An "empty headed" suit speaks out about Ei$ner's threat to close DFA

[airlarry!]

Jim Hill Media's article on the Florida closure and why it is necessary to save Disney Feature Animation Wow. Here is an allegedly actual suit from Burbank responding to the charges surrounding the demise of Disney's Orlando based animation unit. You know, the guys that didn't produce Atlantis and Treasure Planet, and instead gave us Mulan, Lilo and Brother Bear.

If it is a real email, then it actually paints a good picture about how much Ei$ner cares about the tradition of Disney Feature Animation...by that I mean zilch. If it would be easier, cheaper, and more profitable to outsource the animation department, then Cou$in Mikey is all up in that.

Keep us up to date, Jim.

 

[WDSearcher]

Where's Roy been in all of this? I know that he's quit the board, but doesn't he still run the Animation divison? Or is that largely a ceremonial role?

I know a lot of folks at the Florida animation facility who feel Roy let them down by not speaking out and standing up for them. He may not have much power against the upper management deck, but there don't seem to have been ANY statements released by Roy regarding the fate of the Florida studio.

 

[Figmentrocks]

WDSearcher,

Roy left the company.

 

[Another Voice]

Roy quit his role in Animation when he left the board, but that was more a formality than anything else. He had been nothing but a figurehead for several years. Eisner's paranoia was so great that all employees were required to report their contact and conversation with Roy to "real" executives in Disney. And remember in Roy's letter that he said Eisner refused to let him meet with Pixar.

The message on Mr. Hill's site is so much Hollywood suit mentality it reads like a parody. All talk about how much money a film is making, all talk about market share, all talk about "they're waiting for the DVD" (funny how no one does that for Pixar movies) - all the stupid "it's not my fault" lies to cover the failure of some really bad movies. If this is a legitimate message it should be used in business schools as a prime example as how to destroy a company's core product. Focus only on the finances instead of the products and you will lose because people go to see movies, not financial spreadsheets.

The decision to close Florida was made a long time ago. When animated films no longer generated instant The Lion King sized box office, the problem was "solved" from the cost side (as in expect lower revene so make them cheaper and get the same profit"). Why have a whole bunch of animators on the payroll when you can go out and hire them freelance? Why bother having an animation studio when Pixar works so well?

A lot of this recent spin is simply Human Resource voodoo to pretend the company is really a nice guy, and some long shot hopes by people that somehow good would prevail. Sadly, sometimes The Enemy gets the ring.

This all fits in with a strategic shift Disney decided on about five years ago. The Walt Disney Company is a marketing organization that exists to sell products made by other companies. It doesn't "make" anything on its own anymore. From Bruckheimer produced blockbusters to off-the-shelf theme parks and standard issue Interstate motel made "Disney" by gluing on fiberglass - you can see the process in action.

All that is happening to Animation is the same process that happened to WDI, the same attempt at the Disney Stores (find someone to license the name and let them run the chain). Believe it or not, the model for this operating is Tokyo Disneyland. Eisner spent a decade calling that the worst business move in history and now he's reshaping the entire company just like it.

 

[crusader]

The Walt Disney Company is a marketing organization that exists to sell products made by other companies. It doesn't "make" anything on its own anymore. From Bruckheimer produced blockbusters to off-the-shelf theme parks and standard issue Interstate motel made "Disney" by gluing on fiberglass - you can see the process in action.

Bruckheimer the director didn't pay to make Pirates - he and a whole slew of others were employed and contracted by Disney the production company to make a movie Disney held the rights to. How's that a shift in planning and corporate direction? Are you saying that Hollywood should go back to the days when they controlled these guys inhouse?

And to say Disney doesn't "make" anything on its own anymore may be true with animation, (which I'll agree is a big problem right now) but you really won't ever be able to convince me that accomplishments like M:S and Pirates lack ingenuity.

Then there's that Pop Century motel complaint again. What about Saratoga Springs? Are we talking glue and fiberglass here too?

I do believe you often take all balance out of the equation in order to demonstrate a one-track record which makes it very difficult to have an impartial discussion on many topics.

 

[Another Voice]

Bruckheimer Films was the production company for Pirates and owns a substantial chunk of the movie and all related items (which is why there won't be a make-over of the attractions because then Jerry would get a cut of the park revenue as well). There was also a new company, First Mate Productions, formed and I've been told that is a "joint venture" that allows Bruckehimer even more revenue from the movies.

Just like Pearl Harbor, someone at Disney said "I have an idea and we'll get Jerry to actually do something with it". The cost is that now someone else has control, not Disney.

As for controlling the guys in-house, you mean like how Feature Animation worked on Mermaid, Beauty, Lion, etc. or how Pixar works on all it films? Not such a bad idea, is it.

'Mission: Space" is Disney taking a ride from someone else and dressing it up pretty. Yes, Disney did a better job than say 'Primeval Whirl', but the concept is the same. California Adventure is a park based on the principle. Take other people's stuff (even if you steal from yourself) and slap a bright happy DISNEY® sticker on it.

Hard to keep your reputation as "innovative and creative" when you act as nothing but a re-brander.

As for being "unbalanced", I always strive to talked about when Disney does gets things right: Lilo and Stitch, The Princess Diaries, 'Soaring Over California'. But when the majority of things are going wrong - ABC, cloned parks, simplistic & uncaring design, cynical movies - trying to force a false 50%-50% split is worse. To overstate the good and understate the bad misrepresents the situation at best, and or is the Disney Correct brand monkey mindset at worst.

Things aren't too rosy. Animation is being closed as I write, the stores are either going to be sold or closed, California Adventure is free once again, and the CEO spends all his time trying to retain power instead of fixing the messes he's created.

If you can rationally argue the good outweighs the bad at the moment, please do so.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by Another Voice As for controlling the guys in-house, you mean like how Feature Animation worked on Mermaid, Beauty, Lion, etc. or how Pixar works on all it films? Not such a bad idea, is it.

But does anybody else do this anymore outside of animation?

'Mission: Space" is Disney taking a ride from someone else and dressing it up pretty.

How so? There wasn't another ride like this anywhere else. Do you mean because another company did the engineering? Do you really expect that Disney (or anybody else) would have in-house capabilities for a project like this?

 

[Another Voice]

"But does anybody else do this anymore outside of animation?"

In terms of studios, Dreamworks and Miramax pop into mind as the bigger ones. Most of the major studios (Paramount, Universal, etc.) are banks and distribution companies more than movie making companies.

And that's the point. Disney is killing off all the facets of the business that made them unique in and rushing to be just like everyone else. It's not made because everyone else makes better product or because everyone else is more profitable - it's simply a quick cost saving achieved by firing a lot of people and making the other guy pay for stuff.

And as a fan - ask yourself if you really want the future Disney to churn out only movies like The Cat in the Hat, Timeline and Legally Blonde 2 and all the other wonderful fare of "regular" Hollywood.


"Do you mean because another company did the engineering? Do you really expect that Disney (or anybody else) would have in-house capabilities for a project like this?"

Yes - there's been long threads on these boards about exactly that fact (http://www.therideworks.com/index.php). The classic Disney attraction was "how do we best tell the story". That occasionally lead to new rides systems (like the Omnimover), sometimes using existing mechanisms (like boats in a flume) - but the story was the driver. But today's goal is simply "buy something and we'll cover it with fiberglass). Wander through Flik's Fun Fair and you'll feel like you've stepped into the kiddie land section of a big shopping mall.

They even do the same thing with buildings now. Is there anything at all about the architecture at Pop Century that has anything at all to do with past decades? Nope, not in the least. All they've done is slapped fiberglass on prefab construction as decorations. That's not themeing.

Again - is this "Disney"? Is this innovation, attention to detail, magic wherever you look?

Of course not. But it is easy, it is cheap, and they hope it works just long enough for some quick short term profits. They are moving the company to where "Disney" is nothing but a premium brand name with nothing to back it up. Just like a deisnger water company that fills its bottles from the city tap, Disney just what to stick its name on products you can get elsewhere for a lot less money.

 

[crusader]

AV -

Thank you for replying to my post.

Given that a producer happens to be the one backing the flick, it really doesn't surprise me that Universal and Paramount have replaced the banking communities role in your industry and grown into major finance operations. An infinite amount of money has changed hands over the past 70 years.

One of the major keys to success is establishing financial independence. As your industry has grown, many component parts have been liberated to become separate economic enterprises in and of themselves. That's why Hollywood looks the way it does today and I'm afraid there's no turning back.

Gone forever are the golden days of the silver screen along with legendary movie stars and pure show business.

So how does a company like Disney adapt to and survive what has evolved into today's era?

If Bruckheimer is solely for hire it's really not this company's fault. Blame your industry. I'm thankful somebody over there saw the need for him and was able to cut the deal.

 

[Another Voice]

The way Jerry Bruckheimer works is exactly the way the old studios worked. He's the one that actually makes the movie. What Disney has become is simply a mix of Bank of America (lending the money) and RKO (the guys who got the films into the theaters). Nothing in the studio making process has changed, just the players shifted around a bit.

There's no "golden age that will never come back again", it's just when all the other studios were bought by bigger corporations, those companies didn't know how to make a movie and gave the job to other people. Disney's only different because it bailed out of production out of laziness and fear. Again - Disney has given up making product and is content just to wholesale other people's creations.

Now, if you think Disney can remain a "creative" company be acting like WalMart, I'd love to hear.

And animation was still done completely in-house - and look at what they produced. It's very hard to say "doing it yourself" is dead when you see the grosses for The Lion King; it's even more difficult say "Walt's way was stupid" when you look at this summer's take from Finding Nemo. Movies made by people that care enough to make good movies have a much higher chance of success than films churned out just to met corporate release dates.


If any era is passing, it was the brief Corporate Media Empire BSD Media Mogul - of which Eisner is a champion of. In fact, that era was so misguided it never really took off.

Is Dad watching the Angels game on ESPN becasue of the Disney Design TV set bought at Target while Mom microwaves the latest Disney brand kid meals as result of her cooking class at The Disney Institute as Big Sis enjoys the repeat of the latest hit ABC comedy shown on ABC Family as a result of that hot new Miramax soundtrack from Hollywood Records and Little Brother listens to the hits from Radio Disney while portalling through GO.com to research a school paper on latest topic from Discover Magazine becasue he knows the teacher watches Lifetime and he thinks that will get him a few more points?

Did having the Meet 'n Greet with the charactes from Treasure Planey result in soaring box office for that movie; and did the absence of Pirates merchandise at Sears doom that movie to obilivion?

Please tell me how all this Media Empire is working?

Perhaps if Disney spent more time making something worth buying instead of trying to resell me the same old product they might not be in the miserable shape they are today. Sure, that's "old fashioned" - but at least that worked.

 

[crusader]

Thankfully the "BIG" inflated everything era is gradually fading these days. Unfortunately many overindulgent bloated egos are realizing this at a snails pace and will be the last one's to personally take any hits.

This doesn't mean an end to corporate Hollywood, particularly when an individual signs a contract with the letters inc;llc;pc;or ltd. after their name.

I believe animation may be the only division which can successfully remain 100% in-house today. Everything else is loaded with so many perks it's become too lucrative to leave on the table.

It's called the power of money, and it remains one heck of a competitive driving force. You may be able to cultivate an idea from a seedling to a masterful beanstalk the old fashioned way but you're never going to be able stop the guy next door from using a vine he manipulated with miracle grow to beat you to the golden goose.

That is why companies need growth and diversity today. They have to be smart enough to avoid having all their golden eggs in one basket.

 

[Baloo]

I was reading that article and came over here to see if any of you had.

All I kept saying outloud to my computer screen to this nameless suit...was a big...D'UH!! Disney is only now "getting" that they've glutted the hell out of EVERYTHING that makes them any sort of $$$?!?!?! Strecthing things to their limits instead of improving on what they already have?!?OY!

I've been complaining about the whole animation film thing for years.It use to be an EVENT ,even before I had children to attend a new Disney animation film.ONE FILM...each year.That made these movies "special". But noooooo Disney has to start pumping out SO MANY ,including the cheap direct to video films,that it's hard to keep up with what's what in Disney animation!

I'd like to see it back to ONE animated film a year.I hate to see all those people lose jobs though.The Great Disney Machine isn't working so it's the little parts that get dumped...that stinks!

Gluttony is one of the top tens, isn't it?!?!?!