Wish (Walt Disney Animation - November 2023)

[Disney Irish]

To be fair, the artists for Spider have said that as an industry, the conditions they produced that movie under are not sustainable.

The right answer for feature length animation is probably somewhere closer to the middle between the two.

Which is one of the major reasons that the third Spider-Verse film is indefinitely delayed.

And Illumination is the "cheap and basic" animation studio. Their animation is, intentionally, nowhere near the level of Disney, Pixar, and Dreamworks. They're the Hanna-Barbera of CGI. It has its place, but its place shouldn't be at Disney.

I have a feeling that Illumination and Sony Animation are going to start seeing their budgets rise fairly quickly too, especially after the Disney animators unionize with IATSE.

 

[crispy]

Just noticed that Wish is now ahead of Ruby Gillman: Teenage Kraken by $4 million so there's that.

 

[_caleb]

I completely agree. Pixar was a master at this for a very long time.

And what? They suddenly forgot how to do this well? Or have audiences changed so much that what used to work doesn't, so they're trying to adjust (in ways that aren't making money at the box office)?

 

[celluloid]

And what? They suddenly forgot how to do this well? Or have audiences changed so much that what used to work doesn't, so they're trying to adjust (in ways that aren't making money at the box office)?

It can't possibly be the relatively small team of creative drivers on average making less quality stories than the frequency they once did...

It must be society!

Your march is always blaming the people.

 

[_caleb]

It can't possibly be the relatively small team of creative drivers on average making less quality stories than the frequency they once did...

I think there are a great many factors at play here. I'm not sure there is a relatively small team of creative drivers (relative to any other time), and the quality of the stories is being debated across these boards. But what I'm hearing from you sounds like you think the entire company has somehow been hijacked by a small group of creatives who are unnecessarily costing the company billions just to promote their ideological agenda. This does not sound as plausible as my theory.

It must be society!

Do you think society has not changed dramatically in the last few years? Do you deny that technology and social media and global trends are having a tremendous effect on the entertainment business?

Your march is always blaming the people.

I'm not really blaming people so much as saying the world has changed. Audience behavior has changed, the market has changed, storytelling has changed. Things are different than they were. It makes sense to me that Disney is trying (struggling) to be competitive in a strange new world.

 

[celluloid]

I think there are a great many factors at play here. I'm not sure there is a relatively small team of creative drivers (relative to any other time), and the quality of the stories is being debated across these boards. But what I'm hearing from you sounds like you think the entire company has somehow been hijacked by a small group of creatives who are unnecessarily costing the company billions just to promote their ideological agenda. This does not sound as plausible as my theory.

The relatively small was the team of creatives in creative and production charge vs the number of people in the audience.
No hijacking theories.

Which is easier to change, one company or society?

Why are other companies able to fair this storm better?

The last few years is a loaded question. We are only three years away from a major global impact event. So it slowly comes back. Like the box office has.

The thing Disney has done is rested on laurels and not changed. The company was that impacted the most was the one that lacked diversifying interests and variety in product.

 

[erasure fan1]

And what? They suddenly forgot how to do this well? Or have audiences changed so much that what used to work doesn't, so they're trying to adjust (in ways that aren't making money at the box office)?

Yea, maybe they did? John left, so is it unthinkable that maybe he was a big part of it? Is it unreasonable to think they might not have the same quality of team?

 

[_caleb]

Yea, maybe they did? John left, so is it unthinkable that maybe he was a big part of it? Is it unreasonable to think they might not have the same quality of team?

I'd imagine new leadership could have an effect on quality. But I don't think that's all that's happening here. And the massive number of people that work on these productions (all the names in the credits) represent a vast amount of knowledge and experience. I don't think they all decided to phone it in on a dud just for a paycheck.

 

[Phroobar]

 

[FettFan]

It makes sense to me that Disney is trying (struggling) to be competitive in a strange new world.

The only thing strange is when corporate mandates start intruding upon the creative process.

Hence why the Boba Fett show started off strong…and then he got sidelined by Din Djarin, Grogu, Fennec Shand, Blue Clint Eastwood, and the Dollar Tree Power Rangers.

 

[erasure fan1]

I don't think they all decided to phone it in on a dud just for a paycheck.

That's not what I said. Many sports teams try extremely hard and don't make the playoffs. They get a new gm, or player, and all of a sudden they win. It also happens the other way. A successful team loses some players to free adjacency, and they struggle to find the same success. A successful team is not really different in business, sports, entertainment... So a few key changes can throw the whole thing off. It's how they adjust to those changes that counts. And in my opinion pixar is still trying to adjust.

 

[TP2000]

View attachment 756781

My new favorite word to use for this ongoing box office trend is brutal. It's just brutal for Disney. Brutal, brutal, brutal!

Wish is a disastrous flop, and looks like it will get beat easily at the box office by Trolls Band Together. Brutal.

 

[Casper Gutman]

That's not what I said. Many sports teams try extremely hard and don't make the playoffs. They get a new gm, or player, and all of a sudden they win. It also happens the other way. A successful team loses some players to free adjacency, and they struggle to find the same success. A successful team is not really different in business, sports, entertainment... So a few key changes can throw the whole thing off. It's how they adjust to those changes that counts. And in my opinion pixar is still trying to adjust.

Pixar made one disappointing film. One.

 

[_caleb]

The only thing strange is when corporate mandates start intruding upon the creative process.

Hence why the Boba Fett show started off strong…and then he got sidelined by Din Djarin, Grogu, Fennec Shand, Blue Clint Eastwood, and the Dollar Tree Power Rangers.

Disney has always had to figure out how to sell art. It's NEVER been a matter of telling creatives to do whatever they want to do. It involves trying to create product that fits short- and long-term business opportunities.

In this era of instant feedback and user insight, Disney has the blessing (and curse!) of data. Some leaders may try to produce content by "polling" the audience in realtime (even to the extent that they'd make changes to a production well underway). I think we've all see how this can hurt the final product.

I'll add that in a post-tentpole TDC approach, those changes might actually happen more, not less. Can you imagine Disney releasing a series to D+ right now that featured, say a Palestinian or Israeli villain? If they had something like that in the works, I imagine they'd call for a quick rewrite/reshoots/edits just to avoid controversy even if it negatively impacted the series/story.

 

[_caleb]

That's not what I said.

No, I didn't think it was. I was trying to make a point by pointing out what seems like it might be a logical conclusion to what you've actually been saying. I was not trying to put words in your mouth.

Many sports teams try extremely hard and don't make the playoffs. They get a new gm, or player, and all of a sudden they win. It also happens the other way. A successful team loses some players to free adjacency, and they struggle to find the same success. A successful team is not really different in business, sports, entertainment... So a few key changes can throw the whole thing off. It's how they adjust to those changes that counts. And in my opinion pixar is still trying to adjust.

Fair enough. I think it's possible. I just know Pixar has a lot of talent who should get credit for past successes and are still around, and I don't perceive an actual drop in creativity or quality, just a big drop in box office performance by a company that doesn't seem to be prioritizing that like it used to.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I see TWDC as forging a new path in the world for what they think is for the greater good.

I think you give them way too much credit, IMHO making money is still the primary goal at Disney, management and the creatives just happen to all live in a CA echo chamber so they think they are providing what the public want and they don’t have a clue what actually works outside of Hollywood anymore.

Saying they are intentionally sacrificing profits “for the greater good” lets them off the hook for how horribly they are managing these formerly stellar companies.

 

[erasure fan1]

Pixar made one disappointing film. One.

If that's what you think, great. I don't feel that way unfortunately. There's been a lot of average in my opinion. I liked Luca the most of this post Coco run. And the two that I just didn't really care for were turning red and light year. I thought soul could have been really good but I thought the ending wasn't great. Disappointing is a matter of opinion and taste. If you weren't, again, that's great. I know a lot of people who thought the recent slate wasn't up to pixars reputation.

 

[Phroobar]

If that's what you think, great. I don't feel that way unfortunately. There's been a lot of average in my opinion. I liked Luca the most of this post Coco run. And the two that I just didn't really care for were turning red and light year. I thought soul could have been really good but I thought the ending wasn't great. Disappointing is a matter of opinion and taste. If you weren't, again, that's great. I know a lot of people who thought the recent slate wasn't up to pixars reputation.

The ending of Soul was disappointing. It could have been a real love letter to jazz. Less cloud people antics and more abstract jazz numbers.

 

[Disstevefan1]

It's NEVER been a matter of telling creatives to do whatever they want to do. It involves trying to create product that fits short- and long-term business opportunities.

Agreed. TWDC absolutely did not let the creatives do whatever they wanted when making Wish.

They didn't let the creatives do whatever they wanted when creating galaxy's Edge.

They didn't let the creatives do whatever they wanted when creating the Star Cruiser.

You are right for as much as Iger said he gave control back to his creative folks, they are not in control to do whatever they want.

 

[Miss Jennifer]

Saw it last night. It was...pretty good. I didn't DISlike it, but it didn't bowl me over the way, say, Beauty and the Beast did thirty years ago from its very first song. I think part of what hampered it was that they were too busy trying to shoehorn in all sorts of Easter eggs to past movies (and set up the "origin story" to some aspects of said movies) that they neglected to develop aspects that might have made it a better movie. (I think its biggest drawback was that it seemed to get more rushed as the movie went on...jumping rather quickly from development to development.)

I've been reading about some early concepts that didn't make the final cut--I don't know whether this was because of executive meddling or not. For example, both King Magnifico AND Queen Amaya were supposed to be villains originally...an evil power couple. I'm not sure I would have gone that route, but there was something that was supposed to be even more intriguing...the Star was supposed to be a humanoid shapeshifter who'd have taken the form of a dashing young teenage boy, a love interest for Asha. Sort of like Neil Gaiman's Stardust, only gender-flipped. I think that might have worked better. I'm reasonably certain that this change was due to executive meddling...that the suits thought the little non-human star would be more marketable.

And I agree that the writing for King Magnifico was all over the place. In the beginning, they seemed to be setting up his past (losing his home and family to bandits) as a major motivating factor that would figure into the ending, but that ended up coming to nothing. He really did start of with the best of intentions, but the script didn't make as much of that as it could have. It was as though the execs were listening a little too hard to the "we want a REAL villain!" crowd. We could have had a strong villain, but one who was not beyond redemption--one motivated by fear instead of greed or vanity. Sort of an inverse of the "twist villain"...instead of someone we think is a good guy who ends up being the baddie all along, we could have someone who started out as a more traditional-seeming Disney villain but ended up repenting. (Without the idea of "once you start messing with dark magic, you're lost for good.")

So here's what I might have done. I'd DEFINITELY have kept in the humanoid male star...it could have been quite a nice romance, but one that developed naturally instead of being insta-love. (We haven't had any real Disney romances since the Frozen movies!)

And I'd have cut WAY down on the number of Asha's friends. Okay, we get it, they're supposed to correspond to the Seven Dwarfs, but it WAY overcrowded the field to the detriment of their character development. (There's that over-reliance on past Disney Easter eggs again.)

I'd have gone with a more timeless, classical/Broadway sound than the Lin Manuel Miranda-esque pop sounds of the score we got. Oh, it was okay, and I do love LMM and his style, but that style seems to be getting overdone, plus it dates the movies. I'd prefer something like what Marc Shaiman did with the Mary Poppins Returns score...very much in that classic Sherman Brothers style.

Finally, to get back to what I was saying about Magnifico...I'm not sure I would have gone with the evil couple angle, but perhaps if they'd played up his past tragedy and his desperate wish to keep anyone from suffering the same, it might have resonated in the finale more. Instead of the "he becomes the Magic Mirror" angle, perhaps he could have accidentally mortally wounded Amaya, or she could sacrifice herself to try to stop him...making him realize how far he's gone, that in trying to make himself too powerful to be hurt again he has brought everything he feared onto himself, and killed the one person he truly loved. But by this point the magic he's unleashed is beyond his control, so he pleads with Asha to help...and the ending plays out more or less as before, only the "we are all stars" magic manages to bring Amaya back to life for a classic example of the "Disney Death" trope. The movie ends with a humbled Magnifico working with his wife to reform his kingdom, and a strong hint that Star and Asha are going to become a couple.

I hope this doesn't turn Disney off making more musical fairy tales...they just need to adapt some of the lesser-known ones, and concentrate on telling a good story rather than giving us a bunch of references and calling it a story. I'd KILL for them to adapt The Wild Swans/The Six Swans (with elements from both Andersen's and Grimm's versions). Or East of the Sun, West of the Moon, which is a descendant of the Cupid and Psyche myth and sort of a second cousin to Beauty and the Beast. Both have strong, active heroines, strong villains, the potential for great visuals, and involve romance.