Debate: Downfall, or radical change of Disney™?

[SnackyStacky]

I've never done this before, started a debate, but I'll give it a shot.

While reading one of the articles about the failure of Tresure Planet, and came across the following:

Studio Chairman Richard Cook, who declined to be interviewed for this article, told analysts recently that the company was now more than ever making creative decisions with a look at the bottom line.

They also, in the article, go on to say:

Industry experts blamed tough competition and the blatant pitch for the fickle teenage boy market for the film's failure.

These are two ideas that are completely contrary to Walt's original philosophies. I think it's a fair statement to say that Walt built his company on quality. Nothing was done unless it was quality. When working on a project, Walt never let the phrases "bottom line" or "[insert demographic here] market". He did things be they animated movies, live action movies, television programs, theme parks, cities of tomorrow.....the only factor was quality.

The two quoted concepts above - are those to be the downfall of the company? Is it something else? Is the company not nearing a downfall? Opinion! Debate! I miss them! I miss arguing with Kidds!!!!!

I will give my opinion a little later. It's so cold, and my fingers are too numb to type anymore!

 

[raidermatt]

First, we have to differentiate between the two different types of "downfall" that will proably be mentioned.

1- Bankruptcy, break-up, overall failure of the business. In this context, no, the statements quoted do not mean Disney is headed for this kind of downfall. Many companies run things like this, and many of them stick around for a long time. The statments do not mean Disney will definitely succeed for years to come, but they also do not necessarily signify an imminent downfall.

2- The second type of downfall is a little harder to put your finger on. This would be Disney no longer being the company that does things differently: Providing family entertainment using quality, creativity, and innovation with an eye toward ultimate customer statisfaction. Now, the bottom line to this philosophy is that it is intended to make money, and lots of it. But it operates under the assumption that the best way for Disney to do that is to focus on the product first, then work out the marketing and merhcandising, and the profits will follow.

In this sense, yes, the quoted statements are examples of Disney's downfall. They may very well continue to be a successful company for many years. But they are becoming like everybody else and that's not how the Disney name came to mean what it does today.

Granted, if these two statements alone were the only indications of this downfall, then we probably wouldn't be talking about a downfall at all. But when they are viewed as part of the big picture, they are examples of Disney narrowing the gap between themselves and everybody else.

 

[SnackyStacky]

After a shower, my fingers are somewhat warmer.

Downfall, not in the sense of bankruptcy, and not entirely in the sense of your second definition either.

The first statement talking about the end of big budget animation. I don't think Walt ever dealt with a "big-budget film". Don't get me wrong. They probably ended up being just that, but that was never the goal. The goal was simply quality animation. And, out of ALL of the divisions of Disney, animation is THE most important, as far as I am concerned. THAT'S Walt's legacy. The parks were a huge mark on society, and definitely something for the amusement industry history books, but animation was the big thing.

I don't remember if it was an article or simply heresay that said that traditional animation (ink and cel) may be a thing of the past at the Disney corporation, and that they're thinking of closing down the animation deptartment in Florida! I don't know if that's rumor or not, but either way, with even the sheer mention of it, I should imagine Walt would spin in his grave!

Look at the theme parks. Attendance has been dwindling for a few years now. And what does Eisner do? He looks at the bottom line, and makes more cuts. Did you ever see the Christmas episode of I Love Lucy where she kept having Fred cut off branches from the tree? In the end it was a stick with a star on it? That's what happening. A cut here and there won't hurt anything, but he's not stopping. He's continually making more and more cuts, until all that's left is a stick with a star on top.

He's taking things that are pre-fab! All the conceptual and design work was already done for Tower of Terror! Just put one up in California Adventure! It'll save money on designing a whole new one! Well, that's just stupid. First of all, all of those west coasters can ride quite a few of Florida's E-Tickets at Disneyland, but they just need a day admission. They're not sinking money into hotels, and meals, and thus DISNEY is loosing out in the end.

Maybe downfall is the wrong word, but it just seems to me that Disney is changing into something radically different than what it has been, and what it was intended to be.

 

[BRERALEX]

I don't remember if it was an article or simply heresay that said that traditional animation (ink and cel) may be a thing of the past at the Disney corporation, and that they're thinking of closing down the animation deptartment in Florida! I don't know if that's rumor or not, but either way, with even the sheer mention of it, I should imagine Walt would spin in his grave!

i dont that would be true actually. Wasnt Walt always after what was the latest and best form of animation? thats the impression i always get of him being ahead of the pack. If traditional animation is dead (which im not saying it is) i think he would look to what is the latest and best format to use. and he would ditch traditional animation.

I feel you on everything else especially the "I love Lucy" analogy that was great. ...cuts here cuts there but im a sucker im booked for jan

 

[raidermatt]

Breralex, I agree, I don't think Walt would have stuck with traditional animation just for tradition's sake.

He would have continued to focus on the story, and using the best techniques to convey that story. In all likelihood, that would include significant use of CGI, and possibly an eventual abandonment of traditional animation films.

Maybe downfall is the wrong word, but it just seems to me that Disney is changing into something radically different than what it has been, and what it was intended to be.

Snacky, we may not agree 100% on all of the "hows" and "whys", but I am in complete agreement with this statement.

 

[BRERALEX]

Story was something i forgot to hit on in my last post

to me if the story is good if the story is great you can draw stick figures and ill go to the threatres 3 or 4 times but put a stinky story even in CGI and who cares?

That's the problem, corny stories. the trailer to TP didnt wow me or blow me over by it's visuals i wanted to know more of what it was about. and one bad thing about TP off the bat was how much it felt like Atlantis.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
and now some quotes form the quotable WD

"I believe in being an innovator"

"You hate to repeat yourself. I dont like to make sequals to my pictures. I like to take a new thing and develop something, a new concept."

"By nature Im an experimenter. To this day, I dont believe in sequals. I cant follow popular cycles. I have to move unto new things."

 

[SnackyStacky]

I don't think that CGI is a bad thing, but I don't think that traditional methods should be abandoned either. I really don't care for sci-fi, which is why I'm very hesitant to see Treasure Planet, but it looks great to have some CGI intermingled with the traditional animation. I think that the traditional animation is a true art form. Lilo & Stitch looked gorgeous. They stuck to the story, and intergrated beautiful water-color backgrounds. To be innovative doesn't mean you have to ditch the old methodology. If it did, rides would be taken out of the theme parks left, and right!

And I could even deal with a total replacement, as Brer and Matt pointed out if the things were creative. ALL they've got are sequels. Put as little in as you can to get as much return as you can. But it seems to be backfiring as more and more people are staying away from those sequels.

 

[Jeff in BigD]

While he was an innovator, he did have different reactions to "progress". 101 Dalmations used the newest form of technology at that time called Xerox & Walt hated it (I don't care for it much myself). He also did have a thing for nostalgia (Main Street is a living testament to that).

I think he would have been a leader in the CGI realm way before this point, but I highly doubt he would have completely ditched the ink & paint format. But it's foolish to think that the company cares too much about what Walt would have done these days. As has been said before, he is regarded as little more than just another character or icon that they can use to market & sell.

 

[Safari Steve]

As far as "Big Budget Animation" goes, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was the most expensive film to date at the time of its release. As far as Treasure Planet's lack of success, I think that had a considerable amount to do with Bond, Harry Potter, and Adam Sandler being released around the same time. There were also some flat characters (BEN could have been soooo much more, on the scale of Genie, even... but he wasn't.) On the other side of that coin, however, I found TP MUCH better than Atlantis. I really enjoyed Silver, Doppler, Jim, and Morph. I also found the visuals terribly engrossing. I'm a big fan of Deep Canvas, and it was used very well in this film. The distinction between the CGI and hand-drawn elements was rather smooth, and not nearly as jarring as it has been in previous films (Anybody remember those "Donkey Kong barrels in El-Dorado?... yeah, I paid money to see that one)

Certainly, the IMAX release of The Lion King will give this quarter a boost, and we have Home on the Range and Bears to look forward to in the coming new year, niether of which is aimed directly at teenagers (and as long as they use Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas more like Robin Williams than Martin Short-- who I thought was grossly underutilized-- the moose duo in Bears should be lots of fun.)

 

[d-r]

Originally posted by BRERALEX
Story was something i forgot to hit on in my last post

to me if the story is good if the story is great you can draw stick figures and ill go to the threatres 3 or 4 times but put a stinky story even in CGI and who cares?

That's the problem, corny stories. the trailer to TP didnt wow me or blow me over by it's visuals i wanted to know more of what it was about. and one bad thing about TP off the bat was how much it felt like Atlantis.

Actually, I thought the story was pretty good - I thought it was actually paced better than the live action versions of Treasure Island I've seen, and more enjoyable to me, while staying true to most of the plot points. I thought that story was a strength of this film. Heck, I've seen Ice Age and Shirk on video and I thought that in terms of STORY treasure planet was a whole lot better than either. Maybe I don't understand what "story" means, but I don't think that "story" was the problem of treasure planet, and I don't think the visual quality (animation, effects, whatever) was the problem either. FWIW, I thought the animation was much better than Ice Age which seemed like a video game from a couple of years ago. I've seen people say that they don't want to go see TP because it isn't a "fairy tale" musical sort of story, and I've seen people say that they don't want to go to see TP because they don't want another Disney "formula" fairy tale musical. I think that the problem with TP was 1. the general public doesn't know what to make of it and 2. released against Harry Potter - both a problem of distribution/marketing.

DR

 

[BRERALEX]

1. the general public doesn't know what to make of it

thats the rpoblem i found with the trailer.

not saying i want one fo those trailers that gives away major elements for the movie either but let us in on the plot a little.

2. released against Harry Potter - both a problem of distribution/marketing.

I'm surprised someone at disney didnt think about this. i think bond was origianlly going to open the same friday as potter and even they changed their plans.

well too late either way.

i think the downfall is here that whole slippery slope thingie

 

[SnackyStacky]

As far as "Big Budget Animation" goes, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was the most expensive film to date at the time of its release.

Which is what bothers me. That the original thing will just be dropped.

Everyone keeps talking about how wonderful Treasure Planet is, and I don't doubt that, but Disney aims for demographics now, and that TOTALLY kills them as far as I am concerned.

The trailers of Treasure Planet cut me right out when they went from a simple sci-fi angle. I regret that I haven't read Treasure Island, and am not at all familiar with it. Based on the trailers for it, I'm still clueless. If it does have a great story at heart, they need to promote that.

And that's why I believe that the bottom line is killing them. They're trying to swoop in to a specific demographic, and betting LOTS of money that they're going to the right demographic, and that that demographic wants to see them!!!!

If Treasure Planet is as good as everyone says it is (I'm not saying it's not, I'm just saying I haven't seen it), then why couldn't they market it as a Disney, family movie? Just like they did with everything from The Little Mermaid until The Lion King.

Certainly, the IMAX release of The Lion King will give this quarter a boost

That's also exactly what I'm saying. They're relying FAR too heavily on past accomplishments instead of being creative with new things. IMAX Lion King will be neat, but it seems to me like a grand ploy to make a killing with "For the first time EVER on Disney DVD: The Lion King!"

Again, just my $.02

 

[BRERALEX]

im bored and had a shot of bacardi im goin with downfall.

It took a man with great vision ambition heart and mind to build the disney company to what alot of us "remember" but since now disney the company has to worry about stock holders and doesnt have a visionary leader at the helm there is no possible way that the company i fell in love with can ever be the same or close to the same.

i know you guys go around this time and time again but i need to sweat off some of this bacardi.

so im goin with downfall. there looking for the most moolah with the least amount of money to invest which is fine...in the short run.....in the long run the effects are already happening. I think TP tanked not so much because of Potter even though my fav wizard had soemthing to do with it but because i bet families are giving up on the company......slowly.

"oh another disney pic......bet its gonna suck.....lets see where they made cuts..." thats basically how i feel when i see something disney these days. With all these sequals i think its finally catching up. Any kids movie would have tanked against Potter but that badly was more then just Potter. how about crappy campaigning lack of defining the story in the trailer......didnt want to admit till Snacky did but i havent read treasure island either so the trailer didnt do much for me. and didnt do much for my gf and didnt do much for my 4 yo who wants to see "the wild thornberrys" go figure.

Finding Nemo ill give it a chance maybe ( i hate Ellens voice ugg predictable) but not cause its disney because it has pixar stamped on it........and thats so hard to say because it used to be the pther way around until they kep taking EVERYONE for suckers thinking we'll buy in cause t has disney on it.

 

[PKS44]

This is indeed when the chickens come home to roost...that ye reap as ye have sown... that Disney learns that you cannot develop a brand identity based on high quality then exploit that identity and name by putting it on lower quality without paying a price in the long run...that price is the loss of your high quality brand identity....It is an old lesson but one that companies keep having to learn the hard way over and over. Disney no longer means what it used to because the recent offerings of Peter Pan II and Cinderella II and Atlantis etc, etc...now define what Disney is....it makes no difference if TP is good or not...you can't get the people in the door...they have been burned before (and for the target audience- teen boys- they have no interest in wha they perceive Disney to be about either- fairy tales and princesses). A complete bungle on Disney's part and all too predictable.