Brother Bear Conspiracy

[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.

 

[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.