Disney Animated Sequels

[airlarry!]

I think this is the saddest day I have ever had reading these boards. I know I am an avowed Car #3, but there is a small part of me that kept thinking that the dark clouds hovering over my beloved company were just little rain clouds that would shower a bit and then move on.

The death of Feature Animation and the gutting (At The Same Time!) of both WDI and Feature Animation mean the end of an era in my eyes. Where is that Knight who can save this company?

AV, this has been the longest that I can think of between hard news or even juicy rumors about upcoming feature animation. We always were able to sniff in the past juicy tidbits about every upcoming release. I can remember reading old b-boards way before B&B came out, with little tidbits about how it was coming along. And so on and so forth all the way through Lilo & Stitch.

Now though, all I ready EVERYWHERE is that Treasure Planet is in trouble, and that there is nothing, *nothing* in the pipeline.

Yuck.

 

[raidermatt]

AV, that certainly is a bleak picture. Again, its not so much the change in methodology, its the lack of material in the pipeline. It sounds as though its a very real possibility that we will have no new Disney animated features next year, except for Pixar (?), and sequels. Just for the record, I think this would stink. Not that Pixar hasn't done well, but Mike's assurances aside, the Pixar contract does come to an end in the relatively near future, and nobody really knows what will happen then.

Should this picture become a reality it would still not be enough for me to go diving out of the window of car #1. That's because WDW itself would not feel the impact of this immediately. There would be a new Pixar film, and if successful, new characters. If not, it wouldn't be the first time Disney had a year berift of new beloved characters. But eventually, without new Disney characters to embrace, and stories to tell, the parks will lack new energy. I suppose that could be confined to DL and MK, but still, that's enough.

But its not enough to get me out now. By the time the Pixar deal ends, things could very well have changed for the good. If so, the parks need not suffer.

But how these decisions affect my view of current Disney management is a different story. I know the parks are strong enough to shrug off some short-sighted mistakes, but that doesn't excuse management from making those mistakes.

 

[Another Voice]

Sorry to set everyone’s weekend off on such a lousy note. I try to keep these downers buried deep within threads. I figure that people who really want to read them will find them, those that don’t want their rose glasses fogged a bit will have dropped out by now. I didn’t always belong to the later part of the car pool, and I sure don’t like being back here. But reality is important to me.

If you ask The Company, there’s plenty of product in the pipeline – ‘Dumbo 2’, ‘Cinderella 2’, ‘Jungle Book 2’, ‘Lady and the Tramp 3’, ‘More Dalmatians’. If pressed really hard at the stock holders meeting, I’m sure they’ll trot out ‘Bear’ or even the Mickey Mouse feature they always hype after the studio tanks (I first heard about it right after ‘Tron’ came out – the theatrical release 20 years ago).

And if you press them again, they’ll tell you that ‘Peter Pan 2’ is a theatrical release, it’s just made using a better business process. It’s getting an ad campaign the size of ‘Atlantis’, it’s got it’s own Happy Meal promotion, and at the very last minute they canned the ‘Lilo’ trailer that was to have been on ‘Monster, Inc.’ with the one for ‘PP2’ because (according to the justification), they always put the next big animation feature on the Pixar film. Plus they’ll also do a little dance routine about how this is what the audience wants.

Some of the future depends on the performance of ‘Pan 2’ at the box office. If it can pull in roughly the same b.o. as ‘Atlantis’ did, it will be seen as proof of Eisner’s case. After he was talked into keeping the last ‘Lady and the Tramp’ sequel as a video release, Mr. Eisner spent most of summer screaming as the returns for that “f------- fish movie” trickled in. He’s convinced that ‘Tramp 2’ would have outperformed ‘Atlantis’ and it cost a fraction of the price. It’s all about the returns these days – Eisner’s not in the game for the long run anymore. What the parks do for new characters really ain’t his concern.

The question about what happened in the 1970s and 1980s. It’s very simple; Disney forgot that its business is to tell stories. Movies are the central driver for everything the company does. Even the theme park attractions that aren’t tied to films are still storytelling experiences. As Hollywood changed in the late 1960s, the old guard was unwilling and unable to adapt and so the studio began to rot away. The core died.

More than any other studio, Disney has sense of history about itself. You can feel it on the lot, and you feel it resting on your shoulder. There’s always a comparison (unconscious or not) to “what they used to make”. It’s a high standard to live up to, and no one likes falling short. That too caused a kind of paralysis, it was better not to try than to fail. And no one wants to work on an embarrassment; when the big release for the year is ‘The Cat from Outer Space’ you learn to hide a lot.

Everyone knew that the key to turning Disney was to get the studio working again. Even Ron Miller finally figured it out and got all the balls rolling (too late to save himself, but that’s another story). It was easiest to do in live action (lead times are so much shorter) and you could feel a massive sense of relief rush throughout the company when ‘Splash’ came out. That was followed by ‘Country’, ‘Beverly Hills’ and others, but none of the live action films had the impact that ‘Little Mermaid’ had. For the first time since Walt, you could look at anyone in the industry and say “this one’s good, really good”. That sense was magnified a thousand times when ‘Beauty and the Beast’ came out. The company felt like everyone was mainlining espresso in their cubicles.

It felt that way because animation sets the standards for the entire company. If the public face of Disney is ‘The Lion King’, each and every division is compelled to live up that level. There is a reason why the high point for all areas of The Company – Film, Parks, and Products – all happened at the same time. And it’s the same reason why all areas are having a rotten time now. If the core of the business can put Saturday morning cartoons into movie theaters, what’s wrong with buying a carnival ride? The parks don’t succeed or fail based on new characters. They work because of the people who design and run the places. If they shoot low, if they don’t try – the parks will suffer no matter how many cute furry critters get included in 'Bambi 4'.

 

[Captain Crook]

But reality is important to me.

We have found the root of the difference's between the Captain & AV...

 

[raidermatt]

AV- We can handle the truth! (done in my best Jack Nicholson voice)

I agree that the story is the key in movies. I guess with rides/attractions, I think Disney's strength is the emersive experience. True, most of the long-term successes either tell a story, a la Pirates, or are based on one, ala Dumbo. But then there's the Matterhorn, Space Mountain, and the like, which don't really tell a story, but rather emerse you in the experience. (You are free to make up your own story...)

Anywho, my point about the parks/films was that I realize the parks need things other than new characters to feed off, but I do feel that one of DL's and MK's strengths is the way they blend the old with the new. Parades with 60 years of princesses. You can fly like Dumbo, and fly like Aladdin. But this only works if there are new characters that we CARE about. Epcot, AK, and even MGM and DCA don't rely on this as much, but the anchors do.

I can see what you mean about the Animation department sort of being the emotional leader of the divisions. It's the piece that the non Disneyholics are exposed to the most. Personally, I think Disney's reputation is damaged more by unsuccesful films, like Atlantis, than by an unsuccessful park, like DCA.

I still maintain that releasing sequels in and of itself is not the problem.

Assuming that the quality of these sequels is equivalent to what we've seen in the recent sequels, I can't see any becoming $150 million blockbusters. I'm going to guess "first" sequels, i.e. PP2, will average $50-70 million at the box office. As with most franchises, box office will drop with subsequent sequels. True, if the cost is only $15 million, they will still be profitable, but if we are going to start seeing these sequels replace original features, we will be getting 2-3 per year. Even with Disney's well stocked vault, the well will run dry. Also, those films that have already had a sequel released to video are already at a disadvantage. So even a returns fanatic should be viewing the big picture, looking at each new animated film as a potential franchise.

I am resigned to the fact the sequels will be made. I know I would do it. BUT, I also would want new blockbusters coming down the pipe. Of course I want every film to bring in Lion King box office, partly because we could make $700 million+ just on worldwide box office. But also becuase I now have a lucrative franchise. I can probably put out 2 theatrical, and several more direct to video releases over the next 10-15 years. My original to sequel pipeline is full. Now, even if my film does not do well, a la Atlantis, I will still make some $$$ on my worldwide box office. And since my sequel will only cost $15 million, I've still contributed ammunition to my guaranteed profic center, the Sequel Factory.

I know that isn't the most "Magical" way to look at it, but I think its a pretty realistic long-term view. If a true commitment is made to the feature blockbusters, we can have our beloved originals, and sequels too.

 

[HBK]

Oversaturation.

If they wanted to do the sequels, I guess I wouldn't mind so much if they weren't doing all sequels, all the time. After Treasure Planet it looks like we're bound for sequel-ville. Do they really need to make nothing BUT sequels? Too much. One sprinkled here or there is passable (I saw Return to Neverland and don't get me going. I'll make a new post about that.)...but making the sequels the only thing in production paints a pretty bleak picture doesn't it?

Even if Neverland makes a good box office, I guarantee each sequel released after will slowly head for the tank....and I'm not sold that Neverland will do well.

and I guess I need to lower the bar on my Disney expectation in order to EVER hope of jumping cars. If the company is happy to make second rate movies, I should accept second rate attractions in the park.

Sad Day.

 

[Captain Crook]

HBK, you keep projecting into the future like what we know and see today is all there is. We don't know what may or may not unfold on the horizon. If 'Lilo & Stitch' bring in 500 million bucks, tell me Disney will decide to close up shop on feature animation? Now sure 500 million is exaggeration, but then who'd have thought Drek would have brought in those staggering numbers?

As for 'Neverland', your yet ungiven review, appears to differ greatly from that opinion provided by Buzz and an official review posted by lrodk...

If the company is happy making second rate movies...

I don't get it? They certainly do make some second rate movies, but as I recall in this 'bad year' for Disney they managed to finish third. This is hardly the mark of a company looking to just put out crap. Further, I am absolutely sure that Eisner didn't tinker with PH because he thought it was too good and I'm sure whoever made Atlantis wasn't planning on being second best to Drek for the summer offering...This stuff just happens. Bad decisions are made and consequences follow.

As to AV's picture, the one he paints is bleak, but then AV has never been known to look at the bright side (around here that is) and while I too believe he has much knowledge behind his allegations and the scenerio of only 'contract' work bugs the crap out of me, too, I still think that nothing is cast in stone. It ain't over until Cruella sings...

 

[HBK]

HBK, you keep projecting into the future like what we know and see today is all there is. We don't know what may or may not unfold on the horizon. If 'Lilo & Stitch' bring in 500 million bucks, tell me Disney will decide to close up shop on feature animation?

The problem is there is nothing NEW in the pipline to where he can hang his hat if Lilo & Stich is a success. A Feature legnth animated movie isn't made in 6 months. They aren't developing ANYTHING new...that's my contention....After the current projects come out of the chute, there's nothing behind them but sequels.

I wrote a little blurb about the movie. I didn't care for it. I thought it's legnth was absurd for a movie release, the animation didn't do it for me, the story was rushed, and the amount of time dedicated to WWII was disturbing for me....espcially a bomb dropped almost on top of Jane. If you've seen it I'd love to hear what you thought of it. I think it belonged on the Disney Channel...not a Movie theater.

Further, I am absolutely sure that Eisner didn't tinker with PH because he thought it was too good and I'm sure whoever made Atlantis wasn't planning on being second best to Drek for the summer offering...This stuff just happens. Bad decisions are made and consequences follow.

Isn't that the scary part? I know Ei$ner doesn't tinker because he thinks movies are too good....but isn't it scary to know that the can't seem to get it right? How many strikes does he get before he's out? How about the company saying the quality movies were an abberation? If they don't strive to make quality, they won't attain quality. Period.

As to AV's picture, the one he paints is bleak, but then AV has never been known to look at the bright side (around here that is) and while I too believe he has much knowledge behind his allegations and the scenerio of only 'contract' work bugs the crap out of me, too, I still think that nothing is cast in stone. It ain't over until Cruella sings...

I disagree. I think AV has some type of emotional attachment to the company (probably worked high up at some point) and I think he is really bothered by the moves he sees being made. I've seen him heap praise in the past (Princess Diaries, and I believe he was the first with positive buzz about Lilo & Stitch) so I think he's balanced in his opinions. I just think you possibly are too quick to defend the company (DISCLAIMER:nothing personal intended there and I'm sorry if it reads that way). My point is even if Lilo & Stich does boffo business in the theaters the company can't just greenlight the next offering coming out of the pipe. They have 3 more movies which are in some type of production. After that the well is pretty dry. It would be years before anything could come out of feature animation...and to top that there isn't many people left in that department. Do you think those folks who got their walking papers would jump at the opportunity to return to Disney? I'm not so sure I would. The first bomb and they're back on the streets. Not a working envinroment I'd like to be a part of.

 

[Captain Crook]

good points HBK & I understand them. I agree that I defend the Company rather quickly (understatement?), but that doesn't mean I don't have reservations or fears about certain decisions or the direction they may be headed. That said, I still don't discount a reanimation of animation should something pleasantly unexpected happen. I don't see Disney turning off a money spiget...But that said, AV has me very concerned, as well. His comments are quite logical on this subject (Disney animation) and beleive me, the prospects bother me.

I haven't seen Pan II, but both kids are anxious, so if it makes it to our humble little island, we'll be seeing it, I'm sure. But my take on movies is hardly mainstream, I guess. I mean I did not like Shrek & we all (whole family) liked Atlantis a lot, of the four of us (wife, 2 kids & me) I liked it the least!

As for Eisner's 'tinkering' well, I'll admit to being queasy of late in this area, as well. I have no problem with sequels, off the shelf rides, hell, the off the shelf Park wouldn't even bother me if I had complete faith more was coming. I have high hope for Space in the theme Park arena (If it's a success, I think you naysayers will have some reevaluating to do, if it sucks it'll be Scoop, Disduck & myself doing some examining, I suspect). As for movies, I think L&S will be big & I still think Disney/Pixar will re-up before all is said & done, so therein lies hope.


PS.. If you haven't yet done so, read J.Thornhill's post & links...

 

[HBK]

I'm a little worried about Lilo & Stitch based on their ad campagin. Doesn't it concern you they're relying on the movies of the past as a part of their ad campagin, instead of trumping up the movie and letting it stand on it's own? I had to explain to my son that Stitch wasn't in the IMAX version of Beauty....and I'm sure when the movie is released he'll be looking for Aladin, Belle etc. The ads are cute, but the movie isn't standing on it's own.

When someone is on life support, they just don't climb out of bed and compete in the olympics. Even if Lilo does boffo business it will take time for Feature animation to be rehabilitated into a powerhouse. Time is something Ei$ner and company appear not too willing to give now adays.

Personally I think they really need to get back to basics and release a movie similar to Snow White, Cindy, etc. The Princess Diaries would have been a great animated flick (and I enjoyed it the way it was). That movie is proof that the public still enjoys fairy tails. It's just that noone is giving them any.

 

[Another Voice]

The process that Disney is using to make the sequels is the same process they will use to make the “blockbusters” – there is no difference between the two anymore. Disney will still make “feature animation”; just don’t expect to see a $100 million ‘Atlantis’ anymore. The “big” movies will be “direct-to-video” movies with a slightly higher budget. That’s an over simplification, but it’s the heart of the change. The decision to go theatrical rather than straight to DVD is a marketing decision; it won’t determine the budget or production method for the film.

The same pipeline will produce both sequels and original stories. Right now the pipeline is clogged with sequels. They’re the cheapest and most easily to market so they produce the biggest return for the dollar. It’s all about maximizing the returns. If ‘Lilo’ pulls in $500 million, that won’t mean that the next films will have their budget’s increased. But the expected financial returns expected will be raised.

What turned Eisner off to animation again was the inability to repeat the success of ‘The Lion King’. He became focused on the financial returns of the films rather than on making the films. A lot of money got dumped into animation (and too high a budget can ruin a movie more than too limited a budget can). When those movies didn’t produce the results, the spigot was turned off. When the lower cost movies didn’t produce the returns either, Eisner turned against the division. Rule one you learn inside the Team Disney Burbank building – it’s never Michael’s fault.

Eisner’s biggest problem is that he has a tin ear for really good material (not a problem when there were others around to pick it for him). ‘Pearl Harbor’ wasn’t ruined by tinkering; it was a rotten project from the very start. But Eisner does like to think he "improves" movies a lot. In the past, there were layers of management to keep him out of the way. But those layers are gone now. And in the past many of the people making the movies were strong enough to ignore Eisner. But there’s a reason why today’s scripts are written by interns and movie made by first-time directors. The biggest break ‘Lilo’ got was to be produced in Florida, away from management “help”.

I’m guessing here (without any first hand knowledge other than how the company seems to act), but the ad campaign for ‘Lilo’ probably has two goals. First is to put the movie in the same class as the other big films (‘Beauty’, ‘Aladdin’, ‘Mermaid’, etc.). From what I’ve heard it might very well deserve to be there. The second is to market ‘Lilo’ as part of the brand image trend the company has got going. There is a tremendous fear right now of failure, and the “surest” way to success is to smother any product under “Disney” stickers. In fact, ‘Lilo’ really is being marketed using a lot of the techniques they’ve been using to market the sequels.

Perhaps I really don’t have a problem with the concept of sequels. What bothers me is the utter lack of effort The Company is putting into its product these days. The Company no longer creates, it merely markets. The presentation has taken the place of substance. There are thousands scripts out there with better, more imaginative, more “magical” stories than ‘Peter Pan 2’. Sure, using off-the-shelf characters is more marketable in the short run, but there’s a shallowness there people can sense. It’s very hard to build a brand, but very easy to trash one.


And Captain, sir, I couldn’t pass this one up. You have absolutely no problems with an entire off-the-shelf park and yet you have not partaken in the wonder that is California Adventure. Is the theory better than its application?

 

[Captain Crook]

Nah...September 11 has made me afraid to fly.

 

[Conure]

Why can't they come up with a new plot? These storylines are usually only good for 1 movie. Why have too much?