Treasure Planet conspiracy Theory!

[The Merman]

I was watching Treasure Planet last night and was wondering why this amazing visualy stunning film had done so bad at the big B office. What went wrong with this film? was it that it was in theatres at the same time as Lord of the Rings 2 and Harry Potter?

Disney has always been vary vague on the cost for making tresure planet and some sources estimate that the film+promotional cost have amounted to a 140mln dollar loss for the Mouse. I started snooping around the net to find different theories on why this movie had failed and came across the ussual criticism that could be applied to many movies.

Then I came across an old Jim Hill Media article that was publish very short after the release of Treasure Planet. http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/ ... 6/227.aspx

"What histrionics am I talking about?" Well, get on Google and type in "Disney Treasure Planet." I'm sure -- if you poke around long enough -- you'll eventually come across some website where the "TP" conspiracy theorists are at play. These are the folks who will tell you about how the Walt Disney Company deliberately torpedoed "Treasure Planet" so that it would make it that much easier for the corporation to abandon traditional animation entirely. So that the studio would now have a solid excuse for its decision to totally CG in the not-so-distant future.

Now as we are a few years later it is interesting to look back on that article. What seemed rediculous at that time, that Eisner might actually close the traditional animation department and sack all the animators (even Clements and Musker, came treu! Even though they payed no attention at the fact that movies like Brother Bear made an unexpected profit with a minimal promotion budget.

Do You think that Eisner needed a good excuse like the failure of Treasure Planet to try and get Disney sceptics onboard to produce more CGI films? Eisner knew that computer animation always had a black label in the Disney Company. What if he actually tried boycotting Treasure Planet to what greatness it could have been?
Do you believe this theory or do you think Treasure Planet really was a bad film, and explain why?

[Sotiris]

I don't believe there was a conspiracy. No CEO in his right mind wants a film of his to do bad. Personally, i thought that Treasure Planet was nothing special. Not, in terms of animation which was stunning but in terms of storyline. Treasure Island even with a twist is not an interesting enough story for me...

P.S Ben-the robot gets on my nerves!!!

[SpringHeelJack]

I'm also in the fairly small camp that really liked "Treasure Planet". I bought it on a whim this year, sat down and watched it, and found it surprisingly good. Two of my friends also enjoyed it (we're 19, which might account for the whole "older kids would like it more than the target audience" thing).

[adam_omega]

I liked Treasure Planet more than Atlantis, but I also enjoyed Titan A.E. for a lot of the same reasons I like Treasure Planet...the sci-fi angle. I hated Ben, though. Most annoying Disney character ever.

[slave2moonlight]

I absolutely LOVED Treasure Planet. I felt everything about it was well done. However, I have heard many people who saw it say they felt it was nothing special. One person told me they were disappointed in the level the "Brandywine" inspiration was taken to. They thought it would be stronger. However, I think the general cause of this film doing so poorly is that folks are bored with the "Treasure Island" story now. It's been done to death and a lot of people of the 21st century probably never found the story very interesting to begin with. Myself, I adore the story. The Disney classic is one of my top favorite films. I really loved the way it was adapted for Treasure Planet. To me, that animated feature is a masterpiece!

I also think the level of promotion hurt the film. I don't really feel that any of the Disney animated features were promoted quite as much after they stopped with the musicals, and lessening the promotion never helps.

I doubt there was a conspiracy theory here, because I'd be surprised by CEOs wanting any of their films to fail, as sotiris stated. However, I don't say it's impossible. After all, they definitely didn't promote the film as well as they could have. I think there might have been a "Let's get this over with" attitude about it, and that is more likely what happened than in intentional sinking. They just released the film without much fanfare, not expecting it to do well, and probably thinking, "Now we can get on with the CG plan." I don't doubt that they were planning to phase out 2D long before they actually did, so, in that sense, there probably was a conspiracy going on (conspiracies happen more often than people believe), but I doubt it went to the extent of "wanting" a film to fail.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

I can safely say that that rumor is 100% false.

No one working at Disney would want a film with a $140 million budget to fail.

[The Merman]

Yeh I am 19 years aswell and that is perhaps why I like the movie so much. Because it is all about trying to find yourselve and what you want to do in the future. Mabey it does only appeal to more adult like audience.

And the conspiracy theory, I mean is not so wacky. Eisner sort of lost it in the end of his career if you ask me. He should have never have fired Katzberg. I know katzberg quite but his job was being made impossible by Eisner in fear that Katzberg wanted to take over. And letting go of Clements and Musker.. I mean common! Also Roy Disney left the company over differences with Eisner in the end. Mabey in failing Treasure Planet he wanted to show the company that they need to produce computer animated movies and that traditional animation was running on a dead end street. I mean why did they pay so little attention on Brother Bear? It was a hidden hit that in the end only produced 30 mln les then Lilo with using a very small promotional budgets..

Or mabey the audience was just sick of adventure animated movies. "Sinbad Sailor of the Seven Seas" was like Treasure Planet and also performed so bad that Dreamworks shut down the traditional animation department like at Disney. It is interesting to wonder about..

I would NOT say that the theory is correct because you have to be one crazy CEO if you made an exspensive movie like TP fail. But Eisner was prety crazy:P

[Mr. Toad]

I would say false.

The movie failed because of its marketing plan which affected the plot. They wanted to aim the movie at 13-16 year old boys. This is the target market the least likely to go see an animated movie. I know some of you are in that demographic, but how hard is it to get all of your friends to go to an animated movie when they are too busy trying to sneak into R movies.

In order to make it appealing to this set, they made Jim Hawkins full of teenage angst. This left the movie without anyone acting as a true hero and left it kind of flat and a disheartening movie. Thus it became rather unappealing to the rest of us who are quite happy to have left that period in our life behind us.

I will give you that it looks wonderful but the plot is like swiss cheese and the characters are really uninteresting.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

Eisner sort of lost it in the end of his career if you ask me. He should have never have fired Katzberg. I know katzberg quite but his job was being made impossible by Eisner in fear that Katzberg wanted to take over.

It's actually the other way around; Katzenberg was too demanding. Just watch the 2nd disc of Aladdin, and you'll see that everyone admited Katzenberg was a hard boss to work with. In fact, Aladdin barely got completed because of it.

He was also too obsessed on being successful and forgot about quality. Need I remind you about Pocahontas which he mucked up hoping to be the next Beauty and the Beast, but turned out terrible because it was bland, boring and at times just cringingly over-the-top.

It's also a little known fact that the reason Disney got in the whole mess with Pixar and only distributing their films is because he(not Eisner) denied Lasseter and said "CG animation has no future".

Eisner was indeed flawed, and made bad decisions, but he wasn't the ogre people make him out to be.

[Mr. Toad]

Whole mess with Pixar? How do you come to that conclusion. Disney made out pretty good on that deal, at least the original one.

[The Merman]

Katzenberg was difficult, but his product was amazing. He started the second golden age of Disney and stayed with it till the end. Was he a difficult guy to work with? no doubt but did he have an eye for a good movie, he did indeed. And many would tell you that Eisner was just as difficult to work with as Katzenberg, especially in his last years as ceo at the Disney Comp. A lot of questions between these two are solved when reading "Disney War".

Need I remind you about Pocahontas which he mucked up hoping to be the next Beauty and the Beast, but turned out terrible because it was bland, boring and at times just cringingly over-the-top.

Some people here think it is the best animated movie ever made. I made a sort of simillar comment on the Pocahontas vs LionKing thread saying Pocahontas was lacking . My god I got bashed!

And Katzenberg actually sealed the deal between Pixar and Disney. Eisner and Jobs had finnancial disagreements which caused the Disney company to have problems with Pixar.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

Whole mess with Pixar? How do you come to that conclusion. Disney made out pretty good on that deal, at least the original one.

Well, had they bought Pixar before Toy Story, they wouldn't have had to pay 7.4 billion dollars. I recall when Lucasfilm was selling Pixar, Lasseter wanted Disney to but them, but Katzenberg denied it, and was why they only distributed their films for the past 10 years. In fact, their distributing deal was supposed to end after their third film, but Eisner extended it to 6 and then even 7.

Yet everyone blames Eisner for not buying Pixar earlier just because he was the top. He indeed did have conflicts with Steve Jobs, of course, Steve Jobs also has a history of being a hard guy to work with.

Katzenberg was difficult, but his product was amazing. He started the second golden age of Disney and stayed with it till the end. Was he a difficult guy to work with? no doubt but did he have an eye for a good movie, he did indeed. And many would tell you that Eisner was just as difficult to work with as Katzenberg, especially in his last years as ceo at the Disney Comp. A lot of questions between these two are solved when reading "Disney War".

Well, Katzenberg really wanted to cut "Part of Your World" out of "The Little Mermaid" and almost did because he thought it was "too boring". And that song happened to be the favorite TLM song of UD members here.

Katzenberg has really made bad moves over the years, and frankly think it was good he left. And just looks at the Dreamworks films and that should tell you something about his "great" films. I really wouldn't give Katzenberg much credit for the fab four.

Infact, he still manages to be hard to work with. There's a reason why Aardman is now leaving Dreamworks.

[The Merman]

I think we should give him some credit at least for the fab 4... especially Lion King. Shrek is a very good movie but you are right about the others. I always though Shrek looked a little like Eisner mabey he casted the ogre after Eisner haha that would have been funny. What do you think of the conspiracy theory though?

[2099net]

Katzenberg was difficult, but his product was amazing. He started the second golden age of Disney and stayed with it till the end.

Was he? Don't forget he's responsible for all Dreamworks Animation films. Was Disney's "Golden Age" down to Katzenberg, or the talent despite Katzenberg?

I do find it hard that the man asking for Lions to be "kicked in the Balls" in Madagascar to make it "funnier" could be the power behind The Lion King's success.

I think we can trace Disney's 2nd downfall to being the same as the first. Walt's death wasn't a significant factor in the first downfall. Walt was far to busy on his live action films and theme park when the last few animated films in his lifetime were released. Also, even when Walt was alive, budgets and ambition of the animated films seem to have suffered.

I think, like most aspects of life, Disney animation runs in peaks and valleys. No matter who or what you are, no creative art can be expected to keep the same level of skill, enthusiasm and imagination indefinitely.

Dean Koontz's latest books are simply diabolical compared to his early masterpieces. Eddie Izzard's stand-up is getting weaker and weaker with each tour. Long running successful shows on TV "jump the shark". I've still to see Cars, but most people think Pixar/Lasseter is on the way down. Perhaps some of the reasons are down to pressure. After all, it's hard to live up to "perfection".

The "golden age" co-incided with a the intake of a new generation of animators taking charge. I don't think that's a co-incidence. And the same animators began to feel the same creative demands and pressure. Perhaps even more after The Lion King and Disney's obvious aim to duplicate the success.

It's odd, but two of the films considered the most successful artistically since the start of the "Golden Age" are The Lion King and Lilo and Stitch - two films which weren't expected to do well, and this the creators probably felt less pressure on them, and didn't feel the need to duplicate any past success.

As for Treasure Planet, I think it can hang its head up high with any of the "Fab Four" films. I think its wonderful. And I do think that there is grounds for a conspiracy against it - after all it was released at a time when Disney were obviously on the cusp of dropping "Traditional" animation. It seems wrong when the Company is discussing a film as being a "failure" a week or two into its cinimatic release - its one hell of a quick way to make sure anyone who's undecided about seeing the movie reject it.

And yes, a large corporation like Disney could have a perfectly legitimate reason for wanting to loose literally tens of millions of dollars on a project. Tax laws (expecially those relating to profit write offs) are very complicated and full of flaws and holes.

[Simba3]

Very interesting theory, I hadn't heard anything about this until just now as I am reading through this thread. I have to agree with the other UD members on this one and assume that no one would want a $140 million dollar project to bomb at the box office. However, the theory is still quite interesting...

[slave2moonlight]

The heart of Treasure Planet, and Treasure Island in general, is the relationship between fatherless Jim Hawkins and pirate Long John Silver, who fills that hole in Jim's life while in return, Jim teaches him about doing the right thing and being true to those you care about. The strength of Treasure Planet, besides all its artistic beauty and the masterfully translation into a space story, is how beautifully it captures Jim's desire for a role model and Long John's fulfillment of that desire.

For a long time, I was a bit confused about Katzenberg as well. I heard some different opinions though, and came to feel that he was not the golden boy some had made him out to be. Seeing the extras on the Little Mermaid Platinum Edition should confirm that for anybody. They really do make him sound like a trouble-causing moron when it comes to making animated films. As for the film Shrek, Lord Farquad was meant to represent Eisner. He even looks a bit like him, though also like his voice actor. He lives in a Disneyland-like Kingdom full of Disney-mocking in-jokes, and Katzenberg's greatest shot at him was making him so short. This was retalliation for a time when Eisner called Katzenberg a midget, or something like that. While I enjoy Shrek (and the sequel much more), it is waaaay overrated and I think turning the whole film into a way to fire personal shots at a studio and its CEO that you have bitter feelings towards is in somewhat bad taste, since, as I understood it, Shrek was based on some children's book, the intention of which I doubt was taking shots at Michael Eisner. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some big Eisner defender either. He's done his share of things to annoy me for sure.

While I didn't care too much for Pocahontas at first, it was still a good film. It just lacked this and that for me, and it was so different from the usual Disney film. But, while I forget whose decision it was, it's the folks responsible for cutting the "If I Never Knew You" scene that should never work in the movie business again, ha. Once they restored that scene, the film became a masterpiece to me.

But, as for the decline of Disney animation after Walt and after Katzenberg... Well, I still feel that Walt's death WAS what caused the Disney studios to get a bit lost in the 70s. I loved all the projects Walt was attached too, including the last ones. I believe Jungle Book was the last one he was involved with, and it's my favorite of Disney's classic animated features. Yeah, Disney was always trying to save money, which was visible at times, but I don't feel he ever let the stories suffer. While I love 70's Disney too, it definitely had lost... something special.

With the films after the fab four though, which I believe were successes because of the creative teams behind them more than anything, I really didn't feel they were any less wonderful until they got around to the awful "Atlantis." That film was like watching your friend play a video game. In my opinion, the films became less successful because Disney wanted to try some new things; things people didn't want to see from Disney, like history, drama, characters that weren't teenagers or animals, and stuff like that. Most importantly, NOT fairytales. Aladdin, Little Mermaid, and Beauty and the Beast had the fairytale/storybook thing going for them. People LOVE that from Disney (nowadays at least). I think it reminds them of the magic of old-school Disney, particularly Snow White and Cinderella. The Lion King had fairytale qualities, but clearly wasn't a fairytale. It reminded folks of Bambi, of course, and it was beautifully done, but I think what put it over the edge and made it a huge success was the music of Elton John. Anyway, after all that stuff and people not wanting to see things like Hunchback of Notre Dame as much (I remember the big stink made in the U.S. about how it was too "adult" for an animated film, which I find totally irritating) or Pocahontas (where the human characters just weren't that fun and the villain of prejudice was overlooked because people thought the not-very-scary Ratcliffe was supposed to be the villain), Disney started trying to find new things the public might like, like more sassy characters, comic relief, and video-game type action. That stuff combined with poor promotional efforts caused the recent downfall, I believe. The poor promotional efforts were the sign that Disney was losing faith in 2D animation and was more interested with the new CG stuff, and there is where I can see a conspiracy possibly setting in. Though, it may have been more of a matter of simply not caring anymore.

[goofystitch]

I vaguely remember reading that article on Jim Hill way back when. I took my brother to "Treasure Planet" on opening day and we both love the film. I actually watched it about a month ago so it is still fresh in my mind. For me, the whole film is exciting, there are no dry boring parts, the animation is awe inspiring, the score is fantastic, and there is a perfect blend of humor, drama, and action. There are alot of Disney conspiracie theories. Some seem very logical and like they could be true and I think this is one of them. It is certain that it wouldn't have been just Eisner (or Eisner at all). Have any of you seen "Dream On Silly Dreamer"? They talk about Tom Schumacker and how bad he made the animation department and hold him responsible for the decline in quality of the animated features. It seemed like Shumacker was constantly trying to top "The Lion King," which was at the time the most successful animated feature of all time. My theory is that with Pixar's record of every CG film being successful, Tom possibly decided that CG was the only way to go and the only way to pursuade everyone to switch over exclusively to that medium would be to produce failure after failure. Is it possible that he accidentally produced some winners in the mix? A crazy story about an indian becoming a bear doesn't sound appealing, but ended up being very touching. A dog-like alien crashing to Earth and befriending a Hawaiian girl? Who would want to see that? Needless to say, aside from "Brother Bear" and "Lilo & Stitch," the company produced some films that sometimes seem set up for failure. I like these movies, but ever since "Tarzan" it seems like they have tried rediculous plot after rediculous plot. An Emporor becomes a Llama (I LOVE "The Emperor's New Groove"), Atlantis is underwater and thriving, "Treasure Island" in space, etc... So after the switch they try a to go the "Shrek" route by spoofing a classic fairy tale and filling it with present pop culture ("Chicken Little") which I wouldn't call a failure per-se, but it cost more than it earned. So it is possible that the powers that were wanted 2D animation to become obsolete so they could produce movies faster (Most CG films take about a year less to complete than it would if it was 2D unless great care and detail are put into it such as any of the Pixar films) and more of them equaling more profit. However, I don't think anyone really anticipated the Pixar takeover and Lassater being put in charge of feature animation. Now, "Meet the Robinsons" was delayed by the Pixar genious to re-tool some things, but the release date is in March, not a typically good time at the box office for children's movies. You would think they would hold off for a summer release. Could it be that Lassater wants another failure in the executives eyes to have 2D animation fully restored? Right now there are 2 in production ("Enchanted" is part 2D and "The Frog Princess" is all 2D) and the former comes out next fall. If it's a hit, Disney might realize they were wrong and produce more 2D films and leave Pixar to the CG. That's just my theory. Anyone is free to argue against it. I don't typically believe in conspiracies and I don't necessarily believe anyone has conspired to to anything at Disney, but the theories are intriguing and they are possible.

[slave2moonlight]

Well, I'm sure there are people here with more experience than I have, but I've worked with independent films a little, and I can say this much: There's a lot of sneaky stuff that goes on. Why people doubt conspiracies are possible most of the time is beyond me. They DO happen, and I don't just mean in the film industry. But I've seen them happen in the film industry, so I know it happens there. And if I've seen it working on independent films, I can imagine how bad it is on the BIG stuff!

[The Merman]

Yeh some nice theories there slave2moonlight and Goofystitch. In my mind I can never understand why Disney would produce Atlantis. It is the worst Disney movie in History! Also Home on the Range was a movie that was not cared about because it would be the last 2D movie anyway, and the animation department was already going to close. I have not met anyone who thinks that Home on the Range is a msterpiece, but rather an unfinnished product.

[2099net]

For a long time, I was a bit confused about Katzenberg as well. I heard some different opinions though, and came to feel that he was not the golden boy some had made him out to be. Seeing the extras on the Little Mermaid Platinum Edition should confirm that for anybody. They really do make him sound like a trouble-causing moron when it comes to making animated films. As for the film Shrek, Lord Farquad was meant to represent Eisner. He even looks a bit like him, though also like his voice actor. He lives in a Disneyland-like Kingdom full of Disney-mocking in-jokes, and Katzenberg's greatest shot at him was making him so short. This was retalliation for a time when Eisner called Katzenberg a midget, or something like that. While I enjoy Shrek (and the sequel much more), it is waaaay overrated and I think turning the whole film into a way to fire personal shots at a studio and its CEO that you have bitter feelings towards is in somewhat bad taste, since, as I understood it, Shrek was based on some children's book, the intention of which I doubt was taking shots at Michael Eisner. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some big Eisner defender either. He's done his share of things to annoy me for sure.

Well, Shrek is basically satire. And almost all satire is based on anger, frustration and personal opinion. Some of the ideas in Shrek are actually very clever - and that's what makes me hate the film even more, it never lives up to its own potential.

(I believe Antz by Dreamworks in one of the most "adult" animated films ever made - and yes, I think its far better than A Bug's Life. Now there's real satire for you. And I also believe Dreamworks were planning to make more films of a similar nature, but the fact Antz wasn't fully embraced made the studio tinker with the films in production: Shrek and Road to Eldorado, both of which have obviously more intelectual concepts, but ended up being watered down.)

I haven't seen Over the Hedge yet (its out on DVD here in a week or so) but from the reviews it looks like Dreamworks has finally got the satire/broad comedy mix about right to appeal to a wider audience without one aspect suffering at the hands of another)

As for the movement away from fairy tales, the same happened under Walt's watch (and beyond). Alice and Wonderland, Lady and the Tramp, 101 Dalmatians, The Jungle Book, The Aristocats, Winnie the Pooh (which of course Walt was involved with) aren't exactly fairy tales. Lady and the Tramp and 101 Dalmatians being the obvious exceptions. 101 Dalmatians doesn't even have singing.

As I've said before, I think its wrong for people to expect Disney or its creative talents to only produce one type of film. Its only natural that both the company and the talent would want to try new things. Walt himself switched his attention away from animation in favour of his live-action films.

After the new crew came on board, they too felt the need to move away from Disney's fairytale legacy (Ironically, a legacy that they built upon Walt's early foundations. I belive the new fairy tale films are what is responsible for the public seeing Disney as a fairy tale/princess company) But again they felt the need to try something else, something new. And all power to them for doing so.

Nobody expects Steven Speilberg to just make thrillers, or historical documents, or family friendly comedies. He can quite happily do them all, and any other genre he decides to film. Why can't Disney animation?

I belive that if you did encourage Disney's animation department to just make fairy tales, the resultant films would be worse than the films we did get (not that I see anything wrong with most of them), because the creative talent's heart wouldn't be in it.

I know you aren't responsible for the "animation is for kids" feeling, and I know that labelling annoys you just as much as it does me, but if companies like Disney never experiment, we're never going to loose that attitude in society.