Are we currently in the New Disney renaissance era?

[imagineer boy]

@ imagineer boy, I think that's exactly right about the entertainment industry, but I wonder sometimes if they churn out what they do JUST because of money, or has the general public become less tolerant of new and original things? I don't want to say a "dumbing down" of the average person, but a shift in entertainment values maybe? People want instantly recognizable, easy to understand, and little or no backstory. Perhaps LTE speed phones and on demand movies and tv have hurt our too short attention spans. People no longer want to invest in critical thinking or gathering up the imagination necessary to process certain things? I'm just speculating, but something has changed.

As I've said before, maybe I'm just getting too old.

I disagree. I think the main thing is that sequels and movies based off of existing franchises are a far greater bet at making in money rather than take a gamble with something new. Studios are just playing it safe and raking in the dough as a result.

 

[Thrill]

I disagree. I think the main thing is that sequels and movies based off of existing franchises are a far greater bet at making in money rather than take a gamble with something new. Studios are just playing it safe and raking in the dough as a result.

Yes, but part of that has to do with pacing. People don't want to have to learn a group new characters; it's too much effort to do so. They tend to stick to the familiar.

The other reason is marketing. I bet you'll see more marketing for Guardians of the Galaxy than for Iron Man 4, because people already know Iron Man well, while Guardians of the Galaxy is new to movies. The extra marketing is going to cut into profits.

 

[Beholder]

I disagree. I think the main thing is that sequels and movies based off of existing franchises are a far greater bet at making in money rather than take a gamble with something new. Studios are just playing it safe and raking in the dough as a result.

You may be right, I was really just considering it. I do think there is a bit of people seeing what they want to watch and a bit of Hollywood making what they think the public wants to watch. Making a sequel is a much safer bet, generally, than creating something new, but safer isn't always "better", just expected. Either way, the public is entertained and Hollywood rakes in the cash.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yes, but part of that has to do with pacing. People don't want to have to learn a group new characters; it's too much effort to do so. They tend to stick to the familiar.

This sort of dismissive attitude towards customers is not a sustainable, long term business strategy. It was the thinking behind he "cheapquels" and despite their financial success it was clear they were doing serious harm to the Disney name.

 

[Thrill]

This sort of dismissive attitude towards customers is not a sustainable, long term business strategy. It was the thinking behind he "cheapquels" and despite their financial success it was clear they were doing serious harm to the Disney name.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is the philosophy that Disney should practice, but it's pretty much what they're thinking. And I think that, eventually, it will fix itself. It's not sustainable. You can't expect to churn out sequel after sequel (especially bad ones) for years.

The better approach is to make new franchises accessible. Apparently, Disney/Pixar is pretty good at this when they actually try; Cars became one of the highest money-making franchises of all time within a couple of years. Of course, the direction they took it after that was less than great, but they're certainly capable of making something original and fresh without taking the company down.

 

[imagineer boy]

I'm not pessimistic enough to think that people really have gotten to the point that they don't want to learn new characters in new movies. If society really has gotten to that point then I'm really sad for humanity. I think people are willing to learn, but you have to do it right. If you take too long to establish characters and don't do a good enough job with it then people will be bored. People are still checking out movies they haven't seen before on DVD so I don't think it's completely dead.

And yeah, there is a larger marketing budget for original movies since they are a tough sell to the public. Again, movie studios want to play it safe so they can get more money and not have to spend so much on such things.

 

[Thrill]

I'm not pessimistic enough to think that people really have gotten to the point that they don't want to learn new characters in new movies. If society really has gotten to that point then I'm really sad for humanity. I think people are willing to learn, but you have to do it right. If you take too long to establish characters and don't do a good enough job with it then people will be bored. People are still checking out movies they haven't seen before on DVD so I don't think it's completely dead.

And yeah, there is a larger marketing budget for original movies since they are a tough sell to the public. Again, movie studios want to play it safe so they can get more money and not have to spend so much on such things.

Exactly. People aren't stupid, but movie makers have to do their jobs well.

Companies are playing it safe, and I guess that's understandable with the economy. It's hard for such a volatile industry as entertainment to take more risks than necessary after the past few years. Eventually, they'll open up, I think.
The other thing to keep in mind is that movie franchises usually aren't immortal. There are a few that will last, but people will get tired of the rest eventually, and new series will have to spring up. Yes, your Star Wars will probably be around for decades and decades, but that's a whole galaxy; it's a series that will change itself over time. It will keep its name but change its characters and settings. That's what Star Trek and James Bond did to an extent, no?

 

[Cosmic Commando]

I was watching Hercules on Netflix today, and it got me thinking: the movies really permeated popular culture in a way that they just don't now. The "Go the Distance" song was what really made me notice. "Can You Feel the Love Tonight", "Beauty and the Beast", "A Whole New World", "You'll Be in My Heart"... you can still hear some of those on the radio today, twenty years later. When you hear a song from Frozen on your local Top 40 station, then maybe this "new Renaissance" will be on par with the old one.

 

[Thrill]

I was watching Hercules on Netflix today, and it got me thinking: the movies really permeated popular culture in a way that they just don't now. The "Go the Distance" song was what really made me notice. "Can You Feel the Love Tonight", "Beauty and the Beast", "A Whole New World", "You'll Be in My Heart"... you can still hear some of those on the radio today, twenty years later. When you hear a song from Frozen on your local Top 40 station, then maybe this "new Renaissance" will be on par with the old one.

Those songs were popular, but I don't think a new Disney Renaissance has to be about music. I mean, look at Up. That is, in my opinion, the best movie Pixar has produced. The music isn't really iconic in any way. The score is great, and I could easily identify it, but people don't pay attention to Up's score the way they pay attention to "Circle of Life."

Granted, I think this is partly a philosophical difference between Disney Animation and Pixar, as Pixar really hasn't been about songs with lyrics. They have them, and "You've Got a Friend in Me" is of course one of the bigger songs any animation studio has had since it was released, but most Pixar movies have no original songs and the ones that do only have one or two. But at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter if Disney is writing the next Lion King-caliber soundtrack; I just want to see the next Lion King. If that comes with some solid music, great. If not, I think we can still see an era of extremely high quality animation without the kind of music that drove the last Disney Renaissance. Namely, because Pixar has been doing it for nearly 20 years.

 

[Cosmic Commando]

I don't think it's about the music; I think the music is/was just a sign of how much of a phenomenon Disney animation was at the time. If Tangled were released in 1995, I think "At Last I See the Light" would've been a radio single. Maybe it's just that the company doesn't think that's a priority anymore, but the way those old songs and bits of the movies have entered popular culture (I think) is a good indicator of the difference between then and now. To get away from the radio releases, I'd bet something like the whole Circle of Life song/opening scene would be recognized by LOTS of people.

 

[billDozer]

i dont think a new renaissance is viable without hand drawn animation its what people think of when they think of disney it would be like ferrari making a whole line of successful suvs itd be good for the company but theyre not ferrais i love wreck it ralph and i though tangled was ok but idt disney can enter a new renaissance without atleast 3 back to back hand drawn hits and new classics idt its impossible i just think it has to be done right and with a lotta luck