http://www.jimhillmedia.com/articles/01072004.1.htm
It says what a lot of us have been saying on here. We've all said Disney are producing too many animated films. And if Disney stop the frequencey of their animated films, I suppose studio closure is a side-effect.
That said, I'm pretty sure any Disney animated film makes a profit when worldwide cinema and home video sales are taken into account. So is it really a problem if box office is down as long as people do buy the home release regardless?
Disney Executive Tells Their Side of the Story
Disney Executive Tells Their Side of the Story
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
I totally agree - no Disney animated film should ever have a sequel.
HOWEVER, one side-effect - for DVD collectors - is that maybe if the views of this executive became widespread Disney might return to the vast moratorium periods on classic releases? I really don't want to wait ten years between one opportunity to buy a classic film and the next - nor do I want to wait until 2010 to buy 101 Dalmations on dvd! (2007 is bad enough). Yet that would be the result of less dvd releases - they might return to one platinum release a year instead of the two that we're likely to start getting from 2005.
Hope they just cut down on the rubbishy sequels instead of making dvd releases rarer.
HOWEVER, one side-effect - for DVD collectors - is that maybe if the views of this executive became widespread Disney might return to the vast moratorium periods on classic releases? I really don't want to wait ten years between one opportunity to buy a classic film and the next - nor do I want to wait until 2010 to buy 101 Dalmations on dvd! (2007 is bad enough). Yet that would be the result of less dvd releases - they might return to one platinum release a year instead of the two that we're likely to start getting from 2005.
Hope they just cut down on the rubbishy sequels instead of making dvd releases rarer.
Just release every Disney full-length toon on DVD - now, damn you!
Well, I agree that Disney is putting out too much product, as he talked about. But he implies that that's the only reason people aren't turning out for WDFA movies as they do for Pixar movies - I think it also has the do with the public's opinion of the quality of the films, of course.
It's obvious all Eisner's concerned about is profit, and he speaks about. The more they aim for higher profit, the less results they'll get, I believe.
It's obvious all Eisner's concerned about is profit, and he speaks about. The more they aim for higher profit, the less results they'll get, I believe.
I hopehe's telling the truth. I can understand their position, but Disney has made enough profit over the years with Pixar's big hits... They could use that money to build the company back up againinstead of putting it into their pockets. I just hope everything will be fine withing a few years from now, at least they are working on it... so it seems.
-
Maerj
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2748
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 11:31 pm
- Location: Ephrata, PA
- Contact:
Interesting article, if true. I agree with this paragraph here:
Because so many consumers are now hip to the pattern (I.E. That -- four to six months after a new Disney movie appears in theaters -- that this same film will be available for purchase in the home video and DVD format), they no longer feel like they have to rush out to theaters to catch the latest WDFA release. (That's what Disney's own market survey work is telling us what happened with "Brother Bear," Jim. Almost 35% of our North American target audience opted out of seeing that movie while it was in theaters. These consumers preferred to wait 'til "Brother Bear" was available on home video and DVD before finally checking out that flick. )
That is something that has lead to lower theatrical profits I think. Especially with Treasure Planet, which did poorly at the box office, but the DVDs sold pretty well.
Now the issue of producing too much product. As far as the "Animated Classics" goes, I disagree. They have been produced at a good pace, there hasn't really been that many. Think about it, we get usually one of those a year. Where the numbers go up is with these direct to video projects, especially since they started showing some of those theatrically!
Ideally, WDFA would make one Animated Classic a year and show it theatrically. No more of the "cheapquels" as we refer to them, at the theaters. In fact, how about no more "Cheapquels" at all? If they are going to do a sequel, why not do it right? Take care of the characters and the plot, stay true to the characters. Make sure the animation looks like the original! Make sure the story makes sense! If in the original film they live happily ever after, KEEP IT THAT WAY! Don't make a sequel to it if the story is done!
But what about all of these animators? There are a lot of people employed making these films! Why not make original direct to video movies? Take these creative people and talk to them. I bet you there are literally dozens and dozens of ideas for projects, some of which wouldn't exactly fit into the "Animated Classic" series. Why not take a chance on some of these ides and do them as DTV features? Make more animated series for Toon Disney channel and ABC Saturday mornings? Make DTV movies based on some of these series using original characters?
Most of all, make a distinction between DTV movies and the Animated Classics. Make a documentary explaining the history of WDFA, from Snow White to Home on the Range. Educate people on the significance of the Animated Classics label and how each new film is in some way descended from the original one, Snow White. I think that would make a great Wonderful World of Disney movie! Then release it on video and DVD, thus making more money! We'd buy it, you all know that.
Because so many consumers are now hip to the pattern (I.E. That -- four to six months after a new Disney movie appears in theaters -- that this same film will be available for purchase in the home video and DVD format), they no longer feel like they have to rush out to theaters to catch the latest WDFA release. (That's what Disney's own market survey work is telling us what happened with "Brother Bear," Jim. Almost 35% of our North American target audience opted out of seeing that movie while it was in theaters. These consumers preferred to wait 'til "Brother Bear" was available on home video and DVD before finally checking out that flick. )
That is something that has lead to lower theatrical profits I think. Especially with Treasure Planet, which did poorly at the box office, but the DVDs sold pretty well.
Now the issue of producing too much product. As far as the "Animated Classics" goes, I disagree. They have been produced at a good pace, there hasn't really been that many. Think about it, we get usually one of those a year. Where the numbers go up is with these direct to video projects, especially since they started showing some of those theatrically!
Ideally, WDFA would make one Animated Classic a year and show it theatrically. No more of the "cheapquels" as we refer to them, at the theaters. In fact, how about no more "Cheapquels" at all? If they are going to do a sequel, why not do it right? Take care of the characters and the plot, stay true to the characters. Make sure the animation looks like the original! Make sure the story makes sense! If in the original film they live happily ever after, KEEP IT THAT WAY! Don't make a sequel to it if the story is done!
But what about all of these animators? There are a lot of people employed making these films! Why not make original direct to video movies? Take these creative people and talk to them. I bet you there are literally dozens and dozens of ideas for projects, some of which wouldn't exactly fit into the "Animated Classic" series. Why not take a chance on some of these ides and do them as DTV features? Make more animated series for Toon Disney channel and ABC Saturday mornings? Make DTV movies based on some of these series using original characters?
Most of all, make a distinction between DTV movies and the Animated Classics. Make a documentary explaining the history of WDFA, from Snow White to Home on the Range. Educate people on the significance of the Animated Classics label and how each new film is in some way descended from the original one, Snow White. I think that would make a great Wonderful World of Disney movie! Then release it on video and DVD, thus making more money! We'd buy it, you all know that.
Personally I think Disney should wait a year or so (perhaps even 18 months) before releasing one of their new Animated "Classics" to home video. That would get people into the cinemas to see the films.
I know you all want the home release ASAP, but show some patience and hopefully we would get (a) better quality DVDs and (b) bigger box office and then DVD sales - let's face it, we'd all still buy the films either way. Who says the films have to have a home video release 4 - 6 months after release?
It's strange - Disney's archive releases' whole marketing is based on limited release and building demand with the added anticipation this creates to stimulate sales, while their marketing for the new films seems to be "bung it on DVD as quickly as possible - even before the whole world's even had chance to see the film if need be" and I think in many respects this is wrong. Where is the anticipation for either the theatrical or home release when this is happening?. But I know none of you share this view.
We know delayed releases can work - Monsters, Inc. was released on DVD almost a year after it was first shown on the big screen and (at the time) was the fastest selling DVD release.
As for the animators - well, Disney's DTV animations do generate massive profits. They wouldn't make as many if they didn't. But one of the reasons is the animation is done abroad where prices are cheaper. Australia has historically had a low value currency - which makes the animation even cheaper. (That said, I'm happy to see the dollar is falling - I've a massive order at Amazon due to ship in March which is already £40 cheaper than when I placed the order thanks to exchange rate changes!
) I doubt Disney would want any DTV products made in America simply as the location pushes up the costs.
I think some of the animators should have been kept on to produce new animated shorts. Imagine seeing an all new shot featuing sailor Mickey vs Pirate Captain Pete before Pirates of the Caribbean 2? Wouldn't that just make your day? Imagine seeing an all new Donald Duck and his nephews short before Freaky Friday 2? Or an all new Pluto and Figaro short before The Incredible Journey 3?
The shorts could be used to keep animators skills constant, train new recruits, as a test ground for new techniques. Plus, put them on the home video releases. Compile them in compilations. Put them in House of Mouse a year or two after the theatrical release. They would be an added incentive to see the film or buy the home video. Even change the short half way through a movie's release if you think it may encourage repeat viewings.
Anyhow, just my ideas if Disney really is over producing and suffering from the short theatrical to home window.
I know you all want the home release ASAP, but show some patience and hopefully we would get (a) better quality DVDs and (b) bigger box office and then DVD sales - let's face it, we'd all still buy the films either way. Who says the films have to have a home video release 4 - 6 months after release?
It's strange - Disney's archive releases' whole marketing is based on limited release and building demand with the added anticipation this creates to stimulate sales, while their marketing for the new films seems to be "bung it on DVD as quickly as possible - even before the whole world's even had chance to see the film if need be" and I think in many respects this is wrong. Where is the anticipation for either the theatrical or home release when this is happening?. But I know none of you share this view.
We know delayed releases can work - Monsters, Inc. was released on DVD almost a year after it was first shown on the big screen and (at the time) was the fastest selling DVD release.
As for the animators - well, Disney's DTV animations do generate massive profits. They wouldn't make as many if they didn't. But one of the reasons is the animation is done abroad where prices are cheaper. Australia has historically had a low value currency - which makes the animation even cheaper. (That said, I'm happy to see the dollar is falling - I've a massive order at Amazon due to ship in March which is already £40 cheaper than when I placed the order thanks to exchange rate changes!
) I doubt Disney would want any DTV products made in America simply as the location pushes up the costs.I think some of the animators should have been kept on to produce new animated shorts. Imagine seeing an all new shot featuing sailor Mickey vs Pirate Captain Pete before Pirates of the Caribbean 2? Wouldn't that just make your day? Imagine seeing an all new Donald Duck and his nephews short before Freaky Friday 2? Or an all new Pluto and Figaro short before The Incredible Journey 3?
The shorts could be used to keep animators skills constant, train new recruits, as a test ground for new techniques. Plus, put them on the home video releases. Compile them in compilations. Put them in House of Mouse a year or two after the theatrical release. They would be an added incentive to see the film or buy the home video. Even change the short half way through a movie's release if you think it may encourage repeat viewings.
Anyhow, just my ideas if Disney really is over producing and suffering from the short theatrical to home window.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
-
Jake Lipson
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1220
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:33 pm
I think there are two real problems here.
No one, save us Disney geeks, can tell the difference between an Animated Classic and a cheapquel anymore. All they see is this flood of animated films coming in. There's no line drawn.
What Disney needs to do is pull the plug on the cheapquels. This may sound very nuts, but it has damaged their reputation. People see something brilliant like Lilo & Stitch, and then the next month they see some rubbish like 101 Dalmatians II, and they just don't realize that it's being produced by seperate divisions of the company, or, in some cases, being framed out of the company completely. To Average Joe, it's just one big pool of material, and it's very inconsistant. That's why they don't go to the films anymore They honestly can't tell if this movie is special and if it's worth seeing. Back in the early '90s, Disney only released one, or two MAXIMUM, new, original animated projects per year from any of its divisions These were all quality films and they all performed amazingly.
Now you've got the brilliants like Brother Bear and Treasure Planet in te mix with absolute manuire like 101 Dalmatians II and Teacher's Pet and the public is dazed, confused, and content to do without.
Got to go. More later.
No one, save us Disney geeks, can tell the difference between an Animated Classic and a cheapquel anymore. All they see is this flood of animated films coming in. There's no line drawn.
What Disney needs to do is pull the plug on the cheapquels. This may sound very nuts, but it has damaged their reputation. People see something brilliant like Lilo & Stitch, and then the next month they see some rubbish like 101 Dalmatians II, and they just don't realize that it's being produced by seperate divisions of the company, or, in some cases, being framed out of the company completely. To Average Joe, it's just one big pool of material, and it's very inconsistant. That's why they don't go to the films anymore They honestly can't tell if this movie is special and if it's worth seeing. Back in the early '90s, Disney only released one, or two MAXIMUM, new, original animated projects per year from any of its divisions These were all quality films and they all performed amazingly.
Now you've got the brilliants like Brother Bear and Treasure Planet in te mix with absolute manuire like 101 Dalmatians II and Teacher's Pet and the public is dazed, confused, and content to do without.
Got to go. More later.
<a href=http://jakelipson.dvdaf.com/owned/ target=blank>My modest collection of little silver movie discss</a>
-
goofystitch
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2948
- Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 1:30 pm
- Location: Walt Disney World
No, like Disney's Pixar deal, another studio (Vangard - set up by some ex-PDI employees) is simply having it's film distributed by Disney. Unlike Pixar, I don't think Disney has any financial input into the actual production of the film.goofystitch wrote:What is "Valliant"? The executive in the article says something about it being a CG movie made in the U.K. Is this Disney's first CG movie to replace the 2-D style???
More on Valliant here:
http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hp&cf=prev&id=1808470369
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
-
Grunches
- Special Edition
- Posts: 560
- Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 12:20 am
- Location: On A Magic Carpet
- Contact:
I so agree with all of you. They need to stop"cheapquels" or do them right. They also need to only realse one animated film a year or two maybe. Home on the range dosen't look that good to me. What happend to The Little Mermaid, and The Lion King where everyone wanted to see them. They need to not care so much about the profit but of the quality. If it is good quality then that will bring the good profit.tooniac wrote:I totally agree - no Disney animated film should ever have a sequel.
HOWEVER, one side-effect - for DVD collectors - is that maybe if the views of this executive became widespread Disney might return to the vast moratorium periods on classic releases? I really don't want to wait ten years between one opportunity to buy a classic film and the next - nor do I want to wait until 2010 to buy 101 Dalmations on dvd! (2007 is bad enough). Yet that would be the result of less dvd releases - they might return to one platinum release a year instead of the two that we're likely to start getting from 2005.
Hope they just cut down on the rubbishy sequels instead of making dvd releases rarer.
-
Kim Olav Svines
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 168
- Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2003 9:15 am
Release home video releases 18 months after it's theatrical would be wise, I think. By that time, many would have forgotten about it. They need to release it while it's still on people's mind.
There's been some talking about releasing movies on DVD, simultaniously with the theatrical release. (Did not come from Disney though, think it was Warner or someone).
There's been some talking about releasing movies on DVD, simultaniously with the theatrical release. (Did not come from Disney though, think it was Warner or someone).
-
MickeyMousePal
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 6629
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 10:40 pm
- Location: The Incredibles LA!!!
- Contact:
I hope they don't return to the one platinum release per year. It's better if it's two platinums per year so Disney fans don't have to wait until 2010 to have their whole collection. I cannot wait until 2006 to get The Little Mermaid or Cinderella. If I have to I guess I will wait. Also stop with the cheap sequels.HOWEVER, one side-effect - for DVD collectors - is that maybe if the views of this executive became widespread Disney might return to the vast moratorium periods on classic releases? I really don't want to wait ten years between one opportunity to buy a classic film and the next - nor do I want to wait until 2010 to buy 101 Dalmations on dvd! (2007 is bad enough). Yet that would be the result of less dvd releases - they might return to one platinum release a year instead of the two that we're likely to start getting from 2005. Hope they just cut down on the rubbishy sequels instead of making dvd releases rarer.
The Simpsons Season 11 Buy it Now!
Fox Sunday lineup:
8:00 The Simpsons
8:30 King of the Hill
9:00 Family Guy
9:30 American Dad
Living in the 1980's:
Fox Sunday lineup:
8:00 The Simpsons
8:30 King of the Hill
9:00 Family Guy
9:30 American Dad
Living in the 1980's:
-
Ernest Rister
The chickens have come home to roost. Disney gluts the marketplace with cheap, farmed-out efforts like Jungle Book 2 and destroys the value of their brand name in the process. Disney used to be the gold standard in animated features. With the direct to video crap, not only have they violated Walt's wish to never make sequels to his hit animated films (excluding Fantasia), they've also violated the founding principle of the entire studio...creating a trusted brand name as the best in animated family entertainment.
What's happening at Disney right now is like something out of Walt Disney's worst nightmares. Yes, he'd be proud the studio he created was still around, but the corrosion of the production values he insisted on and the scuttling of the hand-drawn animation legacy would disturb him greatly.
"I don't make movies to make money. I make money so that I can make more movies."
-- Walt Disney
Someone should staple that to Michael Eisner's forehead.
What's happening at Disney right now is like something out of Walt Disney's worst nightmares. Yes, he'd be proud the studio he created was still around, but the corrosion of the production values he insisted on and the scuttling of the hand-drawn animation legacy would disturb him greatly.
"I don't make movies to make money. I make money so that I can make more movies."
-- Walt Disney
Someone should staple that to Michael Eisner's forehead.
-
Disney Guru
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3294
- Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 5:31 pm
- Location: Utah
Disney Anime
I 100% Disagree with you. If Disney Didn't make any sequels to their animated films we would'nt have a lot of the great animated sequels for instance.
Little Mermaid II
Jungle Book II
Lion King II
Toy Story II
Return Of Jafar
Aladdin And The King Of The Thieves.
"I have this tremendous energy. I just loved and love life. I love it today. I never want to die."
~Jayne Meadows Allen~
~Jayne Meadows Allen~
-
Ernest Rister
The direct-to-video sequels are an amboniation. I'd sooner clean my bathroom toilet with my tongue than watch any of those low-budget monstrosities, made on the cheap and pitched at five year olds, just to cash in on the legacy of Walt Disney and his animators. Making a cheap sequel to Cinderella is like colorizing Citizen Kane to me. Walt Disney is dead and can't defend himself, now here comes Michael Eisner strip-mining Walt's legacy for all it's worth.
Did you know Eisner is making an all-CGI straight-to-video sequel to Bambi? It's true. Bambi is a peerless achievement in the art of hand-drawn character animation, but hand-drawn animation is expensive, so, here comes Eisner making a CGI made-for-kiddies sequel to one of the greatest American films ever made.
As for Toy Story II -- that's a Pixar film. Disney has no creative involvement with Pixar, they simply write the checks for half the production costs, and then take a hefty distribution fee, and then wind up owning the sequel rights and home video distribution rights. This is why Pixar is on fire to renegotiate their contract. They're the ones creating the films, Disney is more of a banker and distribution company for their films.
Calling Toy Story II a Disney film is like calling Star Wars a 20th Century Fox film.
Did you know Eisner is making an all-CGI straight-to-video sequel to Bambi? It's true. Bambi is a peerless achievement in the art of hand-drawn character animation, but hand-drawn animation is expensive, so, here comes Eisner making a CGI made-for-kiddies sequel to one of the greatest American films ever made.
As for Toy Story II -- that's a Pixar film. Disney has no creative involvement with Pixar, they simply write the checks for half the production costs, and then take a hefty distribution fee, and then wind up owning the sequel rights and home video distribution rights. This is why Pixar is on fire to renegotiate their contract. They're the ones creating the films, Disney is more of a banker and distribution company for their films.
Calling Toy Story II a Disney film is like calling Star Wars a 20th Century Fox film.
Ernest Rister wrote:The direct-to-video sequels are an amboniation. I'd sooner clean my bathroom toilet with my tongue than watch any of those low-budget monstrosities, made on the cheap and pitched at five year olds, just to cash in on the legacy of Walt Disney and his animators. Making a cheap sequel to Cinderella is like colorizing Citizen Kane to me. Walt Disney is dead and can't defend himself, now here comes Michael Eisner strip-mining Walt's legacy for all it's worth.
But the video sequels did and most importantly still do bring in money for Disney. Something that their last few animated films have struggled to do (bar Lilo and Stitch). Treasure Planet still hasn't made money and The Emporor's New Groove only made money sometime last year when domestic and overseas TV rights were added to the equation.
Plus quality issues or not, more people went to see The Jungle Book II than Treasure Planet. I'm not saying Jungle Book II was a better film, but more people clearly wanted to see it. The sequels are popular. All business works on a supply and demand basis... and there's obviously a demand for sequels. It may just be 4-10 year olds wanting to see more of their favourite characters again, but the demand is there. While I adore Treasure Planet, the demand simply wasn't there... and it had nothing to do with DTV oversaturation because as I've pointed out, JB II took more money.
Oh, and nobody knows what Walt would do. He's dead and thus about 30 years behind the times. Things were different when Walt was alive. Nobody had home video. TV showings of his animated films were rare and nobody could record them or purchase the VHS even if they did watch them. So Walt could re-release his films and still get sizable box office. How do you know what Walt would do once this revenue was unavailable? After all re-releasing the films is like making a sequel in that the basic idea is for the audience to "spend more time with their favourite characters".
I also think its wrong to blame the DTV sequels for Disney feature animation's decline. After all, most sequels never went to the theaters. The problem is bigger than just DTV sequels (but I'll admit they're part of the problem). What about all the cartoons on Toon Disney? What about Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon? The fact is Animation as an art form generally has been devalued because of DTV sequels and the vast amount of television animation which is available at the simply push of a button. Remember when Disney films were in their heyday, television animation offered only the limited animation of Yogi Bear or the Flintstones, or animation that wasn't much better (like Scooby Doo).
Now the quality of TV animation has gone up to standards better than the 80's and definitly better than the 60's and 70's. Television animation has grown up, just like theatrical animation did in the 30's and 40's. There's just not the incentive to go and see an animated film at the cinema anymore simply for the spectacle (unless we start talking about CGI, but that's another issue).
But I do agree that Disney theatrical launches are not "special" anymore.
It's been scrapped, the technology wasn't up for it at this point in time. But I'm sure Disney will try again in a year or two time? And why not? If the finished result looks handdrawn, what difference does it make to the viewer? I'm sure someday all animation will be computer, and some will look photorealistic, some will look abstract and some will look handdrawn.Ernest Rister wrote:Did you know Eisner is making an all-CGI straight-to-video sequel to Bambi? It's true. Bambi is a peerless achievement in the art of hand-drawn character animation, but hand-drawn animation is expensive, so, here comes Eisner making a CGI made-for-kiddies sequel to one of the greatest American films ever made.
Disney has quite a complex contract with Pixar, and their involvement in the films is on a sliding scale based on certain criteria. To start off with, Disney story staff had a lot of input into the original Toy Story. Pixar actually kept asking Disney for help with the story. A lot of Disney's story ideas made their way into the final film.Ernest Rister wrote:As for Toy Story II -- that's a Pixar film. Disney has no creative involvement with Pixar, they simply write the checks for half the production costs, and then take a hefty distribution fee, and then wind up owning the sequel rights and home video distribution rights. This is why Pixar is on fire to renegotiate their contract. They're the ones creating the films, Disney is more of a banker and distribution company for their films.
Calling Toy Story II a Disney film is like calling Star Wars a 20th Century Fox film.
Disney still has input into every other Pixar film - and why not, as you say they are putting up half the money. However, Pixar have no obligation to use any Disney ideas, and as they have grown they have not only become more confident in their abilities, but also better craftsmen. But in theory Disney can veto a character from doing something in the story they don't like as they have shared copyright on the characters. It's like Steven Speilberg intially vetoingthe Roger Rabbit prequel because he didn't want Roger associated with Nazis. I think Disney may of had more involvement in Toy Story II than you think.
As for the other criteria, Disney has a clause in Pixar's contract that they can get "Final Cut" on any Pixar movie not directed by a director who has made an average of x amount of takings at the box office. So John Lasseter's upcoming Cars is okay, and Finding Nemo got away with Pixar having the final cut because Andrew Stanton was half of the directing team of A Bug's Life. But Monsters, Inc. could have substantial input from Disney (I don't know if it did). The same with Brad Bird's upcoming The Incredibles.
While most of the talks between Pixar and Disney are ecomonic, some of the negotiations are to remove this final cut clause, which they want removing from all remaining features on their initial contract as well as the new films.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
-
Disney Guru
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3294
- Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 5:31 pm
- Location: Utah
Disney Executives Are Saying
Hey Ernest. Everybody has their own opinion on the matter.
"I have this tremendous energy. I just loved and love life. I love it today. I never want to die."
~Jayne Meadows Allen~
~Jayne Meadows Allen~
-
Ernest Rister
<<But the video sequels did and most importantly still do bring in money for Disney.>>
Just because soccer moms buy the latest disney video at the grocery store so that they can shut their kids up for 90 minutes doesn't mean Disney has to churn out such low-budget whorish garbage. Walt believed in quality, the "cheapquels" are a blight on the Disney brand name.
And I recognize everyone has opinions. In my opinion, if you consider yourself a fan of Walt Disney and you buy all of these low-budget direct-to-video crapfests -- you're a traitor.
My opinion.
Just because soccer moms buy the latest disney video at the grocery store so that they can shut their kids up for 90 minutes doesn't mean Disney has to churn out such low-budget whorish garbage. Walt believed in quality, the "cheapquels" are a blight on the Disney brand name.
And I recognize everyone has opinions. In my opinion, if you consider yourself a fan of Walt Disney and you buy all of these low-budget direct-to-video crapfests -- you're a traitor.
My opinion.
I agree with you Ernest.
So what if there's a demand for something? Is Disney just a business, concerned soley with the bottom line, or is Disney a creative enterprise? Right now it really is a Mouse Factory, pumping out cheap low-quality product.
Think of it this way... a child who doesn't know any better will demand more of their favorite treat, but if we gave him what he wanted, you know what would happen. He'd stuff his face until he got sick. Well, a lot of people are getting sick of Disney now, thanks to the glut of formulaic easy cheapquels being shoved down our throats. There's no substance to these "treats", and they certainly don't nourish the soul like the Disney Classics do.
Did Walt give 'em more Dwarfs because there was a demand for more Dwarfs? No he kept creating new characters and stories that became just as beloved.
Instead of giving in to the demands of the lowest common denominator masses (or 4-10 year olds), the Disney company should be creating and innovating and rising to new heights. Instead of giving us the familiar (cheapquels), how about giving us something new and exciting, magical and inspiring? I mean, that's what Disney used to do. That's what Disney used to stand for.
Sure it's easier for them to sell familiar beloved characters (not beloved for long if they continue to be drawn and written so poorly in the sequels) - it's easier to do that than create new characters who will capture our hearts. But it can be done. Walt did it all the time. Because he wasn't obsessed with profit like Eisner is. And because he wasn't willing to cut corners and sacrifice quality in order to save money. Again, unlike Eisner.
I think it's safe to say Walt would NOT be pleased with the state of his company today. Understatement! Just do a little research and learn about his philosophies and working methods... They're pretty much the exact opposite of Eisner's and the current Disney company.
Suggesting that Walt would have to alter his ways in order to fit in with today's world and today's business practices is ...rather ridiculous, considering the fact that Walt NEVER went along with the standard procedures of his day.... he didn't follow the crowd then. I don't see why he'd follow the crowd now.
I agree that it's impossible to predict exactly what he'd do since he was always a few steps ahead of everyone else. But I know this much for certain - If Walt were alive today, you can bet that the Disney name would still stand for innovative quality family entertainment.
So what if there's a demand for something? Is Disney just a business, concerned soley with the bottom line, or is Disney a creative enterprise? Right now it really is a Mouse Factory, pumping out cheap low-quality product.
Think of it this way... a child who doesn't know any better will demand more of their favorite treat, but if we gave him what he wanted, you know what would happen. He'd stuff his face until he got sick. Well, a lot of people are getting sick of Disney now, thanks to the glut of formulaic easy cheapquels being shoved down our throats. There's no substance to these "treats", and they certainly don't nourish the soul like the Disney Classics do.
Did Walt give 'em more Dwarfs because there was a demand for more Dwarfs? No he kept creating new characters and stories that became just as beloved.
Instead of giving in to the demands of the lowest common denominator masses (or 4-10 year olds), the Disney company should be creating and innovating and rising to new heights. Instead of giving us the familiar (cheapquels), how about giving us something new and exciting, magical and inspiring? I mean, that's what Disney used to do. That's what Disney used to stand for.
Sure it's easier for them to sell familiar beloved characters (not beloved for long if they continue to be drawn and written so poorly in the sequels) - it's easier to do that than create new characters who will capture our hearts. But it can be done. Walt did it all the time. Because he wasn't obsessed with profit like Eisner is. And because he wasn't willing to cut corners and sacrifice quality in order to save money. Again, unlike Eisner.
I think it's safe to say Walt would NOT be pleased with the state of his company today. Understatement! Just do a little research and learn about his philosophies and working methods... They're pretty much the exact opposite of Eisner's and the current Disney company.
Suggesting that Walt would have to alter his ways in order to fit in with today's world and today's business practices is ...rather ridiculous, considering the fact that Walt NEVER went along with the standard procedures of his day.... he didn't follow the crowd then. I don't see why he'd follow the crowd now.
I agree that it's impossible to predict exactly what he'd do since he was always a few steps ahead of everyone else. But I know this much for certain - If Walt were alive today, you can bet that the Disney name would still stand for innovative quality family entertainment.
"You're dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway." -- Walt Disney
I disagree with you chrisrose. First of all, the world has changed! The Walt Disney Company has more pressure of shareholders now. They didn't have that in the past so they could always create a great new movie all the time. However, they already had many shareholders when Beauty and the Beast and other "modern" classics were released. Well society has changed too. It has been said before on this forum and I will say it again. Younger people don't think Disney Movies are cool anymore. When most people hear Disney they won't think "Great Animation, Great Story, Great Movies!". They will think "Only for kids". Just think about it, when younger people go see a movie and come back from it and tell their friend what they saw they will get more "attention" from their Friends if they have seen The Lord of the rings or even a Pixar movie! It's all about that right now. Younger people didn't care in the past that they were seeing a Disney movie, but times have changed! Because of this Disney was having losses in the past and lost a lot of money. That's why they didn't want this to happen anymore and they decided to release their movies continuetly so they keep getting money and will not go broke. Yes, the quality of their movies have gone downhill but just think of it this way....
Month 1: Cheap Movie
Month 2: Cheap Movie
Month 3: Great Movie
Month 4: Cheap Movie
Month 5: Cheap Movie
...
You see? This makes the same schedule as in the past, just filled with sequels and other stuff around it to make the money roll in for the great movie. And by the way, you can only judge movies seperate you know. You can't just go saying "All sequels are bad" because they really aren't. Of course you have an opinion of yourself but if you are a real Disney fan there should be some sequels that you liked seeing.
About that whole CGI thing... CGI can be as great as 2d you know, I really don't know what all the fuss is about. They can make it look like hand drawn and the possibilities are amazing. And even if they don't make some CGI movies "handdrawn like" they can still look great. Just look at these images from Kingdom Hearts here.
If Walt would be alive now, Disney would be dead. Come on, you think he could handle this world now? I don't think so!
Month 1: Cheap Movie
Month 2: Cheap Movie
Month 3: Great Movie
Month 4: Cheap Movie
Month 5: Cheap Movie
...
You see? This makes the same schedule as in the past, just filled with sequels and other stuff around it to make the money roll in for the great movie. And by the way, you can only judge movies seperate you know. You can't just go saying "All sequels are bad" because they really aren't. Of course you have an opinion of yourself but if you are a real Disney fan there should be some sequels that you liked seeing.
About that whole CGI thing... CGI can be as great as 2d you know, I really don't know what all the fuss is about. They can make it look like hand drawn and the possibilities are amazing. And even if they don't make some CGI movies "handdrawn like" they can still look great. Just look at these images from Kingdom Hearts here.
If Walt would be alive now, Disney would be dead. Come on, you think he could handle this world now? I don't think so!