Blog Talkback: What's Wrong with Disney Feature Animation? - Parts 1 and 2

One argument from Ed's article:



The issue I see here Ed is why even point this out if it didn't attribute to Princess and The Frog being a disappointment? I guess you are trying to say it didn't really help bring up the numbers for having a black female protagonist?

I think one thing that could've been addressed is Disney's campaign for the movie and if they really marketed it as strong as they could have.
 
Largely because 1) "animation is for kids" still in the minds of most of the American public, despite the surprising gains that have been made in the past few years, and 2) there's a pretty long track record of animation geared for adults (or even just PG-rated) that has flopped or disappointed at the box office. Last year's slate of animated films were surprisingly substantial and had stuff like Up and Coraline, the former of which isn't really a kids' film at all and the latter of which is strong enough stuff that it can spook adults. There were also a lot of other indie films like $9.99 and...uh...all the other ones I can't remember off the top of my head :p. We'll see if that trend continues.

I think one of the studios will have the courage to do a truly adult animated movie relatively soon, but not for a few years yet.


Yeah, that's pretty much it. I brought it up even if I dismiss it mostly because race is still the elephant in the room that nobody really wants to acknowledge, but which I'm sure has been discussed behind closed doors at Disney. If black audiences HAD turned out in force to support the film, I think the box office receipts would have been noticeably better. I did also think it was important to say that the many critics who lambasted the film before it was released (and the critics of THOSE critics) had little or nothing to say once the movie was out, and that I don't think anybody avoided the film because of their criticisms. It was a prominent enough aspect about the movie that I wanted to raise the issue even if I ultimately decided it wasn't a serious contributing factor.

And to digress for a second, I still say the movie was far braver for broaching topics of socio-economic class than topics of race. I think it's a lot more important to the film that Tiana is poor than that she's black, but that might be a topic for another blog post ;).


I know we've discussions before about the marketing of the movie, but I still maintain that the marketing was fine. It advertised exactly what audiences were going to get, and that was part of the problem. Like Bolt, the marketing just triggered the "Familiarity Breeds Contempt" reaction I describe, and I can't think of a way that Disney could have changed that without essentially engaging in false advertising.
 
This. Insiders who have posted on Cartoon Brew, JimHillMedia and eslewhere have said as much.

Plus, as DarthGonzo said, Pixar has inherited Disney's "event" mantle and their movies can avoid being totally eclipsed by the shadow of high-profile films of other studios.
 
Over-exposure:

It feels like Disney is everywhere these days. Earlier, Disney only had one cable channel and it was a premium channel. Now Disney Channel has moved to basic cable. There's also Toon Disney (or whatever it's transitioned to now). Disney also has access to ABCFamily and ABC proper. Disney's home video output is also much higher these days. With all this exposure, the perceived value of Disney's offerings at the box office are lower than in the past, particularly when past offerings are often available through these means.

Durable media:

Not only is Disney easier to obtain, but the delivery media is also more durable. Nothing is indestructible, especially where children are involved, but at the very least DVDs withstand more repeated viewings than VHS. This extends the life of Disney output, subsequently lowering demand for any new material.

Damaged brand:

The flood of substandard output from Disney significantly damaged the Disney animation brand. What's made the recent damage worse than any previous missteps from Disney is that due to the market saturation and durable delivery media, the damaging material has lingered far longer than before.

Increased competition:

Capitalizing on Disney's weakness is "The Competition." This is primarily Pixar and Dreamworks; however, other studios get the occasional swipe in, if not animation certainly the children's market. In addition, the quality and deep pockets of the Competition cement them as serious contenders against Disney. This increased competition is keeping Disney from properly tending to the damage, akin to a wounded prey on the run from predators, resulting in desperation and a desire for safety. This gives rise to a tendency towards formulaic after formulaic moves. As others have noted, when all the new output is the same formula as the old output, why bother with the new, especially in light of the market saturation and durable media?
 
I don't think there is anything wrong actually. 1st off the film was extremely well received by critics as well as it has made over $200 million worldwide and I'm pretty sure it made more then $104 million in America so it's far from a failure and you can expect it to bring in even more on DVD and Blu Ray. The biggest problem I think was the marketing actually. I don't think Disney did anywhere near enough marketing for the film. Back in the day for 2D Disney films the marketing started about a good year early with thins such as Movie Surfers and the 1st teaser being in either a Disney film at theaters or on home video. Disney didn't take the aggressive marketing approach they should have especially for their 1st traditional animated film in years and the 1st wide release traditional animated film in general in years.

CGI has become the norm for animation and if you look at Pixar for example they have always been good at marketing their films a good year before the film releases or even more then a year and that's something they've been doing since Toy Story. I didn't see much of Princess and the Frog merchandise being advertised heavily such as dolls since girls were the main demographic. I didn't see lunch boxes or bookbags or any "real" hard advertising you'd have expected from Disney back in the 90s. Then I don't think the release date was ideal. I mean it had some extremely serious competition in that whole release timeframe from Alvin and the Chipmunks as well as Avatar which both films had certain pulls for the demographic Disney was seeking for.

All in all Princess and the Frog was a very good step in the right direction for the 1st traditional animated film in years. I just think Disney needed to do alot more in terms of marketing and the film would have done better. Not to mention it did much better then any Disney released CGI films including Bolt and Meet the Robinsons. I think Chicken Little made more money but it was also panned. I think Disney probably should have taken a more artistic route also when it came to releasing a traditional animated film 1st. I think they should have gotten a team of new writers and directors who love traditional animation to create a brand new original property instead of going back to the "Princess" formula especially since that concept hasn't been used in a while since Disney's main cashcows as of recent are their ""tween" properties. Either way Princess and the Frog was a success and hopefully Disney takes it's traditional animation department in a different direction for the future so we can begin to see traditional animated films on the screen from more then just Disney and it's not a rare occurance.
 
This is my first post, after reading the two part article.

I'm a Disney fan (obviously) so I'd like to point out some things you may not have realized that may also have contributed to to the current performance of Disney's latest films.

Fisrt, you suggested that if Disney's going to make another "princess movie", maybe next time it should come direct-to-video.

From this, it sounds to me like you either don't really care for/about those "princess films" and don't want to see Disney keep doing them, or at least don't want to see them as big as they were, in theaters. I hope I am not right about that assumption.

Second, Disney is about (or used to be about) making fantasy films, often based on literature, and that included fairy tales. They made fairy tale films. It wasn't about princesses, and it is only the late Princess line and girls going crazy over everything princess that has even bred the term "princess film". No one considered the first Disney film, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, a princess film when it came out long ago.

And so that's how Disney's films should be viewed today, though maybe today's Disney company really does now view the films as princess films, which is probably part of why the film is not as great as the films they made in the past, the ones they made just to be good fantasy films.

Walt Disney made fantasy films, all of his films were, and a lot of them involved magic and that kind of stuff. Fantasy and animation seemed like the perfect fit (they are). Those are the kinds of films Disney is known for and should be making, and one of those kinds of films was the first animated film to get nominated for Best Picture.

But Disney of late hasn't just strayed away from that. They have also tried to be more like other studios, with edgier and even whackier, often pop-culture derived humor, and CGI is even one of the things they've done to be like other studios to get more audiences. They're films of late just don't feel very classic Disney.

So I think you missed one reason why the recent films have underperformed. I know that some people for sure feel this way, but I also think that most people, generally, feels this way: they want to see a Disney classic again, they want to see Disney be Disney again, and as you even remarked on, Disney is trying not to be Disney lately.

What if the reason Enchanted was popular was't because it was un-Disney, but because it was so very, very Disney?

This would actually work with your theory on why Tinker Bell is successful. She's the closest thing to a Disney classic.

But now they've changed a classic Disney fairy tale version of Rapunzel to Tangled...

Well, I'm just throwing out there another theory on why those films didn't perform well. Those films weren't really classic Disney. The Princess and the Frog was a twisted, modern vesion of a classic fairy tale, not the traditional Disney way.

Oh, and one other thing. Those films also may have been good, but they weren't very, very good. So they're box office was good, but not very, very good like they hoped. I think their box office intake makes sense. The Princess and the Frog was good, but not outstanding, so it didn't do outstanding numbers.
 
I'd say the exact opposite, actually. DVDs can easily be scratched and broken, but VHS tapes are extremely durable. I have hundreds of old tapes that I've had for fifteen years or more that still work perfectly. I used to build towers out of them and repeatedly knock them down onto a hard wood floor, and it didn't do anything to them. DVDs...not so much.

Off-topic rant concluded.:p
 
I think Loonie Toon made a good point here about getting some new guys in. Isn't this essentially what Disney did with Lilo And Stitch which yielded much better results?

The main character of Lilo and Stitch was also a girl.
 
The fascinating thing about the competition is that 1) Pixar is owned by Disney, so they're making money either way and 2) Jeffrey Katzenberg runs DreamWorks the same way he ran Disney. The quality of the movies may not be the same but the business behind them is identical. Little Mermaid, Aladdin, and Lion King got sequels and TV shows. No different than your typical DreamWorks' franchise.
 
I enjoy disney princess films, though I'll take any (preferably 2d) animated disney film if its a musical and has some romance in it. tarzan and hurcules were'nt princess films and they were fantastic.
 
I can understand where you're coming from. Though, Disney is hyping what makes the most money for them, which makes sense in a business matter. It would be nice to see them do more work beyond the Princess stuff and all for me too.



I was under the impression that Disney hasn't done anything with the Marvel shows except air a couple of them on Disney XD. But I agree that using the Marvel property is most likely their strongest way to attract more boys for their products.



I thought that they were both co-stars. Out of all of the characters in the movie, they did have the most screentime and development.
 
Actually Disney's marketing is what helped make those films successful and what helped make Disney hundreds of millions or even billions off the merchandising alone from those "Princess" movies. Disney by far has some of the best marketing when it comes to their properties compared to other studios but I think they just didn't really know how to handle a new "Princess" movie or a traditional animated movie since they haven't had to really worry about 1 in years. I assume they thought Princess and the Frog would just sell it's self based off past merits.

Also I think you're misunderstanding the whole Disney"Princess" thing. When it comes to Disney marketing their merchandise which is really the money makers for their properties, the movies that have females in Princess roles get their own lines of merchandise released and it's usually referred to as the Disney Princess. It has nothing to really do with the overall film other then the fact that it's a marketing ploy just like the Disney Vault. There's a reason films like Dinosaur, Bolt, Home on the Range etc.. didn't have nearly as much merchandise as Disney films where they can market that Princess aspect and that's because they didn't have a Princess aspect in those films to begin with. While films like Mulan, Notre Dame, Pocohantaus, Aladdin and so forth all had the Princess marketing push.
 
This is a very interesting topic, interesting enough to prompt me to register so I can respond.

My initial thought was that it's too early to be asking this question when Disney Feature has only just returned to their roots after what I believe was a misstep. I haven't seen all of Disney's computer animated features, so I can't comment on their individual quality, but i think it was a bad move for Disney to abandon hand-drawn because it had become the scapegoat for their problems and join the already crowded computer animation market. But the article does make a convincing argument that this is a long term problem of Disney.

One possible cause that isn't mentioned in the article and has only been touched on a little in the discussion here is brand dilution. It's true that a new Disney film used to be an event, both in the marketing buildup and the public's enthusiasm for it. It was something that a large segment of the population had to see in theaters. Quality was one factor. Infrequency was another. There was at most one DIsney movie a year and that was part of what made it special.

It's little surprise that Disney got greedy when they were doing so well. There was clearly plenty of demand for Disney movies. What company wouldn't try to give the public more of what they wanted? So we ended up with direct-to-video movies, and eventually movies of that same ilk with theatrical releases. Whether you liked these films, hated them, or thought they were a mixed bag, it's pretty clear that they did at least confuse the definition of "a Disney film." Sure we could tell what actually came from Disney feature animation studios and what wasn't, but could the general public? Disney made little to no effort to differentiate their theatrical releases. I don't know how many people who aren't animation fans noticed the difference in quality, but they certainly noticed that a Disney movie was no longer a once a year thing. The direc-to-home-market releases may have done even more damage, conditioning viewers to see Disney animated movies as something that you watch at home instead of in theaters. So a Disney movie went from this special, high quality thing that you had to wait for because it only came around once a year to something that's kind of always around and there at your convenience.

Did Disney make a mistake by starting their return to hand-drawn animation with a princess movie? I've seen it argued, but I don't think so. When Disney started having problems at the box office and was releasing film after film that departed from their usual formula, I kept thinking "Why don't they do another fairy tale?" I know features take a long time to develop and it's not easy to put on the brakes immediately if one movie flops. But this was a long-term pattern and I'm stilled baffled that Disney didn't put a movie that was more like their past successes in the queue. I remember reading years ago that Disney was considering an ambitious plan to release two animated features per year: one a trafitional fairy or folk tale, the other something more contemporary and possibly risky. Why didn't they go with that model, but reduced to one per year alternating between traditional and contemporary each year? Eventually, I would love to see Disney take some risks with the kind of stories they tell. But right now, I can understand why they're going with what they hope will be safe bets.

I don't think there is one answer to why Disney Feature's films have been having so much trouble. There are many factors that could have contributed: more animated competition, the lousy economy, audience disinterest in Disney's same old story, audience disinterest in hand-drawn animation (though I hope it's not the case), poor marketing, Disney underestimating the films they're up against, and probably some I'm forgetting. And each film is an individual case, with its own particular set of issues. I have never, for example, seen a film with a marketing campaign as confusing as "Meet the Robinsons." I had been told well in advance what that movie was about and after seeing the trailers, I no longer had any idea what it was about.

I guess it may sound like kind of a cop-out to say "There isn't one reason; there are many reasons." But I really don't think you can point to one thing and say "That's what they're doing wrong." If it were that easy, I think someone at Disney would have figured it out by now.
 
I saw The Princess and the Frog - twice. The second time, I went mainly to check out a local theater in financial trouble and for the musical numbers/to get more out of the film.

After reading Parts I and II, I can agree with the one point, that many people just waited until the DVD release because Disney animation "IS" so very predictable. And, this story did not disappoint - there were no surprises, nothing new, many elements of this film seem borrowed from past films, even the traditional element of killing off a parent (whether it be natural causes or some terrible accident). God forbid a couple just get a bitter divorce!

And, to the "Princess" factor. As a middle aged single male, I was hesitant to see the film for fear of being the only guy in the room. As what happened with me when I went to an afternoon screening of "Ponyo". No worries - once the film started - who cares? But, while waiting - (I feared hearing -) "...Mommy, why is that man in here all by himself?" (LOL).

Enchanted worked because it surprised and entertained us. I had no plans to see it. I assumed it was just a girl/chick flick and another way to get people to buy stuff. It was only after I saw the musical numbers posted on YouTube (by the LA Times) that I went to see it and later purchased the DVD.

Chicken Little was terrible. Meet the Robinsons was basic and should have been a Disney Channel special. Bolt was irritating at times and I didn't care for the style of animation or for a few of the characters/voices.

Pixar cares (to the point of obsessiveness) about the story and how that comes across. Disney cares about adding 32 new characters so they have merchandising rights they can own until the sun supernovas.

Tangled? I don't know. I know I will see it. But, when? At the theaters first run (like Princess and The Frog)? Or, when the video store puts the pre-viewed DVDs on sale 3 for 10 bucks (that's how I saw Meet the Robinsons).
 
Wll Hiya, because the term "princess movie" was just made and Walt never used it, it's hard to determine what is one. If it's a fairy tale with a princess in it, that would include Aladdin.

Ed Liu, you just seemed to think it was fine for any future film of that kind, I guess a fairy tale or a film whose main character is a princess, to be direct-to-video, like you were okay with them never gracing Disney feature animation again or something.

I'm quite hurt by you saying you think Cinderella III is better than the original in ways, as the original is my favorite film. I can understand you finding it more enjoyable, but maybe you aren't quite getting what made the original classic in the first place, and so good. Often a theme of Walt's was, roughly, "do good, believe, and good will happen to you" and that's what Cinderella did. Now she's been changed to be more actiony and even the little we saw of the Prince revealed he was softer and wouldn't do those kinds of things he did in the sequel. Love at first sight was also a classic theme he often used. And I REALLY can't believe you said the animation was as good as Disney's best theatrical efforts in recent years! Disney animation got better and more fluid every year till it was killed off, that DTV animation may have been the best done for DTV but not for a Disney theatrical film! I would think you being such a fan of animation in general would see...! But enough about that.

And I only saw the first Tinker Bell and that seems so clearly aimed at little kids (and also changes Tinker Bell's personality). Maybe its quality for young kids but for a feature, no way.

As for the fantasy in Walt's films, the Disney company coined the term "Disney magic" for a reason and no other studio aims to have the word magic identify them. I think only 101 Dalmatians seems like the dogs talking isn't something otherworldly. I think at least Dumbo with the fantasic big-eared, magic-feathered star, and Winnie the Pooh being stuffed animals come to life are very fantasy. Even Bambi was Prince of the forest, and there was The Lion King, etc.

You and me disagree on Bolt, it felt so modern, and Lady and the Tramp was modern for Walt but it still felt magical, something from a fantasy world.

We seem to plainly disagree on a lot of things, but my main point was to suggest one reason for why the films didn't succeed that you hadn't thought of.

I mean, if you're considering all reasons, even to mention the race controversy, can't you consider my reason, too? Isn't it possible, at least possible, that since the recent films, even one of them a fairy tale, was not done the way they had done their past films, that's why they didn't do well? That people want to see Disney do films that way again? They want to see Disney do films the Disney way?

Looking at Enchanted again, it looked like a classic fairy tale was thrown into the modern world for 2/3 of the film. With the Princess and the Frog, the whole thing was modern and twisted.

But at least consider the possibility of people wanting a classic like Disney used to make again. Just one more reason added to all your reasons. And what about the fact that all these recent films' quality still seems to match their box office intake? I think of the ones I have seen, the films did as well as the films themselves were.
 
Jasmine was a secondary character. The main character was Aladdin, not Jasmine (hence the name Aladdin :p).

If Jasmine was the main character I could see them calling it a "princess" movie... but as Jasmine is a love interest for Aladdin and a supporting character like the Genie or Abu. So it's not a princess movie. If anything it's a "prince" movie just like Beauty and the Beast was a "princess" movie (ie Belle becomes a princess at the end by marrying a prince, Aladdin becomes a prince at the end by marrying Jasmine.)
 
That's how you apparently define a princess movie. But like I said, it's a newly coined term that Walt never used, what does it even mean, what is the criteria? For different people it may mean different things. In Disney's eyes it's a princess movie. It just expresses why I think the term shouldn't exist at all! At least not for Disney's film, none of which I would ever call a Princess movie...except maybe The Princess and the Frog! And I think you know why, because it was made while the term Princess movie was actually thought of, and look at the freakin' title. But I wouldn't like to think of that as one, either. The creators of the film hopefully didn't think of it that way, but maybe the Disney company or marketing, who wanted them to make it, were.
 
Let's face it. People, the vast majority, choose CGI because "it's in". Well, I went to Red Box a couple of days ago and got PATF... and guess what, I liked it so much more then that dang three-hour Avatar movie, which was fine and great for the first hour and then, two hours, "oh, all right", then three: ugh! Gawd, at least you actually care about Tiana and her swamp pals. The music was a little bland, but the scenery and the characters (Laudie, Naveen, Tiana, the gator and bug) were interesting.

Aside from some at times weak character designs and cliches', the dialogue was a little bold ( "it's just the Bee's Knees!" :p) and the relationship between the two title characters was impressive as far as character growth goes. You either appreciate the movie or you don't, I personally loved the old New Orleans setting and the portrayal of African Americans weren't emphasized so much as they were just shown.
 
I know exactly how you feel. It would be nice if Disney found success in a film that didn't have a princess, or a princess theme. (Not that there's anything wrong with having female protagonists. :sweat:)

Well 'Atlantis' does have a princess, and she also looks black. :eek: So it really makes you wonder if Tiana really is Disney's first black princess, or not. :sad: (Then again, Jasmine has something of a tan, but she's not really black.)
That is so true! Proving that Disney has learned nothing from Pixar about telling good stories. :sad:
 
Back
Top