Re: Animation offerings, should Disney

[Peter Pirate]

go further with the 'pop' mentality and hire relatevely expensive talent like maybe Brittney Spears or Enrique Iglesias for their next endeavor? Or maybe Paul McCartney or Sting to produce music? We all know how many people are impressed by 'star power' in America and I was just wondering...

I know many feel the stars 'get in the way' and I'm sure some will say it's 'all in the story'. Plus, it is true that Disney is making an effort to CUT expenses, not ADD them, but in the case of the huge, natural hype that 'star power' generates, should Disney be looking to exploit their rlationships further?
:cool: :cool: (mia):cool: :cool:

[KCritter]

Correct me if I wrong, but didn't Sting do the music for the Emperor's New Groove? Unfortunately (and probably for good reason) I can't remember a single song from that movie.

[Peter Pirate]

I seem to recall some Sting music somewhere, but whether Sting is good isn't really my point. I picked these 'stars' from the top of my head just to illustrate my question...
:cool: :cool: (mia):cool: :cool:

[OnWithTheShow]

I believe Sting was originally hired to produce 5 songs for Emperor's New Groove but by the final cut only one song was left in the picture and it runs during the credits. (I think this is right, could somebody confirm it for me)

[YoHo]

Sting did the music for Empire of the Sun. Most of it was cut when it became new Groove.


Mr. Pirate, lets wait and see how Lilo & Stitch does. Disney has been using Star power in their music for a while now. Remember Phil collins in Tarzan? Elton John in the Lion King? this is not new. I would hazard to say that it really doesn't make a difference. I doubt Audiences will be drawn to star Talent.

Anothe rExample, that kid from Home Improvment was Symba in the Lion King and people cared for all of a couple weeks before everyone stopped caring, because it was Symba not home Improvment Kid that everyone remembers.

[Another Voice]

You mean like the whole reason why ‘Oliver and Company’ was created?

The belief was (and is once again) that Disney animation was out of touch with popular culture. Eisner’s idea was to make it “hip, edgy and relevant” again by putting big name stars in the movies and big name stars in the music. The entire movie was nothing but a shell to hang around a bunch of pop tunes and star voices. ‘O&C’ was filled with the best they could afford at the time. This thinking even was forced onto the parks, take a look around the ‘Wonders of Life’ pavilion for all the “big names” in front and behind the camera. The result was a flat movie with instantly forgettable music Disney couldn’t even sell to use in commercials.

In the mean time, another less Eisner’d group working on another film thought they had some really good music in their movie. Literally one afternoon, someone got the idea that one of the songs was so good it might get some air play. A quick rearrangement, hire a couple of singers (teach this Canadian one the lyrics because she didn’t speak English), hire an orchestra and find a soundstage on the lot not being used – and they produced a huge music hit, an Oscar and a Grammy.

Lesson – IT’S THE SHOW, NOT THE MARKETING.

The problem with Mr. Sting… At the time he was hired, the producers of ‘Empire in the Sun’ were trying to make a grand movie in the tradition of ‘Beauty’. That requires the songs to serve the plot and the characters, not simply to sound pretty. Eisner (still wedded to his big star concept) forced them to hire a “big name” to write the music. Since Mr.Elton John was in a snit over ‘Adia’ and not available, Mr. Sting showed up. His problem – he’s not Ashman or Menken. There are a lot of rumors about the quality of Mr. Sting’s work, but for a movie with story problems and a deadline to meet – it all just sank the project. One song was salvaged for the “Top 40 Credits” spot which was immediately ignored.


As for exploiting relationships – one day we can talk about ‘Ellen’s Energy Adventure’.

[Peter Pirate]

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily endorsing this play, I just thought it worth discussing as it seems 'star power' does, very often mean something to the American Public and of course I'm aware that the big name musicians have been used and the films were quite succesful, which made me think perhaps another rock legend (ala Phil Collins) or a pop diva or another revered Hollywood vet (ala Jeremy Irons) wouldn't be a bad place to start when trying to voice characters - In no way do I intened to infer that Disney should sign Sean Connory to a contract & then look for the vehicle, I just wonder if the star power doesn't make the PR a little easier or is it somehow detrimental to the creative process? If it is, how exactly? After all, Pixar has continued this trend succesfully, have they not? And what if Disney had a star name behind Milo in Atlantis. It certainly wouldn't improve the quality of the product much, but might it not have put rears in the seats?
:cool: :cool: (mia):cool: :cool:

[JustBob]

I LIKED Ellen's Energy Adventure and thought it was a much more interesting and palatable show than the original.
But, as usual, I think you're right on track with the music comments. I guess what irritates me the most is the EXTREMELY poor music that the horrible sequels are getting. Except for Toy Story 2, they're all garbage.

Oh well, Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah...

[YoHo]

Mr. Pirate, My point and AV backs me up wonderfully is that at no time in the entire history of Disney's animation Department has having big name stars attached to the movie made a difference positivly or negativly. AND, they have tried it in the past. I just don't see how attaching "Names" to an animated feature could possibly be a good buisness move.



Question, were Buzz and Woody great, because they were played by big name actors? or were they great, because they were played by good actors and had a good story?

Buzz and Woody could have been played by Bob and John Nobody and if the voice acting was good, the movie would have been 100% as good.


I just don't understand Eisner's thinking here.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Most of the time, as a viewer, I find 'big-name-stars' distracting. Especially if I don't know about it ahead of time. I spend half the movie trying to place the voice!! Very irritating!!! For example I didn't know Kevin Spacey was in Bug's Life before we filed into the theater. From the character's very first word I was thinking about who it could be. About the time of the second a attack on the ants it finally came to me!!! But the movie was ¾ over!!!

I'd prefer very talented no-names.

[All Aboard]

Question, were Buzz and Woody great, because they were played by big name actors? or were they great, because they were played by good actors and had a good story? In this case, I'd say some of both. Especially Woody. Also true of Mike Wazowski (sp?). In these cases, excellent voice performances really added to the puch. I do agree that it doesn't always matter one way or the other. In most cases, it doesn't.

[DVC-Landbaron]

After thinking about for a minute or two another example of 'talent' making the movie comes to mind. Can anyone picture Aladdin without Robin Williams?

[hopemax]

I prefer "unknown" voices to the popular voices. I don't like the Genie from Aladdin because all I can see is Robin Williams doing the same schtick that he did in Good Morning Vietnam, same for Danny DeVito's Phil, and of course everyone's favorite Rosie O'Donnell's Terk.

I used " " around unknown because sometimes a famous actor does a voice but while I'm watching the movie I forget that the famous person is the voice. Everytime I watch Pocahontas I forget that Mel Gibson is the voice of John Smith. And Disney has used a lot of Broadway talent, who are known in some circles, but not by the mainstream. I don't mind this.

Question: If you "see" the voice actor instead of the character isn't that a failure on some level? Aren't you supposed to "see" the character?

I want the characters to be as "real" as possible and I don't see how that can co-exist in the same plane as "let's use Star X and market the heck out of it." They might as well, just have a little pop-up bubble following the character on screen "Lance Bass is ____."

However I suppose it depends on what the goal is. It probably helps balance out "bad story." If given two films that are exactly the same except Lance Bass is a voice or DVC-Landbaron is the voice, the Lance Bass film will probably outgross the other. But on the other end of the spectrum "pop" stars come with a suitcase full of people who hate them regardless. So I wouldn't be surprised if using stars puts a "cap" on how much a film could gross, because you've turned off a portion of your audience that would have otherwise gone if the film wasn't starring X.

[All Aboard]

If you "see" the voice actor instead of the character isn't that a failure on some level? Yes it is, but in the cases listed here - that doesn't happen with me.

That's one of the things that makes any actor great. Do you "see" Al Capone when De Niro plays Jake La Motta? Do you "see" Captain Miller when Hanks plays Jim Lovell? I don't. And neither do I see these people or characters when Hanks does the voice of Woody. Perhaps I am in the minority, but the voice works very well for me.

[raidermatt]

Perhaps I am in the minority, but the voice works very well for me.

I'm with you gcurling.

The key is the TALENT of the person doing the voice. If they are good, and the story/development is good, it works. Doesn't really matter if they are famous. But finding "unknowns" to successfully do the voices isn't much easier than finding unknown actors to do movies. Its hit or miss. Judging talent is subjective enough, but also judging who will hit it off with the public makes it extremely difficult.

So if Billy Crystal fits what you want to do with Mike, sign him up, because you know he is talented and the public likes his work.

I also agree with others that you should never make using "stars" a pre-requisite for either voices or music. Its putting the cart before the horse...

I don't particularly like Ellen, but I still like Universe of Energy. The fact that her popularity has waned actually helps the attraction in my opinion.

[YoHo]

gcurling, I agree with you in general.
Raidermatt kinda hits on my point.

Woody isn't great because Tom Hanks the big name actor does the voice. people don't think Tom Hanks when they see/here Woody. Woody is great because Tom Hanks did a great performance and Woody was written well.
Same with the genie although Robin Williams brings so much of himself in to any role he does that its more problimatic.


Also, sometimes it depends on familiarity witht the actor. After all, if you didn't know who that Home Improvment kid was, you would have never "Heard" him as Symba, but if you were very familiar with his voice...


What about Jeremy Irons as Scar?

[Peter Pirate]

My Atlantis example...What if Disney had cast Aaron Carter to be the Milo voice? there'd be no downside, providing of course he'd be capable, but the up side would be a whole lot of pre-teen-early teen kids would suddenly have been more interested in seeing Atlantis and perhaps enough to push past the 100 million mark, who knows? I know this wouldn't make Atlantis a better film, but success is still better than failure, isn't it?
:cool: :cool: (mia):cool: :cool:

[YoHo]

True, but it isn't kids addicted to Radio Disney that make the movie a success is it?
Sure, the initial numbers will be up, but Disney promoted the heck out of Atlantis anyway in between those Aaron Carter tunes and it didn't help a thing. They already had a built in Audience, Aaron Carter probably couldn't help that much.

[raidermatt]

I really don't think Aaron Carter would have sold many more tickets. People who are fans of an actor want to see, not just hear the person. Wasn't Robert DeNiro a voice in Rocky and Bulwinkle?

As for the tunes, again, a popular soundtrack doesn't sell the movie much, especially when it does nothing to enhance the experience for your CORE audience. Yes, Lion King songs were written by Elton John, but he didn't sing them in the movie. Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin had pop hits, but the pop version isn't in the movie (until the credits).

If Aaron Carter really enhances the movie itself, fine. But if not, the extra cost in using a "name" won't offset any slight increase in ticket sales he might generate.

[Peter Pirate]

While the popstar appeal in the past hasn't been marketed to the fullest (I assume because of not wanting to get in the way of the product), I do recall it being a BIG deal that Elton John & Phil Collins wrote (and subsequently recorded the music for their respective films). I cannot fathom that you don't believe that this adult awarness brought to these animated features didn't have huge affects on these films outcome. In fact, I believe that one of the big reasons LK was so gigantic was due to the adult natue of the music (and crossover appeal) which brought many, many curious fans and whole families that wouldn't heretofore go see a 'Disney' film.

Likewise, I believe you underestimate the 'star power' of a teen idol (as in my Atlantis scenerio). Marketed thusly, a teen idol voice would become part of the package and adolescents wouldn't debate a voice vs. appearance factor, but the fact that Milo was voiced by Aaron Carter would appeal to the easily influenced masses as a stimulus in a much greater way than an unheralded Joe Nobody. Thus a film they were cool or lukewarm to may become warmly accepted...

Agreed that star power is no exception for a good script, animation & overall product, but I can see how the bottom line could be positively affected...Of course, a big star contract means the film has to make even more money to be considered successful, so it seems a bit of a double edged sword.
:cool: :cool: (mia):cool: :cool:

[DVC-Landbaron]

I do recall it being a BIG deal that Elton John & Phil Collins wrote (and subsequently recorded the music for their respective films). I cannot fathom that you don't believe that this adult awarness brought to these animated features didn't have huge affects on these films outcome.I think you guys are looking at the music aspect backwards. It’s to make money selling the music from the film. Not to pack ‘em in the theaters. Just like the song from titanic. No one went to the movie to hear that song… But WOW!! Did it rake in the cash afterwards!!

[SPAGo 98]

Star power, whether teen or older, will not always increase box office revenues. examples:

On the Line, starring Nsync's Lance Bass, made 4 million dollars.

Glitter, Mariah's movie, made 4 million dollars.

A Walk to Remember, with Mandy Moore, made 39 million. Not a bad take, but hardly a blockbuster.

Crossroads, Brit's movie, is only at 31 million, and its box office take is quickly slipping. I doubt it will break 50 million.

Granted, none of these movies were magnificent, but I think they show that star power is not all it's hyped up to be. Disney is smart enough not to hire unproven names like Aaron Carter.

[raidermatt]

Baron- To a certain extent I agree. Certainly they want music that can sell on CDs. But, when they are doing things right, they want music that works in the film as well. I think Elton's music did both in LK.

Obviously, based on Atlantis, having a popular music soundtrack is not a pre-requisite at Disney.

Pirate- I respectfully disagree about the impact of star power in animated films. Phil Collins' career was not exactly on fire when he was hired to do Tarzan. His name alone may have added some credibility but his name alone wasn't enough to sell his own records anymore, let alone get people to go to a movie. Phil and Elton were hired because they are talented individuals who Disney felt could write music that would work in the movies, and also hopefully sell records as they did in the past, IMHO.

[Peter Pirate]

raidermatt, I think it's the terminology and degree of 'star power' that we disagree on for I basically agree with ALL of the content of your last post. Elton & Phil WERE hired for their talent, but (IMO) you still can't discount the adult draw...Or course, we can't prove it quantitatively either.

Spago, good points all, but in regular Hollywood they're all stars. Animation isn't built around the same format, I wouldn't think (although I'm SURE AV will point it out if I'm wrong). For a star kid, like Aaron Carter (and it makes no difference how any of us view Aaron Carter) would certainly have increased the interest in Atlantis (if he had been used) among the younger set. I guess the only question is would it have been tangible? Most here obviously think not...

Baron, perhaps you're right with your general assesment, but I'm saying one song in Titanic, which stood on its own merit, is different than a whole score by Phil Collins for an animated feature. The music in these films generally does mean something to the presentation and the fact that Phil or Elton were used instead of relatively unknown talents (like Ashman & Menken) show that something else was being aimed for, doesn't it? Note: Please don't blast me for calling Ashman /Menken "unknown". Certainly we all know & appreciate their work, as did iside Hollywood, but the vast majority of fans of these great animated hits still don't know who they are...
:cool: :cool: (mia):cool: :cool:

[Another Voice]

Putting pop stars into movies makes a lot of people rich. Those people tend to be the agents, the lawyers, and the marketing companies – but not the studios because they all flop! If SHOWING the pop star can’t bring the kids into the theater, how can using just their voice do it?

The rule around Hollywood is that using a “star” can open a movie (e.g., bring in people the first weekend), but after that it’s up to the movie itself. The problem with ‘Atlantis’ wasn’t Michael J. Fox– it was that ‘Atlantis’ was a rotten movie. You could have had Aaron Carter, all of the Backstreet Boys, Tom Cruise, and a year of pin-ups from Tiger Beat magazine; it wouldn’t have made a difference.

There are “actors”, there are “stars” and there are “celebrities”. While they may look similar, they are very different species. Celebrities are useful for marketing auto insurance, but they aren’t useful for making movies. Stars can be used in movies when the movie itself is weak and the director can use a star rather than having to work at creating a character. Actors, however, are vital if you want to make a good movie. Movies work best when the audience sees the character, not the person playing (or voicing) the role on the screen. Look at the list of the top grossing movies. Very few had “stars” in them when they were made. People respond to story, not marketing gimmicks.

The fact that Disney switched to “stars” like Elton John, Phil Collins and Sting for the music in their movies is because Disney lost confidence. At best, it was a poor creative choice. But mostly it was a marketing decision to use flash instead of talent. Instead of creating interesting stories and strong characters, it’s much cheaper and faster to toss in a name rather than work at creating something good.

As for the music – having Elton John do the music for ‘Road to El Dorado’ sure didn’t help that movie at the box office. Why didn’t all those people who flocked to see ‘The Lion King’ for the music go to that one? Or, for that matter, why didn’t they show up for ‘Aida’?

Lastly, it sure seemed like ‘Beauty and the Beast’, ‘Little Mermaid’, and ‘The Lion King’ sure hit it big at the box office without Brittany Spears.

[YoHo]

AV brings up a good point although he doesn't package it the way I will.

Somebody show me the proof that Lion King's music was a bigger draw then B&tB or Aladdin or Little Mermaid.


In fact, Pocahontas, Lion King, Aladdin, B&tB, The Little Mermaid All have Won for Score.
Phil Collins won for you'll be in my Heart. Alan Menken, Stephen Schwartz - "COLORS OF THE WIND" from POCAHONTAS Elton John, Tim Rice - "CAN YOU FEEL THE LOVE TONIGHT" from THE LION KING Alan Menken, Tim Rice - "A WHOLE NEW WORLD" from ALADDIN Alan Menken, Howard Ashman - "BEAUTY AND THE BEAST" from BEAUTY AND THE BEAST Alan Menken, Howard Ashman - "UNDER THE SEA" from THE LITTLE MERMAID


Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't look to me like having "Stars" made any sort of difference at all.

[Peter Pirate]

Voice, that was a very well stated post and I didn't even feel any direct hits...Of course, I had to accept the fact that every single thought, idea or supposition I had was, and is apparantely always wrong...But hey landbaron's been telling me that for over a year now, so I guess I should be used to it.;)

Seriously though, those were some very compelling reasons as to why Disney should never use big names in their animated films...But if the text of your post is all true, why should any studio ever hire a 'star' at an inflated price when the new talent will fit the bill?
:cool: :cool: (mia):cool: :cool:

[raidermatt]

I agree with AV except that I don't think star/celebrity/actor are mutually exclusive terms. There certainly are those that can be classified as more than one.

Going with Elton or Phil was an easier choice, since they are stars/celebrities. If the music stinks, the public is more likely to blame them than to blame whomever hired them. However, there is no doubt that the two are also talented. The musical equivalent of actors. So its hard to argue with the choices. The question is, does their style fit the project. I think that's where Sting became a bad choice. His style is a tad 'different'. Of coure, the biggest question is always whether the project is any good to begin with. So I don't believe Elton or Phil's name sold anymore tickets, and only a few albums. But the quality of their work did contribute to the overall quality of the project. But when a film is just not good (or at least not accpeted by audiences), even good work by these or any other individuals isn't going to help much.

Hiring somebody whose talent for composing music is somewhat more, shall we say questionable, like Aaron Carter, Britney Spears, et.al., would clearly be the type of move AV was describing. But I disagree that Elton or Phil fit that mold.