Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DISNEY DEBACLE "Treasure Planet" a bust for Disney animators
Reuters via CNBC ^ | December 05, 2002 | Peter Henderson

Posted on 12/06/2002 7:51:38 AM PST by Liz

LOS ANGELES, Dec 5 (Reuters) - The Walt Disney Co. (DIS) has taken a $140 million gamble on an epic cartoon and lost -- raising questions over whether the studio that once was "The Lion King" among animators has strength left to roar.

The box office failure of "Treasure Planet" has raised questions about the future direction of Disney's fabled animation unit amid reports that its chief, Thomas Schumacher, was already considering leaving the division.

The failure of "Treasure Planet" also puts extra pressure on Disney to continue its profitable ties with computer specialist Pixar Animation Studios Inc.(PIXR), creator of "Monsters, Inc.," analysts said. According to reports, Pixar wants to end its 50-50 split with Disney and pay the studio only a distribution fee.

Disney's animation unit helped launch the company. Hit "Snow White," the first full length animated feature, earned the money to buy the land for the studio lot, and the animation unit helped revitalize Disney in the 1980s and 1990s, thanks to "The Lion King" among other films.

"Treasure Planet", an interplanetary version of Robert Louis Stevenson's "Treasure Island," cost a reported $140 million to make but brought in only a paltry $16.5 million in the United States and Canada over the long Thanksgiving weekend, causing Disney to restate and lower its fiscal fourth quarter profits by $74 million before taxes.

Industry experts blamed tough competition and the blatant pitch for the fickle teenage boy market for the film's failure. Kaufman Bros. financial analyst Paul Kim wrote in a research note that the restatement meant that Disney's total fiscal fourth quarter operating profit was down 14 percent from a year earlier compared with a 2.2 percent drop before the restatement.

"It puts a lot of pressure on them. They rolled the dice on a $140 million picture," said lawyer Nancy Newhouse Porter, a partner at Newhouse Porter Hubbard which represents several animated film directors.

BOTTOM LINE

Disney had already said that "Treasure Planet" was the last of the series of big-budget animated blockbusters.

Studio Chairman Richard Cook, who declined to be interviewed for this article, told analysts recently that the company was now more than ever making creative decisions with a look at the bottom line.

He pointed to animated feature "Lilo and Stitch", made for a reported $80 million, as a template. The protagonist of that movie, Lilo, wore a dress that in early drafts had a rich -- and expensive -- pattern. Cook said Disney reaped substantial savings by giving the dress a simple print.

Many analysts say Disney has learned it has to control its wallet. "In today's economy, these films can't cost $140 million," said Heather Kenyon, editor in chief at Animation World Network, www.awn.com, a Web publisher and information clearinghouse. "I think Disney understands that."

She said Disney was a victim of its own phenomenal success with "The Lion King" at a time when there was not much competition for animated features.

Disney animation has about 1,200 employees, about half its peak of a few years ago and it is not clear if animation chief Schumacher will stay. "I think that will be the final piece of the puzzle for Disney animation's future," Kenyon said.

Aside from Disney's own animators the company has begun to work with partners like Pixar, the creator of hit "Monsters, Inc.", DVD sales of which contributed strongly to Disney's recent quarter.

Pixar is about to approve production of its first film beyond its current deal with Disney, and there is pressure on the studio to cut a new deal. "Pixar is a huge profit center for them," said animation lawyer Newhouse Porter. "You always want to hang onto one that is four for four."

Kaufman Bros's Kim said that the results of "Treasure Planet" spelled continued challenges for Disney. "This adjustment suggests that the company's core animation franchise could face some rough waters ahead," he said. REUTERS

© 2002 Reuters


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 next last
To: Hodar
Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't half the problem simple demographics? Disney cartoons did best when the baby boomers were kids. The made a comeback in the late 80s, early 90s, when the boomers started having kids of their own, and the "baby boomlet" started. Now the boomlet is aging into older fare. So there's no ready made audience for their big budget cartoons.

So the pro-abortion liberals at Disney are creamed by the consequences of their philosophy. It's like the story in the 1990s about the University administrations who couldn't figure why enrollment kept falling, as the young people who would've been born in the 1970s weren't around to pay tuition. Same is true for the pro-abort retirees to come who depend on an ever shrinking pool of workers. Unfortunately, though I'm a staunch pro-lifer, I'll feel the consequences too.

21 posted on 12/06/2002 8:27:36 AM PST by razorbak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
You are right on target.

Eisner has decided to appeal to the 1% of the population, the homosexuals and the 10 to 20% of the general population who adore the homosexuals as a great Diversity life style.

Word has gotten out to the rest of us, the parents and Grandparents. The people with children and grandchildren, the rest of the population. The people that Disney used to target.

We have said no way and no to any Disney crapola. So we don't take our children/grandchildren to Disney movies or Disney Lands/Worlds or what ever has the Disney label on it.

Eisner is like the tv execs who keep bring back Ellen Degenerate and trying to run a new tv show on how great and funny being a homosexual is. The shows flop and never make it the full season.

Eisner and the left wing maggots in charge of the entertainment industry are so arrogant, they have refused to see what their love affair with the Gay Agenda has done to their business.
22 posted on 12/06/2002 8:29:48 AM PST by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: razorbak
I'm unaware of Disney sponsoring any aborton clinic, or homosexual themes in movies, commercials or rides. There is a 'Disney Gay Day' that occurs every year, where homosexuals descend upon the park. And every year, Eisner disavows Disney sponsorship. If a bus load of gay customers arrive at the gate, are they supposed to discriminate against them and deny them entrance, then wait for the lawyers?

Disney has done more to PROMOTE family values than any other business in corporate america, yet they are attacked more by the same group.

Some movies they do, do very well and are very good. Lion King, for example. Some do not do well at all (Treasure Planet, for example). To look deeper into movies for hidden agendas is a waste of time. Was Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Pinnocio and Bambi satanic in nature, due to the obvious 'magic' and 'possessed animals'? No, they were entertaining cartoons. Yet some people want to read things into movies, in the hopes of being offended. Case in point: Harry Potter series and movies.
23 posted on 12/06/2002 8:45:22 AM PST by Hodar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
While the politics of Disney maybe hurting them, I see it more as a quality control issue. Disney is now releasing 2-3 full-length animated features a year. And, how many direct-to-video releases have you seen in the past year? Has to be over 5. It seems Disney is more concerned with quantity instead of quality.

A previous poster mentioned how the film would have fared better had they stuck with the original book. A great movie comes from a great story to tell, and people young and old recognize that. Obvious pandering with "solar surfboards" and other gimicky/trendy additions are a turn-off.

Disney needs to follow Pixar's model and produce one, very good movie every other year and not rush to the market with whatever shlock they have thrown together. With more and more competition for their entertainment dollars, consumers are increasingly picky over what to spend it on.

24 posted on 12/06/2002 8:53:56 AM PST by reegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: reegs
Part of the liberal problems when they get in charge of businesses, is their total lack of reality and any business sense.

Watch what happens to any business when the rats take over. Disney is just a prime example of political correctness and diversity ruling instead of reality and business sense.
25 posted on 12/06/2002 8:57:10 AM PST by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ParityErr
I took my kids and they loved it. Both are now reading Treasure Island. I thought it was pretty good too but not as good as the book, as the book had a ring of historical truth to it....
26 posted on 12/06/2002 9:12:19 AM PST by CJ Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
I think that is true, and also the fact is that since "Beauty and the Beast/Alladin" they have not had any good SONGS, which carried many of the animated movies. To this date, many of us know and sing those songs. Much of the HUMOR also came from the songs ("Under the Sea," "Gaston," "Be Our Guest").
27 posted on 12/06/2002 9:15:02 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Lots of people are boycotting Disney. There are several web sites on the boycott.

Yes. It's a beautiful thing, and it is having at least some effect.

28 posted on 12/06/2002 9:15:31 AM PST by Petronski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson
LOL
29 posted on 12/06/2002 9:21:08 AM PST by SerpentDove
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
When you take a classic book written over 100 yrs ago, and make it a *really* bad sci-fi movie; yes it's gonna bite. What's next? A re-write of the 3 Musketeers Jedi-style?

Actually.... with enough of the serial numbers rubbed off, this sounds kinda good. =)

30 posted on 12/06/2002 9:23:04 AM PST by WileyC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LS
To this date, many of us know and sing those songs. Much of the HUMOR also came from the songs ("Under the Sea," "Gaston," "Be Our Guest").

Yeah, the songs are awesome. Ironically, one of their best recent releases (The Emporer's New Groove) has only one song in it because of a last minute rewrite.

Possibly boring explanation below... you've been warned.

Sting was hired to write the soundtrack (which he did), but during the animation, the main character is silent (well, he had been turned into a llama, after all). The actor, however, was cracking up everyone on the set with ad-libbed lines and general hijinks. The director realized that this off-the-cuff stuff was funnier than what they had written and had his people completely rewrite the movie.

Of course, this meant that all but one of the songs on the soundtrack could be used. Still, the movie was quite funny and they did a great job on it. It was actually kind of refreshing to have a disney flick with no huge love story, almost no musical numbers and some off-the-wall humor.

If there's a magic bullet to fix Disney, it's pretty simple: hire really good writers and produce stuff that adults can watch as well as kids.

31 posted on 12/06/2002 9:33:55 AM PST by WileyC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves
I didn't take my kids because I've got some young-uns and I couldn't get a bead on the target audience. The Treasure Island book had some scary moments that older kids would enjoy but could scare younger kids. You'd think with all the millions the studios spend on marketing they could make a parents' decision easier. When I'm in doubt I just wait on the buzz or the video.
32 posted on 12/06/2002 9:45:44 AM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: WileyC
Yah, I agree. (That was a good movie, too). But also, some of the movies were just dumb as KID'S shows ("the Hunchback?")and, of course, attempts to turn out cheap sequels for the home market both diluted and disillusioned.

It is a shame such a once-great company became such a sleazy and unreliable studio. My family used to LOVE to go to Disney parks---but not any more.

BTW, if you haven't read it, look at a book called "The Mouse Betrayed," which reveals a ton of sick stuff down there.

33 posted on 12/06/2002 9:47:47 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Liz
"victim of its own phenomenal success with "The Lion King" "

Disney had several excellent movies over the years, but almost always because of a strong story, and often because of great music as well. Lion King combined several winning element - great story (although a little on the PC side), great music, and incredible animation.

I remember seeing the previews for the Lion King at the theater almost a year before it came out, and it blew me away. I remember telling my wife, "there's a kid's movie that I want to see!".

Other excellent Disney movies (IMO) Mulan, Beauty and the Beast, and to a lesser extent The Little Mermaid. All great stories, all excellent animation, all contained excellent music.

But "Treasure Planet"?!?!?!?!? What were these guys thinking? Or, maybe a better question, what were these guys smoking? The animation is still great, but what songs does this movie have? Taking a children's classic and turning into something completely different? Bad move.

Yes, there is probably also effects from the boycott, but probably more so because there simply is no compelling reason to take the kids to this one. There's better, more appealing fare available more often, and the competion is much stiffer.

Now, Pixar, is incredible. So far they are batting 1000, but it's incredible animation, and very good stories.

BTW, how could they have possibly spent $140 Million on this thing? The animation is not nearly what they had for the Lion King (simply the best animated cartoon ever, from a technical standpoint).
34 posted on 12/06/2002 9:51:28 AM PST by Texas2step
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves
I took my 8 year old and 10 year old. I'm a staunch Disney hater and only took the kids because they begged.

Frankly, the movie wasn't that bad. They were obviously pandering to the young boy market as illustrated by the skateboarding theme and inclusion of a "fart monster," a creature which communicates only through flatulence.

I think the problem is that Disney's animated movies have gotten routine. There are too many of them and they are too similar. I also think that Disney is turning a lot of people off with its manipulation of us and our children.

35 posted on 12/06/2002 10:10:41 AM PST by KevinB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
Well, that and.. Disney doesn't have any 'in house' animators anymore.
They farm out the work and have other countries do it.. just like all perfect communist communes do.

(Disney has an animation shop in Japan do some gross number percentage of their animation, last I heard.)

More American Jobs overseas...
36 posted on 12/06/2002 10:16:32 AM PST by Darksheare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves
We took our daughter, son-in-law and 3 grandchildren to see it on Thanksgiving. It's a family tradition. We all liked the movie. In fact, the kids loved it!

I think they didn't budget enough money for promotional ads. The only reason I knew it would be released were the McDonald's ads promoting the toys in Happy Meals.

37 posted on 12/06/2002 10:19:04 AM PST by dixiechick2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Disney used to make great family movies....That Darn Cat, Horse in the Grey Flannel Suit, Old Yeller, etc....movies that actually told an intelligent story.
38 posted on 12/06/2002 10:41:19 AM PST by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
I thought "Lilo and Stitch" was a welcome break from the usual Disney song-and-dance formula movies. Did anyone here see L&S or like it besides me?
39 posted on 12/06/2002 10:43:45 AM PST by TexasRepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boris
I also think it was a lousy idea. Sailing ships in outer space??

Much the worse because it was Disney that produced, about 50 years ago, the best film version of Treasure Island (with Bobby Driscoll and Robert Newton - who then reprised his role of Long John in an Australian sequel movie and a TV series).

One of the basic elements of the original Treasure Island was the total absence of women (except for the very brief appearance, at the beginning, of Jim's mother) but Treasure Planet has several female characters, including a ship's captain; maybe PC but not quite as appealling to little boys.

Treasure Island has now been done to death. As a silent movie, as a near silent (with Wallace Beery), as a classic (Disney with Robert Newton), as a TV-movie (with Charlton Heston), as a film about non-nautical bandits (Scalawag, with Kirk Douglas), as a Muppet film (with Tim Curry), and a few other twists. Trying to push it into outer space was the coup de grace.

40 posted on 12/06/2002 11:12:20 AM PST by DonQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson