Here is an article from the Washington Post about Disney:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52642-2002Dec13.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52642-2002Dec13.html
-
The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More -
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Fading Disney Magic?
- Thread starter GaryT977
- Start date
General Grizz
New Member
Ugh...can you copy and paste? My firewall ain't allowin' this here site to open up!
Brooke
New Member
As the Walt Disney Co. salvages the shipwreck that the movie "Treasure Planet" has become, studio executives are mulling why the animated, set-in-space version of Robert Louis Stevenson's "Treasure Island" has foundered so badly that the company was forced to cut its earnings estimates for the year.
Theories abound, ranging from a badly timed release date to an unsympathetic lead character. Most intriguing, perhaps, is the idea that boys -- to whom the pirate adventure was marketed -- may be too distracted with louder, faster-paced entertainments to be interested in a stately, classically animated Disney epic.
The updated version of the classic adventure may feature a space-going, tall-masted clipper, but it performed more like a Cold War Soviet rocket -- exploding on takeoff and taking in only $16.7 million in its opening five days, beginning Nov. 27.
The initial damage was bad enough that Disney was forced to lower its 2002 pretax revenue estimate by $74 million, a step so dramatic that Disney studio head Richard Cook said he could not recall it happening before.
Even though "Treasure Planet" may do well in Europe and doubtless will rack up millions in VHS and DVD sales, Disney doubts it will ever break even. It cost $140 million to make and has brought in $23.7 million so far.
Critics were tepid on the film; it got an average grade of C+ from the 11 film critics who contribute to Entertainment Weekly's poll. Audiences were kinder: A survey of about 1,000 opening-night viewers done by CinemaScore Online Inc., a movie polling company, gave "Treasure Planet" an A-.
Given this, the film's poor performance raises several questions: Has Disney lost its touch with its core content, animation? Has the look of Disney's animated films become dated compared with computer-generated films, such as "Shrek"? Or was "Treasure Planet" a victim of bad timing in the kids market, hitting theaters in between the most recent "Harry Potter" installment and Disney's own "The Santa Clause 2"?
More pointedly, has Disney lost boy viewers to the likes of "Tony Hawk's Boom Boom HuckJam," a sensory-overload arena show featuring thrash music, choreographed skateboard tricks, motocross motorcycle jumping and BMX bike acrobatics? Another correlative possibility: that "Treasure Planet" was so long in production -- it was dreamed up 17 years ago and finally greenlighted in 1997 -- that it was bypassed by the explosion of turbocharged video games that didn't exist five years ago, which remain largely the province of boys.
"I think there's a lot more [boys entertainment] now than there was some years back and that the stuff that is available is a lot edgier and is a lot more advanced for the [age group] Disney was targeting," said Tom Wolzien, a media analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. "Let's say they were targeting 8- to 13-year-olds, hypothetically. Well, now your audience is reduced to single digits [in age] because by the time kids are 10, they're off doing something else" than watching Disney films.
Disney calls "Treasure Planet" an isolated dud and says larger conclusions cannot necessarily be drawn from its fizzle. But the company hasn't had a boy hit in some time. The last Disney animated film targeted at boys, June 2001's "Atlantis: The Lost Empire," opened at a disappointing $20.8 million, eventually racking up $84.1 million and breaking even.
The successful Disney animated films of recent history -- "Lilo & Stitch" and "Monsters, Inc." -- have targeted both boys and girls. Disney tried to make the main boy character in "Treasure Planet" appealing to boys in the "tween" age group; he flies about on a device that looks like a cross between a snowboard and a windsurfing board.
But he didn't click. "Cleary, when the lead characters are boys, its going to skew in that direction," Cook said. "Whatever it was, we didn't tap into the appeal of the character or the story or whatever. Whether that speaks to other issues or not, I'm not sure."
Some Disney officials think the potential boy audience for "Treasure Planet" was bled off by the most recent James Bond installment, "Die Another Day," which opened five days earlier.
Cook, who has headed Disney's live-action and animation studios since February, said "Treasure Planet" is not indicative of any larger problem with Disney animation.
"The simple answer is that none of the people we [marketed to] wanted to see it. It happens," Cook said. "You're going to have one of these once in a while. But I'll still keep our batting average."
A close look at Disney's animation average, however, might suggest the need for a few more swings in the batting cage.
"Lilo & Stitch," released in June, opened big, grossing &dol;35.3 million in its first weekend. The film has gone on to be a box office hit, taking in &dol;145.7 million. Likewise, "Monsters, Inc." has been a box office and DVD smash. But "Monsters, Inc." -- like hit films "Toy Story" and "A Bug's Life" -- was animated by Disney's partner, Pixar Animation Studios, and it has a different look than the films cranked out by Disney animators. Some say the look is fresher and the editing faster.
For movies done solely by Disney, the studio's batting average is down from its decade of dominance, from 1989 to 1999, when animated films such as "The Little Mermaid," "Aladdin," "The Lion King" and "Tarzan" routinely grossed more than &dol;100 million each, often more.
More indicative of recent history was December 2000's "The Emperor's New Groove," which grossed only &dol;9.8 million in its first weekend on its way to &dol;89.3 million. Its relative failure remains a puzzle to Disney, whose setbacks have given traction to rival animators and their films, such as Fox's "Ice Age" and DreamWorks' "Shrek," which grossed &dol;268 million in theaters.
Wolzien points out that kids may not feel an attachment to Disney because the company did not make its cable channel widely available as part of basic service until recently, while rival kids channel Nickelodeon has long enjoyed widespread distribution.
"Today's kids were raised by Viacom," Wolzien said, naming Nickelodeon's parent company, "not Disney."
At least one analyst said Disney's problems extend beyond an inability to connect with thrasher tween boys.
"I'm a little concerned that the Disney [animation] format has aged," said Jordan Rohan, a media analyst with SoundView Technology Group.
"I don't believe that people care to hear Elton John and Tim Rice anthems weaved into a movie anymore," Rohan said, referring to John's score for Disney's 1994 hit, "The Lion King." Sweeping scores have become a hallmark of Disney animation. "It's not fresh," he said.
Rohan contrasts "Treasure Planet's" dated -- or classic -- animation style and story with that of DreamWorks' "Shrek," which featured a breezier, computer-generated style and two hit songs by the pop group Smash Mouth.
Disney's animation studios are likely in for an overhaul anyway. Thomas Schumacher, the longtime head of Disney's animation division, is said to be moving to helm the company's Broadway division. Analysts will be watching Disney closely through the spring, as the company is set to release two more animated films, "The Jungle Book II" and "Piglet's Big Movie."
The punch line to "Treasure Planet's" initial flop, however, involves something more mundane than studio heads and analysts theorizing about what appeals to kids. It involves accounting. Because the film was released after the company estimated its 2002 earnings but before it filed its annual report on Form 10-K, accounting rules forced Disney to reduce its earnings estimate. Had "Treasure Planet" been released at almost any other time during the year, its drain on the company's finances might have been overlooked.
Theories abound, ranging from a badly timed release date to an unsympathetic lead character. Most intriguing, perhaps, is the idea that boys -- to whom the pirate adventure was marketed -- may be too distracted with louder, faster-paced entertainments to be interested in a stately, classically animated Disney epic.
The updated version of the classic adventure may feature a space-going, tall-masted clipper, but it performed more like a Cold War Soviet rocket -- exploding on takeoff and taking in only $16.7 million in its opening five days, beginning Nov. 27.
The initial damage was bad enough that Disney was forced to lower its 2002 pretax revenue estimate by $74 million, a step so dramatic that Disney studio head Richard Cook said he could not recall it happening before.
Even though "Treasure Planet" may do well in Europe and doubtless will rack up millions in VHS and DVD sales, Disney doubts it will ever break even. It cost $140 million to make and has brought in $23.7 million so far.
Critics were tepid on the film; it got an average grade of C+ from the 11 film critics who contribute to Entertainment Weekly's poll. Audiences were kinder: A survey of about 1,000 opening-night viewers done by CinemaScore Online Inc., a movie polling company, gave "Treasure Planet" an A-.
Given this, the film's poor performance raises several questions: Has Disney lost its touch with its core content, animation? Has the look of Disney's animated films become dated compared with computer-generated films, such as "Shrek"? Or was "Treasure Planet" a victim of bad timing in the kids market, hitting theaters in between the most recent "Harry Potter" installment and Disney's own "The Santa Clause 2"?
More pointedly, has Disney lost boy viewers to the likes of "Tony Hawk's Boom Boom HuckJam," a sensory-overload arena show featuring thrash music, choreographed skateboard tricks, motocross motorcycle jumping and BMX bike acrobatics? Another correlative possibility: that "Treasure Planet" was so long in production -- it was dreamed up 17 years ago and finally greenlighted in 1997 -- that it was bypassed by the explosion of turbocharged video games that didn't exist five years ago, which remain largely the province of boys.
"I think there's a lot more [boys entertainment] now than there was some years back and that the stuff that is available is a lot edgier and is a lot more advanced for the [age group] Disney was targeting," said Tom Wolzien, a media analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. "Let's say they were targeting 8- to 13-year-olds, hypothetically. Well, now your audience is reduced to single digits [in age] because by the time kids are 10, they're off doing something else" than watching Disney films.
Disney calls "Treasure Planet" an isolated dud and says larger conclusions cannot necessarily be drawn from its fizzle. But the company hasn't had a boy hit in some time. The last Disney animated film targeted at boys, June 2001's "Atlantis: The Lost Empire," opened at a disappointing $20.8 million, eventually racking up $84.1 million and breaking even.
The successful Disney animated films of recent history -- "Lilo & Stitch" and "Monsters, Inc." -- have targeted both boys and girls. Disney tried to make the main boy character in "Treasure Planet" appealing to boys in the "tween" age group; he flies about on a device that looks like a cross between a snowboard and a windsurfing board.
But he didn't click. "Cleary, when the lead characters are boys, its going to skew in that direction," Cook said. "Whatever it was, we didn't tap into the appeal of the character or the story or whatever. Whether that speaks to other issues or not, I'm not sure."
Some Disney officials think the potential boy audience for "Treasure Planet" was bled off by the most recent James Bond installment, "Die Another Day," which opened five days earlier.
Cook, who has headed Disney's live-action and animation studios since February, said "Treasure Planet" is not indicative of any larger problem with Disney animation.
"The simple answer is that none of the people we [marketed to] wanted to see it. It happens," Cook said. "You're going to have one of these once in a while. But I'll still keep our batting average."
A close look at Disney's animation average, however, might suggest the need for a few more swings in the batting cage.
"Lilo & Stitch," released in June, opened big, grossing &dol;35.3 million in its first weekend. The film has gone on to be a box office hit, taking in &dol;145.7 million. Likewise, "Monsters, Inc." has been a box office and DVD smash. But "Monsters, Inc." -- like hit films "Toy Story" and "A Bug's Life" -- was animated by Disney's partner, Pixar Animation Studios, and it has a different look than the films cranked out by Disney animators. Some say the look is fresher and the editing faster.
For movies done solely by Disney, the studio's batting average is down from its decade of dominance, from 1989 to 1999, when animated films such as "The Little Mermaid," "Aladdin," "The Lion King" and "Tarzan" routinely grossed more than &dol;100 million each, often more.
More indicative of recent history was December 2000's "The Emperor's New Groove," which grossed only &dol;9.8 million in its first weekend on its way to &dol;89.3 million. Its relative failure remains a puzzle to Disney, whose setbacks have given traction to rival animators and their films, such as Fox's "Ice Age" and DreamWorks' "Shrek," which grossed &dol;268 million in theaters.
Wolzien points out that kids may not feel an attachment to Disney because the company did not make its cable channel widely available as part of basic service until recently, while rival kids channel Nickelodeon has long enjoyed widespread distribution.
"Today's kids were raised by Viacom," Wolzien said, naming Nickelodeon's parent company, "not Disney."
At least one analyst said Disney's problems extend beyond an inability to connect with thrasher tween boys.
"I'm a little concerned that the Disney [animation] format has aged," said Jordan Rohan, a media analyst with SoundView Technology Group.
"I don't believe that people care to hear Elton John and Tim Rice anthems weaved into a movie anymore," Rohan said, referring to John's score for Disney's 1994 hit, "The Lion King." Sweeping scores have become a hallmark of Disney animation. "It's not fresh," he said.
Rohan contrasts "Treasure Planet's" dated -- or classic -- animation style and story with that of DreamWorks' "Shrek," which featured a breezier, computer-generated style and two hit songs by the pop group Smash Mouth.
Disney's animation studios are likely in for an overhaul anyway. Thomas Schumacher, the longtime head of Disney's animation division, is said to be moving to helm the company's Broadway division. Analysts will be watching Disney closely through the spring, as the company is set to release two more animated films, "The Jungle Book II" and "Piglet's Big Movie."
The punch line to "Treasure Planet's" initial flop, however, involves something more mundane than studio heads and analysts theorizing about what appeals to kids. It involves accounting. Because the film was released after the company estimated its 2002 earnings but before it filed its annual report on Form 10-K, accounting rules forced Disney to reduce its earnings estimate. Had "Treasure Planet" been released at almost any other time during the year, its drain on the company's finances might have been overlooked.
Dizknee_Phreek
Well-Known Member
wha???
i really don't know what he's talking about...i had Disney channel as a kid as well as Nickelodeon and i watched both about the same...actually, i probably watched Nickelodeon just a tad bit more. but Disney movies were still my favorite movies. cable channels had nothing to do with how good a movie was. i no longer have disney channel (cable/disney replaced it with HBO Family...grrr:fork: ) but right before the channel was changed, even disney channel's quality was diminishing. i just think disney's in a bit of a slump right now...don't get me wrong, there's some of disney's recent movies that i like, but they're still not what the used to be (as proven by the article) i think they'll eventually get back on track...it just might take a while.
Goofster
Member
Well, this guy's a schmuck. Did he even see Treasure Planet?
A. Disney hasn't made a Broadway type musical animated film since Mulan. How does anyone (let alone him) know how well a film of that type would do in this day and age?
B. If he had seen Treasure Planet he might have noticed two hit songs written by John Rzeznik. And, if he'd done his homework, he'd see that "I'm still here" is rising on the charts.
GEEZ! I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!!! Treasure Planet is going to loose money. IT'S NOT THE END OF THE WORLD!!!
:brick: :brick:
okay, i think i feel better now
It was bound to happen....Disney had been on a high point with both in house(Lilo,Tarzan,Lion King) and farmed(Toy Story 1&2,Monsters Inc. A Bugs Life and Spirited Away) productions..Its ok for the studio to take a hit every once in awhile....Alot of the bad press has been from the media pundents who either have it out for the disney brandname or Ei$ner himself.
On the other hand, One can make the argurment that ei$ner and the board are the captains of a once proud brand that they have shot to heck with boneheaded moves and slight of hand accounting. I personally believe that both some cleaning of house(ei$ner and some of the board getting the sack) and selling of broadcast properties(i.e ABC TV and Radio and all associated interest) are only the tip of the iceberg.
What this company really needs is a DISNEY back in the top chair. Someone who knows what Uncle Walts dreams and aspirations were.
On the other hand, One can make the argurment that ei$ner and the board are the captains of a once proud brand that they have shot to heck with boneheaded moves and slight of hand accounting. I personally believe that both some cleaning of house(ei$ner and some of the board getting the sack) and selling of broadcast properties(i.e ABC TV and Radio and all associated interest) are only the tip of the iceberg.
What this company really needs is a DISNEY back in the top chair. Someone who knows what Uncle Walts dreams and aspirations were.
Washington Post article
The guy was so off base. Sickening to read. This is the kind of stuff that ME and BOD read that continue to keep them off track. Disney should go back to and continue to do what they do best...fairy tales and good classic childrens stories....with the Disney touch of course. I haven't heard one person that saw Treasure Planet that didn't like it. Have you ever heard someone say that Elton John and Tim Rice wrote an outdated sound track for Lion King? NEVER!!! That will go into history as one of the best.
The guy was so off base. Sickening to read. This is the kind of stuff that ME and BOD read that continue to keep them off track. Disney should go back to and continue to do what they do best...fairy tales and good classic childrens stories....with the Disney touch of course. I haven't heard one person that saw Treasure Planet that didn't like it. Have you ever heard someone say that Elton John and Tim Rice wrote an outdated sound track for Lion King? NEVER!!! That will go into history as one of the best.
>>>Its ok for the studio to take a hit every once in awhile....<<<
Yes, but when the studio can only cough up an actual HIT every once in a while, it is cause for concern. This year alone we have had Reign of Fire, Big Trouble, The Country Bears, and Tuck Everlasting all lose gobs and gobs of money. With Treasure Planet, you can probably add another 150 MILLION DOLLARS to that pile. Of course, Disney can blame the audience for all of these bombs instead of the fact that they are utterly creatively bankrupt.
>>>One can make the argurment that ei$ner and the board are the captains of a once proud brand that they have shot to heck with boneheaded moves and slight of hand accounting. I personally believe that both some cleaning of house(ei$ner and some of the board getting the sack) and selling of broadcast properties(i.e ABC TV and Radio and all associated interest) are only the tip of the iceberg.<<<
That's 100% true. Disney is also going to have to hire back all of the creative people that they have ran off over the past decade, or people of equal talent as Katzenburg, Nunis, etc.
I still can't figure out how Eisner and crew continue to pin Lilo and Stitch's dissappointment and Treasure Planet's NUKE at the box office on the format, as Dinosaur quickly threw the "CGI is the future!" argument out of the window.
Yes, but when the studio can only cough up an actual HIT every once in a while, it is cause for concern. This year alone we have had Reign of Fire, Big Trouble, The Country Bears, and Tuck Everlasting all lose gobs and gobs of money. With Treasure Planet, you can probably add another 150 MILLION DOLLARS to that pile. Of course, Disney can blame the audience for all of these bombs instead of the fact that they are utterly creatively bankrupt.
>>>One can make the argurment that ei$ner and the board are the captains of a once proud brand that they have shot to heck with boneheaded moves and slight of hand accounting. I personally believe that both some cleaning of house(ei$ner and some of the board getting the sack) and selling of broadcast properties(i.e ABC TV and Radio and all associated interest) are only the tip of the iceberg.<<<
That's 100% true. Disney is also going to have to hire back all of the creative people that they have ran off over the past decade, or people of equal talent as Katzenburg, Nunis, etc.
I still can't figure out how Eisner and crew continue to pin Lilo and Stitch's dissappointment and Treasure Planet's NUKE at the box office on the format, as Dinosaur quickly threw the "CGI is the future!" argument out of the window.
MKCustodial
Well-Known Member
NOW you said it. I was SO disappointed with "Dinosaur" I thought anybody would realize it isn't CGI that makes a story good.
The past three years havent been too kind to the disney film branches(Walt Disney Pictures,Touchstone,Miramax and its associated brands). I think the company is in a real low point in both creativity and,some may say,morally. Uncle Walts little motion picture company needs strong leadership in both the boardroom and public eye and Ei$ner hasnt given that as of late. Doesnt he have like one year left on his contract?