[Rumor] WDAS to Produce Only 1 Film Every 2 Years!!

[PatrickvD]

what Disney needs to do is scale down. Their movies are not profitable so they can't afford to have dozens of producers running down the hallways.

If they can make a visually stunning Pooh movie for $35 million, I don't see how an original film should have to cost any less than $70 million. If they can manage that, their films will start turning a profit and things will change.

Look at Despicable Me... it was made away from an overload of producers and executives on a small budget. It cost three times less than Shrek4 and it's making more money. Disney needs to think small, they cannot afford to have budgets spiraling out of control like at Pixar (Toy Story 3 cost $200 million) where every film is a sure fire money maker.

[Disney Duster]

Call me a silly traditionalist, but the heart of the company is that animation studio - not Pixar, not the people who make Phinneas and Ferb and the Tinker Bell films, but the one where all the major films were made, from Snow White and Pinocchio through to The Lion King and Aladdin and up until The Princess and the Frog and beyond. Those executives who think otherwise should probably go and apply for another job, as they shouldn't be working for Disney with such an attitude.

IT'S ALWAYS BEEN TRUE.

[estefan]

what Disney needs to do is scale down. Their movies are not profitable so they can't afford to have dozens of producers running down the hallways.

If they can make a visually stunning Pooh movie for $35 million, I don't see how an original film should have to cost any less than $70 million. If they can manage that, their films will start turning a profit and things will change.

Look at Despicable Me... it was made away from an overload of producers and executives on a small budget. It cost three times less than Shrek4 and it's making more money. Disney needs to think small, they cannot afford to have budgets spiraling out of control like at Pixar (Toy Story 3 cost $200 million) where every film is a sure fire money maker.

Exactly. I can kind of understand why The Princess and the Frog had that price tag (due to the major hiring back of hand-drawn animators and bringing back the drawing desks and other important utensils). But, now that the hand-drawn animators are settled back in, they can scale the budget back. What was Disney's most successful film of the last decade? In addition to being an excellent film that also had a terrific marketing campaign, it was done on a lower budget, so it made a nice profit for the studio. And even with the smaller budget, it still looked just as beautiful and professional as, say, The Lion King or Tarzan.

Bolt and The Princess & the Frog were great films that did decent business and a step in the right direction, quality-wise, for Disney, but they could have shaved a couple million dollars off of the budget and they still would have turned out just as good. Of course, both of them could have used stronger advertising and moved away from major, potential blockbusters.

It's too late to adjust Tangled's budget, but they could still move it further away from Harry Potter. Ditto Winnie the Pooh, though that production has apparently been Disney's smoothest in years.

In regards to Despicable Me, it should be noted that the animation was done over-seas in France at a different animation studio. The script and directing were done in the United States at Illumination. That's how they managed a cheaper budget than the usual CGI feature. Didn't stop the animation from looking terrific, though.

[Goliath]

I don't believe Disney puts its animated films purposefully against 'blockbusters', like it's a master plan. Why would they want their own movies to do bad? They would lose a lot of money because of that. There's always going to be competition.

[AladdinFan]

On November 24, 2010 Tangled will be competing against Burlesque, Faster, and Love and Other Drugs. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I probably is going to be #1 for a second week.

[DisneyJedi]

what Disney needs to do is scale down. Their movies are not profitable so they can't afford to have dozens of producers running down the hallways.

If they can make a visually stunning Pooh movie for $35 million, I don't see how an original film should have to cost any less than $70 million. If they can manage that, their films will start turning a profit and things will change.

Yes! Exactly!

It's too late to adjust Tangled's budget, but they could still move it further away from Harry Potter. Ditto Winnie the Pooh, though that production has apparently been Disney's smoothest in years.

Why? How much is Tangled's budget? I'm guessing it's either $150 million or more.

[Duckburger]

Seeing how long it's been in development hell it wouldn't surprise me if the budget would be something like 130-150 million. At the very least a little more than the Princess and the Frog. Adding marketing on top of that, which usually adds another half of the budget, let's say 50 million or so. This will, sadly, never make a profit in the US alone, just like the Princess and the Frog it's going to heavily rely on the international market. Which, apparantly, is never a good sign.

If the people at Disney really wanted this to be a success than they should NOT have placed this so close to Harry Potter. I know it's easier said than done to move a film to a 'right' week, since there's always something big opening, but still... come on now... Harry Potter. Those movies are box office gold, known to make a gazillion dollar over a large span of time. Either they really want the animation department to fail, or the scheduling people are ignorant enough to believe that Harry Potter will not make a lot of money in the second week. Either way, the situation seems pretty grim.

[AladdinFan]

Even if Tangled is so close to Harry Potter there is still chance that Tangled would be successful at the box office. Don't you guys remember last year when New Moon and The Blind Side opened at the same date and still The Blind Side did very well against the big franchise movie.

[ajmrowland]

Okay, since the Animation Studio in particular is headed by the biggest fanboy-and I wont name names-I think if he had anything against this, we'd here his outrage within just a few days.

Not that I worship the guy. Wondy's post makes a lot of sense.

and I know of Emperor's New Groove(2000) and Treasure Planet(2002). remind me of the others?

[schoollover]

In my opinion, the next five years are going be a time change and hopefully for the better, for Disney. Disney needs to find it's roots. Some ways they could do it would be...

1. Stop relying on other brands to be their profitmakers like Pixar,
2. Hire better animators,producers etc, and have better pay with more benefits.
3.Make Vintage Programs popular by sneaking them in on Disney Channel and Disney XD.
4. G for movies with more mature themes. It works on pixar and it worked on Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

This is all I can think of right now

[Neal]

Don't you guys remember last year when New Moon and The Blind Side opened at the same date and still The Blind Side did very well against the big franchise movie.

That's because there's only one thing Americans love more than vampires and that is football.

[Kraken Guard]

Don't you guys remember last year when New Moon and The Blind Side opened at the same date and still The Blind Side did very well against the big franchise movie.

That's because there's only one thing Americans love more than vampires and that is football.

Blah, Football boring.. I think i would rather go with the Vampires..

But at the same time i dont want to be treated like an Outcast from what i've read of those movies!


But enough about Vampires or Football.. But it's like what Wonderlicious wrote:

Call me a silly traditionalist, but the heart of the company is that animation studio - not Pixar, not the people who make Phinneas and Ferb and the Tinker Bell films, but the one where all the major films were made, from Snow White and Pinocchio through to The Lion King and Aladdin and up until The Princess and the Frog and beyond. Those executives who think otherwise should probably go and apply for another job, as they shouldn't be working for Disney with such an attitude.

A Disney without an Animation Studio just wouldn't seem like Disney anymore

[Rudy Matt]

Don't you guys remember last year when New Moon and The Blind Side opened at the same date and still The Blind Side did very well against the big franchise movie.

a) Two *completely* demographics for those two. Harry Potter and Tangled are going to fight over the family market, with Tangled skewing a bit younger (it won't surprise me when Hallows receives a PG-13, Tangled will be PG or G)

b) The Blind Side was a bit of a sleeper hit, building on word of mouth. It was never a runaway hit, it made its money gradually.

c) I'd expect Harry Potter to open to about $100-$110 million. It will fall roughly 50%-60% in the second week, but even 60% means a $40 million second weekend. I can't remember the last time a Disney non-Pixar animated film opened to $40 million and above, not even The Lion King.

[PatrickvD]

Why? How much is Tangled's budget? I'm guessing it's either $150 million or more.

Considering this film has been on again off again in various stages of production my guess is the actual budget is closer to $250 million.

Of course, Disney will never let us know...

[mawnck]

In my opinion, the next five years are going be a time change and hopefully for the better, for Disney. Disney needs to find it's roots. Some ways they could do it would be...

1. Stop relying on other brands to be their profitmakers like Pixar,
2. Hire better animators,producers etc, and have better pay with more benefits.
3.Make Vintage Programs popular by sneaking them in on Disney Channel and Disney XD.
4. G for movies with more mature themes. It works on pixar and it worked on Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

This is all I can think of right now

1. They already do. There's this line of princess toys that do pretty well.

2. They couldn't possibly have hired better animators or producers than those that worked on P&tF and Tangled. There's no such thing. Pay and benefits are handled by the union contract. You could certainly argue that more steady employment for their staff (see: Dreamworks, Pixar) would be a good idea, since most of the Tangled staff is now on the dole queue.

3. "Sneaking" and "making them popular" are two dramatically different things. The Disney channel used to show that stuff constantly, but they stopped, and they didn't stop just to annoy you personally. Unfortunately, the general public just isn't interested in the more obscure Disney material. It's the age-old fanboy cry of "if they just give it a chance, everyone would love it!" It usually isn't true. (see also: "Spirited Away"/Studio Ghibli)

4. And it didn't work on Treasure Planet or Atlantis. The public will go see what it wants to see, whether it's mature or not.

There's no simple formula that will make WDAS successful. Trust me ... if there was, they'd'a done it.

[DisneyJedi]

Why? How much is Tangled's budget? I'm guessing it's either $150 million or more.

Considering this film has been on again off again in various stages of production my guess is the actual budget is closer to $250 million.

Of course, Disney will never let us know...

At least not until the release date comes closer.

[PatrickvD]

Considering this film has been on again off again in various stages of production my guess is the actual budget is closer to $250 million.

Of course, Disney will never let us know...

At least not until the release date comes closer.

like I said, whatever Disney claims will be the budget, add $100 million to that. All the animation tests that were done since 2002 cost them loads of money. And story work has been going on since the early 90s. It wouldn't even surprise me if it cost north of $300 million.

Tarzan cost $140 million in 1999 due to development of Deep Canvas. Rapunzel, with years of inflation and pre-production dating back to at least three years before Tarzan went into production, will cost at least twice as much if not more.

Disney HAS to fire everyone once work wraps up. The budget on this thing only increases more if they let people sit around and do nothing.

[yamiiguy]

What was Disney's most successful film of the last decade?

Dinosaur closely followed by Lilo & Stitch.

[DisneyJedi]

What was Disney's most successful film of the last decade?

Dinosaur closely followed by Lilo & Stitch.

Really? Dinosaur really WAS successful?

[PatrickvD]

Dinosaur closely followed by Lilo & Stitch.

Really? Dinosaur really WAS successful?

not really... in terms of worldwide gross it was.

But Lilo & Stitch cost half as much to make and Stitch as a character is still raking in millions of dollars in merchandise every year.

Lilo & Stitch was Disney's biggest moneymaker of the last decade.