When did Disney "Jump the Shark"?

[CHAPPS]

If you're not familiar with the term, "Jump the Shark", take a look at http://www.jumptheshark.com for the definition. But in a nutshell, it is that point in time at which a tv show, music band, or other entertainment entity began to go downhill.

On that note, at what point do you think Disney "jumped the shark" and why? I've read a lot of remarks on this board attributing Disney's decline to the purchase of ABC.

I personally think that the death of Frank Wells was when Disney jumped the shark. There was no contingency plan in place for a successor to Wells. When Jeffrey Katzenberg didn't get the job, he left in a highly publicized departure and a lawsuit, followed by many of Disney's most talented animators to join him at Dreamworks, which has since become Disney's most formidable competitor in the animation arena. It also forced Eisner to take on the role of President for a time, a role for which he was clearly not suited. I think this began the decline of Eisner in terms of being out of touch with what the public wanted in entertainment. He lost his creative edge as a result of having to take on more of the business details that Wells had previously managed.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

About the same time you started to administer corporal punishment to the senior clerical figure of the Anglican church.
Or as we pond life like to say "bash the bishop", dobber!!

 

[Bagheera]

Actually, Eisner didn't "lose his creative edge". Wells would always rein him in whenever he got carried away. Eisner (who never saw a Disney movie until he took over the company) was consistently out of touch, and Wells (who really understood what the company was all about) would constantly have to say "Michael, we're Disney. We can't do that." After Wells died, there was nobody who could stand up to Eisner and say "no" and make it stick. That's the problem in a nutshell. Eisner is running rampant and is unwilling to listen to dissenting points of view.

Just my opinion, but it seems to be corroborated with every inside story that I hear....

 

[pheneix]

That's mostly because Wells had an idea of what would work and what would not work. Movies like Pearl Harbor and Big Trouble were not made under Frank's watch for a reason.

BTW, another "inside secret" is the one about how Frank Wells was the real reason that all of the talent that Disney had under their umberella remained there. It was widely regarded that after Michael Eisner had turned dreams into train wrecks that Frank Wells was the "emergency room" for Eisner's subordinates.

Wow, "jumping the shark"--another Hollywood term gone public...

 

[EpcoTim]

Never did, most likely never will

 

[DisneyWonders07]

When did this Frank Wells die? Cause I was born in 1987 so I probably don't know much about him, but assuming all that you say is right, then he must've been a very creative and wonderful man. I really didn't know that Eisner was in any way the downfall of Disney...

 

[Testtrack321]

IMHO Disney has jumped and gone back to being great in a matter of years. Disney is unlike shows because they are diverse.

 

[SpongeScott]

who says they have jumped the shark? For me personally, I enjoy what Disney has to offer more now than what I got out of it 20-25 years ago.

 

[darthdarrel]

I still love Disney,but I have to agree that with The death of wells started Disneys decline. What I would like to know is why Disney hasn`t brought out an animated movie to the scale of Beauty and the beast or Better? Yes they have made some good movies,but none have even come close to Beauty and the beast. I loved Lilo and Stitch and Treasure planet,but again they don`t come close to Beauty and the Beast.

 

[Shaman]

Originally posted by darthdarrel
What I would like to know is why Disney hasn`t brought out an animated movie to the scale of Beauty and the beast or Better?

They did it was called The Lion King...but I understand your point animated movies as of late have been not so Disney top notch. There haven't been any big hits...but does that mean that the movies were bad...no. I peronally like Atlantis, but it wasn't a hit at the box office (maybe it was a marketing mistake). I think this will change though, the movies will get better...they have to.

On another point, this one pertaining to Eisner, well...things could be worse; I mean think about it, we've been through a terrorist attack (sept. 2001), a terrible recession, SARS and a war...and Disney is still up and running (things are getting better at the parks) news rides are going to eventually open and some are still to come. I am by no means an Eisner fan, but lets cut him some slack, he's gotten Disney through some rough waters before and is still doing it. Now all he has to do is spend some money to get Disney back on top and far away from the competition. Just my opinion.

BTW Is it me or has there been a recent spike in the number of threads related to the topic of Michael Eisner????:lookaroun

 

[darthdarrel]

I loved Lion King but still I don`t think it was on the level as Beauty and the Beast. and I like I said,they have brought out some wonderful movies,just not to that level.

 

[Merlin]

Originally posted by darthdarrel
I still love Disney,but I have to agree that with The death of wells started Disneys decline. What I would like to know is why Disney hasn`t brought out an animated movie to the scale of Beauty and the beast or Better? Yes they have made some good movies,but none have even come close to Beauty and the beast. I loved Lilo and Stitch and Treasure planet,but again they don`t come close to Beauty and the Beast.

You are absolutely correct! Beauty and the Beast is the best animated feature ever! Technically, Hunchback of Notre Dame came close, but the story and characters weren't as compelling.

What this says to me is that Katzenberg's departure was when the "jumping" occurred. Katzenberg was the closest the studio ever came to Walt. He was a stickler for perfection in the animated films. I recall reading that after he left and Joe Roth took over the studio, Roth was in a screening for Pocahontas and the dialogue wasn't matching the movement of the characters lips. Roth said it was a minor detail and not to worry about it because they were up against a deadline to get the film finished. I think the lack of quality in that film (as well as others released post-Katzenberg) show a marked decline at that point in time.

 

[Merlin]

Originally posted by objr
They did it was called The Lion King...but I understand your point animated movies as of late have been not so Disney top notch. There haven't been any big hits...but does that mean that the movies were bad...no. I peronally like Atlantis, but it wasn't a hit at the box office (maybe it was a marketing mistake). I think this will change though, the movies will get better...they have to.

Just as you say that a poor box office doesn't mean those movies were necessarily bad, the same holds true the other way around. Lion King, while a tremendous hit at the box office, was not that great of a film in my opinion. Certainly not the caliber of Beauty and the Beast.

Originally posted by objr
On another point, this one pertaining to Eisner, well...things could be worse; I mean think about it, we've been through a terrorist attack (sept. 2001), a terrible recession, SARS and a war...and Disney is still up and running (things are getting better at the parks) news rides are going to eventually open and some are still to come. I am by no means an Eisner fan, but lets cut him some slack, he's gotten Disney through some rough waters before and is still doing it. Now all he has to do is spend some money to get Disney back on top and far away from the competition. Just my opinion.

The excuses people are making for Eisner are getting old. It's true all these things are happening in the world, but Disney was already hurting due to Eisner's bad decisions.

Originally posted by objr
BTW Is it me or has there been a recent spike in the number of threads related to the topic of Michael Eisner????:lookaroun

I don't think this thread is "related to teh topic of Michael Eisner". Go back and read the original post. It posed the question of when Disney began it's decline. It wasn't specifically about Eisner.

 

[RickEff]

To consider Disney in a state where Happy Days was when the "Jump the Shark" episode occurred I feel is really premature. That presupposes that it's in an irreparable state. I don't believe that to be true. There's not much anyone can do about the death of Frank Wells. Nobody on the planet would say that the company wasn't seriously hurt when that happened. Further missteps in Disney Management (ie - the hiring, then later firing of Ovitz as the number 2 man and to a lesser degree letting Katzenberg get away) certainly didn't help matters.

But I'm a strong believer in the company as a whole, and don't think it's reached the point of no return where it can only go down.

Of course - that's just one man's opinion!

Take care,

Rick

 

[VILLAINSRULE]

Read up on your Disney history and you will see that Roy Edward Disney and Micheal Eisner and Frank Wells saved Disney....it was on the verge of being sold to a group of corporate raiders who were going to break it up into little pieces........The thing that worries me is who is going to replace Eisner when the time comes? Paul PRessler made the parks a mockery of what they should be---take a look at Universal and the great rides they have rolled out, and hopefully Jay Rasullo will be able to pick up the pace and get Disney back in the game......I think there are several mistakes that Disney is making in general---it is not building a future audience----for example, where will fans of the Fab Five come from in the future? No cartoons before the movies (I am aging myself, I know), the only thing on the Disney Channel other than those stupid reruns of mediocre shows is the House of MOuse, which is really good.....and how about rolling out some more great shows like the Disney afternoon shows of the 80s (Ducktales,etc)? and what about the slow demise of the Disney stores! What are they thinking??? It is a Disney version of Toys R Us, adults need not bother going in anymore unless you have a youngun.... BUt given all that, Eisner has done a remarkable job....I just hope that he is able to find the next creative genius to take over when the time comes......:wave:

 

[darthdarrel]

Originally posted by VILLAINSRULE
Read up on your Disney history and you will see that Roy Edward Disney and Micheal Eisner and Frank Wells saved Disney....it was on the verge of being sold to a group of corporate raiders who were going to break it up into little pieces........The thing that worries me is who is going to replace Eisner when the time comes? Paul PRessler made the parks a mockery of what they should be---take a look at Universal and the great rides they have rolled out, and hopefully Jay Rasullo will be able to pick up the pace and get Disney back in the game......I think there are several mistakes that Disney is making in general---it is not building a future audience----for example, where will fans of the Fab Five come from in the future? No cartoons before the movies (I am aging myself, I know), the only thing on the Disney Channel other than those stupid reruns of mediocre shows is the House of MOuse, which is really good.....and how about rolling out some more great shows like the Disney afternoon shows of the 80s (Ducktales,etc)? and what about the slow demise of the Disney stores! What are they thinking??? It is a Disney version of Toys R Us, adults need not bother going in anymore unless you have a youngun.... BUt given all that, Eisner has done a remarkable job....I just hope that he is able to find the next creative genius to take over when the time comes......:wave:

Yes you are 100% right,but my contention is that It was death of Frank Wells that started the downturn,untill then things were getting brighter and brighter and it was Frank, not Eisner that was the Genius behind Disneys resurgance,Frank was the deciding factor in my mind.

 

[Merlin]

Originally posted by VILLAINSRULE
BUt given all that, Eisner has done a remarkable job....I just hope that he is able to find the next creative genius to take over when the time comes......:wave:

What do you mean, "Given all that, Eisner has done a remarkable job"??? Isn't Eisner ultimately responsible for "all that"??

 

[VILLAINSRULE]

I am picking out the things that I (as a layman) look at as mistakes. Eisner has done remarkable things over the years, and I did not expand upon them, but there have been a multitude of things that he put in motion. Frank Wells was good, but how good would he have been w/o EIsner? He was the first to admit he was not good at the "creative" stuff, so I dont think that you can give Wells all the credit and none to Eisner. Think of what Disney would be if Saul Steinberg and Micheal Milken had gotten their hands on it.....I think Eisner shoud be forever placed on a pedastal for saving Disney from the corporate raiders. It is easy to find things to dislike about EIsner, and I certainly dont like a lot of things that have happened, but I do like a lot of the things that have happened--new park, new attractions, great movies.......a few klunkers here and there dont take away from the overall picture of the job that Eisner has done.......:animwink:

 

[darthdarrel]

Originally posted by VILLAINSRULE
I am picking out the things that I (as a layman) look at as mistakes. Eisner has done remarkable things over the years, and I did not expand upon them, but there have been a multitude of things that he put in motion. Frank Wells was good, but how good would he have been w/o EIsner? He was the first to admit he was not good at the "creative" stuff, so I dont think that you can give Wells all the credit and none to Eisner. Think of what Disney would be if Saul Steinberg and Micheal Milken had gotten their hands on it.....I think Eisner shoud be forever placed on a pedastal for saving Disney from the corporate raiders. It is easy to find things to dislike about EIsner, and I certainly dont like a lot of things that have happened, but I do like a lot of the things that have happened--new park, new attractions, great movies.......a few klunkers here and there dont take away from the overall picture of the job that Eisner has done.......:animwink:

Actually I think the two of them complimented each other,but one with out the other going unchecked is bad,Like Michael Jackson,there is noone who will tell them ummm..... Michael psst come here..... that idea sux!

 

[CTXRover]

Originally posted by Merlin
What this says to me is that Katzenberg's departure was when the "jumping" occurred. Katzenberg was the closest the studio ever came to Walt. He was a stickler for perfection in the animated films. I recall reading that after he left and Joe Roth took over the studio, Roth was in a screening for Pocahontas and the dialogue wasn't matching the movement of the characters lips. Roth said it was a minor detail and not to worry about it because they were up against a deadline to get the film finished. I think the lack of quality in that film (as well as others released post-Katzenberg) show a marked decline at that point in time.

There's no doubt that Katzenburg did an amazing job for Disney animation and it was a shame when he "left". However, Dreamworks hasn't had the best track record with him at the helm of their animation unit. Besides Shrek (and Prince of Egypt probably), DW hasn't had many good, hit films. Consider Road to El Dorado, Spirit:Stallion of the Cimarron and even Antz. Not the best films and they didn't do great at the box office either.

Since his departure, Disney animation sometimes hasn't been as great, but I'm pretty sure Tarzan wasn't influenced by him and I know Lilo and Stitch wasn't influenced by him at all. Both of these films did great at the box office and were relatively hits among the public and critics. So there has been some high points during the "post-Katzenburg" era at Disney and maybe Disney "jumped" a little when he left, but they're still in the game (and still doing better than DW animation where Katzenburg is the head, at least up to this point )