Why the movies are failing.

[xfkirsten]

I can think of a couple of reasons offhand that production costs are going up. As careship mentioned, they seem to be going looking for celebrity voices these days - they try and bring in a big name to draw the crowds, rather than find the perfect voice in a lesser known actor. That's not to say that all the voices these days ar poor choices, but rather that star power seems to be a bigger concern to them. Some of the dollar figures these celebs command are much higher than would be paid to an up-and-coming actor, even under Disney's small paychecks. That's one reason.

The second is technology. As new techniques are developed, Disney is eager to try them out, sometimes at high cost. You might say that Disney has always been trying out new techniques, true. But when you look at the cost of the really high-tech stuff out there today...well, it's insane. For instance, I was talking to a friend who's a traditional/CG animator about the deep canvas used in Tarzan. And if you look at how exactly that process works, it becomes quite clear that it not only gets expensive, but VERY time consuming not only for creating the initial 3d environment, but the rendering time is enormous. It looks absolutely stunning in the final product, but the cost proved to be prohibitively high. I think if it weren't so expensive, we'd still be seeing it in features today. But it's advances in technology such as that which ar drivinig up the production costs.

-Kirsten

 

[careship]

I think alot of the voices are better being unknowns. Why? Because then the character is just a charcter rather than Tom Hanks as....

It doesn't take a celebrity voice to make a movie outstanding. It really doesn't. If the storyline is excellent and the animation is excellent, then who does these voices mean nothing to most people. My kids could care less who the voice is, they just care about the story and watching the movie. There instances where I think the celebrity actually took away from the character. Can anyone else think of these instances? I won't name mine because I don't want to sway anyone.

 

[speck76]

How many "A-list" celebs were used in TLM or B&tB....none. Aladdin...just 1. Look at The Emperor's New Groove...4 or 5.....and that movie did nothing (but it was funny)

They should save their money if the celeb is not going to add to the role. The Genie was great w/ Robin Williams, and would not have been the same without him. Mel Gibson, Demi Moore...really not needed to help the film (esp Mel's singing :hurl: )

 

[careship]

How many "A-list" celebs were used in TLM or B&tB....none. Aladdin...just 1. Look at The Emperor's New Groove...4 or 5.....and that movie did nothing (but it was funny)

They should save their money if the celeb is not going to add to the role. The Genie was great w/ Robin Williams, and would not have been the same without him. Mel Gibson, Demi Moore...really not needed to help the film (esp Mel's singing :hurl: )

Wonderful examples. I too feel that a couple celebrities have actually been perfect fits. I can only think of 2 off hand...Robin Williams as the Genie and James Earl Jones as Mufasa.

 

[speck76]

Wonderful examples. I too feel that a couple celebrities have actually been perfect fits. I can only think of 2 off hand...Robin Williams as the Genie and James Earl Jones as Mufasa.

Maybe James Woods as Hades.....but I really can not think of any others that were absolutly needed.

 

[dizpins14]

I'm not saying Disney animation has been up to par lately....however I think if Disney had stayed with the same formula that made Lion King and the Little Mermaid popular everyone would be saying how boring and predictable these new films are. I know theres been a dry spell in Disney animation but I would rather see them take some risks and try and find a new formula...instead of relying upon Princesses and magic.

 

[speck76]

The second is technology. As new techniques are developed, Disney is eager to try them out, sometimes at high cost. You might say that Disney has always been trying out new techniques, true. But when you look at the cost of the really high-tech stuff out there today...well, it's insane. For instance, I was talking to a friend who's a traditional/CG animator about the deep canvas used in Tarzan. And if you look at how exactly that process works, it becomes quite clear that it not only gets expensive, but VERY time consuming not only for creating the initial 3d environment, but the rendering time is enormous. It looks absolutely stunning in the final product, but the cost proved to be prohibitively high. I think if it weren't so expensive, we'd still be seeing it in features today. But it's advances in technology such as that which ar drivinig up the production costs.

-Kirsten

But that is just like the rise and fall of disaster films. After movie like Jurassic Park and Twister, all of the studios started pouring hundreds of millions of $$ into these event movies, but many, if not most of them failed. granted it is always cool to use new technology, but is it really needed? If the stort is bad, the characters are not interesting, will technology and cool effects save the day? And then, what about staying power? Does it come to a surprise to anyone that TLM, B&tB, Aladdin, and TLK are more represented in the parks than the more recent films...why is this, because those films are memorable, and have staying power.

Jurassic Park was cool when it came out, I honestly have not seen a movie premier of that magnitude since, but how many people are renting it today...how many people that own it watch it on a regular basis?

Stories and characters are memorable....not so much technology.

 

[careship]

But that is just like the rise and fall of disaster films. After movie like Jurassic Park and Twister, all of the studios started pouring hundreds of millions of $$ into these event movies, but many, if not most of them failed. granted it is always cool to use new technology, but is it really needed? If the stort is bad, the characters are not interesting, will technology and cool effects save the day? And then, what about staying power? Does it come to a surprise to anyone that TLM, B&tB, Aladdin, and TLK are more represented in the parks than the more recent films...why is this, because those films are memorable, and have staying power.

Jurassic Park was cool when it came out, I honestly have not seen a movie premier of that magnitude since, but how many people are renting it today...how many people that own it watch it on a regular basis?

Stories and characters are memorable....not so much technology.

I ditto that 100%. I could care less sometimes about technology. Yeah, wow, it's cool. But do I watch the film over and over and buy it at midnight when it comes out because of that? Heck no!!!! It's the story and the characters that make the movie worth watching over and over again. If the storyline isn't thought out and evolved, then there is nothing worth watching. They have spent the last few years rushing and not caring. Oh that would be the M.E. effect. There is no longer a category for Disney called special effects, it's all M.E. effects now.

 

[xfkirsten]

But that is just like the rise and fall of disaster films. After movie like Jurassic Park and Twister, all of the studios started pouring hundreds of millions of $$ into these event movies, but many, if not most of them failed. granted it is always cool to use new technology, but is it really needed? If the stort is bad, the characters are not interesting, will technology and cool effects save the day? And then, what about staying power? Does it come to a surprise to anyone that TLM, B&tB, Aladdin, and TLK are more represented in the parks than the more recent films...why is this, because those films are memorable, and have staying power.

Jurassic Park was cool when it came out, I honestly have not seen a movie premier of that magnitude since, but how many people are renting it today...how many people that own it watch it on a regular basis?

Stories and characters are memorable....not so much technology.

That's exactly it. They're putting all this money into the new technologies, hoping that will draw people to the theaters. But the real elements of character and storytelling are being left in the dust in the rush for the newfangled technology.

-Kirsten

 

[speck76]

That's exactly it. They're putting all this money into the new technologies, hoping that will draw people to the theaters. But the real elements of character and storytelling are being left in the dust in the rush for the newfangled technology.

-Kirsten

Another problem is that new technology is not as cool as it was 10 years ago....When JP was released, who had ever seen such a sight before, the closest thing was either the Shark in Jaws, or the small dino in the movie "Baby"

Now, thanks to all of the disaster movies, people expect that type of technology used in film, but not really so much in a animated film.

The best example of this is CGI animation. Some movies, like Finding Nemo and Toy Story, would not be the same without the realism of CGI animation(CGI was able to make the toys and fish look "real") ...others, like Ice Age, Shrek, and A Bug's Life, could have been completed without the CGI....the bugs did not look "real" and if they did, it could have only hurt the movie.

 

[Dr.Seeker]

Yeah, Disney are aiming at the wrong objectives.

Eisner's Priorities:
1.Cost/Ticket Sales
2.Ease
3.Speed
4.His own wage packet

Disney's Priorities:
1.Entertaining
2.Developing technologies
3.Funding Projects e.g. Cal Arts e.t.c.
4.Employing people
5.Break-Even

What do you lot think? How would you change these orders?

 

[speck76]

Yeah, Disney are aiming at the wrong objectives.

Eisner's Priorities:
1.Cost/Ticket Sales
2.Ease
3.Speed
4.His own wage packet

Disney's Priorities:
1.Entertaining
2.Developing technologies
3.Funding Projects e.g. Cal Arts e.t.c.
4.Employing people
5.Break-Even

What do you lot think? How would you change these orders?

With Disney's priorities, do you mean "Walter E. Disney's priorities". If so, I would like to point out that the economics of all industries, including the film industry have changed in the almost 40 years since his passing.

Don't get me wrong, I am not an Eisner supporter, but every studio has changed the way they do business in the last 10 years, let alone the last 40. Also, prior to the mid-80's and the coming of "The Evil One", Disney's film production was in very poor shape.

Yes, a change needs to be made, and not just at the top either, but if anyone expects that once this change happens, suddenly money will be thrown into projects that do not present a good ROI, or WDC will suddenly become a not-for-profit company, they are sorely mistaken.

 

[Dr.Seeker]

Good points I guess I just wanted another opportunity to take a knock at Eisner! Clearly you know more about this so I'll just shut up.

 

[speck76]

Clearly you know more about this so I'll just shut up.

You are giving me WAY too much credit

 

[Dr.Seeker]

lol perhaps, credit where credit's Mountain Due