Disney Animated Sequels [Archive] - The DIS Discussion Forums

Buzz2001

02-14-2002, 07:40 AM

Disney to Bring More Sequels to Big Screen
02-13-2002

(by digitalmediafx.com) Disney has big plans for its animated sequels well beyond Peter Pan: Return to Neverland. Disney is planning on bringing a sequel - or special from its TV animation division - to the big screen every February. This isn't new as Disney has been using February for spinoffs and TV specials on the big screen for several years (Doug's First Movie, Disney's Recess: School's Out, and The Tigger Movie). What is new is that sequels will also begin to occupy the February slot. This year it's Peter Pan: Return to Neverland and next year it's Jungle Book 2. Beyond that it's unclear which sequels or TV specials will hit the big screen, but Disney isn't ruling out Dumbo 2 or Atlantis: The Lost Empire 2.

The sequels cost about 1/6th of the cost of the original and are done by a different team than Disney Feature Animation. Disney seems set on continuing to churn out sequels as long as the public continues to fork out money for the sequels. At least one Disney representative is already prepping people for Snow White 2.

Disney's President of TV Animation, David Stainton, was quoted by the AP as saying, "I would personally love to make a sequel to Snow White. But the company is protective of these great pieces of art from the past. The decision isn't just mine to make."

Someone apparently forgot to tell Disney that Cinderella, Lady and the Tramp, and Dumbo were "great pieces of art from the past."

Captain Crook

02-14-2002, 10:48 AM

scoop, I have had the same worry, but my kids (again, with the kids) are anxiously awaiting 'Return To Neverland' so who am I to grouse about messing with a classic. After all, the original (classic) wasn't aimed at my parents either and I know neither of them (my parents) consider any of these cartoon features 'classic'...If it makes good business sense and people (even if they're small people) love them, then bring 'em on...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

Another Voice

02-14-2002, 11:57 AM

Yes, the sequels make economic sense. And yes children will watch pretty much anything you put in front of them. And yes this way we get animated features with the same frequency (and quality) that we get on Saturday morning television.

But it just shows how utterly bankrupt the creative side of Disney is at this point. A company that prides itself on “magic” and “imagination” is unable to develop an original concept or even bother trying something new. The only ambition they seem to have these days is the occasional struggle to raise themselves up to “mediocre”.

Strip mining a brand produces some very short term profits, but it craves the guts out of a company in short order.

kenjean

02-14-2002, 12:07 PM

I disagree about kids watching anything. We have obligingly bought the sequels, but Lady and the Tramp II and Little Mermaid II get very little playtime at our house. My daughters are 5 and 18months, and they already can spot shoddy product. As a result of wasting our money on the first two, we will not buy Cinderella II. We don't take the disney name on a movie granted for quality anymore.

Captain Crook

02-14-2002, 12:20 PM

I agree with most of your post Kenjean, my kids while liking some sequels & not liking others still have a taste. They did not like Shrek, loved Harry P & Atlantis, as well. My oldest daughter still loves Mulan (and why shouldn't she) & my youngest liked the Rugrats on tv but didn't care for the feature...It is patently unfair to lump children into this mold, IMO...

Now, I disagree with the implications that parents or consumers should ever have blindly accepted a Disney product as quality just because it says 'Disney' on the label. I have always believed the intention of Disney with their product was positive (and I still do) but it doesn't mean quality or acceptability is always achieved. In this day and age of profitability as king, I do understand and accept AV's premis that a product, say Pearl Harbor, no matter how good or bad it turned out to be, probably could have been better without the 'tinkering' for commercialism, but that doesn't mean Disney's intent was to produce an inferior product...They just got greedy (as in bad business decision)...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

raidermatt

02-14-2002, 12:34 PM

Another parent with a child that has discerning tastes here...

One of my 3-year olds favorite movies is "A Goofy Movie". Has been for the last year. So a couple of months ago, I bought the sequel, and he stopped paying attention after 20 minutes or so. I had big problems with it based on the cross-promotional ESPN thing, and the lack of original music. Not sure what his problems were, but he never has seen the whole thing.

On the other hand, he liked the Mermaid sequal, though he prefers the original.

Also, its only been recently that Disney began putting out new features every year. If the sequels don't cannibalize the market for the features, I just don't see a problem. The quality of the feature group does not have to be impacted by this process.

As somebody pointed out in another thread, most of the Disney classics are retellings of somebody else's stories, so while the animation and some characters were original, they hardly started from scratch.

Scoop- It was a fumble.....:mad:

:D

HBK

02-14-2002, 02:09 PM

But it just shows how utterly bankrupt the creative side of Disney is at this point. A company that prides itself on “magic” and “imagination” is unable to develop an original concept or even bother trying something new.
Well said. Really hits to the point of the problem.
"I would personally love to make a sequel to Snow White. But the company is protective of these great pieces of art from the past. The decision isn't just mine to make."
This guy must be related to Ei$ner or he's found the path up the corperate ladder. The fact that the current management feels a need to mooch off of the past is scarry. Why isn't he talking up the new, creating programming? Oh yeah, they don't have any.

Here's another idea....how about instead of creating all of the sequels at once, if they are going to do them, spread them out more and use this "fluff" month to test some new, creative, low risk concepts? Not everything needs to be a artfull masterpiece, but I'd rather see the company try to devlop some more characters and do new things with the fluff month than use it as a blatant profit month.

The other scary thing about all of the sequels....something that can't be found on a spreadsheet, somthing that the Disney company aparantly doesn't care about...the Brand name value. The sequels & other corners cut may be profitable now, but what about the long term health of the brand? With the rate that sequels are coming out vs the re-relase of the originals, my son has seen some of the sequels before he's seen the actual movie...which doesn't exactly put the company's best foot forward to the point that when the original comes out I'm not totally sure he would want to see them on his own without my prodding him. Will he take his children to see Disney's product? Maybe....maybe not.
It was a fumble
No it was an incomplete pass. And hey we're usually on the other end of those calls. It's about time one went our way! :) GO PATS!

Another Voice

02-14-2002, 02:52 PM

"We have obligingly bought the sequels"…"I bought the sequel"

That’s the ENTIRE marketing strategy that’s going on here. There is an assumption that because the movie is based on a classic and has the “Disney” label – people will give the company the benefit of the doubt and buy it. There isn't much thought at all about the movie, it just has to be "good enough".

The actual quality of the movie doesn’t show up in the financial statements, but eventually people will get wise to the scheme. I don’t think Eisner has thought that far ahead yet. What we’ll see is a quick spiral downward: lower costs to worse movies to poorer sales to lower budgets and so on.

Does anyone want to see ‘Snow White’ and ‘Dumbo’ follow that same path that ‘Rocky’ went down?

There is a big difference in “commercializing” a product to make it appeal to a wide audience verses commercializing to pander to the audience. Walt Disney “commercialized” a lot of the Grimm Brothers’ tales by reworking the stories, updating the stories themes and concepts and by sweating out thousands and thousands of details. Eisner commercialized ‘Pearl Harbor’ by pandering to the audiences’ perceived whims (“it’s like ‘Titanic’ but with explosions!”), by cutting out any element that, no matter how true, that might cause a drop in box office take, and by spending all their energy on creating a marketing campaign instead of producing a product.

The results are that over 60 years after ‘Snow White’ hit the theaters; it did a huge business on video and still continues to entertain people today. How many people are going to be watching ‘Pearl Harbor’ in 2061? Or even closer to the topic – is anyone expecting an IMAX release of ‘Peter Pan 2’ ten years from now? Short term thinking equals short term profits.

And Disney has all but stopped in house development of feature animation. Long gone are the directors, the writers, the key animators that would spend the time to develop a project. Also, the French animation group (‘Tarzan’ and many aspects of other films) has been sold and the Orlando group (‘Mulan’, ‘Lilo’ and others) will be closing shortly according to the rumors (and will close done ‘Brother Bear’ with it). The only people left are in TV Animation.

Buzz2001

02-14-2002, 04:13 PM

I din't know they had Disney animation in Australia.
“I can not emphasize enough the contributions of Walt Disney Animation Australia,” says Morrill. “With each production, Australia has reached new heights in artistry, and ‘Return to Never Land’ has truly raised the bar of excellence.”

Full Article (http://www.digitalmediafx.com/Features/PeterPanReturntoNeverland.html)

My family and I saw RTN in an advanced screening here in Hartford through Radio Disney. I think this movie is going to surprise a lot of folks.

raidermatt

02-14-2002, 05:15 PM

That’s the ENTIRE marketing strategy that’s going on here. There is an assumption that because the movie is based on a classic and has the “Disney” label – people will give the company the benefit of the doubt and buy it. There isn't much thought at all about the movie, it just has to be "good enough".

The key is, again, the story. The sequels have been a mixed bag. But again, so what? Producing a high quantity of mediocre films surrounding the good ones is nothing new to Disney. Just think of all the Apple Dumbling, Herbie, and other fluff movies that have been produced, many of them sequels. "The Strongest Man in the World"? "That Darn Cat"?

Disney is not a creative niche company. If the people want to purchase the films from the televition animation department, who is Disney to say they can't? Making these films is not, in and of itself, a problem for feature animation. After all, if no more original features are produced, the sequel well will run dry, and faster than some may think. There is NO reason why feature animation cannot go humming along.

Now, as Scoop said, IF feature animation is stopped, and replaced with tv animation, that is a different story. So I would second Scoop's question to AV, in the hopes that as much info as appropriate will be shared. For instance, will feature animation halt completely? Will it merely become a project-by-project thing, the way AV says Imangineering will be run?

PS- I am not pre-judging Neverland. I will most likely trot the family down to the local cineplex at some point over the next couple of weeks and check it out. Hopefully, it will be worth the trek. There just aren't too many movies out their we can take a 3-year old to. If it turns out to not be worth our money, so be it. We probably won't go see next year's sequel. But if they are accepted by a large enough segement of the public, Disney can keep churning them out...

Captain Crook

02-14-2002, 05:26 PM

Correct raidermatt & scoop's question to AV is thirded. I too, would hate to see the total demise of feature animation as we know it, but with whats being offered into the future why is this a concern?
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

HBK

02-14-2002, 06:28 PM

Isn't the demise of Feature Animation old news? I'm too lazy to try to hunt down the topic, but I was under the assumption that feature animation was being phased out after the current projects were finished. I knew about Orlando shutting down and I also knew about Anahiem cutting itself in at least half. What AV is saying isn't exactly a suprise.

All of the movies you know about I would imagine have been in the works for years...and invested in for the same amount of time....which I'm sure they're too far along to simply give up on em (promotional contracts with Coke, McDonalds, etc).

What's in development other than the movies we know about for the next two years? Is there any type of R&D going on?

Another Voice

02-14-2002, 08:33 PM

First off, there is no difference between “Feature” and “TV” animation any more – ‘Peter Pan 2’ was created as a direct-to-video release that’s being released in theaters. The same thing will happen with other direct-to-video releases if the marketing department believes enough money can be made from the box office to justify the extra ad cost. The “secret and official” line is that the box office returns no longer justify the cost to develop and produce “traditional” Disney animated films. Remember that Robert Iger himself said that the string of hits from ‘Beauty’ to ‘Mulan’ was an “aberration” and could not be repeated.

As I understand it (take it for what that’s worth), all animated projects will be developed through one “pipeline”. Whether they end up theatrical or video won't matter in terms of budget or resources. It will likely be more of a marketing call than anything else. Instead of in-house development of the films, they will be developed along more traditional “Hollywood” lines: Disney will bid and contract out for its feature animation. A producer will pitch a project to Disney or some executive will hire an outside writer to create a script. The actual animation will be contracted to outside companies with some supervision by individuals contracted to Disney (to keep costs down). In short – all animation will be done on a project-by-project business in exactly the same way the "Televsion Animation" group has been working.

This will save the company a lot of money because there won’t really be any full time staff beyond the suits. But anyone who knows even the slightest bit of Disney history will understand the tremendous loss that has occurred. There won’t be anymore “Nine Old Men”; there won’t be any Disney animators who could develop their skill over years, if not decades; there won’t be an opportunity for someone to hire a pair of kids who did a neat little short for a theme park just to see what else they can do (which is how the preshow for “Cranium Command’ resulted in ‘Beauty and the Beast’).

Instead of having a group of artists living and breathing life into a project for five years, you have a group of contract-temp employees assigned to oversee a bunch of off shore animators. Once the film’s done, they’ll be off to see what Dreamworks, Warners or Universal has got going.

This is way most movies (live action and animated) are produced in Hollywood. There will be people from the front of the carpool who say this is merely just another way Disney is keeping up with the times, it’s just a business decision. My answer is simple – look at the ratio of really good movies that come out of Hollywood verses the number of really bad movies that come out of Hollywood. Do you really want THAT system to produce Disney animated films?

Films like ‘That Darn Cat’, ‘The Apple Dumpling Gang’ and ‘The Computer That Wore Tennis Shoes’ (currently being remade by Disney by the way) – those “high quantity of mediocre films surrounding the good ones” nearly killed Disney as our Captain points out whenever he talks about the Ron Miller days. They made the Disney Studio a joke both within the industry and to the public at large. If the public perception becomes that Disney animation is nothing but ‘Jungle Book 7 – Baloo and Mulan visit Atlantis’, exactly the same thing will happen to Disney all over again.

I have a colleague that has a saying: there’s a reason that wallpaper is cheap and that a Van Gough painting is expensive. You can churn out wall paper cheap and people will buy it. But they won’t pay much for it and the only time people usually talk about wall paper is to comment about how awful it looks. The next person that comes along will rip it right off and toss it away. Good art, however, is hard to produce and painfully slow – but its value lasts generations. Good art is treasured and given a place of honor. Which do you want to be associated with – wall paper or art?

Buzz2001

02-15-2002, 05:57 AM

There is only one way to go when your on the top. Maybe Disney needs yo hit bottom to realize what you are taking about. but as long as parents continue to bring their kids to see these movies and buy the videos, I don't think it will change. Why should it. Everything revolves around the almighty dollar

raidermatt

02-15-2002, 09:56 AM

AV- As Scoop said, thank you.

Contract vs. in-House-

I know In-house is how Disney did things, but that system also produced some definite droughts, like the 70's and most fo the 80's. Wasn't the early practice in Hollywood to get actors and other creative talent under contract? That system encouraged studios to try to get their money's worth out of the talent, and one could argue, therefore produced even more bad films than today (relatively speaking).

That's not to say I am against in-house, but rather that I don't believe its the system itself that causes the problem.

Hopefully, answering Scoops questions won't require you sticking your neck out TOO much further...;)

hopemax

02-15-2002, 11:52 AM

Well, I don't have to worry about my neck...I don't have much info though.

A friend of the family is the daughter of a former long-time Disney animator (25 years). About a month ago my Mom got an email that "Dad is now working for Dreamworks. He figured it would be better to get a new job now than when everyone will be looking in a few months."

Another film Disney was working on is "Sweating Bullets." Our friend's Dad had been working on SB, but about 6 months ago was pulled off to work on Treasure Planet because of that film's problems.

Another Voice

02-15-2002, 04:01 PM

Trying to figure out what’s happening inside that Animation building (home to the original BAH) reminds me of the days when people watched who to stood next to whom on top of Lenin’s Tomb. There are so few people left and most of the survivors (who everyone in the industry is now calling “enablers”), they’re simply too afraid to talk to anyone. The general feeling (and the one that’s been shown to happen) is that once you’re project is finished, you’re booted out of the door.

The “new” and “television” way doing things is that a creative executive will oversee a couple of designers and a director. The designers (the term “animator” really isn’t applicable) create the look of the characters and the director comes up the action. The notes, instructions, storyboards and sketches are sent, scene by scene, off to outside companies that produce the actual animation (drawing the characters). For ‘PP2’ according to the buzz, Burbank did the initial story work, the designs were handed to Disney Australia (soon to be sold per rumor) and they oversaw the actual animation done in Korea and Taiwan.

After ‘Lilo’ and ‘Treasure’, the only two films with any kind of progress are ‘Brother Bear’ and ‘Sweating Bullets’. And word on them isn’t happy. ‘Bear’ is being done in Florida and rumors are that it will be a victim of that facility’s closure. There are also rumors that Burbank doesn’t like the movie and has told the directors to scrap what they have and come up with an entirely new story. The whispers are that the directors kept the story line as close as possible to the original Native American mythology. It lacks the happy perky animals and happy perky girls that Burbank can turn into plush toys and many, many video sequels. Rule One is that you can’t make a movie without a happy meal.

‘Sweating Bullets’ is supposed to have some sound already recorded, but it has the biggest problem of all: Michael Eisner. He HATES country, HATES, HATES, HATES, HATES it, especially if it’s considered from the “deep south” (i.e., New Jersey). With ‘Spirit’ coming from Dreamworks in just a couple months, this one was in trouble anyway. Whispers are that no one is really working on this one due to the lack of staff and the mega problems over on ‘Treasure Planet’ (I have yet to hear a single good comment about that movie).

Beyond that, things get even murkier. There was are rumors about another Grimm’s Fairy Tale, but that seems to have been shut down. There’s another rumor about a ‘Shrek-like’ “hip-and-edgy” Bambi take-off (cute animals that fart, that kind of thing) that has Einser’s interest. All resources are going to video sequels, there’s no one left to work on those “big bloated features”. It’s also whispered that when one of Disney’s top animators went to Universal, he took a large number of staff and the best projects with him. The Mouse’s cupboard is bare.

The Company simply doesn’t believe the returns are there to justify feature length animation. Instead of creating a good movie that will generate good box office, The Company has decided to make cheap movies that will produce returns on mediocre box office and home video sales. It’s the exact same thinking that goes into Saturday morning animation.

airlarry!

02-15-2002, 05:29 PM

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

02-15-2002, 06:42 PM

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

02-15-2002, 09:40 PM

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

02-15-2002, 09:53 PM

But reality is important to me.
We have found the root of the difference's between the Captain & AV...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

raidermatt

02-15-2002, 11:06 PM

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

02-16-2002, 07:08 AM

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

02-16-2002, 08:13 AM

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...

:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

HBK

02-16-2002, 09:43 AM

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

02-16-2002, 11:44 AM

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.
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

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

HBK

02-16-2002, 12:02 PM

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

02-16-2002, 02:09 PM

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?