What's new

Family friendly movies vs harry potter & shrek! (1 Viewer)

Andrew Priest

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
79

It's a little more complicated than corporate greed. There's an element of the extreme short-sightedness that tends to pervade the marketplace. Glutting the market with cheap movies thus cheapening the brand name only hurts profits in the long run. Yet it's typical for the modern corporation that's focused only on quarter earnings.

Then there's a touch of the good old obsession with reason and all that goes with that. Very typical for technocrats to think that even art can be pressed into some kind of rational system and from that a formula of success extracted. They'll latch onto the formula and promptly work it to death. Even the switch to CG is perfect. It's the kind of clean, simple and absolute solution that the rational systems prefer.

Animated movies aren't doing so well? Don't focus on the murky waters of story and art and history. Certainly never, ever, suggest that some choice by the company is at fault. All policies derived by reason must be flawless; therefore some other outside factor must be involved. Ah hah! It's that CG that's been eclipsing the hand drawn stuff. That's the ticket. Wait and see, if the CG falls though they'll never admit to it being bad idea, or even slightly wrong. It will be something else.

One reason I hold little hope that replacing Eisner with some other born and bred technocrat will fix the problem. They will do what they are trained to do. Eisner is no exception; he's the rule.

PS. I'm with Ernest on this one. I don't touch DTV sequels, not even with a 10' cattle prod.
 

TheLongshot

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 12, 2000
Messages
4,118
Real Name
Jason
Well, as I say, don't expect art from corporations. Their purpose isn't to make great art, but to make money in the most cost-efficient manner possible. Sometimes, I think we almost get art by accident.

Corporations want a formula that they can put stuff out on a regular basis, and get back X in profits. Art, on the other hand, is risky. Numbers can't be predicted. It could fail, and that's a lot of money gone down the drain.

So, companies like Disney squeeze every last ounce of analysis to design a movie to the broadest audience possible. Problem is, the "magic" is in the art, and that isn't quantifiable.

Disney has been missing the magic for a while. Some people seem to have a knack for it (Pixar, Miyazaki), but when you do your best to kill the magic because it is unpredictable, you go for the mediocre. The "good enough".

Jason
 

TheLongshot

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 12, 2000
Messages
4,118
Real Name
Jason
Well, as I say, don't expect art from corporations. Their purpose isn't to make great art, but to make money in the most cost-efficient manner possible. Sometimes, I think we almost get art by accident.

Corporations want a formula that they can put stuff out on a regular basis, and get back X in profits. Art, on the other hand, is risky. Numbers can't be predicted. It could fail, and that's a lot of money gone down the drain.

So, companies like Disney squeeze every last ounce of analysis to design a movie to the broadest audience possible. Problem is, the "magic" is in the art, and that isn't quantifiable.

Disney has been missing the magic for a while. Some people seem to have a knack for it (Pixar, Miyazaki), but when you do your best to kill the magic because it is unpredictable, you go for the mediocre. The "good enough".

Jason
 

Malcolm R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2002
Messages
25,139
Real Name
Malcolm

The problem at Disney is basically the problem with all of corporate America today. No one has any vision, any plan for the future. Everything is completely and totally about the current fiscal quarter. No one is willing to forego a percentage of profits now in order to reap larger and extended profits down the road. Costco has tried this (not cutting employee salaries or benefits to maximize near-term profits) and has got nothing but flak from Wall Street analysts. It's all about immediate gratification for stockholders at the expense of the employees and customers.

As such, things become more trendy as everyone jumps on the same fad at the same time until it quickly burns out, then everyone looks at each other wondering what to do next since they've killed the golden goose rather than fiercely protecting it and urging moderation so that it will lay golden eggs far into the future.
 

Malcolm R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2002
Messages
25,139
Real Name
Malcolm

The problem at Disney is basically the problem with all of corporate America today. No one has any vision, any plan for the future. Everything is completely and totally about the current fiscal quarter. No one is willing to forego a percentage of profits now in order to reap larger and extended profits down the road. Costco has tried this (not cutting employee salaries or benefits to maximize near-term profits) and has got nothing but flak from Wall Street analysts. It's all about immediate gratification for stockholders at the expense of the employees and customers.

As such, things become more trendy as everyone jumps on the same fad at the same time until it quickly burns out, then everyone looks at each other wondering what to do next since they've killed the golden goose rather than fiercely protecting it and urging moderation so that it will lay golden eggs far into the future.
 

Nathan Eddy

Second Unit
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
262
Man, you people sure know a lot about the inner workings of corporations you don't run. They only look at profits? They don't want to create art? They only plan for the current quarter? How the hell do you know that? It's way too easy to stereotype corporations, because that helps you simplify a complex situation into a tidy little strawman arguement that is very popular in today's anti-corporate, post-Enron culture.

But with a little thought, maybe the answer is even simpler than a stereotype. Ever hear of the good old laws of supply and demand? Maybe Disney is making cheap, fast, DTVs because there's a huge demand for children's entertainment--a larger demand than the old formula can keep up with. They are only giving us what we want (at least what the majority wants). Most people don't have the patience to wait around for a masterpiece to be produced. Their overly-stimulated, short-attention span, 21st century children need entertainment NOW, dammit! We want everything faster, more plentiful, and cheaper--just like our computers, our cell phones (do you REALLY need to connect in under a second?), our Internet access, etc.

You all make it sound like a corporate conspiracy to rob us of art. You sound like you want to create a villian out of a few CEOs, because villians are easy scapegoats. It is harder to blame the people who buy this stuff--in others words to blame ourselves. Without a demand, there would be no DTVs. It sells because people BUY it. It is people's tastes that have changed, and Disney is just changing to conform to it. Disney's actions are a REACTION to the demand. Blame the cause, not the effect.

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.
 

Nathan Eddy

Second Unit
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
262
Man, you people sure know a lot about the inner workings of corporations you don't run. They only look at profits? They don't want to create art? They only plan for the current quarter? How the hell do you know that? It's way too easy to stereotype corporations, because that helps you simplify a complex situation into a tidy little strawman arguement that is very popular in today's anti-corporate, post-Enron culture.

But with a little thought, maybe the answer is even simpler than a stereotype. Ever hear of the good old laws of supply and demand? Maybe Disney is making cheap, fast, DTVs because there's a huge demand for children's entertainment--a larger demand than the old formula can keep up with. They are only giving us what we want (at least what the majority wants). Most people don't have the patience to wait around for a masterpiece to be produced. Their overly-stimulated, short-attention span, 21st century children need entertainment NOW, dammit! We want everything faster, more plentiful, and cheaper--just like our computers, our cell phones (do you REALLY need to connect in under a second?), our Internet access, etc.

You all make it sound like a corporate conspiracy to rob us of art. You sound like you want to create a villian out of a few CEOs, because villians are easy scapegoats. It is harder to blame the people who buy this stuff--in others words to blame ourselves. Without a demand, there would be no DTVs. It sells because people BUY it. It is people's tastes that have changed, and Disney is just changing to conform to it. Disney's actions are a REACTION to the demand. Blame the cause, not the effect.

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.
 

TheLongshot

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 12, 2000
Messages
4,118
Real Name
Jason


Not at all. What I am saying is that corporate priorities and art can come to cross-purposes. This is where we get a "Hunchback Of Notre Dame" with cute gargoyles and a happy ending. Was that the best thing for the film? Not really, but Disney had a formula that was successful and they felt they needed to continue to appeal to their audience.

The problem is, there is too much Disney seems to do nowadays that feels like it was created by committee. I don't see anyone with vision guiding the direction of their features. Sure, the buck stops at Eisner, considering he's responsible for a lot of the micromanaging at Disney (That's part of the reason why the Florida animation studio was shut down.)

Jason
 

TheLongshot

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 12, 2000
Messages
4,118
Real Name
Jason


Not at all. What I am saying is that corporate priorities and art can come to cross-purposes. This is where we get a "Hunchback Of Notre Dame" with cute gargoyles and a happy ending. Was that the best thing for the film? Not really, but Disney had a formula that was successful and they felt they needed to continue to appeal to their audience.

The problem is, there is too much Disney seems to do nowadays that feels like it was created by committee. I don't see anyone with vision guiding the direction of their features. Sure, the buck stops at Eisner, considering he's responsible for a lot of the micromanaging at Disney (That's part of the reason why the Florida animation studio was shut down.)

Jason
 

Lew Crippen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
12,060

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.
 

Lew Crippen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
12,060

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.
 

DaveF

Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
28,687
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
I've enjoyed reading this thread, but the three signs of its end have come to pass. The spectre of Hitler has been invoked:

:) (I think. Maybe it's :frowning: )
 

DaveF

Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
28,687
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
I've enjoyed reading this thread, but the three signs of its end have come to pass. The spectre of Hitler has been invoked:

:) (I think. Maybe it's :frowning: )
 

Ernest Rister

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2001
Messages
4,148
"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

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2001
Messages
4,148
"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

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 12, 2000
Messages
4,118
Real Name
Jason


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
 

TheLongshot

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 12, 2000
Messages
4,118
Real Name
Jason


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
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,810
Messages
5,123,574
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top