Jungle Book 2 Thoughts Thread

[All Aboard]

I'm with you on that, Vike. AV's right about the root (or source) of the problem, but if the market keeps telling them that it's ok, it ain't gonna change.

JB2 aims right at the market (or at least the demographic) that made the new era classics so successful. TP & Atlantis tried to grab a new one and failed.

It's happening in the theme parks as well. Aladdin & TricerTop Spin are Dumbo II & III. Could Mission:Space be Treasure Planet????? We've read that TP marks the end of the big budget cutting edge attempt at animation. Could M:S mark the end for attractions?

 

[raidermatt]

Vike, gcurling, Scoop, I get what you are saying. And a year and a half ago, I probably would have agreed with you.

See, I think you are right that Disney is looking at things in just the way you lay out. Make a movie for $20 million, take in $40-50 at the box office. Geez, its a no-brainer right? They can't afford NOT to make that choice, right? Let's call this the Return on Investment (RoI) argument.

But this smacks of what AV is always telling us....If they can't see it quantified on a spreadsheet, footnoted with tangible backup, they don't think it exists.

The RoI argument makes ZERO allowance for the long-term impact of brand degradation. Yes, RtN and JB2 made/will make profits from their theatrical runs. But profit or not, a movie with a $40-50 million box office take was clearly not judged by the public as an animated feature worthy of carrying "WALT DISNEY PICTURES" on it in the theaters.

How can this not hurt Disney's reputation, and therefore, how can it not hurt the next animated theatrical release to carry the Disney name? ESPECIALLY a "hand-drawn" release...

Yes, bombs like TP, Atlantis, ENG hurt the brand also, but at least they don't bring animation quality/innovation into question. Also, even though these films are viewed as failures, the public still liked them better than RtN (except for TP).

I really don't think sequels in the theaters is a simple "make money" decision. It just takes somebody with the vision to say "NO, its more important to protect the value of the WDP name!"

 

[KNWVIKING]

Raider, I whole heartedly agree with you and AV. But if quality keeps losing money- whats the alternative- no Disney ? I agree that sequels are a cheap shortcut well below Disneys standards, but I think they are going to have to continue making them as long as they pull down 40-50 mil. This will at least give them the cash to attempt better products. Disney is in a real dilema between brand quality & profit margin and I don't think it can all be blamed on ME. Part of the blame needs to go to a dumbed down America.

 

[All Aboard]

Matt, I'm sorry for not clarifying. I think it's a bad strategy, one with long term negative impact. I fear a chance that this is all we see in the near future.

If Mike doesn't run it into the ground, I am hopeful of a second rennaissance at feature animation. The one thing that keeps that hope alive is that we have had a period of time where Disney Animation more or less faded into oblivion (after Jungle Book was released in 1967, only 4 features were released through 1984 - Aristocats, Robin Hood, The Rescuers & Fox and the Hound. Well, 5 if you count Pooh) and we survived it. At the other end we got some fantastic work. Hopefully, we see that again.

 

[raidermatt]

My point though is that what do you all really think is likely to occur first: Burbank deciding to no longer put out this stuff based on principle or based on how it affects the bottom line?

Bottom line, of course. I'm not asking for them to do it on principle.

My point is that no matter how they look at it, principle or bottom line, the answer should be the same.

If they really believed in the principles and philosophies of classic Disney, we wouldn't be having this discussion. They simply would not be releasing the sequels in the theaters.

The question is, is there a "bottom line" financial reason to stop this practice? My point is yes there is, but its harder to quantify and make into a line item.

When the brand is harmed, it harms the financial health of everything associated with the brand. Simplistically, Treasure Planet was hurt because Return to Neverland was released in theaters. RtN hurt the Disney name and reputation among movie goers, making them less likely to go see the next offering.

Of course there are other things impacting the brand reputation, and other factors impacting TP's performance, but that's the whole crux of the problem. If business really were as simple as doing what Disney is doing with sequels, nobody would fail.

Even if one thinks Disney's classic principles are hogwash, there IS a negative bottom line impact to the RoI strategy in this case. Just because its difficult to prove does not mean it does not exist.

 

[raidermatt]

Vike and gcurling, my last post was made prior to seeing your responses...

 

[Another Voice]

A story.

Way back in the days of Foolish Walt, he had gotten the company into a bit of trouble. Well, more than a bit. The company was going under fast. All the money that had been made on ‘Snow White’ was spent on a new studio and other investments; his films ‘Pinocchio’ and ‘Fantasia’ had been pretty much financial disasters. The critics – who had once praised him as a champion of the common people – had turned against him and railed that he produced entertainment that was “popular” (an unforgivable sin to the high brows). The public had turned away from short cartoons and Disney’s earning’s power had slumped to an all time low.

But that wasn’t the worst of it. War was raging across Europe: London was burning and the German soldiers were once again sipping wine in Paris cafes. Japan was looting all of Asia. South America was in a worsening economic slump as their markets were cut off. The flood of international revenue that kept Disney going throughout the Great Depression had stopped.

“Disney is going bankrupt,” the money people clamored and moaned. They needed money. They needed lots of money. And they needed it soon.

They pressured Foolish Walt to make a sequel to ‘Snow White’. They pressed him to make another ‘Three Little Pigs’. They pressured him to sell Mickey Mouse, to lease him to other studios. They pressured him to drop color and go back to black & white film. They pressured him to get something cheap, fast, and (in today’s terms) pre-sold into the market as quickly as possible.

He gave them ‘Dumbo’. Completely original, not a sequel. Inexpensive, but not cheap. An enhancement to the “Disney brand”, not an exploitation of the name.

The movie opened five weeks before the attack on Pearl Harbor yet it made enough money throughout the war to not only save Disney, but it allowed Disney to use over 75% of the studio for government work (all of it done for free or at a loss).


The morale of the story: good people strive for something; the lesser ones pander after money. In the end, it's the ones that can truely give the public what it wants to see that are the successful ones.


The current situation has nothing to do with a dumbed down public. The finances of a movie don't dictate it's quality - the people behind it do. A good story well told is much more important to the success of a film than its return on investment calculations. It's only when you know you can't make a good movie through lack of talent and/or effort that the you make something soley for the bucks.


P.S. A boycott of Disney films would simply be read as a sign that there is no market for animation – something that Disney’s current management wants to believe anyway. The orcs in Burbank these days aren’t very good at reading the public’s desires. They certainly aren’t going to suddenly determine that “originality” and “quality” are the keys unless they’re smashed over the heads repeatedly. If they can’t understand what the public wants, then the public has to yell louder until they are heard.

 

[raidermatt]

Raider, I whole heartedly agree with you and AV. But if quality keeps losing money- whats the alternative- no Disney ?

Oh no, that's not what I mean to say. Sometimes, when we focus on specific parts of what we expect from Disney, we lose sight of the fact that there is no single aspect we can point to and say "Do that, and its Disney!"

So with these sequels, we are talking about lessor overall quality, both in animation and story. Certainly Disney should make no animated feature without these things, but you are right that these alone do not guarantee success. With movies, there's the whole issue of appeal, which is hard to put a finger on. Its seems that TP is credited with high quality animation, but there is some disagreement over quality of story. Still, clearly it fell short in the illusive appeal category. It just didn't appeal to enough people.

The point many try to make around here is that when you create things with quality in mind, and try to make them appealing, you will succeed much more often than when you sacrifice quality because it doesn't guarantee success. Further, when you hurt your reputation for quality by putting out product that is clearly not your best effort, you make it that much harder for your quality products to succeed.

Think about your own job....if you consistently put out quality work, it becomes an expectation. You also get a certain amount of trust. "Give that job to Vike, and it will be done right." But if you start mixing in some shoddy work, that is CLEARLY NOT YOUR BEST EFFORT (capitalized because this is the key), you lose some of that trust. Others may hesitate before trusting you to complete an important project, or develop an important presentation. Similarly, when Disney betrays this trust, movie-goers will hesitate before trusting Disney with their money the next time.

The problem is, how do you quantify that to someone? Exactly how much money does it cost? Unfortunately there are many in all types of business who won't put significance on such intangibles.

 

[raidermatt]

...it sounds like we are agreeing. I think.

Cool...

 

[raidermatt]

...I am hopeful of a second rennaissance at feature animation.

Oh yeah, me too. I'm just not real hopeful of it coming from this regime. But certainly it can happen. In fact, one could make a case that is HAS happened, except it happened at Pixar instead of Disney.

 

[Sarangel]

You see, I just dont' think that this if fair. Walt was not foolish. He had a dream and took some risks to get there. But, as far as I know, he never risked his family's well-being to reach those dreams.

Actually, I recall him mortgaging the house and selling his life insurance policy to build a little place called Disneyland (which, according to the pundits of the time, was doomed to failure). Walt took a *lot* of financial risks (and was called foolish by more than one commentator) in order to realize his dreams, he was very lucky to have Roy to cover his backside or Disney as we know it may not have come about.

Sarangel

 

[Another Voice]

"But, as far as I know, he never risked his family's well-being to reach those dreams."

Well he sold his life insurance policy to build the 'Mark Twain' at Disneyland. You can see the old company payrolls in the archives where in the middle of the Depression Walt didn’t take his salary for the week so that he could pay others. And the story goes that the last time anyone from the studio saw Walt in the hospital, he was weeping because he was sure he hadn’t provided for his family (he didn’t have much stock in the company personally and no real fortune to leave to his wife and daughters). Seems like he risked a lot for the company, especially compared to the current one who jets about the world on his private jet fueled by all those burning stock options.

There’s a big difference between people who make something out of personal desire to create, and people who make things as an easy way to bilk money from the great unwashed masses (i.e., those without private jets).

The current régime responds to the lack of money through rather brutish means. Name one instance where they responded to a major business problem by improving things. Attendance is lower, so they reduce costs by cutting hours. Ratings at ABC collapse, so they offer shows like even cheaper shows ‘Are You Hot?” and ‘I’m a Celebrity..’. The Stores face a drop off in sales, so they stock up on cheaper merchandise. Animated movies flop, so they make cheaper ones.

The lesson Disney picked up from ‘Atlantis’ and ‘Treasure Planet’ wasn’t that they need to make better movies, they decided people don’t want to see animated movies. They explain away the huge box office of films like ‘Shrek’ and ‘Ice Age’as “It’s CGI” or “it was the release schedule”, but that’s just part of the delusion.

And it’s not only The Company that’s at fault. It’s the fans too. How many postings in this very thread are basically “’Jungle Book 2’ isn’t all that good, but it’s Disney so I’ll take my kids”. It’s thinking like that why people inside Disney calls you Brand Monkeys. There really is a belief inside that there are a group of people who will buy anything as long as it has the brand on it. The only creative aspect they care about is making sure they get as much money for it as possible.

Now I’m sure Mr. Scoop is already half way through is “they put back Early Entry at WDW” post, so let me respond now. The reason they put it back was because people – you, the guests – told WDW exactly why you were unhappy. It wasn’t some unfocused loss of hotel bookings or revenue that did it. It was comments to CRO, conversations at resort Guest Services. It was letters and e-mail and phone calls.

It’s more than a boycott. Disney management is too dense these days to figure that out for themselves. They have to be told – directly and specifically.

 

[raidermatt]

I think AV's point is that yes, the only way to get their attention is to hit 'em in the wallet, but if you want them to understand WHY you are hitting them in the wallet, you have to TELL them. Because they don't figure it out on their own.

This seems to fit...when we don't like a theme park, they close things and cut future additions.

Brand Monkeys

I'll never look at the Rally Monkey the same way again...

 

[DisneyKidds]

DK to his darling little four year old daughter...............

"I know you really want to see Jungle Book 2 sweatheart, but Disney didn't put their best foot forward with this piece of animation so we are going to boycot the film and write a letter to Disney instead in the hopes that the people who run the business will realize that they need to make better films"

Nope - not going to work. Throw around terms like "brand monkey" all you want, but the Disney juggernaut of substandard films will be very difficult to stop. It is a shame they haven't produced a film of Mermaid, Beauty, or Lion King quality in quite some time, but people will still go see the Return to Neverlands and Jungle Book 2's. Not because adult "brand monkeys" and "Disney apologists" want to, but kids see the previews and make thier own decisions about what they want to see. While I want Disney to make better films, boycotting is not an answer. I'll shoot off an email, but I'm not about to disappoint my child over the slip in Disney animation. Call me whatever you want.........

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Call me whatever you want.........

How about a parent not in control!!

DCV-LB to his ten year old son..........

"Why of course you can buy Grand Theft Auto for your PlayStation! After all, you've seen the ads and ALL the kids are talking about it at school! And let's face it, Mr. Kidds lets his kids rule the roost. I can't see how I can possibly stop you from ruling mine!!"

Does your argument still make sense?

 

[Planogirl]

Mr Kidds argument makes sense when it comes to the younger children. We tell those kids that they can't have GTA because they're too young but what do we tell them about the next Disney film? Just a simple "no" doesn't work when it comes to stuff aimed at kids! The older kids aren't a problem because I suspect that they've already lost interest.

However can taking only the little kids to see these tiresome sequels carry Disney animation? Sure if the quality is poor, see The Land Before Time part 20 (or wherever it is now).

 

[DisneyKidds]

"Why of course you can buy Grand Theft Auto for your PlayStation! After all, you've seen the ads and ALL the kids are talking about it at school! And let's face it, Mr. Kidds lets his kids rule the roost. I can't see how I can possibly stop you from ruling mine!!"

Will the rediculous arguments and inquiries from the good Baron ever end? Did he actually equate Jungle Book 2 (a cute G rated animated feature about a boy, a jungle, a bear, and a harmless adventure - even though it is a disappointment compared to what Disney used to be capable of) to Grand Theft Auto (a violent R rated video game that glamorizes crime) and the impact that these two items of entertainment might have on a child? Please tell me he didn't . Please tell me Baron, I saw the winkie, but do I seriously have to respond to your rediculous premise and point out that, once again, things are not as black and white as you would always paint them .

 

[HB2K]

but people will still go see the Return to Neverlands and Jungle Book 2's

Ah, but how many will continue to go? My son wanted to see JB2. But you know what, we didn't go. I don't feel it's worth the cost of bringing him to the theater for such drivel. We took the money I would have spent at the theater and bought a DVD. When JB2 comes out and if he still wants to see it, I'll rent it. I refuse to be a mindless parent who allows their children's reaction to ANY company's marketing to chart the course of how I spend my money.

If your child gets everything he or she wants, how do you handle the fairs & carnivals when they "want" the cheapo prize offered by a game of, ahem, chance. How do you handle them walking through the toy section at Walmart saying "I want this, I want that"? When they walk out of the supermarket, do you empty your pockets for quarters for them to get bouncy balls, stickers, and any other trinket offered in the vending machines...just because your child wants them?

You make decisions on what you purchase based on the desire, and the quality of the product.

At least I do. Maybe I'm the crazy one....

 

[DisneyKidds]

Maybe I'm the crazy one....

Perhaps you are..........................and I won't even go near your insulting aspertions regarding my parenting as they are inappropriate, unjustified and completely off the mark.

Let me ask you this. How many movies do you see in the theatre a year? How do you decide what you go and see? Many people see a couple of movies a year. Many people see more. Most people go based on the fact that the movie holds some interest for them and looks like it will be entertaining to them. Many of those movies won't get Academy Award nominations. Many will have shabby story lines and plots, so-so cinematography, etc., etc. - but you still go. Why should my child, any child, be any different? Some years there are no movies that will be appropriate for her. Most years there will be a couple at the most. Are you trying to tell me that I "give my daughter everything" because I allow her to do what most adults do on a regular basis - express an opinion, exercise her free will a little bit, and see a movie or two - just because someone else thinks Disney could have made a better film? Yes, that is crazy.

If my daughter wants to see one or two G rated movies a year that don't involve subject matter that we, as parents, find objectionable then so be it. Letting her see a movie or two a year (while skipping ones we don't approve of for our own reasons) is far different from letting her have every toy she walks past .

You make decisions on what you purchase based on the desire, and the quality of the product.

You make decisions about what is right for your family and I'll make decisions about what is right for mine, thank you. Sometimes things are more about the desire to have an experience than the desire to purchase a "product". Going to the theatre, getting popcorn, experiencing something as a family - that is what is important to us. If the "product" isn't what you think it should be - well, that is too bad for you.

Just as how in life the journey is more important than the destination, with kids the experience is sometime much more important than the "product", assuming good morals and parenting judgements are exercised. If child protective services wants to come after me because I am endangering my child and corrupting her moral values by seeing Jungle Book 2 I'm willing to take them on - but I don't think that is going to happen. If Disney makes a buck - so what. At least they put something out there that allows my daughter to have an experience like you are I might have. Sorry if that ruins Disney for you.

PS - If you want to further attack my parenting skills and continue name calling I suggest you do it via PM as I will likely have a few things to tell you that might not be appropriate for this forum. I see a lot of things on these boards, but you have some nerve.

 

[HB2K]

Sorry kids. I didn't mean for it to come across as a personal attack.

Disney's attitude (as expressed by the brand monkey moniker) is that people will buy whatever Disney dishes out as long as it's got the brand name moniker and given enough marketing.

And don't get me wrong...Disney isn't the only company that does this. That's where my personal vivitrol started to spill into my post....because the reason companys such as McDonalds, Disney, etc do this is because people out there just give in. If little Tommy wants to see JB2 because the commercial convinced him it's something it's not, all too often Mommy & Daddy will just oblige him....and the cycle continues.

You're comment about "my daughter wants to go see JB2, so what am I to do" set me off on that tangent. But I shouldn't have let it seem like it was you I was attacking, so once again, I apologize.

Now to the rest of your post...

Let me ask you this. How many movies do you see in the theatre a year? How do you decide what you go and see? Many people see a couple of movies a year. Many people see more. Most people go based on the fact that the movie holds some interest for them and looks like it will be entertaining to them. Many of those movies won't get Academy Award nominations. Many will have shabby story lines and plots, so-so cinematography, etc., etc. - but you still go. Why should my child, any child, be any different? Some years there are no movies that will be appropriate for her. Most years there will be a couple at the most. Are you trying to tell me that I "give my daughter everything" because I allow her to do what most adults do on a regular basis - express an opinion, exercise her free will a little bit, and see a movie or two - just because someone else thinks Disney could have made a better film? Yes, that is crazy.

I don't know how many movies I go to in a year...however many I want to

I go to a movie based on previous performance, advertising, ratings, etc.

For instance, I can't wait to go see Dare Devil & Hulk because I associate the Marvel comic book movies with the well done Spiderman & X-MEN movies. I don't care that the movie is getting rough reviews, I trust the company who gave me the past experinces will continue to give me good ones.

But if down the road they take that trust for granted and start making super hero movies which resemble the old Batman TV show and try to pawn them off as theatrical releases, I'm going to stop giving them that trust and using other evaluators to determine if their product deserves my time & money.

Disney used to have that trust...but there have been too many RTNs, Cindy 2's, Atlantis's, Dino Ramas, etc. They have to show me value for my money now....whereas in the past I would just give them the benefit of the doubt and flock to Disney's latest offerings.

Does that make anything clearer?

If my daughter wants to see one or two G rated movies a year that don't involve subject matter that we, as parents, find objectionable then so be it. Letting her see a movie or two a year (while skipping ones we don't approve of for our own reasons) is far different from letting her have every toy she walks past .

They key statement from this quote was "while skipping ones we don't approve of for our own reasons".

I don't approve of spending my money on cheaply made, ultra marketed, glorified Sat. Morning cartoons shown in a movie theater.

You don't feel that way about JB2. And that's where we are....differing opionons...and I'll leave it there.

If Disney makes a buck - so what. At least they put something out there that allows my daughter to have an experience like you are I might have. Sorry if that ruins Disney for you.

There's nothing wrong with your parenting if you bring your child to JB2. But the question I have is this....will your daugher bring her children to Disney's products if they keep becoming more and more shabby? How about her children? Will they bring their children?

I don't know. Some will, but will they be the majority or the minority? That's what makes me sad about the current state of Disney. I don't see the company making the connections with the decision makers of tomorrow...

I see a lot of things on these boards, but you have some nerve.

I've been told worse Once again though, I'm sorry you took my post personally.