Animation & Walt

[Captain Crook]

With all of the hualbaloo over the state of current Disney animation and the continual comparisons to Walt & the good ole days thought I'd toss out these facts & figures on Disney animation and the good old days....

The Films:
1. Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs. An unbelievably expensive film that went on to be one of the top grossing movies of the year, a critical & commercial success & won Walt an Oscar. Walt's baby.

2. Pinocchio. Wonderfully animated, nearly twice as expensive as Snow White, was a temendous failure in its first release (lost over $1 million). Walt's baby.

3. Fantasia. High expectation...Huge flop. Critics & audiences both hated it. Walt's baby.

4. Dumbo. Critics & audiences loved it...Walt didn't. A very succesful low budget, very simple movie.

5. Bambi. Another critical & public failure. Not as expensive as Fantasia or Pinocchio by any means, consequently less to lose.

6. Song of the South. Critically acclaimed & profitable...Yet, a PR nightmare.

7. Cinderella. Huge! A critical & financial bonanza. Walt's baby.

8. Alice In Wonderland. Terrible reviews, terrible audience reaction...Until the 60's! Walt hated it.

9. Peter Pan. Stuck to the script & simplicity & had another "hit."

10. Sleeping Beauty. Expensive, criically rebuked and barely broke even at the box office. Walt's baby.

OK. So we have 10 Disney movies from the 30's, 40's & 50's. Most considered "classic" today, but was the original track record? What was the original buzz?

It looks to me like Walt hit on 50% at best and the irony is the movies he really pushed, that he stayed involved with, were among the biggest clunkers. Movies like Sleeping Beauty, Pinocchio & Fantasia, yet all these years later we regard them with more love and adoration than they ever were treated to in their time.

Flashforward to today, Atlantis & Dinosaur. Both films recieved high marks on the creative side but fail in story, some critical acclaim & the box office.

So I ask, are these failures really an indictment on the Eisner regime, when if you look over his tenure he probably has at least as good of "winning percentage" as Walt did on first run movies.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Captain, I have a real problem with your list. It's way too subjective. But I'll let AV or someone who knows a bit more on the subject take you to task for it.

My only question for you is: When, during that time, did Walt hand out all those pink slips, thus crippling the animation division as it is today? Where does that fit in your timeline?

 

[ww52]

Following on Landbaron's point, I recall a phrase I heard during the wave of downsizing in the middle ninties. Some corporate analyst wondered how the downsized companies expected to ever bloom - he pointed out "you can't shrink to greatness". Eventually all a downsized company does is become an attractive takeover target - as my company (Amoco) did.

 

[Another Voice]

I could earn a doctorate with a response to this post. Suffice it to say that using the poor results from ‘Pinocchio’ (remember that minor business disruption called World War II?) to claim that ‘Atlantis’ will be viewed as a masterpiece by future generations is rather stretching a point. I won’t go into a point-by-point commentary on your list now, but let’s just say opinions vary.

One point I will bring up is that we are still talking about these movies after fifty years. Yet many of the Eisner era movies are already forgotten. Who remembers ‘Oliver and Company’ or ‘The Rescuers Down Under’? Even a film as recent as ‘Hercules’ has disappeared from the public’s memory. And these films have the benefit of VCRs and DVDs. If ‘Bambi’ was such a lousy movie, how did it capture the public’s imagination when it spent most of its time lock in the company film vault? Could such a miserable film continue to make money in theatrical release every seven years? Talk about giving word of mouth a chance to kill a film.

Perhaps if anyone actually watches ‘Dinosaur’ in fifty years you might have a justification to call Michael Eisner as good a filmmaker as Walt Disney. Until then, I’ll keep my copy of ‘Dumbo’ ready.

 

[Captain Crook]

I post a topic full of factual information and try to relate it to today, simply asking a question "Are these failures really an indictment on the Eisner regime?" Question for discussion, pure and simple, which is why I thought we were here.

I never said Eisner was a good filmaker or better than Walt (how ludicrous and stupid you must think I am). I pointed out that Walt had failures and, yes AV, I am fully aware that Pinocchio was released during the War, but so what? It doesn't change the result. You know in the future people may look back and say "man Shrek was big but of course than was during the age of unlightenment just before the great mental breakdown of an entire country"...Who knows?

But I'll discuss what you want...Rescuers Down Under? Ok. Hercules? OK...But what about Lion King, Beauty & the Beast, Aladdin?...Should I go on? Were these done on Eisner's watch or not? Simple question.

As for Bambi, I didn't say it was "such a lousy movie," I said "Another critical and public failure." I can't help what the press & the public liked at the time, I was just stating a fact that I thought might stir some discussion.

And regarding "will people even be watching Dinosaur 50 years from now?" Well, maybe not, but Aladdin, LK B&B will probably still be entertaining people...So while I'm not saying Michael Eisner is a great, good, even mediocre filmaker, it appears that Disney has done some extremely wonderful things during his tenure...

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I never said Eisner was a good filmmaker or better than Walt (how ludicrous and stupid you must think I am)

WHOA!!! Calm down Captain. I got the same inference. Not that you’re stupid (lol) but that you thought Ei$ner was a good filmmaker. Perhaps even better than Walt. Maybe it’s your style, but honestly, I thought the same thing.

I pointed out that Walt had failures

Sure. Some with the public, some with the critics and some with both! I don’t get your point. Because Ei$ner has had failures and Walt had failures, they are the same? All companies, and individuals for that matter have had failures. I don’t see what parallels you’re trying to draw. I think a better measure would be their successes. Which leads us to:

But what about Lion King, Beauty & the Beast, Aladdin?...Should I go on? Were these done on Eisner's watch or not? Simple question.

Well, technically, I suppose. But if you really look at it, it was under the Katzenberg watch. And before you jump out of your skin I will admit that being the head mouse at the time Ei$ner should get some credit. And I hereby do so credit him. I credit him with dumping Katzenberg, much to the determent of the Disney organization.

Now, ya knows I loves ya Captain. I'm just trying for a little of that discussion you want to have!!!

 

[Captain Crook]

I don't know how you could infer an opinion that I thought Eisner to be a superior filmaker to Walt without your predisposed opinion as to my position and you, Landbaron, should certainly know that with the Pirate, what's black isn't necessarily dark...(huh?),

Now, I pointed out Walt's failures because around here they never get air play. As for Eisner's failures, I didn't mention them as they're public knowledge.

The point I'm making is that Disney animation is down, but that doesn't mean it's out. The Company has been up & down with Walt, Mike and the interim. Mike has presided over great successes (and this harkens back to our very first discussion Landbaron, remember?) and if he is to be held accountable for all of the failures (PH, DCA, Atlantis, etc) then certainly he should be credited with the successes just the same.

Walt wasn't perfect, he pushed the envelope with pet projects that bombed miserably but were later accepted for their greatness. Now, I'm not saying Atlantis or Dinosaur will ever reach that level of reverence, but shouldn't the superior aspects of these films be given their due at least? Shouldn't these artists be given the same chance for reverence as those who worked for Walt?

Lastly, my point about the current state of affairs... Currently it's a mess but what if the next release (whatever it is) inexplicably grosses 200 million? Will it happen? Not any more likely than Anna Kournakova inviting me to play doubles, but as long as I'm breathing there is always that chance and so too is the chance that "Peter Pirate Meet's The Gypsies," or whatever is up next, could set box office records!

It ain't over till the fat lady sings and the last singer I saw at WDW was Davy Jones, so I still think we've got time...

 

[Captain Crook]

But Landbaron wrote

When during that time, did Walt hand out all of those pink slips, thus crippling the animation division as it is today? Where does that fit in your timeline?

Well my friend and advesary, you asked the right question at the right time (for me, that is ). Right after the debacle called Sleeping Beauty, Walt laid off hundreds of animators, virtually all of his staff, admitting (at that time) that the future was in live pictures...In fact Walt put a ban on hiring (in animation) that lasted until the early 70's (beyond his death) and released only three animated features during the entire 60's. During that time he also directed the few animators on staff to "start using shortcuts" (like reusing scenes), something never before done at Disney!...So it sounds a bit like history repeating itself, eh???

 

[YoHo]

Hey Captain, Waht Have you been reading, and where can I get it?


I think the main point here is that some of us are looking back at the Walt era with Rose Colored glasses as it seems that even When Walt Did things the Walt way, there were many failures. That suggests to me that Walt's Ideals are not the perfect Mission Statement (not that they should be dismissed and completely replaced, merely that they are not in any way perfect.

 

[TDisneyC]

It's amazing to think such wonderful movies did so poorly at the time. I believe many people still have the notion that these Disney movies were just as successful back then as they are now.
You know what they say, Walt was ahead of his time

 

[DisDuck]

Hi, Captain. I think you hit a sore spot with the crew here. YoHo has it right about rose-colored glasses. Walt had his successes and his failures just like an ordinary business CEO. Mike has his successes and his failures.

DVC, you are very quick to blame Eisner for every 'bad' thing, saying he is the Head Mouse so even if the decision is made lower down (like valet parking) his office is where the buck stops. Well then the same thing holds try for what is 'good'. He should get complete credit for Lion King, etc even though decision was made lower down (ie. Katzenberg). You cannot have it both ways. Eisner has made bad decision but lower management made good decisions.

What Captain has posted has only been fair. It shows that even the 'great' Walt had his bad moments. The fact that 50 years later they are considered 'classics' only means that public taste has 'matured' and good marketing by Disney to help turn these failures into successes. So maybe 50 years from now what we consider to be failures could very well be successes and that the public just wasn't sophisticated enough at the time.

 

[JeffJewell]

...you assert (unsourced) that Walt felt the future was in live action and therefore cut animators. That sounds like a logical business move based on a high-level decision of what would be important to the company.

Eisner has been quoted (on CBS Marketwatch, as recently as a couple of threads ago) as saying that Disney is a content company, all the while cutting every aspect (not just animation) of Imagineering, the arm of his company that creates content. That sounds like a stupid business move in direct opposition to a high-level statement of what is important to the company.

So it sounds a bit like history repeating itself, eh???

Not even close.

The history that's repeating itself is the post-Walt stagnation of creativity. It was that stagnation from which it was necessary to "save" the company. Eisner did that (largely via Katzenberg's movies), then effectively cancelled it out by giving Jeffrey $240 million to go create content for someone else.

Businesses all have successes and failures; calling Eisner a businessman equal to Walt on that count is terribly specious. There is a difference between making the best product you can make while perhaps misjudging your audience, and putting out a cheap, ordinary product in the hopes of making acceptable profits before anyone notices.

Jeff

 

[Captain Crook]

You are comparing again Jeff. Just because I point out some failings of Walt doesn't mean Eisner's decisions are all good.

It DOES sound like history repeating when looked at in context. Disney was failing (under Walt) and near bankruptcy after the ill-received Sleeping Beauty. Walt no longer felt anmation was viable, no longer had much interest in animation and WANTED TO BUILD DISNEYLAND. Yet he had no money. Viola, virtually all animators were laid off...Well, I've said the rest...

In and of itself these events have no direct bearing on today, except for the parellell of Walt needing funding thus all but dumping animation & going public and today's decision to increase value by cost cutting, layoffs, etc. They are both responses in kind to the pressures of needing more cash (albeit for different reasons). The similarities are there...

 

[JeffJewell]

...is that Walt's cutting animation _would_ support a decision that animation was no longer viable (could you provide a reference for this information?).

Eisner's cutting Imagineering _does not_ support his statement that Disney is a content company.

This is about making business moves that support your business plan. Eisner is not currently doing that.

There is no parallel between today and "Walt needing funding." We've all read the press releases that Disney has $3 to $5 billion to spend on "media acquisitions." The money is there. It simply is not being spent on "content," even though Eisner has stated that content is what is most important to Disney.

How can you try to justify Eisner's cutting what he called the most important part of the company while considering spending billions in other areas?

Jeff

 

[Captain Crook]

Jeff, I will look for my reference material...It's in a book somewhere. LOL!

As for Eisner, I'm not justifying anything. With the recent comments made he's either going to be changing direction, he's trying to "play" Wallstreet (which isn't working) or he's lying. If it's either two of the three, he'll probably be out of a job soon, if it's the other then I'm willing to see if he can return the lustre, but as of yet, no one from the Board has asked for my input so in order to keep my sanity I will continue to try to look at things with the glass half full attitude...

Again, my biggest point isn't Eisner's succeses, I just don't want Eisner's percieved failures compared to Walt's percieved successes without laying it all out on the table...

 

[JeffJewell]

I just don't want Eisner's percieved failures compared to Walt's percieved successes without laying it all out on the table

I've got no problem with that.

It just seemed to me that you were comparing Walt's errors of commission with Eisner's errors of omission.

What I mean is this: you won't hear me knocking Eisner for making the movie Dinosaur, even though it can generally be considered a flop. I think computer generated animation is the future, and that Dinosaur was Disney's big step in that direction. The fact that it didn't grab audiences the way we'd all hoped, well, that's an error of commission. He tried something big that didn't catch fire, but at least he tried something big.

You _will_ hear me bust Eisner for his actions _following_ Dinosaur. The multi-million dollar computer animation facility sits idle, and quite a few of the fired Dinosaur Imagineers followed up by working on the commercially successful "Shrek."

All businesses are going to have successes and failures, so all businessmen are equal in that sense. For a creative company like Disney, it is my feeling that Walt's type of balls-out successes and failures were better for the company, long-term, than Eisner-style corner-cutting successes and failures.

Jeff

 

[YoHo]

I have to agree with the captain here. Eisner's Comments on Market Watch occured well after the Layoffs were planned, announced and acted on. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that company direction changed after those actions took place. Also, we are not privy to the whims of the board. Sarangel linked to a report that implied that the board was no longer merely Eisner's puppets. If that's true, then its quite likely that its much worse for Eisner then it seems to us. These kinds of things tend to be well hidden. Even Another Voice's sources are likely not tuned in to the whole story (unless they have keys to the executive Washroom.
So its possible that Mike's made a reversal in the last 2 weeks.


Of course he could be lying or playing it up for Wall Street as the good captain said. Only time will tell.

I know that some here assume its a lie or a cover. Persoanlly, I don't see the about face as any sign of great strength. More a sign that someone is stepping up and resting control. None of the 3 options puts Eisner in a good light, its just that one paints a prettier picture for the company.

 

[Captain Crook]

Since Yoho & Jeff were interested in my recent reading habits I tried to recall them. Last weekend was rainy so I read a lot of Disney web sites & I cannot tell you which ones they were, but there are some good ones...Sorry.

But the most recent book I've read, and it pertains primarily to animation was David Koenig's Mouse Under Glass (Disney Animation & Theme Parks)...I enjoyed it very much & it's an easy read...

 

[airlarry!]

I don't mean to inject a little common sense here, but

Snow White: today's money? $587 milion so far.
101 Dals: $566 million
Jungle Book: $466 million
Fantasia: $447 million
Lion King: $403 million
Sleeping Beauty: $391 million
Bambi: $379 million
Pinnochio: $363 million
Cinderella: $336 million
Lady & Tramp: $306 million
Aladdin: $282 million

*** THESE ARE ALL DOMESTIC BOX OFFICE GROSSES ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION NO VIDEO ***

Notice that these films are all over the map in terms of the timeline of Disney animated features. Not just lately, and not just 1930s and 1940s.

But, hmmm....while I personally loved Atlantis & Hercules & Mulan, I just have a sinking feeling that in domestic gross these films will never reach these heights. That does not make them classics, but just don't tell me that Bambi and Fantasia were complete flops.

Let me put it to you another way...when the posters above connote certain franchise movies as being flops, they are doing the thing that the #3 carpoolers are doing...holding Walt to his own high standard. By any other standard, Walt had no flops on this list. It is only by comparison to his really big hits that we can drop the flop word.

Or I will put it this way. If Groove or Atlantis (again two movies that I absolutely loved...in fact Groove is one of the funniest movie I've seen in a long time) ever approach any of these figures, I'll eat my sorceror's hat. Call me on the carpet, Captain, in ten years if they do.

Doesn't make 'em classics or not, I know, but stop telling me that Eisner should be forgiven because Walt 'flopped' with Bambi or Fantasia. Oh, if only Eisner could 'flop' so hard.

See for yourself at http://www.boxofficereport.com/atbon/adjusted.shtml
The disclaimer is that there is no foolproof manner of adjusting these totals, but gimme a break, it is good enough for our discussion.

 

[YoHo]

Airlarry, elsewhere in another topic, we sorted out the whole adjusted box office gross. Truth is, the way movies are marketed has changed drastically, If say Mulan were made in the 50s it may have actually done better due to the distribution meathods (I don't know about anyone else, but Mulan is my personal favorite post Lion King movie. I think it has all the right qualities to be a true classic, but I may just be out on a limb.)