When did Disney "Jump the Shark"?

[Merlin]

Originally posted by CTXRover
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 )

Yeah I forgot about Tarzan. That one was up there with what I've come to expect from classic Disney animation. Box office aside, though, I think Dreamworks has had a better track record of quality animated than Disney has in the same span of time. I would also argue that, aside from just the animated features, there have been more quality films that have come from Dreamworks than from Buena Vista.

The more I think about it though, I would have to agree that the death of Wells had more impact. Not only did it lead to Katzenberg's departure, but it really had a ripple effect throughout all of Hollywood and even affected other studios.

 

[ArchiDanDisney]

Wanna talk about animated films? Look at both toy story's, monsters inc. and now Nemo, all I can say is, it appears as though disney is on the up and up. I know kids my age ( 18-21 ) who find the recent movies simply halarious. There is your new fan base right there. I know for sure I will let my kids know all about my love for disney. As for Eisner, as much as I knock him, he is an amazing business man. I have read about 5 books on him. Only one being autobiographical, ironically, that is the one that was the most condascending. Disney's preformance is mirroring the rest of the market. Eisner is doing everything in his power to pull the company back to the top, and IMHO, I think he is currently the best person for the job. Keep it up Mikey.

 

[Slinky Dog]

Originally posted by ArchiDanDisney
Wanna talk about animated films? Look at both toy story's, monsters inc. and now Nemo,

Absolutely, great films, beautifully crafted, well scripted and sometimes very, very funny, appealing to all ages (as any good Disney animation should IMHO). However, how long will it be until Pixar think that they don't need Disney anymore? Is it a long term deal involving many films or is it done on a film by film basis?

 

[BRER STITCH]

Please forgive me for getting back to the topic, but......

Disney jumped the shark when it began releasing far too many sub-standard sequels to great movies.

That's my answer to the original question.

 

[Shaman]

Originally posted by Merlin
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.

If Lion King wouldn't have been a great film, trust me it wouldn't have made as much money as it did. The fact is that it doesn't work the other way around, because if a movie is bad no matter how much they advertise no one will go see it. However some movies are real good but lack the advertising so most often people don't even know they are playing that movie. In my opinion Lion King is 100% better than Beauty and the Beast.

Originally posted by Merlin
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.

I don't think people (myself included) are making any excuses for Eisner, were only showing the good things that he's done. This doesn't mean that he hasn't screwed up in the past. While some prefer to linger on the negative...those very same people should realize that the Disney we know and love today, wouldn't have been possible without Eisner's leadership. No one's perfect, we're all human, put yourself in Eisner's shoes. (I know he's a bit cheap, but maybe that attitude has helped especially now that we find ourselves in a recession).

Originally posted by Merlin
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.

Yes you're right this thread isn't specifically about Eisner, but it makes reference to him; besides there are other threads (not this one in particular) as of late which deal specifically with Eisner that was what I was talking about.

:lookaroun

 

[yensid66]

I feel that it is human nature to think the past was always better than now because we only hear or remember about the great things that happened back then. But there were many projects that failed for Walt back then and many that were criticized heavily (Fantasia was known as Walt's Folly). Fact is, Disney is still doing great now, or we would not be interested in talking about them. Yes, they have some miscues, but overall, I think when we look back 20 years from now, we will remember the many GREAT things they did.

 

[Slinky Dog]

Originally posted by BRER STITCH
Please forgive me for getting back to the topic, but......

Disney jumped the shark when it began releasing far too many sub-standard sequels to great movies.

That's my answer to the original question.

Couldn't agree more, what was the point in Jungle Book 2 (rehash of a great film done badly) or Simba's Pride or any of the "straight to video" movies, except to make a quick buck. I do appreciate that Disney has to make money BTW. Spend the time and money coming up with great takes on old fairy tales/stories that haven't been done before or come up with new stories that capture the imagination (for example, Beauty and the Beast and the Lion king originals). The animation is what Disney is based upon, as long as you keep the magic in the films, you keep the magic in the Disney brand and the parks. The thoughtfulness, the thoroughness and the attention to detail is what we all love about the films and the parks, isn't it?

 

[Merlin0402]

Everyone is so quick to bash Eisner for the downfall of the company, but he has been there for quite a while now and a lot of great things have happened. Think of the movies, the rides, the shows that have come to be during the "Eisner Era". He has done some great things, but the real problem is that there is no longer anyone to counteract him. How can one man run a company as huge as Disney alone? Don't get me wrong, I know that there are different people that run the different divisions of the company, but I feel that there need to be SEVERAL CEOs of the company. Disney has always been a creative powerhouse and with several people running the show, things would definitely improve...

 

[darthdarrel]

Does the Films Atlantis and Treasure planet ring a bell?

 

[prberk]

Everyone in this discussion needs to read another discussion that demonstrates another turning point that may be happening right now.

The new animation chief has told everyone in a Monday meeting that they need to "break the mold" and perhaps start again. He has also suggested that they need to make complete fairy tales (such as Repunzel) on computer alone.

The whole story is found here: http://www.latimes.com/la-fi-disney29apr29,1,4613520.story

Another discussion thread was made about it here: http://forums.wdwmagic.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22748

The reason that I bring it up in this thread, and see it as integrally relevant, is that it also draws out some of the good and bad that has been going on. This new director seems to some background in many aspects of Disney animation, including features, and he likes to challenge things.

But one thing that he oversaw was the sequels. He seemed to use it as a way of getting TV animation onto the big screen.

He is credited with breaking down a wall between the feature and television animators. That, in itself, is a good thing, in that all artists can learn from one another. But I do believe that feature animation should not be "cheap." (Quality, not dollars.)

He talked about "shaking it up." This is no more than business school jargon, like "thinking outside the box," both phrases that work in business meetings but ultimately mean nothing concrete. They just sound like a plan.

He also said that they needed to recognize that their audience was 2-10 year-olds and their parents only. This is "market segmentation" in business school parlance. Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King proved otherwise: they were well-crafted stories that had layered messages that sold to multiple all audiences, and continue to do so today.

So, when did Disney "jump the shark"? When they allowed business school strategies to go beyond their usefulness to being controlling. When it went from being a "Walt Disney Production" to being a "Walt Disney 'brand'."

Walt and Roy always understood that the arts and business had to complement one another. Artists need to be tempered by reality, but business should not completely dictate art: or else, you get stupid sequels (and other things) that "devalue the brand" as the b-school types like to say!

 

[TURKEY]

Originally posted by darthdarrel
Does the Films Atlantis and Treasure planet ring a bell?

What about them?

Both were very good films, beautiful and with a story. Poor marketing and other strategies really doomed both.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Originally posted by turkey leg boy
What about them?

Both were very good films, beautiful and with a story. Poor marketing and other strategies really doomed both.

That's something I really hated about Treasure Planet. I personally liked the movie--thought it was really well done, and it was completely the marketing team's fault that it failed...it was an all around good Disney movie...

 

[TURKEY]

Originally posted by DogsRule!
That's something I really hated about Treasure Planet. I personally liked the movie--thought it was really well done, and it was completely the marketing team's fault that it failed...it was an all around good Disney movie...

I just finished watching it for the first time. I really enjoyed it. It is a good movie.

 

[darthdarrel]

I thought it was a great movie but they missed their mark! They were targeting the sci fi fan and Sci fi fans generally don`t go to Disney for their Sci fi movies. Thus it was a horrible disaster.

 

[Captain Cab]

When did Disney "jump the shark"? Easy. It happened when the company built theme parks called Disney's California Adventure, and Disney's Animal Kingdom. If the big shot executives knew that those parks would be having attendance problems this bad, would those parks have been built with the budgets that they were given?