thomas998, slappy magoo, and trojanjustin what do either of you think about the history of Disney airing movies on television that were originally released in theaters? If you know much about it, I'd be interested to read some of what any of you think about the history of this when Michael Eisner was in charge and possibly at other time periods.
I'm afraid I don't exactly understand the question, and if you're specifically talking about the "animated classics" or any and all Disney movies, the live-action, the docs, etc.
Speaking anecdotally, some of my fonder memories of being a child in the 1970s was watching The Wonderful World of Disney, even though if/when they showed movies they were the live-action movies, often broken up into 2 nights (the agony of waiting). The animated classics were usually only represented in clip shows, not the entire movie with a few exceptions like Dumbo. I know the clips were intended to keep appetites whetted for the theatrical re-releases. They indeed felt special.
But even when I was a teenager in the 80s and in my 20s in the 90s, the ability to rent or even buy one of the classic animated films on VHS seemed miraculous. The ability to watch a movie I love any time does not in my opinion diminish the movie, and quite frankly I think Disney could still do boutique re-releases of certain titles that they've vaulted before an inevitable home video rerelease. This is especially true in the era of things like Fathom Events - a multiweek re-release might not be as lucrative but a one or two night boutique "event?" I wonder how the Studio Ghibli series did earlier this year?
What I find more egregious is how now, the animated classics could wind up airing on any number of the Disney owned channels literally anytime. Alice in Wonderland at 2:30 on a Sunday on Freeform with little to no fanfare, that sort of thing. i find that to belittle their importance to the Disney legacy more than its availability on VHS/DVD/Blu/Streaming. But however some prior execs might have felt at one time, according to one person, about Disney classics on home video, it was inevitable. Maybe Eisner could have made Disney more money had he tried to hold off a few more years, but there was just no guarantee keeping animated movies out of stores and in theaters would have translated into more money.
In fact, one could argue that as tastes and technologies evolved, some movies might not have aged well at all and re-releases would not have been lucrative and faced a backlash. There are already some of the racial issues not just with the most obvious example of Song of the South, but the birds in Dumbo, the Siamese cats in Lady and the Tramp (and Paul Winchell "lolling" his r's in The Aristocats). The inherent helplessness of earlier princess movies was already a controversy in the 60s and 70s as women's lib changed attitudes, to say nothing of the fact the princesses were often teens getting married, not an issue for the times they're set, not even a big deal for the time the movies were released, but movies celebrating the marriage of a 16 year old? Even to a prince? Even if she's been exposed to magic, or is a mermaid? Doesn't seem all that p.c.
So the move to home video ensured there would never be high profile flop of a re-release. The Vault allows Disney to create a demand and then provide a supply if they choose, having a movie like The Rescuers perennially available means that copies are perennially sold, as well as aired on TV (even though the money's usually paid by Disney to Disney). Would 7 years of video sales and TV rights equal the profits of a single release with all the publicity and marketing that would go into it? I don't know Disney doesn't tell me anything. But the fasct that they keep selling videos instead of trying to clamp the genie back in the bottle - which they could do anytime they wanted - and go to a theaters only presentation or theaters only, on video for 3 months, back in the vault you snooze you lose, tells me they do all right this way.
