Jungle Book 2 Thoughts Thread

[DisneyKidds]

Not so unnecessary if so many people came away with the same impression.

So that just means more than one person wasn't using their head .

We are questioning that you would use this 'argument' as a rationalization for not, “hitting them in the wallet”.

You still have me a bit confounded, but that is nothing new . Earlier you said my "argument" was that "just because his child wanted to go, he had to acquiesce!!" I still maintain that that is way off.

However, if you are questioning my argument that keeping my daughter from seeing what I deemed to be a perfectly appropriate film for a four year old (and disappointing her for no good reason in the process) because there are some people (myself included) who feel that Disney has let their standards of animation slip (and that is not reason enough to deprive my family of an overall enjoyable experience) was unneccesary - well, I stand by that one. Show me just one person who actually told their four year old.....

"Sorry 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"

I didn't view JB2 as a hit them in the wallet opportunity. Furthermore, I doubt most people who do actually levelled with their four year olds as to why mommy and daddy said no.

But that you would use your four year old daughter’s desire to see it, and you not wanting to disappoint her, as a reason not to, “hit them in the wallet!!!!

So sue me for beign selfish I guess. As bad as JB2 is (and it wasn't that bad) it was not worth depriving my daughter and family of the experience and I saw no need to "hit them in the wallet" (which generally isn't my style anyway).

Friends again, Mr. Kidds?

I never considered that we weren't . Now I insist, please take the last word on this one .

 

[Another Voice]

One wonders is certain people would argue so passionately and to such lengths for the right of their daughter to see a movie irregardless of the film’s quality – if the movie in question had a Dreamworks label slapped on the front.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Originally posted by Another Voice
One wonders is certain people would argue so passionately and to such lengths for the right of their daughter to see a movie irregardless of the film’s quality – if the movie in question had a Dreamworks label slapped on the front.

Absolutely. I could care less who makes the movie. You can take your "Brand Monkey" label and put it where the sun don't shine .

If it is a movie that my daughter shows interest in, I feel it will entertain her, it doesn't involve objectionable content, and I believe it will provide an enjoyable experience for the entire family, then we will go, even if the quality isn't up to par with some other film. I will defend that reasoning till the cows come home, regardless of who's name is in the credits.

You obviously find the content of JB2 objectionable, and that is ok. I, on the other hand, do not. You don't think going to JB2 provides an enjoyable experience, and that is ok. I, on the other hand, can tell you that we did, in fact, have an enjoyable experience. If the film is not as good as a film made 2, 3, 5, or 10 years ago - so what. If the film meets all of the above criteria, there is absolutely no reason to disappoint my daughter by telling her we can't go because someone on an internet bulletin board thinks we should boycott the movie to send someone a message .

Fine, I'll take the blame for bringing down Disney animation by not boycotting, thereby sending the message that their substandard picture is "good enough". However, life is short and kids grow up quick. I'll realize that and take advantage of the limited opportunities we have in life. In the process my daughter might just be able to discern for herself that JB2 is not as good a film as Lion King. I'd rather have her live life, learn a little, and be able to develop informed opinions of her own, all while having a little fun, rather than shield her from the horrors of JB2.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, but if we don't do something now what will my kids kids be able to see in the future? Well, I'm not too worried about that as I'm sure someone, maybe even Disney, will be producing animation to provide them an enjoyable experience in the future.

 

[HB2K]

If the film meets all of the above criteria, there is absolutely no reason to disappoint my daughter by telling her we can't go because someone on an internet bulletin board thinks we should boycott the movie to send someone a message

Kidds...I don't need a boycot, nor am I calling for one.

I'm making a decision (which Millions more people appear to be making) that I will not pay full price for a substandard product.

If you feel it's worth the price of admission, or you're soley interested in the movie theater experince, good for you. You make a decision which fit your interests, and noone can change that.

But the problem, and this inherint discussion, is that more and more people are looking at Disney's latest products and are not buying. Period.

That's why I keep writing about Disney on these boards. I want Disney to succeed...I want them to prosper. But to say they are right now is simply not the truth.

JB2 is a microcasm of what is wrong with Disney. There are people who will go to the movie, and there are even some people who will like it (just don't blink).

But noone can argue that the attendance for this movie is strong. It may be a financial success in the fact that it pulls in more than it cost to produce, but it's not a run away success like recent hits such as Ice Age, Shek, Monsters, etc or past successes during the "golden age" of Disney.

And to that I ask Kidds....Why?

 

[DisneyKidds]

I'm making a decision (which Millions more people appear to be making) that I will not pay full price for a substandard product.

More power to you. That doesn't mean that someone who does go to JB2 somehow has less of a standard, or can't differentiate good vs. bad, or is somehow "wrong" for going. You seem to be a very "product" based person. I didn't view our trip to JB2 as purchasing a product, I viewed it as buying an experience. JB2 delivered what it is I was looking for. Could it have been a better experience if the film had the quality of the Little Mermaid? Perhaps a little. Was the fact that it didn't detract from the experience in any way? Not really. You are correct, this very much mirrors many of the discussions that we have regarding the parks.

But the problem, and this inherint discussion, is that more and more people are looking at Disney's latest products and are not buying. Period.

There is some truth to that.

I want them to prosper. But to say they are right now is simply not the truth.

And there is some truth to that as well.

Noone can argue that the attendance for this movie is strong.

And this as well.

And to that I ask Kidds....Why?

As we are in agreement on, Disney isn't investing in making products like they did in the "golden age", and that is unfortunate. You have chosen one way to try and communicate to Disney your displeasure over that fact, I have chosen another.

We actually have to work in conjunction to really effect change. You stop going, which hurts Disney's pocketbook, and I send them the emails telling them how much we spend on Disney products and how displeased we are with various aspects. I'm just glad that you find the current Disney products so awful that you won't buy them, that way my family can be the one that keeps going and having a great time , because Disney still delivers a great time (even our trip to see JB2).

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

However, if you are questioning my argument that keeping my daughter from seeing what I deemed to be a perfectly appropriate film for a four year old (and disappointing her for no good reason in the process) because there are some people (myself included) who feel that Disney has let their standards of animation slip (and that is not reason enough to deprive my family of an overall enjoyable experience) was unneccesary - well, I stand by that one. Show me just one person who actually told their four year old.....

Actually, that looks like what posters such as thedscoop have been saying all along. That if one feels Disney has let their standards slip (and you say you do), then doing anything other than "hitting Disney in the wallet" is a waste of time and a tacit approval of the lowered standards.

It appears what you are saying is that "This Disney product is of lower standards than products Disney used to produce, but as long as my kid wants to see it, I'm still willing to pay for it."

I think that most people here understand that what we are talking about in this thread is a line of demarcation concerning personal preference. I assume what you are trying to say "I won't let my kid go to something I feel is unsuitable, JB2 just doesn't meet my definition of 'unsuitable.'"

Which is fine as far as it goes, being one person's opinion on one movie.

But some folks are interested in talking about Disney beyond the level of "Does your kid personally like this particular Disney product, check yes or no." If JB2, lowered standards and all, isn't "unsuitable enough" to register on your scale, what would it take to stir you to action? What would be enough to trigger your "I know you want that Disney product, but no, it's unsuitable," response to your kid's request?

Now, we're not talking "unsuitable" in the sense of dangerous of irresponsible. Most people who aren't Michael Jackson draw a relatively similar line of what is "unsuitable for children" as far as the child actually being damaged. We're not asking "how badly will you let your children damage themselves before you say "no," even though your responses seem to suggest that's how the questions read, from your end.

It's on the other, fuzzier, end of the scale that we wonder. The end where you might say, "Well, it's not going to hurt the kid, but for reasons the kid might not understand for years, I'm going to steer my child in another direction."

At the heart of all our discussions lay each of our own interpretations of what "Disney" means. One way to boil down your statement is to say "I can tell there's a difference between the standards evident in this product and historical Disney standards, but we're going to pay for it anyway because my kid can't yet make that distinction," or perhaps "I am not concerned with Disney's standards slipping as long my kid wants to see it."

The missing of the minds is at the level of "what has Disney come to mean to you, and how does the acknowledged slipping of Disney's standards affect the way you purchase Disney products for your family," not on a level of "I'm a good parent and you're a bad parent."

It would be interesting to hear, not how the things I have written here can be interpreted as a vicious personal attack on your parenting if one selects quote-bites skillfully enough, but whether Disney has any personal meaning for you... whether any of Disney's new products grab your heart and imagination in and of themselves, and not for the reaction your child has to them.

It's not that your child's reactions don't count, but it's difficult to have much of a "discussion" about them. There are probably few of us here that would spend this kind of time, effort, and care to explain what we want to say in depth to a four year old... if you know that's the level you're working at, you know certain methods aren't going to have any effect. That's why you see frustration when it looks like discussions are hitting the dead end of "my kid likes it." That's cool, we were just hoping you might join us in attempting to define "Disney" in terms more sophisticated than "entertains kids."

"Entertains kids" is not an incorrect definition of Disney by anyone's standards... but more and more people seem to believe it's a woefully incomplete definition.

-WFH

PS: I feel the same about "Made Money" as I do about "Entertained The Kids." While both are certainly things you would want to be able to say about a Disney product, I believe Disney's success and reputation came from aspects of the Magic far beyond those two basic measures. I believe Disney's current struggles are the result of minimizing the peripheral Magicks that set Disney apart from their competition.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

Protesting through emails and especially good ole' fashioned handwritten letters can be effective on a small scale and is certainly not a waste of time.

You never felt that aspect of your point needed this kind of clarification, back when the talk was of my own letters of complaint. As a matter of fact, you suggested that Disney treated such email and letters as being from malcontents looking for something free. Those posts of yours sure led me to the wrong conclusion.

This post makes me feel better. I must admit, there have been times that it seemed to me you'd post disagreement if I declared the ground is down and the sky is up. I appreciate your clearing this up; understanding that you actually agreed with me and simply weren't able to express that clearly at the time is much less frustrating than when I thought you just wanted to argue with anything I said.

-WFH

 

[DisneyKidds]

I know where you are coming from Head, and I have no problem discussing your questions. It was certain other statements, assumptions and implications made that were unrelated to your questions that I took exception to - but we have moved past that. Now, onward....................

If one feels Disney has let their standards slip (and you say you do), then doing anything other than "hitting Disney in the wallet" is a waste of time and a tacit approval of the lowered standards.

I disagree with this concept. There is more than one way to effect change, and we all approach that goal differently.

It appears what you are saying is that "This Disney product is of lower standards than products Disney used to produce, but as long as my kid wants to see it, I'm still willing to pay for it."

No, what I am saying is that "This Disney product is of lower standards than products Disney used to produce, but as long as it provides an enjoyable experience for my entire family, I'm still willing to pay for it." It gets way beyond the simple fact of my four year old likes something. Sure, the fact that she shows interest and may like something is one factor to consider, but it isn't the only one - and no one said it was. And that goes for any entertainment product, be it a movie or a theme park, be it Disney or some other company.

What would be enough to trigger your "I know you want that Disney product, but no, it's unsuitable," response to your kid's request?

That's a fair enough question. You have the obvious answers such as subject matter and content. However, you are likely more interested in "how low Disney can go in quality of animation and story before I draw a line"?

That is a very difficult question to answer. I guess I have to break it down into two answers. As for Disneykidds himself, JB2 would fall below the standard I, personally and on my own, would support and go to the theatre to see. Before we had kids we did go and see Mernaid, Beauty, Lion King, and Aladdin. If not for my kids I wouldn't have gone to see JB2. Now I'm sure that you will gleen something from that and say "Ah ha! Disneykidds simply went to a film he wouldn't have otherwise just to make his kid happy". But you would be wrong.

That is where the second, and more important, answer comes into play. You see, as far as I am concerned Disney is selling to families. As such, I have to look beyond what Disneykidds, himself alone, might otherwise do. That is where I run into some problems with what I percieve to be selfish thinking on the part of some.

I am not willing to say "I realize that my family would enjoy the experience of going to the theatre to see JB2, but since I personally don't approve of the standard of animation achieved I'm going to deprive my family of that experience". Notice I didn't say daughter, I said family - that is what is important, and that is what Disney is about to me now. Yeah, that answer might have been different 5 years ago when I didn't have a family, but life is bigger than individuals. We could replace 'theatre to see JB2' with 'WDW', and 'standard of animation achieved' with 'absence of Mickey Head Butter', and the answer would be the same.

One way to boil down your statement is to say "I can tell there's a difference between the standards evident in this product and historical Disney standards, but we're going to pay for it anyway because my kid can't yet make that distinction," or perhaps "I am not concerned with Disney's standards slipping as long my kid wants to see it."

Given that Disney is about families to me, you have to get away from the kid focus. I would rephrase this statement to read..................."I can tell there's a difference between the standards evident in this product and historical Disney standards, but we're going to pay for it anyway because that difference is not enough to prevent my family from enjoying the experience" or perhaps "I am not concerned with Disney's standards slipping as long my family enjoys the experience". What will it take so that we no longer enjoy the experience? I don't know. I'll let you knw when and if the proverbial straw is laid upon my back.

We were just hoping you might join us in attempting to define "Disney" in terms more sophisticated than "entertains kids."

Actually, I've been saying for the last few pages that it isn't about what my kid wants or likes. That has to be one factor and can't completely be left out of the discussion, but I have been talking about the family experience for a few posts now.

In the end I am looking at what is best for my family. To relate it back to JB2, if my family decides it wants to have the experience of going to the movies together, right now JB2 is what is best for my family, plain and simple.

"Well, it's not going to hurt the kid, but for reasons the kid might not understand for years, I'm going to steer my child in another direction."

Now certainly this kind of thinking has to come into play for some things. However, when this is how an animated feature is looked at (because of the quality of animation and not the subject matter) you take this stuff a little too seriously, IMHO. I'd much rather let my daughter see the movie, be able to compare it to other Disney films, and let her form her own opinions. There is a time and place to protect your family, but the dangers of JB2 are not something I feel I need to shield her from.

I will flip you this one. If Disney were to release JB2 calibre films in the theatre once a month, we wouldn't go to see them all. We'd definitely draw a line. However, so long as our opportunities to have the experience of a family trip to the movie theatre are limited, I can look past the short comings of a JB2.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

What will it take so that we no longer enjoy the experience? I don't know. I'll let you knw when and if the proverbial straw is laid upon my back.

Well and good, as far as your family is concerned.

It's worth noting that you are, at the very least, a big enough fan of Disney to find an internet chat board on the topic, create an id with the word "Disney" in it, and post to it regularly. So JB2 wasn't unsuitable enough to cause that kind of fan to lose faith in the brand. Fair enough.

Could it, however, be unsuitable enough to cause _some_ fans to lose faith in Disney? Not to mention, could it be unsuitable enough that it fails to create new fans as fervent, loyal, and willing-to-fogive-one-eh-eh-movie as yourself?

Could it be unsuitable enough to be a bad long term business move for Disney?

As you say, it's difficult to judge that bridge until you've driven over it. By then, of course, it's too late... for the bridge and for your truck.

To relate it back to JB2, if my family decides it wants to have the experience of going to the movies together, right now JB2 is what is best for my family, plain and simple.

Again, no argument, if the scope of the discussion is seeing one movie... sometimes a half-hearted Disney effort is "the best thing on" at the movies. But the Disney world as we know it appears headed toward movies like JB2 becoming the rule, not the exception.

Is there anyone left in feature animation other than "Bears" staff? Could Jobs really hate Eisner so much that he'll pull Pixar for spite, or could someone simply offer him a better deal?

Could JB2's performance, compared to Treasure Planet's (which, I feel compelled to point out, I _did_ see simply because it was big-time Disney Feature Animation), convince Disney that JB2 should indeed be the prototype for Disney animated movies of the new millenia?

I have been talking about the family experience for a few posts now.

Just to be clear, you've been talking about your own family experience. I accept as reasonable that JB2 is a suitable experience for your family, just as you must accept as reasonable that there are families who decided JB2 was not a suitable experience for them, purely out of a sense of violated Disney standards.

I can't resist pointing out that your family criteria is going to result in at least an occasional non-Disney offering, isn't it?

-WFH

 

[DisneyKidds]

Just to be clear, you've been talking about your own family experience.

As much as I like you guys, my family is the only one I'm concerned of when it comes to this stuff.

just as you must accept as reasonable that there are families who decided JB2 was not a suitable experience for them

As I have also said before, you do what you feel is best for your family, I'll do what I feel is best for mine.

I can't resist pointing out that your family criteria is going to result in at least an occasional non-Disney offering, isn't it?

I assume you mean it will lead to Disney putting out non-Disney offerings. Perhaps that will be true. I guess it has already happened. Should Disney offerings become unsuitable for my family in the future I'll turn to whatever family entertainment is suitable. I guarantee there will be some. If that happens to be a Jobs led Pixar production so be it.

I guess I'm not as big a Disney fan as you think I am, because if my going to the likes of JB2 sinks the company I really won't care. There will always be another bridge and another truck. But you know what, I'm not that worried about that. Enjoy your "purely out of a sense of violated Disney standards" high ground and more power to ya .

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

I assume you mean it will lead to Disney putting out non-Disney offerings.

Not quite. I'm just trying to illustrate that the passion in our arguments rises from two different sources.

The first two quotes you pulled indicated that you understand what I'm saying, in that your posts have been judging JB2 from a personal point of view.

What's not clear from your posts is whether or not you understand that everyone is happy about that. DisneyKidds took his family to a movie and they had a good time.

We believe you. Please do not feel hunted, or derided, or made fun of because you and your family had a good time. The questions we ask are absolutely not intended to trick into saying that you secretly hated the movie.

The questions we ask are to try to understand you better... having a better understanding about what people mean when they say "Disney quality" or "Disney standards" or "Magic" helps people understand each other when we use that kind of internally-defined term in this kind of public place.

if my going to the likes of JB2 sinks the company I really won't care. There will always be another bridge and another truck

It's fascinating to me how, if I keep you talking long enough, you often end up stating my points precisely.

As could be discerned from the direct questions I asked, a topic that concerns some of us is whether, beyond the experience of one's own family, JB2 and the slipped Disney standards you've mentioned could ultimately prove to be a bad business decision for Disney. Although you appeared to completely ignore the direct questions, the answer "I don't know and I don't care" is clear from your quote.

To sum up: DisneyKidds and his family went to and enjoyed a Disney movie, even though DisneyKidds noticed that Disney's standards had slipped. Walt's Frozen Head and others tried to start the conversation of whether JB2 and the slipped Disney standards it represented could very well prove to be a bad direction for Disney's movies. DisneyKidds isn't interested in that conversation, because if Disney's truck crashes, someone else will drive by in another truck.

DK, I reiterate: the merest image of you and your family enjoying the unequallable bliss of JB2 warms my heart and brightens my soul. It has never been my intention to take that away from you.

And as you say, if Disney is no longer there to do it, there will be other companies able and willing to provide family movies made to JB2 production standards. There is no chance of JB2-type movies disappearing completely. The part that means something to you is secure.

But the people who appreciated big-time Disney Feature Animation do currently face the real possibility that what means something to them will cease to exist, completely.

You meet with such opposition not because other opinions need to take something from you, you meet with opposition because your opinion, when presented as general fact rather than the single data point it is, has the power to take something from others.

Enjoy your "purely out of a sense of violated Disney standards" high ground and more power to ya

It is you who has made a big deal about how much your and your family enjoyed the violated Disney standards, and you who has claimed unconcern at those violated Disney standards, and you who has even claimed unconcern at Disney ceasing to exist due to violated Disney standards, as you will be able to find you violated Disney standards from any number of other vendors... and you are happy consuming product demonstrating violated Disney standards.

It doesn't sound as though Disney standards have any effect on your decisions at all.

You are right about at least one thing, DisneyKidds: considering the Disney fans I know, I would not describe a person making the big deals and claims you have as a Disney "fan," at all.

-WFH

 

[DisneyKidds]

It's fascinating to me how, if I keep you talking long enough, you often end up stating my points precisely.

There is a simple reason for that. Despite your belief to the contrary, I realize everything you and your carpool buddies are saying. I know where you are going and what you are getting at. Low and behold, I don't disagree with a lot of it. Where I differ is my assessment of what it means in the grand scheme, and where it will all lead .

Walt's Frozen Head and others tried to start the conversation of whether JB2 and the slipped Disney standards it represented could very well prove to be a bad direction for Disney's movies. DisneyKidds isn't interested in that conversation

I really wouldn't say that. As these threads have a propensity to do , the conversation broke off into more than the "is this the right direction for Disney" talk, and got into the "what is the best way to communicate our displeasure" talk. Different discussions get intertwined and twisted and it is hard to tell what anyone is saying .

you meet with opposition because your opinion, when presented as general fact rather than the single data point it is, has the power to take something from others.

Be clear on this, I presented nothing as fact other than the "fact" that the slip in Disney animation is not reason enough to keep my family from seeing the movie. Furthermore, if one is out to appreciate a trip to the theatre, rather than the animation itself, JB2 has merit. Go back and look at my posts. In fact, I agreed with all the "facts" about inferior animation, lack of attendance, etc., etc. Yeah, all that is bad for the company. However, if you look at my posts you will see a lot of "I, me, and my" - all by design. In fact, I pretty much agreed I was being self centered in the whole discussion. Are there any other "facts" I presented that you'd like clarified? The last thing I want to do is take anything away from anybody.

Let me directly answer the question you are trying to focus on (as if I can directly answer anything ).

But the people who appreciated big-time Disney Feature Animation do currently face the real possibility that what means something to them will cease to exist, completely.

Face the real possibility. If I have pretty much written it off , it puzzles me how those who only take an appreciation for the animation away from the films has any hope left . OK, maybe that is a little strong as Lilo was a much better effort than JB2. Likewise, it appears that the animation itself was decent in Treasure Planet, but I think Disney missed the mark with the subject matter. There are quite a few decisions that go into making a masterpiece quality animated feature. However, I don't see a rosy picture for Disney animation if one wants it to be what it used to be.

Barring a severe change in management and direction, I hold out little hope that we will soon see another Little Mermaid quality animated feature from Disney. I really hope I am wrong on that one. Unless Disney changes it's approach in the very near future we are much more likely to see "Mermaid-successful" animation from other studios. That is my opinion, of course, and is not intended to take anything away from anyone.

The questions we ask are to try to understand you better... having a better understanding about what people mean when they say "Disney quality" or "Disney standards" or "Magic" helps people understand each other when we use that kind of internally-defined term in this kind of public place.

.
Did I ever say that JB2 was Disney quality, met the Disney standard, or was Magical? I assure you I did not. With respect to animation (traditional, at least), Disney quality, standards, and Magic are the likes of Snow White and Cinderella, Mermaid and Beauty. That is how I would define these elusive concepts. Is JB2 "Disney-quality", does it meet the "Disney standard", is it a Magical Disney animated feature? No, no, and no. Sad, but true, IMHO. See how much we agree on . An interesting note, however, and a question for you. For some time Disney has had "levels of animation" if you will. Disney has their "Masterpiece" collection, as well as many, many other animated films. They are not all intended to represent a Mermaid-quality filrm. I'm not sure when this dynamic developed, and it may very well have been the beginning of the end, but credit Disney for not trying to pass JB2 off as being anywhere near the level of quality as Mermaid. Now for the next question.

As could be discerned from the direct questions I asked, a topic that concerns some of us is whether, beyond the experience of one's own family, JB2 and the slipped Disney standards you've mentioned could ultimately prove to be a bad business decision for Disney.

Yes, and quite possibly at the same time no . In the context you are asking, yes, movies like JB2 are a bad decision. Such movies take Disney another step away from great, big-time Disney Feature Animation. Such films further help to narrow the gap between Disney and other studios. Such films contribute to the fact that others have, and will, put out as good or better animation than Disney. That is a terrible thing in relation to what Disney used to be, what Disney had the capability to be, and what Disney should be.

Now for the no part. Decisions like JB2 are not terrible if Disney only strives to be at the same level as others, or doesn't care if they are surpassed. It is sad that that is what it has come to, but I can resign myself to that. In the past (before Mermaid, Beauty, Lion King, Aladdin) we didn't hesitate when a Disney film was coming out. We looked forward to it. We were going to see it, without a doubt. We no longer feel that way. Sad, but we have moved on and the Disney brand, when attached to animation, doesn't mean what it used to.

So, how can I not care? Well, Disney will survive putting out the likes of JB2. They will do better occasionally, and they will do worse. Dinsey will even make quite a bit of money in the process, but not as much as they could have (good thing I don't own a lot of stock ). However, getting back to what is most important in life (to me at least), they will give my family ample opportunity to have a great experience together - even if the animation is suspect. Yes, other companies will do that as well, but right now they still haven't caught up - but they will.

Ultimately, Magic comes from your family or from within yourself, not any product Disney offers. The Disney product is a vehicle to bring out that Magic. As such, even JB2 might be able to bring about a little bit of Magic for some. Even if it falls short of that, it can still provide a good time. Disney should be about more than that, but right now they just aren't.

 

[HB2K]

They are not all intended to represent a Mermaid-quality filrm. I'm not sure when this dynamic developed, and it may very well have been the beginning of the end, but credit Disney for not trying to pass JB2 off as being anywhere near the level of quality as Mermaid.

Uhm....maybe I missed something, but how does Disney differenciate JB2 and Mermaid....at least publicly?

Does the advertising say "Come see JB2....it's not what you expect from us, but it's just like 'The Wild Thornberrys' movie".

I can see next year's Feb smash hit....

Snow White meets Mulan.

Hey, they mixed the two in live action. And Nick just did the Rugrats meet the Thornberry's....

I can see Ei$ner scratching his head....

 

[DisneyKidds]

Uhm....maybe I missed something, but how does Disney differenciate JB2 and Mermaid....at least publicly?

Seems to me JB2 has been clearly marketed as a sequel. It did not get as much publicity as Lilo and Treasure Planet - at least not as I could tell. It appears Disney knows when to push (not that pushing helped Lilo and TP all that much) and when not to. Do you think that JB2 will be given the "Masterpiece Collection" distinction? The answer to that question is no - it did not.

Agreed, in all it's publicity Disney doesn't tout that fact, but at the same time they weren't very agressive in making many claims in the marketing of JB2. Perhaps those less familiar with Disney animation might not pick that up, but Disney does differentiate.

 

[HB2K]

Perhaps those less familiar with Disney animation might not pick that up

That's my point. People who are not BIG Disney fans such as us just see a Disney Animated Film. They don't see that it's Feb and it's time for the cra* products from the company.

but Disney does differentiate

I'll give you the lesser marketing push, but do you think it was because they felt it was a lesser quality film or because they were trying to contain costs?

 

[raidermatt]

Agreed, in all it's publicity Disney doesn't tout that fact, but at the same time they weren't very agressive in making many claims in the marketing of JB2. Perhaps those less familiar with Disney animation might not pick that up, but Disney does differentiate.

But isn't most of the public made up of those less familiar with Disney animation? Certainly the marketing budget is smaller, and that's because they know the film won't support it.

The single biggest business problem with RTN and JB2 is that the public is being sold a Disney animated theatrical release. There's commercials on TV, its in the theater, it costs the same, it has the same "Walt Disney Pictures" opening, etc.

All of this IS being done because Disney wants people to see it based on the brand alone.

The unavoidable consequence is that the value of the Disney brand takes a beating. Every time that happens, it hurts the next offering, no matter how "Magical" it is.

When Disney does finally decide to open another theme park at WDW or DLR, they will have the burden of proving to the public its not another MGM, AK or DCA type opening. They will not get the benefit of the doubt.

Likewise, every animated film with minimal appeal that Disney releases adds more doubt to the next film. Its hard enough to keep this from happening when you are trying to produce your best (TP?), so why make it even harder by intentionally releasing sub-par efforts like RTN and JB2?

 

[DisneyKidds]

do you think it was because they felt it was a lesser quality film or because they were trying to contain costs?

I'd say for both reasons, but probably more so because they know it is a lesser quality film. JB2 is not considered a "Masterpiece". Treasure Planet was the last to get this distinction and it appears the Sweating Bullets will be the next sometime this fall? These "Masterpiece" films are advertised as "Full Length Animated Masterpieces". They are full length, they use A list talent for voices, and they are just better. Disney recognizes that. As such, Disney advertises them much more than a JB2 which is not full length and uses B list voiceover.

But isn't most of the public made up of those less familiar with Disney animation? Certainly the marketing budget is smaller, and that's because they know the film won't support it.

It doesn't matter if much of the public has no inclination to take note of the different types of animated films Disney releases. HB implied that Disney does nothing "publically" to differentiate their films, but they do. Also, the marketing budget is smaller because they know the film won't support a larger one, because they know they made a lesser film by design.

Ultimately, the problem isn't that Disney makes films like JB2. They have been doing it for years. The problem is that it used to only be the "Masterpieces" that were given theatrical release. Releasing the second tier films into theatres takes away from the special distinction that the "Masterpieces" used to have. - and that is a big problem.

 

[HB2K]

Kidds...

I think I will respectfully disagree with everything you said in your last post.

I am not convinced that Disney did ANYTHING publicly to indicate this film was of lesser quality than their masterpieces.

The lesser budget was due to the fact that JB2 performed lightly at the box office. You're not going to spend 90 Million advertising a movie which brings 30 million at the Box Office.

Do you think if JB2 did better Disney wouldn't advertise more in an effort to tell the public this wasn't a "masterpiece"?

What about RTN? I seem to remember quite a bit of advertising for that one....how did they differenciate that one to the public?

 

[DisneyKidds]

I think I will respectfully disagree with everything you said in your last post.

No problem. Nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree .

I am not convinced that Disney did ANYTHING publicly to indicate this film was of lesser quality than their masterpieces.

Are you not sure that it is public knowledge that JB2 is not a film included by Disney in the "Masterpiece Collection", or not sure that Disney did anything publicity wise to advertise that fact?

As I agree, it may not be a distinction many take the time to notice, but Disney, as a matter of easily available public record, did not include JB2 in the "Masterpiece Collection". Sure, much of the general public might not know that - but many will. I would, however, expect folks around here to be able to recognize that. If you are not sure that Disney did anything to advertise to the world that JB2 was NOT a masterpiece - well, they didn't. However, they didn't say that it was, as they usually do with the "Masterpieces". It is the difference between telling a lie, and not telling every detail of the complete truth. Yes, sometimes an omission is as bad as a lie, and it might seem to be splitting hairs, but Disney didn't dupe the public and tout JB2 as the "next great full length animated feature from the studio that brought you the Lion King". That is the type of advertising only afforded the "Masterpieces". It is a shame that Disney won't produce more full length, top quality animated features for theatrical release. By releasing the likes of JB2 into theatres Disney has put themselves in the position of having to walk that fine line in advertising, but hey do walk that line.

The lesser budget was due to the fact that JB2 performed lightly at the box office. You're not going to spend 90 Million advertising a movie which brings 30 million at the Box Office.

Don't you think you are putting the cart before the horse here? Most people make the heavy advertising push before the film opens. Decisions about advertising budgets are likely made before a film premiers. Sure, if it is a hit they may continue and add to the budget, but I hardly think Disney decided to wait and see how JB2 did before they advertised it .

What about RTN? I seem to remember quite a bit of advertising for that one....how did they differenciate that one to the public?

RTN is not part of the "Masterpiece Collection", and I don't recall it got much more advertising than JB2. Think back to films like Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Lion King. Do you think that RTN and JB2 were given the same advertising as these films?

 

[All Aboard]

Kidds, you are confusing me with terminology. "Masterpiece Collection" is the name of a round of video marketing, which was followed a few years later with "Gold Collection" and most recently "Platinum Collection".

You are giving that naming distinction to what group of Disney Animated Features? Those whose video tape box has that at the top of it? Or everything that is not big budget?

The concept of B-level Disney Features started just a few years ago with films that perhaps should have gone straight to video, but instead ended up in theaters. The Goofy Movie immediately comes to mind.

Is this the list of non "Masterpiece" films to which you are referencing? Can we quantify it? Perhaps: Goofy, RTN, JB2, Piglet's Big Movie, Recess - School's Out... can anyone think of others?