Brother Bear Conspiracy

[Above_the_Rim]

When this movie came out, I wasn't even aware that it did. Did Disney do any advertising for this movie? Most people who went to it have told me that it was great, critics applauded it, the thing is that Disney just chose not to tell anybody about it. Or maybe it wasn't Disney, maybe it was Eisner. Does anyone else suspect that Eisner purposefully didn't advertise this movie becuase he saw the potential in it, and feared another Lilo and Stitch. I think that Eisner saw this movie could do good, but if it did do good he would've been criticized even more for closing the animation studios and he would've lost any basis to closing them. Eisner saw that this movie was going to do good, and that's why he basically cut all advertisement for it. Think about what would've happened to him if he made the decision to close the traditional animation studios, and then a movie from them makes over 100 million. When Home on the Range came out I saw a lot of commercials and advertising for it because Eisner probably saw it wouldn't do that good, but for Brother Bear there was nothing. Does anyone agree with me? :banana:

[peter11435]

When this movie came out, I wasn't even aware that it did. Did Disney do any advertising for this movie? Most people who went to it have told me that it was great, critics applauded it, the thing is that Disney just chose not to tell anybody about it. Or maybe it wasn't Disney, maybe it was Eisner. Does anyone else suspect that Eisner purposefully didn't advertise this movie becuase he saw the potential in it, and feared another Lilo and Stitch. I think that Eisner saw this movie could do good, but if it did do good he would've been criticized even more for closing the animation studios and he would've lost any basis to closing them. Eisner saw that this movie was going to do good, and that's why he basically cut all advertisement for it. Think about what would've happened to him if he made the decision to close the traditional animation studios, and then a movie from them makes over 100 million. When Home on the Range came out I saw a lot of commercials and advertising for it because Eisner probably saw it wouldn't do that good, but for Brother Bear there was nothing. Does anyone agree with me? :banana:


No, I don't agree with you. I can't believe people actually are so delusional that you think something like that would be the case. Eisners mission is not to do what he wants and ruin everything in the process. Nobody would be so stupid to think about ruining the profitability (i.e. $$$$) of a film simply to make themselves look better. Give me a break. Animation did not close because Eisner hated it and had a secret agenda to put an end to it. Animation closed because it simply was not profitable. That is the same reason that Sony, Fox, and DreamWorks have all also closed their traditional animation divisions.

[Above_the_Rim]

Actually Eisner wasn't that big on animation, he wanted to end it altogether back in the 80's until Little Mermaid did good. And I honestly wasn't aware of this film coming out when it did, I saw more advertising for Home on the Range than I did for Brother Bear. But I guess that's just me

[peter11435]

Actually Eisner wasn't that big on animation, he wanted to end it altogether back in the 80's until Little Mermaid did good. And I honestly wasn't aware of this film coming out when it did, I saw more advertising for Home on the Range than I did for Brother Bear. But I guess that's just me
I am not debating the amount of ads you saw.

As for Eisner wanting to get rid of animation back in 80's. Of course he did. But once again it had nothing to do with his personal attitute on animation. It was because through the 70's and 80's Disney had a string of unsuccessful animated movies and the animation studio was not profitable. At that time prior to the success of LM it made sense to close the studio. Eisner nor any other corporate executive would ever prevent something from being profitable simply because they don't like it. That would be moronic and would make no sense what so ever.

[mitros]

I think you are being a little harsh. Above_the_Rim is just asking a question and expressing an opinion. I don't think you have to call the poster "delusional". Anyway, Ei$ner was not such a nice fellow from what I have thus far read in Disney war. :)

[peter11435]

I think you are being a little harsh. Above_the_Rim is just asking a question and expressing an opinion. I don't think you have to call the poster "delusional". Anyway, Ei$ner was not such a nice fellow from what I have thus far read in Disney war. :)
I am sorry if my post seems harsh. To be honest I was not directly calling the op delusional but rather those that are so quick to blame Eisner for everything that goes wrong. As for Eisner, no he is by no means a perfect man, but he is also not the monster some on these boards like to think and convey to others. Additionally I have said it before and will say it again. Disney War is NOT the end all history of Disney and Eisner.

[Aneille]

I dont' really know about Eisner but I can say I saw quite a few Brother Bear commericals before release and then after.

I feel I did see quite a few Home on the Range commericals as well, maybe more but unless I counted them I couldn't say.

All I know is I really disliked Home on the Range and I absolutely loved Brother Bear.

[peter11435]

I dont' really know about Eisner but I can say I saw quite a few Brother Bear commericals before release and then after.

I feel I did see quite a few Home on the Range commericals as well, maybe more but unless I counted them I couldn't say.

All I know is I really disliked Home on the Range and I absolutely loved Brother Bear.
I agree with everything you regarding the two films.

[Cobra B.]

How about this Brother Bear was going to be so good that it could live on its own merits and they knew Home on the Range would be as bad as it was and they needed to hype it. You guys dig for conspiracies in the strangest places. :confused:

[PKS44]

Actually I think they just see no reason to try to spray perfume on a load of dung--which is what Brother Bear was in my opinion--and apparently the public agreed as it was big fat flop...a movie that people like is hard to hide--even without an advertising budget--look at Napoleon Dynamite--I don't think much of it -it was ok--but it did very well and mostly by word of mouth...

In summary-- Brother Bear stunk-- I want those 80 minutes of my life back.

[peter11435]

Actually I think they just see no reason to try to spray perfume on a load of dung--which is what Brother Bear was in my opinion--and apparently the public agreed as it was big fat flop...a movie that people like is hard to hide--even without an advertising budget--look at Napoleon Dynamite--I don't think much of it -it was ok--but it did very well and mostly by word of mouth...

In summary-- Brother Bear stunk-- I want those 80 minutes of my life back.
Yeah, thats why Brother Bear made $250.3 million compared to how much for Napoleon Dynamite. And another $50 million in DVD sales the first week alone.

[airlarry!]

"peter11435":

Perhaps you should "google" Ei$ner and Pixar.

There were rampant 'rumors' that Ei$ner bad-mouthed both of the last Pixar releases. I'll let you speculate the reasons why, although they are pretty damn obvious.

Are you sure you are reading your own posts?

Animation did not close because Eisner hated it and had a secret agenda to put an end to it. Animation closed because it simply was not profitable.

Yeah, thats why Brother Bear made $250.3 million compared to how much for Napoleon Dynamite. And another $50 million in DVD sales the first week alone.

Animation closed because it made $250 million from a 'stinker' of a movie? Plus DVD sales?

I can't rectify these two statements, so I will assume that someone has stolen your password and posted bizarre and contradictory posts in the same thread.

Animation is profitable. (Cf Pixar). Ei$ner hates animation. (Cf The Little Mermaid). Ei$ner does not understand that animation is an art form that is the heart and soul of the Walt Disney Company, and is the true 'synergy' that could allow the company and its artists, if handled with care and investment, to slowly replenish and reenergize its creative divisions, provide ample stories for its theme parks, allow its artists to work within different sections of the company, increase their confidence in building all-inclusive resorts, and, last but not least, benefit the shareholder with box office returns, money-spending happy little french frying munching Disney Princesses and Princes, sneaux globe purchasing fans and collectors, and fill up its hotel rooms and parks. (Cf Ei$ner's California Misadventure and the new Hong Kong ATMland.)

But of course, Ei$ner would never understand that. He's too busy cramming Lord of the Rings into one movie sans Hobbits.

[mitros]

Thanks Larry, well stated.

[maliboomer]

Disney without its animation department is like a sandwich without filling, the sandwich can survive without it, but it is very bland and boring.

[peter11435]

"peter11435":

Perhaps you should "google" Ei$ner and Pixar.

There were rampant 'rumors' that Ei$ner bad-mouthed both of the last Pixar releases. I'll let you speculate the reasons why, although they are pretty damn obvious.

Are you sure you are reading your own posts?

Animation did not close because Eisner hated it and had a secret agenda to put an end to it. Animation closed because it simply was not profitable.

Yeah, thats why Brother Bear made $250.3 million compared to how much for Napoleon Dynamite. And another $50 million in DVD sales the first week alone.

Animation closed because it made $250 million from a 'stinker' of a movie? Plus DVD sales?

I can't rectify these two statements, so I will assume that someone has stolen your password and posted bizarre and contradictory posts in the same thread.

Animation is profitable. (Cf Pixar). Ei$ner hates animation. (Cf The Little Mermaid). Ei$ner does not understand that animation is an art form that is the heart and soul of the Walt Disney Company, and is the true 'synergy' that could allow the company and its artists, if handled with care and investment, to slowly replenish and reenergize its creative divisions, provide ample stories for its theme parks, allow its artists to work within different sections of the company, increase their confidence in building all-inclusive resorts, and, last but not least, benefit the shareholder with box office returns, money-spending happy little french frying munching Disney Princesses and Princes, sneaux globe purchasing fans and collectors, and fill up its hotel rooms and parks. (Cf Ei$ner's California Misadventure and the new Hong Kong ATMland.)

But of course, Ei$ner would never understand that. He's too busy cramming Lord of the Rings into one movie sans Hobbits.
Well, lets see. That $250 million dollars in not all profit. It is simply the films gross. Secondly not all of that is even revenue for TWDC as a percentage of it belongs to the various theaters. Then you have the $100 + production budget on the film, not to mention millions more spent to market and distribute the film. All things considered it would seem the film thus did not make much money.

Additionally Eisner has not closed animation. He has only "ended" traditional animation. Disney has many animated films in production including but not limited to Chicken Little and Repunzel Unbraided. CGI has proven far more profitable than traditional animation, thus making the decision to end "traditional" animation in favor of the new technology sensible.

[airlarry!]

CGI has proven far more profitable than traditional animation, thus making the decision to end "traditional" animation in favor of the new technology sensible.

Really.

How many CGI animated films are in the Top 30 all time, adjusted for inflation?

How many traditionally animated films are in that same Top 30?

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

Here's a hint...you won't like the answer.

But really, there is no argument that Pixar's big haul with Finding Nemo and Toy Story 2 are huge impacts on both company's bottom line. But, at least according to some no-name idiot named Brad Bird (not that you would believe someone like him with so little experience or expertise--I mean what does he know?), its not how the film is done...its the way the film is done.

And get this. All of Pixar's recent efforts are huge money-making winners, but even they can't compare with The lion King...course a dunderhead would say that The Lion king's numbers can't be matched. True. And that's the point. If Disney concetrated as much as Pixar on making quality films....they might not have another Lion King (who can predict that anyway?) but they might have a string of $250+ million winners instead of Disney's The Great Singing Cow Caper. And those winners would be cash in the company's coffers, places to fill up new and better attractions and parks, more plush sales, in seven years more re-releases and more cash, and a nice little training ground for tomorrow animation artists and story people--who just might luck out every ten years with a Snow White or a Lion King or a 101 Dalmatians or a Finding Nemo etc.

This isn't rocket science, folks. Ei$ner and Igor have not shown that they know the first thing about animation or what it can do for the company. To them, DFA is spigot of cash, and when the flow runs slow, their philosophy is "don't check the plumbing, just cap the spigot and complain."

Here's hoping Ei$ner's next career move is not as a urologist.

[mitros]

Hey Larry, if we ever meet in Disney, the Dole Whip's are on me.

[airlarry!]

I'm holding you to it. See you at WDW, 2006. ;)

[mitros]

You got it. Let us know where and when, and DW and I will be there with bells on. {or Dole Whip's in hand} :earsboy:

[peter11435]

CGI has proven far more profitable than traditional animation, thus making the decision to end "traditional" animation in favor of the new technology sensible.

Really.

How many CGI animated films are in the Top 30 all time, adjusted for inflation?

How many traditionally animated films are in that same Top 30?

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

Here's a hint...you won't like the answer.

But really, there is no argument that Pixar's big haul with Finding Nemo and Toy Story 2 are huge impacts on both company's bottom line. But, at least according to some no-name idiot named Brad Bird (not that you would believe someone like him with so little experience or expertise--I mean what does he know?), its not how the film is done...its the way the film is done.

And get this. All of Pixar's recent efforts are huge money-making winners, but even they can't compare with The lion King...course a dunderhead would say that The Lion king's numbers can't be matched. True. And that's the point. If Disney concetrated as much as Pixar on making quality films....they might not have another Lion King (who can predict that anyway?) but they might have a string of $250+ million winners instead of Disney's The Great Singing Cow Caper. And those winners would be cash in the company's coffers, places to fill up new and better attractions and parks, more plush sales, in seven years more re-releases and more cash, and a nice little training ground for tomorrow animation artists and story people--who just might luck out every ten years with a Snow White or a Lion King or a 101 Dalmatians or a Finding Nemo etc.

This isn't rocket science, folks. Ei$ner and Igor have not shown that they know the first thing about animation or what it can do for the company. To them, DFA is spigot of cash, and when the flow runs slow, their philosophy is "don't check the plumbing, just cap the spigot and complain."

Here's hoping Ei$ner's next career move is not as a urologist.
You see there is a huge problem with that argument. There is not a single traditional animatid film on that list that isn't more than 10 years old. Not to mention most include more than one release of the film. I never said that animation has never been profitable. I said that it isn't profitable (by comparison) now, and also wasn't in the mid 80's. Will it come back, will see.

[Euphscott]

You are correct in saying that traditional animation has not been profitable in the last ten years. However, it has nothing to do with the medium. It has everything to do with the story. If you tell a good story, it does not matter if you tell it hand drawn, computer animated, full color or black and white.

The movie going public will flock to quality, but no film (outside of Lilo and Stitch and Tarzan) has been made recently in hand drawn.

Finding Nemo could have been hand drawn and it would have made buckets of money.

[peter11435]

You are correct in saying that traditional animation has not been profitable in the last ten years. However, it has nothing to do with the medium. It has everything to do with the story. If you tell a good story, it does not matter if you tell it hand drawn, computer animated, full color or black and white.

The movie going public will flock to quality, but no film (outside of Lilo and Stitch and Tarzan) has been made recently in hand drawn.

Finding Nemo could have been hand drawn and it would have made buckets of money.
I guess thats where are it gets cloudy. I agree that the story is most important. However it seems that in general even the CGI with medicore stories do better than the great traditional animation lately. I suppose a good test will be to see how Chicken Little plays out.

[Aneille]

I watch a lot of animated films due to having young children, plus I like them. I do not know alot about animation vs CGI but I really don't care how they make it. I just want a good story that is beautiful to watch but I find I appreciate the handdrawn movies when I recognize them as handdrawn so much more.

Since currently my childrens favorite movie is Snow White I have watched so many times its just isn't right, but everytime I watch it, or even hear it while I am driving my car, I enjoy it. It is beautiful and the hand-drawn animation is amazing.

I really enjoy watching Finding Nemo and Toy Story they are awesome stories and I can re-watch them and re-watch them but when I really think about them I appreciate Snow White so much more. Maybe because its old and one of a kind. I don't know.

I also want to add that there are also people out there like my Dad that no matter what the story is, or what the topic is, he will never ever watch a animated movie or show of any kind. I don't know why. He's watched some with the kids, like Sharktale and Finding Nemo but I told him he might like the Incredibles(it was 1.99 on DirectTV) and he flat out refuses to watch. My poor mother has to wait until she's over my house so she can see things like the Lion King!

BTW Dumbo is playing on the Disney Channel as I type. I am very happy I have TIVO now since I don't own a copy of Dumbo! My kids have never seen it and I can't wait for them to tell me about it!

[Laurajean1014]

Actually Eisner wasn't that big on animation, he wanted to end it altogether back in the 80's until Little Mermaid did good. And I honestly wasn't aware of this film coming out when it did, I saw more advertising for Home on the Range than I did for Brother Bear. But I guess that's just me

Little Mermaid was an absolute smash hit (did good???). As for the advertising of Brother Bear: it was advertised quite heavily here. My DS and DH saw it in it's first week and they both liked it. It's on all the time on the movie channels lately, so it is getting it's fair share.

It had Phil Collins on the soundtrack, but I cannot say that I heard any of its music on the radio.

[Aneille]

Little Mermaid was an absolute smash hit (did good???). As for the advertising of Brother Bear: it was advertised quite heavily here. My DS and DH saw it in it's first week and they both liked it. It's on all the time on the movie channels lately, so it is getting it's fair share.

It had Phil Collins on the soundtrack, but I cannot say that I heard any of its music on the radio.


I really enjoyed some of the songs in Brother Bear and I never heard them on the radio.

I recently watch the Hefflalump movie and I thought it was the best Pooh soundtrack I have ever heard. Then when the credits ran I saw Carly Simon wrote almost all of them and sang some of them. My kids love the songs in that movie.

[outstandinfarmer]

It would break Walt's heart to see the traditional animation gone. That is what the company is based on. The movies weren't doing well because they were starting to lose the Disney magic. Home on the Range was short and in my opinion an excuse to release a movie. They are shooting out sequels left and right without putting the same amount of effort into them. Pixar does well because they have long gaps between their movies. It gives them the proper time to develop a heart felt story and build anticipation for the audiences. I remember when Disney used to release one animated movie a year. I remember how excited I used to get when that movie finally came out. My family would see it over and over and over. You can't expect to get the same results when you are producing so many movies a year. And a child doesn't know the difference between traditional animation and the computer animation. They just know if they like it. And person running a Disney company that doesn't see the need for Disney animated films is a joke and should not be making major decisions for a company like that. They need someone who loves and appreciates Disney before they ever have the power to control the company. :guilty:

[outstandinfarmer]

You are correct in saying that traditional animation has not been profitable in the last ten years. However, it has nothing to do with the medium. It has everything to do with the story. If you tell a good story, it does not matter if you tell it hand drawn, computer animated, full color or black and white.

The movie going public will flock to quality, but no film (outside of Lilo and Stitch and Tarzan) has been made recently in hand drawn.

Finding Nemo could have been hand drawn and it would have made buckets of money.

I absolutely agree. The characters and story was adorable and that's why it did well. It didn't do so well because the fish looked more like a fish.

[DancingBear]

It would break Walt's heart to see the traditional animation gone.

Walt invented the multi-plane camera, and he and the company developed many technologies to enhance movie-making, not to mention Walt's embrace of technology for audio-animatronics and other areas. There is no reason to think that Walt wouldn't have fully embraced CGI as a technique for telling a great story. It still takes talented artists to create a great CGI movie.

[outstandinfarmer]

Walt invented the multi-plane camera, and he and the company developed many technologies to enhance movie-making, not to mention Walt's embrace of technology for audio-animatronics and other areas. There is no reason to think that Walt wouldn't have fully embraced CGI as a technique for telling a great story. It still takes talented artists to create a great CGI movie.

I absolutely agree that Walt would have embraced the new technology. But that doesn't mean that he would have eliminated the traditional form.

[Stitch 03]

I absolutely agree that Walt would have embraced the new technology. But that doesn't mean that he would have eliminated the traditional form.

I do not necessarily agree with this. Walt's advancements in animation killed a few things. His move into color essentially killed B&W. And his move into features eventually led to the end of the short. Walt was huge in finding new ways to tell a story in a way that would engage the audience. He saw the visual and audio as a major component to enjoying the story. Hence, the first animated films in sound and color. The first feature length animated films. And new technologies such as the multi-plane camera.

Throughout Walt's life he was always looking to new technolgy to tell stories in a new way. He was one of the first to see and use TV as the new medium. We can also see his love for technolgy in the Theme Parks (animatronics).

You are correct in saying that traditional animation has not been profitable in the last ten years. However, it has nothing to do with the medium. It has everything to do with the story. If you tell a good story, it does not matter if you tell it hand drawn, computer animated, full color or black and white.

The movie going public will flock to quality, but no film (outside of Lilo and Stitch and Tarzan) has been made recently in hand drawn.

Finding Nemo could have been hand drawn and it would have made buckets of money.

If the medium is not important and only the story then why are we concerned about whether we use hand drawn or computer animation? Again, this contradicts Walt's perspective. Yes, he saw the story as extremely vital, but so was the medium.

Personally, recent hand drawn animation films do not have the same impact as the older stuff. For example, Beauty and the Beast. Great movie, but some of the best sequences are computer assisted anyways (ballroom sequence).

If you get a chance go back and watch movies like Bambi or Fantasia. No animation studio has produced anything in the past 40 years that comes close (without computer assistance). Animation as we saw in those great movies has been dead for a long time. Sad - I agree. But that is progress. I am sure in the 40s & 50s people missed the old B&W, silent, shorts.

My .02

[Above_the_Rim]

If you look at the inflated grosses for the top 100 all time American films there are more hand drawn ones and Snow White beats has the highest gross, beating out Toy Story, Shrek, etc.... also, when Walt went to new technologies they were to never replace hand drawn, they just aided it. Walt Disney never chose to do stop-go motion or clay animation, he chose hand drawn. You see, the Disney Co. was already using CG in it's movies, and Walt probably would've chose to use it too, but he would've never have it completely replace hand drawn..... But this thred is now completely off topic, start a new thread if you want to talk about this stuff.

[peter11435]

If you look at the inflated grosses for the top 100 all time American films there are more hand drawn ones and Snow White beats has the highest gross, beating out Toy Story, Shrek, etc...

Again there are good reasons for that. One hand drawn animation has been around since the beginning of the industry. CGI obviously would not have as many films in the top 100 because there have not yet been enough produced. The medium is still very new. Additionally you need to keep in mind, that the snow while gross and that of other old movies include all releases of the film. Thus the snow white total is the sum of the original 1937 as well as the 1944, 1952, 1958, 1967, 1975, 1983, 1987, and 1993 re-releases. Last but not least you need to remember that I am not making the argument that animation was not profitable, all I am saying is that it is currently not profitable. Notice that none of the animated films on that list are less than 10 years old.

[Stitch 03]

I do not see how this thread is now off-topic. The thread was started by stating a theory that Eisner sabotaged Brother Bear by not marketing it. Thereby defending his decision to close down the hand drawn animation studios.

I think Peter has done a decent job of showing that Eisner's reason for closing the studios was for economic reasons alone. That the advertising for Brother Bear, or lack of, was not a ploy to defend Eisner's decision. The only way that Peter and some of the other posters have gone off-topic is by trying to refute the original post.

But then is that not the point of a discussion board.

Personally, I found this discussion to be very interesting and is the reason I added my own .02. For all of us animation is an improtant part of the Disney company, so lively discussion is to be expected.

So lets continue shall we...

[DancingBear]

Walt probably would've chose to use it too, but he would've never have it completely replace hand drawn.....

Why not?

[Stitch 03]

Why not?

Great question.

[raidermatt]

My best guess is that Walt would have looked at the stories he wanted to tell and made a decision about which medium was the best to tell them in. If it came up all CGI, he would have went that way. No hesitation. If he thought some would have been better told "hand-drawn", he would have kept it open.

What Walt definitely would have done, however, is ensure that regardless of the medium, the story remained the primary focus.

Therefore the question of whether the medium or the story has been the problem with hand-drawn wouldn't even need to be asked.

I think Peter has done a decent job of showing that Eisner's reason for closing the studios was for economic reasons alone.

I'm not buying into the sabotage theory for BB either. And yes, I think the closure was for economic reasons. But the reason the economics weren't working out was primarily due to issues with the stories being told, not the medium.

[airlarry!]

I'm not buying into the sabotage theory for BB either.

Who stole Matt's password? Did you not read the memo from The Element? Toe the line, son, or we will revoke your privileges.

Saying CGI is the savior of the industry and the reason that DFA is closing their traditionally animated unit is a pretty funny statement from a company that shut down the Secret Lab, failed to purchase Pixar, and 'rumors' claim badmouthed at least two of Pixar's releases in an obvious attempt either to depress the box office (even though it cuts their nose to spite the face) for a better contract deal or for just plain jealousy and spite.

[Above_the_Rim]

Why not?
I don't think he would've because he also could've chose to do his movies in clay animation, or use other sorts of figurines in stop go animation. Back when he was alive there was multiple "mediums" and he always chose hand drawn animation. The thing is, if he was alive today then the movies probably would've never sunk so low and so he wouldn't have to had consider closing down the studios.... and for the films on the inflated gross, I'm pretty sure Lion King or Aladin never had re-releases. And the reason none of the "Hand-drawn" films are less than 10 years old is becuase the movies just started doing worse. Disney "Hand-drawn" movies didn't all the sudden start doing worse because of CG movies entering the market, the decline started with Pocahontas which came out before Toy Story. But if you take Finding Nemo and then Lion King side by side I think that you can say hand drawn films have higher potential, you just have to do a good job at it. Look at Fantasia 2 which took use of new technologies, did it do better than the original? Were Jimmy Neutron, Antz, or Final Fantasy huge successes? I think that as of right now if you do a CG movie it's a bit safer becuase it doesn't have to be that great to still get you money, but I dont think that at it's best it can beat hand drawns best (yes even right now) the only thing is that hand drawns best hasnt came out since 10 years ago.

[outstandinfarmer]

My best guess is that Walt would have looked at the stories he wanted to tell and made a decision about which medium was the best to tell them in. If it came up all CGI, he would have went that way. No hesitation. If he thought some would have been better told "hand-drawn", he would have kept it open.

What Walt definitely would have done, however, is ensure that regardless of the medium, the story remained the primary focus.

Therefore the question of whether the medium or the story has been the problem with hand-drawn wouldn't even need to be asked.

I'm not buying into the sabotage theory for BB either. And yes, I think the closure was for economic reasons. But the reason the economics weren't working out was primarily due to issues with the stories being told, not the medium.

I absolutely agree with what you said.

[Above_the_Rim]

Another big thing that Eisner stopped was the Disney musicals. Singing is another thing that if you do bad most likely the movie won't make you any money, but when the movie does good musicals have higher potential than non-musicals (Gone With the Wind... and dont try bringing up re-releases, this movie only had two re-releases which didn't really affect the gross at all.) The real downfall of Disney started when they stopped doing musicals, look during Eisner's reign at Disney the movies that were musicals and the ones that weren't. Of the ones that weren't musicals (off the top of my head) 2 did good and about 8 did bad. Of the ones that were musicals it pretty much flips, about 7 did good and 2 did bad. Walt Disney was not only an advocate of hand drawn animation, but music as well. And during Eisner's reign when the movies after Pocahontas started not doing as good he said no more musicals, and did they do any better? This is the exact same situation as him closing the hand drawn studios. My main point is, a bad hand drawn film by a bad CG film the CG film will win. A good hand drawn film by a good CG film the hand drawn film will win. And the same for musicals and non-musicals. But Disney alone, it's clear that everytime they move away from being Disney and fall off of the formula, their movies do worse not better.

[raidermatt]

...funny statement from a company that shut down the Secret Lab,
What's funny, to me anyway, is that I started to put something in my post about Disney's foray into CGI, and subsequent abandonment of the medium. But I didn't have time to make the point, so I left it out.

But again, I really don't think there was any intentional sabotage. Apathy? Yeah. Failure to read where the industry was going? Yeah. Desire to blame the environment rather than an inability to tell a good story? Definitely.

[raidermatt]

Above the Rim, while I agree with your end conclusion that Disney has screwed things up royally when it comes to their internal animation, I can't agree with the idea that its becaue they have strayed from their formula of hand-drawn musicals.

I believe its John Lasseter who tells the story of how they presented the Toy Story outline to Disney, and the Disney representatives asked where the "7 songs would be". Pixar didn't feel the movie lent itself to a musical format, and this simply baffled Disney at the time. It wasn't the "right formula".

But Pixar was focused on stories, not formulas.

The opposite has been true with Disney. They've morphed into a company that views animation as just another product to be manufactured. They try to find the elements that make a successful film and then put them together to equal a successful film.

The problem is, we are talking about art here, not an assembly line. No, when I say art, I don't mean high brow drinking your wine with the pinky extended art. I simply mean its a creatiive endeavor, and the best art is not created consistently with formulas.

But Disney still thinks it is, and CGI is just one of the elements on the assembly line to them.

[DancingBear]

My best guess is that Walt would have looked at the stories he wanted to tell and made a decision about which medium was the best to tell them in. If it came up all CGI, he would have went that way. No hesitation. If he thought some would have been better told "hand-drawn", he would have kept it open.

ITA with Matt.

[Above_the_Rim]

Above the Rim, while I agree with your end conclusion that Disney has screwed things up royally when it comes to their internal animation, I can't agree with the idea that its becaue they have strayed from their formula of hand-drawn musicals.

I believe its John Lasseter who tells the story of how they presented the Toy Story outline to Disney, and the Disney representatives asked where the "7 songs would be". Pixar didn't feel the movie lent itself to a musical format, and this simply baffled Disney at the time. It wasn't the "right formula".

But Pixar was focused on stories, not formulas.

The opposite has been true with Disney. They've morphed into a company that views animation as just another product to be manufactured. They try to find the elements that make a successful film and then put them together to equal a successful film.

The problem is, we are talking about art here, not an assembly line. No, when I say art, I don't mean high brow drinking your wine with the pinky extended art. I simply mean its a creatiive endeavor, and the best art is not created consistently with formulas.

But Disney still thinks it is, and CGI is just one of the elements on the assembly line to them.
I agree, I do think that the company started using music too much as a product instead of really realizing it's worth. But Walt Disney did lay out a formula that people love, and you can do so many different new stories with the same formula. I want Disney to be Disney and make Disney movies, music adds so much to movies when done correctly. Walt Disney knew not to use it as just a product though, with Bambi he decided that it wasn't the type of movie to be a musical, but he still used music to help the movie. For the majority of stories that Disney does songs can help, and that's something unique to Disney that makes their identity, just as hand drawn animation was. (but I completely agree that Eisner turned it into nothing but a product.)