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?

 

[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?

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.

 

[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}

 

[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.