Lew Crippen

I don’t believe that to be the case, but I do think it reasonable to believe that Disney, like most studios have become more focused on the bottom line over the last 25 years. Not that there is anything wrong with this.

But a very big difference is that from the 30s (I’ll leave the silent era out) to what is generally considered to be the breakup of the studio system, even as rapacious and intent on making money as those studios were and as exploitative of their talent (both onscreen and off screen) as they were at times, most of the Hollywood moguls really wanted to make good movies.

As was famously said by one studio head, ‘I make movies I want to see’. Now one could argue that individual may not have had very good taste, but he, along with most of his counterparts had a clear idea about how to make money out of entertainment and how to entertain (to their satisfaction).

I would suggest that those in charge of making profits and making sure that profits are maximized—not necessarily the same as the studio heads in this day and age of corporate ownership, are in fact not particularly concerned with either art or making a movie that they would want to see.

Put another way, clearly Walt Disney wanted to make money (and a lot of it). Equally clearly he had a passion for what he was doing and achieving. Disney chose a course between what he wanted to do and what he could afford to do. It appears that the current direction of the studio is charting a very different course between these two goals.

¡Time is not my master!

DaveF

I've enjoyed reading this thread, but the three signs of its end have come to pass. The spectre of Hitler has been invoked:
Christian bogeymen are raised:
And the rantings about Disney are in full force:

(I think. Maybe it's )

DaveF

I've enjoyed reading this thread, but the three signs of its end have come to pass. The spectre of Hitler has been invoked:
Christian bogeymen are raised:
And the rantings about Disney are in full force:

(I think. Maybe it's )

Ernest Rister

"It is harder to blame the people who buy this stuff--in others words to blame ourselves."

Depends on what segment of the population you think of as "ourselves". Like "We Americans" includes all Americans. "Ourselves" in the context of buying cheaply-made crap doesn't refer to me or my family.

"Without a demand, there would be no DTVs."

Yeah, Disney made great films, people love them. Sure, audiences would love to see more of them, but Walt Disney refused. That's why the demand is there for a "Snow White II", it has a pre-sold audience base, and generations of name-recognition.

"It sells because people BUY it."

Well, Disney should start making Mickey Mouse Wine Coolers and Donald Duck Tequila, because liquor sells, too.

"It is people's tastes that have changed"

Really? Then why did Lilo and Stitch do so well? Disney made a unique and interesting film, and people turned out to see it. Disney's star has faded and their films are not event films because of the glut of product, hence, the films are not performing at the box office like they used to without the glut of product. Yes, there is demand but there is only so much demand. By trying to make the goose lay more golden eggs, you can wind up killing the goose. That's what Disney has done.

"Disney's actions are a REACTION to the demand. Blame the cause, not the effect."

They were making a made-for-TV series out of Aladdin, and they used the TV animators to make a bridge between the movie and the TV show. This was called "Return of Jafar", and it sold shockingly well (based on the fact everyone loved the movie). This opened up a new revenue stream for the company. One of the great dilemnas of the Consumer Products Division at Disney in the mid-90's was the fact that they were running out of classic animated features to release on home video. Re-releasing titles like Pinocchio in theaters and again on home video failed to generate much excitement and interest. The Consumer Products Division had a problem...once the classics were out, they were out. People didn't feel the need to buy them all over again (or journey to the theaters to see them).

The DTVs were an answer to that problem. Return of Jafar proved that they could create new features, and despite the quality, based on the pre-sold recognition with the characters, the title would sell, and sell well.

Disney Animation fans hated these from the get go, because they looked like what they were...made for TV knockoffs. Disney Animation had a proud heritage and history -- and for the longest time, Walt's classic films were considered "out of bounds", and the DTVs focused on the newly-released properties like Aladdin, The Lion King, Pocahontas, Beauty and the Beast, etc. Though the Disney animation fans weren't thrilled, they came to accept the DTVs as merchandising tie-ins to the "real" movie, like the old comics and storybooks of yesteryear.

Having tapped out the modern films for cheapquels, the studio turned to the real gold mine...the long legacy of Disney feature animation stretching back generations. Disney even experimented with releasing two of these cheapquels into theaters, but both Peter Pan 2 and Jungle Book 2 were also-rans at the box office.

"And believe it or not, Disney has ALWAYS wanted to make money. (Who doesn't?) I think some of you are creating a bigger fairy tale out of reality than Disney has ever put on the screen."

Ah, yes -- the fairy tale of the man who said, "I don't make movies to make money, I make money to make more movies." The merchandising helped Walt make his crazy dreams a reality, a fact that drove his brother nuts sometimes.

Disney was man who mortgaged his house to make "Steamboat Willie", the man who risked his studio to make "Snow White", the man who risked his studio to make "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea", the man who took out a loan using his own life-insurance as collateral to make "Seal Island", the man who risked the studio and the company on Disneyland, the man who was willing to risk it all once again on EPCOT before he died...is that the fairy tale you're talking about?

Money was a tool for Walt, not the overall goal. That's why he remains an icon of the 20th Century, because of the amazing things he did with that money. Eisner's Disney, unfortunately, is becoming a different sort of icon for the 21st.

Ernest Rister

"It is harder to blame the people who buy this stuff--in others words to blame ourselves."

Depends on what segment of the population you think of as "ourselves". Like "We Americans" includes all Americans. "Ourselves" in the context of buying cheaply-made crap doesn't refer to me or my family.

"Without a demand, there would be no DTVs."

Yeah, Disney made great films, people love them. Sure, audiences would love to see more of them, but Walt Disney refused. That's why the demand is there for a "Snow White II", it has a pre-sold audience base, and generations of name-recognition.

"It sells because people BUY it."

Well, Disney should start making Mickey Mouse Wine Coolers and Donald Duck Tequila, because liquor sells, too.

"It is people's tastes that have changed"

Really? Then why did Lilo and Stitch do so well? Disney made a unique and interesting film, and people turned out to see it. Disney's star has faded and their films are not event films because of the glut of product, hence, the films are not performing at the box office like they used to without the glut of product. Yes, there is demand but there is only so much demand. By trying to make the goose lay more golden eggs, you can wind up killing the goose. That's what Disney has done.

"Disney's actions are a REACTION to the demand. Blame the cause, not the effect."

They were making a made-for-TV series out of Aladdin, and they used the TV animators to make a bridge between the movie and the TV show. This was called "Return of Jafar", and it sold shockingly well (based on the fact everyone loved the movie). This opened up a new revenue stream for the company. One of the great dilemnas of the Consumer Products Division at Disney in the mid-90's was the fact that they were running out of classic animated features to release on home video. Re-releasing titles like Pinocchio in theaters and again on home video failed to generate much excitement and interest. The Consumer Products Division had a problem...once the classics were out, they were out. People didn't feel the need to buy them all over again (or journey to the theaters to see them).

The DTVs were an answer to that problem. Return of Jafar proved that they could create new features, and despite the quality, based on the pre-sold recognition with the characters, the title would sell, and sell well.

Disney Animation fans hated these from the get go, because they looked like what they were...made for TV knockoffs. Disney Animation had a proud heritage and history -- and for the longest time, Walt's classic films were considered "out of bounds", and the DTVs focused on the newly-released properties like Aladdin, The Lion King, Pocahontas, Beauty and the Beast, etc. Though the Disney animation fans weren't thrilled, they came to accept the DTVs as merchandising tie-ins to the "real" movie, like the old comics and storybooks of yesteryear.

Having tapped out the modern films for cheapquels, the studio turned to the real gold mine...the long legacy of Disney feature animation stretching back generations. Disney even experimented with releasing two of these cheapquels into theaters, but both Peter Pan 2 and Jungle Book 2 were also-rans at the box office.

"And believe it or not, Disney has ALWAYS wanted to make money. (Who doesn't?) I think some of you are creating a bigger fairy tale out of reality than Disney has ever put on the screen."

Ah, yes -- the fairy tale of the man who said, "I don't make movies to make money, I make money to make more movies." The merchandising helped Walt make his crazy dreams a reality, a fact that drove his brother nuts sometimes.

Disney was man who mortgaged his house to make "Steamboat Willie", the man who risked his studio to make "Snow White", the man who risked his studio to make "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea", the man who took out a loan using his own life-insurance as collateral to make "Seal Island", the man who risked the studio and the company on Disneyland, the man who was willing to risk it all once again on EPCOT before he died...is that the fairy tale you're talking about?

Money was a tool for Walt, not the overall goal. That's why he remains an icon of the 20th Century, because of the amazing things he did with that money. Eisner's Disney, unfortunately, is becoming a different sort of icon for the 21st.

TheLongshot

Well, the difference is that Disney is a public company now, and millions of shareholders would take exception to that type of brass balls gambles.

That being said, I think part of the failure of Disney is the conservatism that has set in with their projects. Even some of the "risky" moves out of their usual place (Atlantis, Treasure Planet) feel like that they are hedging their bets. I mean, I'd love to see a darker "Hunchback", or a "Mulan" that didn't require a goofy sidekick, but unlike Walt, I don't see the current corporation wanting to take a risk on darker films. Too much fear that they will scare away their market, as they see it.

Jason

My DVD Collection

TheLongshot

Well, the difference is that Disney is a public company now, and millions of shareholders would take exception to that type of brass balls gambles.

That being said, I think part of the failure of Disney is the conservatism that has set in with their projects. Even some of the "risky" moves out of their usual place (Atlantis, Treasure Planet) feel like that they are hedging their bets. I mean, I'd love to see a darker "Hunchback", or a "Mulan" that didn't require a goofy sidekick, but unlike Walt, I don't see the current corporation wanting to take a risk on darker films. Too much fear that they will scare away their market, as they see it.

Jason

My DVD Collection