Is Katzenberg just as bad off (or worse off) as Disney?

[wdwfreak]

A lot of the talk around here concerning Disney's animated movie fortunes as of late has been pretty negative. In the last eight years since Katzenberg left, there have been some bright spots (Lilo, Tarzan, Pixar), and some financial (not creative, mind you) duds (Atlantis, Treasure Planet, Groove, etc.).

Some of the negativity centers around Katz's exit over his mistreatment by Eisner, as one of the reasons for the animated mis-steps by Disney, but if you look at Katz's track record at Dreamworks, it is definitely worse than Disneys. With the sole exception of Shrek, there is not one major hit from them. Yes, some have made a few bucks (Chicken Run), but, by and large, their animated offerings have been one bomb after another -- Spirit, El Dorado, Price of Egypt, and most recently, Sinbad.

I want to qualify what I am saying with two points:

1. I happen to like some of the financial disasters, like Treasure Planet and Prince of Egypt, so I'm not saying these are bad movies, they just weren't huge moneymakers.

2. Disney has been in the game for almost 70 years, to Dreamworks 8 or 9, so, of course, bigger and better is expected from Disney.

My point is this:

I think that Disney and Katzenberg were better together, as opposed to seperate entities. they both suffered as a result of Eisner's failure to recognize Katz's input and importance.

What do you think?

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

What do you think?

It seems pretty likely you're right, to the extent that Disney had tremendous resources and Katz, if nothing else, has a creative vision. That mixture can add up to famous or infamous works of creativity... the stuff brands, careers and legends are all built of.

My main concern, at this point, is how attractive Disney's resources might currently appear to the Katzes of today and tomorrow. I would certainly think, for instance, a Katz/Pixar production would have more in common with traditional Disney work than any imagineable Katz/Eisner II production; and would for that reason be a better financial bet, in the long run.

Between then and now, I believe Katz has maintained his focus and saleability to a greater extent than Disney has maintained its animated movie-making resources.

 

[WDWHound]

I will give you that Spirit, El Dorado and Sinbad did very poorly, but Prince of Egypt was not a "financial disaster"". It made $218,600,000 world wide on a production budget $60,000,000. Not a run away hit, but not bad.

The problem with Treasure Planet, El Dorado, Atlantis and all the other dogs that these studios has turned out has been the writing. The scripts were horrible and the characters were one dimensional because of it. I not sure if Katzenburg is responsible for this or not.

 

[Planogirl]

I don't know, none of these movies were bad in my opinion. They weren't what I would call super but they were all entertaining in their own way.

I recall that many people decided Sinbad was bad without ever seeing a review or certainly the movie itself. A lot of that happened with Spirit too. It almost seemed like the actual marketing and timing of the movies turned people off. I know that the timing for Sinbad couldn't have been worse. So maybe this has something to do with their problems too?

Of course, Treasure Planet was hurt to some degree by timing too in my opinion. This wasn't a great movie either but seemed good enough to deserve better.

Of course, when you look at some of the movies that do well, you have to wonder.

 

[wdwfreak]

Originally posted by Planogirl
I don't know, none of these movies were bad in my opinion. They weren't what I would call super but they were all entertaining in their own way.

Exactly, but of course that's subjective. I liked Treasure Planet, my kids LOVED Spirit, we both loved Groove. My ratings of these movies were in BO performance only. I sometimes think that my finger is WAY off of the pulse of what the majority of moviegoers like. I didn't like Shrek. My favorite Disney animated film of the '90s was Hunchback, and so on ...

 

[pilotmono]

I agree 100% with thedscoop. He has an interesting background (card counter) of being at the right place at the right time. I have spent a little time with him and he is not a plesant person while he's working. He has an outstanding work ethic but he is one who brings people together and that's about all. He left because he was not promoted to replace Frank Wells. He performs well in the Hollywood system and I understand he has calmed down quite a bit.

 

[Planogirl]

He has an outstanding work ethic but he is one who brings people together and that's about all.

This does seem like a good talent for an adminstrator.

Katzenberg seems to get most of the credit for Disney's past animated successes. If it wasn't him, who was it?

 

[Peter Pirate]

Thanks pilotmono for the further insight to Katzenbergs personality. I had talked to an ex-imagineer not long ago and reported his "catankerousness" (shall we say) here on the DIS, as well...It's great to have corroboration.

I think his work speaks for itself. It can be hailed by those who like it and they will have a litney of excuses for the financial shortcomings or it can be brushed off as drivel and garbage by those who simply look at numbers and such...Hmmm, just like we do with Disney!

 

[Testtrack321]

Originally posted by thedscoop
Katzenburg never has, and never will be, much more than a decent administrator who had the foresight to get out of the way of some really good creators last decade.

I think his performance as the creative guy rivals his former boss in being textbook examples of why some people should have stopped while ahead.

You speek the truth Scoop! Where are you to further my point in other discussions!

 

[Another Voice]

Jeffery is tolerable to be around only as long as the supply of Diet Coke lasts.

Both Jeffrey and Eisner have fallen into the same trap. They think that they can make animated movies like live action films. But because of the tremendous time and cost involved, there's no chance to fix a mistake.

If you have a bad script, you can work it out while you're standing on the set of a live action movie. On an animated film – the voices are going to recorded months before the first real animation happens. The animation itself takes months. Down the road when some one decides "this ain't working for me", there is no chance to fix the problem.

The only way around it is to have lots of highly talented people at the top pf their game who are passionately involved with each set. You can't organize it – like Disney Feature Animation and Dreamworks are set up – where the usual herd of "creative executives" run around and bash contracted employees over the head to keep on schedule and buidget.

The reason the CGI films are so successful is not because had drawn animation is dead – but because those films are still made in the right way. Pixar is what Disney was in the 40s or the 90s. Disney is what 20th Century Fox was in the 60s.

The audience doesn't care about the technology. No one went to see Nemo because they wanted to see the shadow rendering and haze effects – they went because they cared about the fish. It could have been traditional, live action, stop motion or hand puppets: if the story is there than the movie works.

 

[d-r]

actually, I think a lot of people went to see nemo for the animation rather than the story. Even if you read the reviews, there are some people who say "the story was pretty weak, but man the animation is awesome and makes it worth seeing."

For me though the story struck a nerve. Some people just write animated movies off as kiddie stuff stories though and don't give them a chance.