know for a fact the Brother Bear has made at least double the figure you show, because I remember reading an article when it passed the $600,000,000 million worldwide mark, being only Disney's 6th film to do so.

Could that also include the amount of money the DVD made? I remember reading that Brother Bearsold at least 6 million copies, eclipsing the figures for Aladdin.

[ichabod]

Could that also include the amount of money the DVD made? I remember reading that Brother Bearsold at least 6 million copies, eclipsing the figures for Aladdin.

This was about a year ago so I think the total includes the US DVDs but not from Europe or other countries. I mean look at France, Brother Bear has had 3 separate editions of Brother Bear so far! The 1 disc, then that was followed a couple of months later with that weird 3 disc that was really just the 1 disc with the soundtrack, then last December it finally got the full 2 disc! All within less than a year of the film's release.

I hate to say this but sometimes people think that the US is the only country that counts, and that if it didn't do to well in the US, it will be the same everywhere!

[Disney-Fan]

I hate to say this but sometimes people think that the US is the only country that counts, and that if it didn't do to well in the US, it will be the same everywhere!

Yep! In Israel it's the highest grossing Disney film ever (Nemo included). Not such a failure...

[chaychay102royal]

"Brother Bear"? Really?

[Disney-Fan]

"Brother Bear"? Really?

I swear on my DVD collection, it's the truth!

[chaychay102royal]

No, you don't have to swear on your DVD collection. I'm just surprised that Brother Bear out of all the animated Disney films, is the one that has made the most money in Israel.

[2099net]

Brother Bear - Worldwide profit: $250,397,277
Lilo and Stitch - Worldwide profit: $273,144,151

Compare this to, say, The Little Mermaid:
Worldwide profit: $211,343,479

I honestly don't take too much notice of the figures at Box Office mojo, they hardly ever seem to be accurate

I know for a fact the Brother Bear has made at least double the figure you show, because I remember reading an article when it passed the $600,000,000 million worldwide mark, being only Disney's 6th film to do so. I also feel it is worth noting that The Little Mermaid figure is the total for 2 theatrical releases, the 1989 and 1997.

But it says Profit in the above post - not takings. Given the production costs and various advertising and localisation plus Disney doesn't get all the money from a theatrical ticket sale, PROFIT sounds quite reasonable.

[PatrickvD]

I've read an article at Jim Hill (not entirely reliable) that said Disney had estimated Brother Bear's worldwide profit in merchandise, ticket sales etc to be about $500 million. But that it eventually did about $600 million. If worldwide Box Office is already $250 million. and 6 million copies of the dvd were sold in America alone, then a $600 million profit sounds about right. But keep in mind, if we would be taking al these things in for Finding Nemo, that would be billions and billions. Everone has a cute nemo merchandise at home. everyone.

[rodis]

"Brother Bear"? Really?

But it's by far not the most popular animated film here. Not even close. I have no info on its box-office numbers, but practically almost every Disney film is more popular than "Brother Bear". I have no idea where people get their info from. It's very hard for me to believe it made more money than films like "The Lion King" or "Tarzan".

[chaychay102royal]

"Brother Bear"? Really?

But it's by far not the most popular animated film here. Not even close. I have no info on its box-office numbers, but practically almost every Disney film is more popular than "Brother Bear". I have no idea where people get their info from. It's very hard for me to believe it made more money than films like "The Lion King" or "Tarzan".

Well, maybe they judge movies differently there than we do. I don't know. I've never been outside of the United States.

[Disney-Fan]

"Brother Bear"? Really?

But it's by far not the most popular animated film here. Not even close. I have no info on its box-office numbers, but practically almost every Disney film is more popular than "Brother Bear". I have no idea where people get their info from. It's very hard for me to believe it made more money than films like "The Lion King" or "Tarzan".

I did not make this up. Different places have different opinions regarding movies. I actually can believe it made more than The Lion King or Tarzan. It's a terrific movie.

[2099net]

I've read an article at Jim Hill (not entirely reliable) that said Disney had estimated Brother Bear's worldwide profit in merchandise, ticket sales etc to be about $500 million. But that it eventually did about $600 million. If worldwide Box Office is already $250 million. and 6 million copies of the dvd were sold in America alone, then a $600 million profit sounds about right. But keep in mind, if we would be taking al these things in for Finding Nemo, that would be billions and billions. Everone has a cute nemo merchandise at home. everyone.

Merchandise sales do not count towards total profit for a movie. That's why Warners still insist that (the first) Batman movie made no profit - despite literally billions being spent on Batlogo marchendise by punters. (I guess its all to do with cost centres etc.)

As for Home Video Sales, I expect the Box-Office Mojo listing doesn't include home video profits. It's no loss if it doesn't. I don't see people defending "Chepquels" based on their home video profits! (I believe 101 Dalmatians 2 made about $500m worldwide)

Ultimately it doesn't really matter how much money Brother Bear made, the fact is it would most likely make more if it was a CGI film. So for Disney to invest time and money into making a film, it makes financial sense to invest the same amounts in a CGI film rather than a handdrawn film. (Notice I didn't say artistic)

Personally I don't blame DTVs for the slowdown of traditional animation. I blame the non-stop 24 hour cartoon channels on digital TV and cable. I also blame the fact that saturday morning cartoons are much more sophisticated these days than they were in the 60s, 70s and even the early 80s. Compare the look, animation and even the writing of "What's New Scooby Doo?" to the original "Scooby Doo, Where Are You?" series for one example.

The fact is most people don't care about the quality of animation as long as it is reasonable. And they don't appreciate the hard work that goes into making an animated film. Not because of DTVs, but because animation is no longer a saturday morning "treat" but a 24-hour "commodity". Why did theatrical shorts stop? Because people were happy with the limited animation of Yogi Bear and Huckleberry Hound, or watching older threatrical shorts now being shown on television. Its as simple as that. And even the "flawless" and "above critisism" Walt stoped theatrical short production when he saw which way the tide was turning.

CGI is still new. People can get excited about CGI because everytime they see a CGI movie, they see something new and the artform is visibly improving. Once CGI reaches it's peak, interest will start to decrease.

As for DTVs stopping theatrical sales I don't buy it. Has the "glut" of Marvel superhero films damaged Spider-Man 2's takings? Why does Warner want to release a new Batman and Superman film if the audience is "superheroed out"? Good films, no matter what the genre or trends, even in a glut of similar films, should be able to find an audience.

People are always keen to point out traditional animated films began to loose their appeal around the time "Return of Jafar" was released. But it was also around the time "Toy Story" was released and wowed the collective audience and showed them that there was a different way of animating movies. An exciting new, and in most people's minds better way. How come people never mention that?

[PatrickvD]

CGI already passed the peek. At the end of 2006 we've had Madagascar, The Wild, Valiant, Chicken Little, Over the Hedge, Cars, A Day with Wilbur Robinson. Followed shortly by Happy Feet, Ice Age 2: The Meltdown, The Barnyard, Foodfight, American Dog and Shrek 3.

In the eternal words of Syndrome: " and when everyone's super.... no one is". I think a year or two from now it will all be clear. I can't imagine all of these films becoming hits. At least two or three are bound to bomb... hard.