Can Anyone Dethrone Disney?

[Eric J. Henwood-Greer]

This was posted to the Disney group and I thought it was of relevance here
In a previous article, sno...@netcom.com (snopes) says:

> Los Angeles Times
> June 1, 1997, Sunday
>
>CAN ANYONE DETHRONE DISNEY?;
>COMPETING STUDIOS HAVE SPENT MORE THAN $1 BILLION TO CHALLENGE DISNEY'S
>DOMINATION OF ANIMATED FEATURE FILMS. THE STAKES ARE HIGH -- BUT THE PAYOFF IS
>HIGHER.
>
>By: John Horn
>
> To appreciate the Walt Disney Co.'s animation monopoly, you have to
>travel back to 1994 -- months before "The Lion King" shattered Hollywood
>records.
>
> Far from Los Angeles, Warner Bros. held two test screenings of
>"Thumbelina," showing clips from its animated movie to gauge audience
>interest. The first time around, audience reaction was flat. For the next
>test, according to people familiar with the experiment, Warners stripped off
>its company logo -- and slapped Disney's name on the exact same
>"Thumbelina" footage.
>
> The test scores soared. (Warner Bros. declined to comment.)
>
> "Toy Story" director John Lasseter is only half-kidding when he says,
>"You can have an hour and a half of blank film leader with the Disney name
>on it and people will go see it."
>
> What has been equally true is that if an animated movie -- no matter how
>brilliant and entertaining -- does not sport Disney's logo, people will
>avoid it. It's as if the movie has rabies: The audience steers clear, the
>theaters become empty quarantines.
>
> Nevertheless, some of Hollywood's biggest players -- Warner Bros., 20th
>Century Fox, DreamWorks -- are now poised to challenge Disney's animation
>dynasty, and their first three rival movies are nearing completion. Unlike
>earlier adversaries, the competing studios are committing vast sums to the
>campaign, erecting sprawling animation studios from scratch and organizing
>expansive marketing campaigns. The buildup for the animation battle has been
>happening for a couple of years, already dramatically changing the animation
>job market, but the next several months will finally see some of these
>competing studios' big releases.
>
> The goal is simple: Grab a slice of Hollywood's single most lucrative
>franchise.
>
> In just over a decade, Disney has turned animation from an ailing
>weakling into a show business steamroller, building the only real brand name
>in movies. The franchise is more profitable than James Bond and any cleavage
>you throw his way. Better than the "Die Hard" and "Lethal Weapon" series
>rolled into one. One animated movie alone -- "The Lion King" -- generated an
>estimated $1 billion in profits.
>
> Not revenue. Profits. Every T-shirt. Every sing-along book. Every pair of
>flannel pajamas. Every ticket sold in Pago Pago and Bora Bora. Even an
>assumed clunker like "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" added an estimated $500
>million to Disney's bottom line -- or about a quarter of Disney's entire
>annual profit in a given year.
>
> Disney executives say animation is more than twice as profitable as all
>of the studio's live action films combined -- with a fraction of the risk
>and effort. In an average year, Disney may release two animation films and
>60 live-action titles (including Miramax films), and yet those two animated
>movies dwarf the 58 other releases. Calculating exact profits from animation
>is difficult, because the movies spin off other entertainment like parades
>at theme parks and TV programming. Some estimates say animation and its
>ancillary income may account for 70% of all of Disney's profits. Warner
>Bros. once said that without animation Disney would trail Warners for top
>box-office share, which is a little like saying if it weren't for Coke,
>Pepsi would be No. 1.
>
> Given the loot, it's not surprising new animation studios are popping up
>faster than ancient rocker reunion tours. Warner Bros., DreamWorks, 20th
>Century Fox and Viacom are gambling more than a combined $1 billion building
>mammoth animation departments, and several independent producers -- from
>Morgan Creek ("The King and I") to Nickelodeon ("Rugrats, The Movie") -- are
>quickly assembling new animated flicks. Faced with the new competition,
>Disney is working harder than ever before to evict the would-be claim
>jumpers, and has 10 animated movies in production.
>
> The battlefield is cleared and the war is about to begin.
>
> *
>
> In the next 18 months, no fewer than eight Disney and non-Disney animated
>movies are set to be released, starting with Disney's "Hercules" on June 27.
>The first high-flying challenger to the Disney empire is the debut film from
>20th Century Fox's new Arizona animation studio, director Don Bluth's $
>60-million "Anastasia," due Nov. 21. Fox's next release, "Planet Ice,"
>should arrive in late 1998. Warner Bros. Feature Animation is set to release
>its delayed (and troubled) "Quest for Camelot" in early or mid-1998,
>followed by "Iron Giant" in the summer of 1999.
>
> DreamWorks, whose Jeffrey Katzenberg helped build the Disney monarchy
>he's now trying to overthrow, will unveil four animated films in the next
>three years, starting with the often dark and serious Old Testament tale
>"Prince of Egypt" in the fall of 1998. In animation's version of the
>"Dante's Peak"/"Volcano" race to theaters this year, DreamWorks and Pixar
>are both making computer animated movies: "Ants" and "A Bug's Life,"
>respectively. MTV Networks' $420-million animation investment (which
>includes a planned Burbank studio) will focus initially on lower-budget
>works. Projects include "The Stinky Cheese Man," a "Beavis and Butt-head"
>sequel and the $15-million "Rugrats," based on the TV show, which is due in
>the fall of 1998.
>
> Only a handful of companies are not massing troops in the animation wars.
>
> Sony Pictures, MGM and Universal Pictures have no public plans to launch
>animation units. Universal's home video division has generated more than
>$375 million in cassette sales from "The Land Before Time" and its
>direct-to-video brethren, but instead of a splashy animated feature,
>Universal is making two more "Land Before Time" video sequels and an
>animated direct-to-video version of TV's "Hercules and Xena."
>
> As the debuts of the non-Disney animated movies draw near, the rival
>studios are sweating every detail. The executives are either convinced the
>more attention they lavish on a film the better it will do -- or they are
>simply proving they did their best if (or when) the movie goes down in
>flames. In some ways, it's as though Warners, Fox and DreamWorks are
>learning to walk for the first time, while Disney is already sprinting. The
>challenge is to not fall flat on their faces -- just like all the others.
>
> GOLIATH VS. LOTS OF DAVIDS
>
> Each of the last six Disney films has grossed more than $100 million at
>North American theaters. Two ("The Lion King" and "Aladdin") have surpassed
>$ 200 million. Of the 50 non-Disney-distributed animated movies released
>since 1989's "The Little Mermaid," a grand total of one surpassed $50
>million -- last year's "Beavis and Butt-head Do America," according to
>Entertainment Data Inc. No other non-Disney animated film has grossed even
>$30 million in that time frame.
>
> Of the more than $1.8 billion in animation movie tickets sold in those
>eight years, Disney claimed a whopping 85% of the pot. (Warner Bros.' "Space
>Jam" grossed $90.4 million, but the 1996 movie was a combination of live
>action and animation, and therefore is not counted in this study.)
>
> "It is clearly competitive," says Chris Meledandri, president of Fox
>Family Films, with obvious understatement. Adds a more candid Max Howard,
>president of Warner Feature Animation: "Of course there is tremendous
>pressure."
>
> The rival studios are studying Disney's strategy the way an NFL coach
>might scrutinize game films, looking for openings and lessons. For its first
>animated movie, DreamWorks is trying to counter-program Disney, shooting for
>an audience years older than the average crowd for "Pocahontas" or "The
>Little Mermaid."
>
> Fox Filmed Entertainment Chairman Bill Mechanic, who formerly built
>Disney's vast home video and international theatrical businesses, is, in the
>words of one colleague, "doing a full Jeffrey," personally involved in
>almost every frame of "Anastasia" the way Katzenberg would watch over
>"Beauty and the Beast" or "Aladdin." Katzenberg himself, not surprisingly,
>spends almost half his time in DreamWorks' animation offices and has
>transferred some of his Disney tricks to his new digs: Every animated movie
>has an "emotional beat board" that tracks with string and push-pins the
>presumed audience response to each scene.
>
> Disney is hardly flattered by the imitators.
>
> With all the activity swirling around it (both Warners' and DreamWorks'
>animation facilities are mere blocks from Disney), Disney has gone on a huge
>hiring binge, nearly doubling its animation department from 1,248 employees
>in 1995 to 2,200 this year, spread out among four studios (in Florida, Paris
>and two in Burbank).
>
> To assert its dominance, Disney will launch an armada of animated movies
>through the millennium, starting with "Hercules," which looks more
>commercial than the strange "Hunchback of Notre Dame." "Hercules" features
>gospel-style music and the voices of Tate Donovan in the title role, Danny
>DeVito as a satyr companion and James Woods as the villain Hades. Upcoming
>Disney titles include "Mulan" (summer 1998), Pixar's computer-animated "A
>Bug's Life" (fall 1998), "Tarzan" (summer 1999), "Kingdom of the Sun,"
>"Dinosaur," "Atlantis," "Treasure Planet" and "Fantasia 2000."
>
> And in a coldly calculated plot to torpedo Fox's "Anastasia," Disney will
>re-release 1989's "The Little Mermaid" on Nov. 11, just before "Anastasia"
>comes out. (Disney re-released "Oliver and Co." last year to coincide with
>-- and, of course, kill -- MGM's "All Dogs Go to Heaven 2.")
>
> A CUTTHROAT JOB MARKET
>
> The boom has revolutionized animation's job market and even touched the
>Immigration and Naturalization Service, as studios are looking as far as the
>Philippines to import drawing talent. Pony-tailed art students who five
>years ago would spend their working hours staring at biscotti in some
>Melrose latte house are now commanding six-figure starting salaries. Veteran
>lead animators -- especially those with a Disney credit or two -- are
>banking $1 million a year, earning a share of a film's profits, collecting
>potentially lucrative stock options and receiving rich signing bonuses
>previously reserved for the NBA. When Lasseter renewed his Pixar contract in
>February, the seven-year deal included a $1.25-million signing bonus and a
>base salary of $ 700,000 (with guaranteed 8% annual raises), according to
>securities filings.
>
> So many people are hiring that artists who can barely draw basic body
>parts are getting jobs. The industry joke is 100% employment, 30% talent.
>Some studios are recruiting third-year students at schools such as CalArts
>and USC, and helping pay their tuition in exchange for job commitments.
>
> "The animators all became quickly aware of how fast the market was
>changing -- and it really was the day after DreamWorks was announced," says
>Nancy Newhouse, a lawyer whose 200 animation clients include "Toy Story's"
>Lasseter, Disney's "Tarzan" director Chris Buck and DreamWorks' "El Dorado"
>director Will Finn.
>
> How important are the artists? Disney re-signed superstar animator Glen
>Keane (Ariel in "The Little Mermaid," Beast in "Beauty and the Beast" and
>the title characters in "Aladdin" and "Pocahontas") to a seven-year contract
>in late April. Minutes after the news hit the financial wires, Disney's
>already strong stock climbed to a new all-time high.
>
> Due partially to these accelerating salaries, the budget of a big
>animated film now exceeds $100 million, several producers say. Five years
>ago, a Disney animated movie cost only $40 million. But even with the
>spiraling costs, animated movies have no $20-million star salaries, and
>unlike Stallone or Schwarzenegger, Hercules doesn't get a cut of the gross.
>
> To gain an advantage (and build new outfits as quickly as possible), the
>new studios also have been hiring scores of Disney stars.
>
> Warner Feature Animation estimates up to 80% of its staff members have a
>Disney pay stub in their file cabinets. Howard worked at Disney from
>1986-1995. Among the other Disney alumni are Tony Fucile, who moved from
>"The Lion King" and "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" to Warners' "Iron Giant,"
>based on the children's book by poet Ted Hughes.
>
> DreamWorks has been particularly aggressive -- some say too aggressive --
>raiding Disney's easels. "Prince of Egypt's" music is from "Pocahontas"
>alumni Stephen Schwartz and "The Lion King's" Hans Zimmer. The tunes for
>DreamWorks' "El Dorado: City of Gold" (a comedy set against the conquest)
>come from "The Lion King" scorer Elton John and lyricist Tim Rice. Key
>DreamWorks animators include James Baxter (Quasimodo in "Hunchback"), Duncan
>Marjoribanks (Ratcliffe in "Pocahontas," Sebastian in "The Little Mermaid"),
>Finn (Cogsworth in "Beauty and the Beast," head of story on "Hunchback") and
>Kathy Zielinski (Frollo in "Hunchback"). "Prince of Egypt" is co-directed by
>Brenda Chapman, head of story on "The Lion King."
>
> Fox's animation studios is headed by Don Bluth and Gary Goldman, who left
>Disney in 1979. The two have hired many overseas animators in an attempt to
>find fresh talent and keep costs in control, relocating its artists to
>Arizona. The international staff includes people from Canada, Spain,
>Germany, France, Ireland, England and more far-flung locales.
>
> Bluth's recent films -- "Thumbelina," "A Troll in Central Park" and
>"Rock-a-Doodle" -- have all been box-office disappointments. People who work
>with Bluth say his films' scripts have typically been weak. Fox, sources
>say, has labored to polish the "Anastasia" screenplay, offering the services
>of some of its live-action screenwriters.
>
> Bluth himself says financial problems distracted his focus on those
>earlier underachievers. "I no longer have this worry every week about the
>payroll," the director says. "I feel the burden greatly lightened."
>
> The competition between animation houses is not limited to movies. As
>soon as established animators' movies wind down, they attract attention
>usually reserved for Madonna's offspring. "Our artists are getting calls
>every day from the other studios saying, 'When your contract comes up, give
>us a call and we'll give you a better deal,' " says Bluth, who claims not to
>do the same. Director Brad Bird says he needs to be finished with his "Iron
>Giant" storyboards in September "in order to pick up all the people coming
>off 'Quest for Camelot,' " and make sure they don't sit around waiting for
>another job offer.
>
> To protect its seat at the head of the table, Disney also is trying to
>price its emulators out of business. Disney now throws huge salaries ($3,500
>a week and more) at such employees as lead key clean-up artists and locks up
>talent for the maximum seven years. Pixar, Disney's computer animation
>partner, offers its employees potentially lucrative stock options, Lasseter
>says.
>
> In response, Warners and DreamWorks are respectively offering bonuses and
>profit participation, but only DreamWorks has effectively matched Disney's
>salaries.
>
> "You remember when Reagan was president and he said he was going to
>outspend Russia on defense?" says Jon Cantor, a lawyer representing some 350
>animators. "And Russia said, 'OK, we'll outspend you, then.' It ended up
>bankrupting Russia. Well, that's what Disney will do to the competition."
>
> With all the activity, one critical question remains:
>
> Can anyone besides Disney make money in animation? Historically,
>non-Disney animated films have as short a run as Larry King's wives. So why
>have so many failed? "Cat's Don't Dance" offers a case study.
>
> EVERYTHING BUT THE LOGO
>
> It took 4 1/2 years to bring the animated musical "Cat's Don't Dance" to
>movie theaters. It took 4 1/2 hours to declare it dead on arrival.
>
> At the film's first March matinee at a spacious Pasadena theater, a grand
>total of 15 people bought tickets. "It was very well done. It was a nice
>movie," said Michael Osborn, whose five-member family accounted for a full
>third of the house. "It's too bad people aren't coming to see it."
>
> The film's collapse had little to do with what was on the screen. "Cats
>Don't Dance" attracted largely positive reviews from some leading critics,
>and some reviewers said the Warner Bros. release surpassed Disney's
>artistry. Missing, however, was the Disney name and the seemingly minor
>garnishes that increasingly determine success and failure.
>
> There was no Danny the Cat Happy Meal at McDonald's. Soft and fluffy
>"Cats Don't Dance" toys were not spilling from Toys R Us shelves.
>Distributor Warner Bros. did not run a parade up New York's 42nd Street and
>10 blocks of 5th Avenue (as Disney will do with "Hercules") to elevate the
>film from mere movie to cultural event.
>
> In other words, producer Turner Pictures and distributor Warner Bros.
>thought "Cat's Don't Dance" was a movie and did not pursue tie-in deals. But
>successful animated movies are not movies. They are motors, and they don't
>go anywhere without the fuel of merchandising and the wheels of event
>marketing. Disney knows how to build that car better than anyone else. And
>they've done it so well for so long customers won't buy from another dealer.
>
> "'Cats Don't Dance' got great reviews and great exit polls. And no one
>knew it was out there," says David Kirschner, the film's producer, who says
>he was "devastated" by the film's flameout.
>
> He shouldn't have been surprised.
>
> Produced by since-folded Turner Pictures, "Cats Don't Dance" was
>supervised by no less than eight executives in its lifetime, several of whom
>would have rather ironed Chris Farley's underwear than make an animated
>movie. "(Turner Pictures President) Amy Pascal told me, 'I don't care for
>animation in any way, shape or form,"' Kirschner says. "Those were her exact
>words." (Now the head of Columbia Pictures, Pascal says she merely was not a
>fan of the story of cats in 1939 Hollywood and may well want to make an
>animated Columbia feature in the future. She did, however, speak highly of
>"Cats Don't Dance" when it was announced.)
>
> "I asked and I asked about the merchandise campaign," Kirschner says.
>"And they kept saying, 'We'll get to it.' They never did."
>
> Without studio support and concerted effort for fast-food and toy
>tie-ins, the $45-million "Cats Don't Dance" was doomed. "When you do a film
>like this, you better damn well make sure you have support across the
>board," Kirschner says. "Launching these films takes a year and a half of
>planning."
>
> Disney has practically copyrighted the book both on how to make -- and,
>equally important, to launch -- an animated movie. Children and their
>parents know about the next Disney film months before it comes out, and each
>film's popularity builds awareness for the next. Since families now collect
>Disney videos the way earlier generations once did books, the cassettes have
>become incredible sales tools. The 21 million shipped copies of the "Toy
>Story" video carry a "Hercules" trailer, as do the more than 10 million
>cassettes of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame."
>
> There's no limit to Disney's merchandise efforts.
>
> The floor-to-ceiling shelves in Lasseter's Pixar offices are jammed with
>"Toy Story" booty. Among Lasseter's collection is "Toy Story" lip balm, a
>"Toy Story" sushi lunch box (complete with "Toy Story" chopsticks) and three
>Buzz Lightyear dolls that declare "To Infinity and Beyond!" in French,
>German and Italian. Lasseter is desperately trying to find a "Toy Story"
>stamp from Uganda and will soon catch the "Toy Story" ice skating
>spectacular. Counting its domestic, international, home video and
>merchandise profits, "Toy Story" has spun off $400 million in profits.
>
> The "Toy Story" merchandise testifies to the staggering ancillary appeal
>of a movie Disney admitted it underestimated. The goods simultaneously
>reinforce name-brand identification and create a thirst for more "Toy Story"
>experiences: Without appearing to sell anything, the toys and piggy banks
>and comic books turn prepubescent children into highly trained consumers.
>Not surprisingly, Pixar is hard at work on a direct-to-video "Toy Story"
>sequel, eager to tap the market before the attention subsides.
>
> The merchandise tie-ins have grown so pervasive that Disney's "Hercules"
>actually makes fun of the practice in the movie itself. After a particularly
>heroic feat, people in the film start wearing "Air Herc" sandals, drinking
>"Herculade" thirst quencher and Hercules signs autographs outside a
>Disneyfied "Hercules Store" crammed with figurines.
>
> It helps, too, that Disney's artwork and music are consistently good, and
>that "Beauty and the Beast" remains the only animated film nominated for a
>best picture Oscar. No one was fooled into thinking Miramax's "Arabian
>Knight" was anything but a low-rent knockoff. Consequently, over the course
>of 35 animated features Disney has developed remarkable brand-name loyalty.
>
> "People will go to see a Disney movie even if it's not good," says
>Warner's Howard. "They have earned that -- I don't have that. I have to be
>great."
>
> "The word 'Disney' is like Santa Claus -- you can't invoke criticism,"
>says Bird, director of the upcoming Warners animated film "Iron Giant."
>
> And Santa was never so flush.
>
> GIRDING FOR BATTLE
>
> How do the Disney rivals match that clout? A lot of early planning and
>calculation.
>
> Morgan Creek Chairman James Robinson says he wouldn't be risking as much
>as $ 50 million challenging Disney if he didn't have a pre-sold title. "If
>we didn't have 'The King and I,' we wouldn't be making an animated film,"
>Robinson says. "For a non-Disney film, you can't get a better title -- and
>we already know the music has tested well, so we're keeping it in," he says
>with a laugh. Morgan Creek already has been approached by several fast-food
>chains and toy companies, even though the movie is more than a year and a
>half from being finished.
>
> Producer-director Bluth can't come to the phone at the brand new Fox
>Animation Studios in Phoenix; he's meeting with the "Anastasia"
>merchandisers. Hundreds of miles away, Burger King and Galoob Toys are
>cranking out their "Anastasia" merchandise. Back in Los Angeles, 20th
>Century Fox is laboring to launch the movie with more fanfare than
>"Independence Day" and "Star Wars." With only 30 minutes of the film
>completed, Fox has started showing the unfinished footage to the media (as
>Disney first did with "Beauty and the Beast"), trying to generate positive
>buzz and awareness.
>
> "Any independent animated feature can't make it any more," says Bluth. "I
>saw 'Cats Don't Dance' and thought it was really good. But nobody knew it
>was out there. . . .I don't think you can make an animated film by yourself.
>Even if it's the best animated film in history, no one will see it if
>there's no awareness."
>
> Part of Bluth's "Anastasia" strategy is to get away from what is
>historically a tale of bloodthirsty Bolsheviks, the last Russian czar,
>revolution and a young woman who may have been slaughtered. In Bluth's
>retelling, "Anastasia" is more fairy tale, a story of a little girl who may
>be royalty searching for identity. As the movie puts it, "Every lonely girl
>hopes she's a princess." The lead voices are Meg Ryan, John Cusack, Angela
>Lansbury and Christopher Lloyd. The music is by "Ragtime's" Lynn Ahrens and
>Stephen Flaherty.
>
> When Bluth began adapting "Anastasia," he was mindful of creating
>characters that appealed to children and not coincidentally had tremendous
>toy potential. "(The dog) Pooka was created to give kids access to the story
>because it's in many ways an adult story," he says.
>
> "What we set out to do is tell a great story -- no one has the
>exclusivity in telling great stories in this medium," says Fox's Meledandri.
>"Are there marketing challenges in communicating that Fox has made a great
>animated film? Yes, there are great challenges. But when you step back and
>look at the overall risk, it's similar to the risk you take with any film.
>If you succeed, people will come. If you fail, people will not come."
>
> The Disney challengers (and Disney itself) need to be careful that
>marketing does not get in the way of the actual film. "The amount of money
>spent is so astronomical and you have to make the deals so far in advance,
>the movie is not always the first priority," director Bird says. "You have
>to make sure (the merchandise) doesn't dictate what kind of entertainment we
>make."
>
> DreamWorks' "The Prince of Egypt" doesn't look like the typical Disney
>movie, with no wise-cracking sidekick and huggable furry companion (Habibi,
>the stubborn camel, does not speak). Among the artists the DreamWorks
>animators studied are French illustrator Gustave Dore, impressionist Claude
>Monet and director David Lean. The movie opens with the song "Deliver Us" as
>Moses is put in a basket in the river, and sequences include the
>tongue-twisting "Tzipporah Escapes" and "Hieroglyph Nightmare." With the
>voices of Val Kilmer, Ralph Fiennes, Michelle Pfeiffer and Sandra Bullock,
>the estimated $60-million film features two highly complicated,
>computer-animated scenes: the parting of the Red Sea and the Burning Bush.
>
> Some who have viewed portions of the work say the story of faith, slavery
>and deliverance is not something for toddlers. The film will probably be
>rated PG, and is aimed at 8-year-olds and up. "I saw the first six minutes
>of 'Prince of Egypt,' " says attorney Cantor. "It looked like an animated
>version of 'Schindler's List.' I said to Jeffrey, 'What audience are you
>going for?' "
>
> Katzenberg declined to be interviewed. But the film's two producers say
>the film is indeed geared to an older, more sophisticated crowd. " The
>audience expects something they can take their 3-year-old to without any
>problem," says the film's co-producer, Penny Cox. "This is a different film,
>with hard issues and hard questions."
>
> Meanwhile, DreamWorks executives say they are agonizing over how to
>promote the film: A Promised Land Picnic Set would look sacrilegious, but is
>a Ramses coloring book irreverent? When you make "The Lion King," everything
>down to (and including) promotional toilet paper seems acceptable. But how
>do you create a profile if you can't churn out consumer products? Will
>education programs offered through religious organizations turn "Prince of
>Egypt" into an event?
>
> Equally important, how do you prepare an audience for a movie with no
>singing crab or dancing teacup? While Disney can take some liberties with
>the life story of Pocahontas and Fox can (and will) do the same with
>Anastasia, you can't really rewrite the Old Testament.
>
> DreamWorks certainly hopes "Prince of Egypt" will be a hit, but the
>studio, in an unusual spin-control move, already is saying the movie's value
>cannot and will not be measured in ticket sales alone. It is critical, for
>starters, that "Prince of Egypt" proves the new studio is not trying to
>clone Disney movies.
>
> "It is less about what the film grosses," Cox says. "The significance is
>less about the bottom line than in succeeding in making the movie we set out
>to make. What this movie has to do to be successful for DreamWorks is to be
>done well."
>
> As "Prince of Egypt" demonstrates, the animation wars carry the promise
>of new animation styles. With so many people clamoring for their services,
>artists suddenly are empowered, free to make movies the way they want to. If
>a studio executive interferes too much, they simply move on. The money and
>the jobs are out there.
>
> "One of the nice things at Disney now is there's a strong creative vision
>by the director," says Lasseter in a thinly veiled broadside at former
>studio chairman Katzenberg. "There's a difference when the director is the
>director of the picture and a studio executive is the director of the
>picture."
>
> "The artists have more choices than they've ever had before," says Ron
>Clements, the co-director of "Hercules." "You can make choices and work on
>films you want to work on."
>
> No one knows, of course, who will triumph and who will perish -- only
>that somebody will crash and burn. Warners' "Quest for Camelot" was started
>in 1993 and has had significant story problems. Its first director, Bill
>Kroyer ("Ferngully . . . The Last Rainforest"), left the film last summer,
>as did two lead animators and a number of people in the art department. If
>Warner Bros. executives are unimpressed with storyboards for "Iron Giant,"
>it may not go forward, immediately interrupting the studio's planned stream
>of titles.
>
> "You've got to be making something," says Howard, who says "Iron Giant"
>will be made. "There's a danger in not making something."
>
> "Of all the players in the ring, not everyone is going to make it," says
>Bluth, whose last studio, Sullivan Bluth Studio, flopped. "Somebody is going
>to get hurt and lose a lot of money."
>
> "When Jeffrey was here years ago he would say, 'Guys, I want you to know
>I believe in monopolies,' " says John Musker, "Hercules' " other
>co-director.
>
> "Now, he obviously believes in at least duopolies."
>
>

[stanlee]

On Mon, 2 Jun 1997, Eric J. Henwood-Greer wrote:

>
> > Los Angeles Times
> > June 1, 1997, Sunday

[snip] [snip] [and more snip]

> >
> > "One of the nice things at Disney now is there's a strong creative vision
> >by the director," says Lasseter in a thinly veiled broadside at former
> >studio chairman Katzenberg. "There's a difference when the director is the
> >director of the picture and a studio executive is the director of the
> >picture."
> >
> > "The artists have more choices than they've ever had before," says Ron
> >Clements, the co-director of "Hercules." "You can make choices and work on
> >films you want to work on."
> >

Hello,

Finally!
Hopefully, this is the beginning of the end of:
--> "the rule of the CEOs"
--> "being PC for the sake of being PC"
--> trying to "please" everybody and not having
the b__lls to stand up for something one thinks is right
even if it meant offending a group of people
--> and especially, the practice of "script by committee"
(Incidentally, when's the last time the Pulitzer Prize was
given to a literary work of art written by more than 1 author?
Now you can see why "script by committee" can't be a masterpiece.)

{any more, please add it in}

Leave the animation work to the people who knows it best:
the artists, the creators, the directors.
Creativity stems from those people who uses the left lobe of the brain,
not from $$-eyed executives.

(Consequently, unless someone can correct me on this
I think Walt Disney is the last great American film executive
because he's an animator himself who faced all the
trials and hardships an animator/creator needs to go through
just to get his artwork out.)

I also do hope Anastasia and even Prince of Egypt
achieves some sort of success (not necessarily gross revenue).
Those films illustrate serious issues and more "grown-up" themes
without resolving to mere "sex and violence."
No superheroes too, I hope.
(It shows not everything in the world is black or white;
in fact, the whole world is more like a grey area.)

At least, with all these animated films coming out,
we'll finally get some variety.
(I like Disney films and all,
but if something's almost always the same,
I get bored.....hu-hummmmm.......)

It's much much too early to call,
but maybe we're in the brink of the
"Great Enlightenment of Animation" or somethin' ;)
and heading towards some Golden Age of Animation......or somethin'.
Well, at least here in the States.

Later.
Stan

/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/

Do you believe that the stars hold our fates?
I do. Why??
Because life's a lot more fun
when you're not responsible for your actions!

- according to a famous philosopher named Calvin

[Thomas E. Reed]

In article <EB646...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca>,
un...@freenet.Victoria.BC.CA (Eric J. Henwood-Greer) re-posted a long
article from the L.A. Times about the many studios competing with Disney.
Too long to re-post.

I simply want to address one thing that occurred to me. The article should
sober up certain animation fans. They have great disdain for merchandising
and the inevitable big business involvement in animated projects. "It's
those evil anti-proletarian capitalists!" they scream. "Down with profit!
Up with the individual creator!"

It seems clear that it's the merchandising people buy, not the cartoon. It
would be nice if everything were pure and clean, and people could accept
artistic creations on their own merits. But life is not anything like a
college campus.

Therefore, if you really like animation, and want to see it prosper, you'd
better swallow your bile and accept the merchandising, souvenirs, theme
park parades and other cheap stuff surrounding animation projects. You
don't have to love it, or even buy it, but accept its presence. It is
obviously necessary to get the Great Unwashed into the theatre - the
people who make films successful.

Tom Reed says, we're changing
the SunQuest Web Page - drop by
and see what's new in gaming at
http://www.sundial.net/~sunquest

[David Navarro]

stanlee wrote:
>

> I also do hope Anastasia and even Prince of Egypt
> achieves some sort of success (not necessarily gross revenue).
> Those films illustrate serious issues and more "grown-up" themes
> without resolving to mere "sex and violence."
> No superheroes too, I hope.

Unless deities and thaumaturges count as such... =)

--

_____________________________________________________________
David Navarro Official Anvil of the RFA.
Digital Effects Animator
DreamWorks SKG http://home.earthlink.net/~bruckner

As above,
so below.

[Terrence C. Briggs]

In a previous article, sd0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (stanlee) says:

>Hello,

Finally!
Hopefully, this is the beginning of the end of:
--> "the rule of the CEOs"
--> "being PC for the sake of being PC"
--> trying to "please" everybody and not having
the b__lls to stand up for something one thinks is right
even if it meant offending a group of people
--> and especially, the practice of "script by committee"
(Incidentally, when's the last time the Pulitzer Prize was
given to a literary work of art written by more than 1 author?
Now you can see why "script by committee" can't be a masterpiece.) <

Sure, and it'll end world hunger and bring about an era of eternal
peace, too...

Let's not blow this out of proportion. Regardless of Aladdin's
Arab woes or Pebble and the Penguin's color-coding concerns, this wave of
non-Disney animation will not -- above all else -- mean the end of political
correctness, CEO authority, or the great wheel of script-doctoring. If
anything, the "mainstream" will be the ones deciding if Disney's competitors
offer anything in the way of merit, and if they abide by the aforementioned
rules you loathe, then the films that abide in the same way will be rewarded.

>Leave the animation work to the people who knows it best:
the artists, the creators, the directors.
Creativity stems from those people who uses the left lobe of the brain,
not from $$-eyed executives. <

Yeah, but it's always difficult for the "left-lobers" to market
creativity in itself. The executive need another group of left-lobers --
the marketing troop -- to handle that...

>(Consequently, unless someone can correct me on this
I think Walt Disney is the last great American film executive
because he's an animator himself who faced all the
trials and hardships an animator/creator needs to go through
just to get his artwork out.) <

You mean the last great American *animated* film executive? I'm not
so sure about that, but no one else spring to mind (not that I think about
these sorts of things).

>I also do hope Anastasia and even Prince of Egypt
achieves some sort of success (not necessarily gross revenue).
Those films illustrate serious issues and more "grown-up" themes
without resolving to mere "sex and violence." <

Sounds good to me, too, but many live-action films with "grown-
up" themes have faltered in the past. "Mature" has never meant "good".

>No superheroes too, I hope. <

And what's wrong with dreaming every now and then? If Superman
can make a live-action comeback, then why can't anyone else make an animated
appearance, eh?

>It shows not everything in the world is black or white;
in fact, the whole world is more like a grey area.) <

Well, superheroes these days are becoming more and more grey all the
time. But I'll spare the newsreaders the dissertation on moral relativism...

>At least, with all these animated films coming out,
we'll finally get some variety.
(I like Disney films and all,
but if something's almost always the same,
I get bored.....hu-hummmmm.......) <

Hasn't happened with me yet :)

>It's much much too early to call,
but maybe we're in the brink of the
"Great Enlightenment of Animation" or somethin' ;)
and heading towards some Golden Age of Animation......or somethin'.
Well, at least here in the States. <

You mean, yet another "Golden Age of Animation"? Hey, isn't this
one the result of the same profitable forces many animation lovers claim to
dread? Just a mini-hypothesis.

>Later.
Stan

<

Peace to you...

>Do you believe that the stars hold our fates?
I do. Why??
Because life's a lot more fun
when you're not responsible for your actions!

- according to a famous philosopher named Calvin <

From Calvin and Hobbes? Never figured the guy was existential...

Terrence "pumping out more SAT words than you can shake a stick at" Briggs
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Terrence Briggs
Email: hm...@freenet.cleveland.edu

[stanlee]

On 9 Jun 1997, Terrence C. Briggs wrote:

>
> Sure, and it'll end world hunger and bring about an era of eternal
> peace, too...
>

Yeah, insert that too. ;-)

> Let's not blow this out of proportion. Regardless of Aladdin's
> Arab woes or Pebble and the Penguin's color-coding concerns, this wave of
> non-Disney animation will not -- above all else -- mean the end of political
> correctness, CEO authority, or the great wheel of script-doctoring. If
>

Don't worry. I'm not in any hurry. ;-)

I just said it may be a start - like a pebble that starts a landslide.
(The same way some historians believe that the direct start
of the US Civil War 1861-65 was back in 1831 (?) in an incident
between a lady and a powerful Southern Congressman
- okay, so I forgot the names, but I won't elaborate
since it's a spam. ^_^;; )

>
> >Leave the animation work to the people who knows it best:
> the artists, the creators, the directors.
> Creativity stems from those people who uses the left lobe of the brain,
> not from $$-eyed executives. <
>
> Yeah, but it's always difficult for the "left-lobers" to market
> creativity in itself. The executive need another group of left-lobers --
> the marketing troop -- to handle that...
>

Well, I just meant animation itself, not marketing. ;-)

>
> >I also do hope Anastasia and even Prince of Egypt
> achieves some sort of success (not necessarily gross revenue).
> Those films illustrate serious issues and more "grown-up" themes
> without resolving to mere "sex and violence." <
>
> Sounds good to me, too, but many live-action films with "grown-
> up" themes have faltered in the past. "Mature" has never meant "good".
>

Yep, I agree.
But it's just such an "unexplored" aspect of animation here
such that "why not give it a try" idea comes to mind.
Eventually, something good will come out of it.

> >No superheroes too, I hope. <
>
> And what's wrong with dreaming every now and then? If Superman
> can make a live-action comeback, then why can't anyone else make an animated
> appearance, eh?
>

Ah, Superman - another one of my favs. :)

Still, the concept of "superhero" is just a bit overused.
Everything (well, almost everything) here from comics to cartoons
has some sort of good superhero guy/gal who is all-powerful and perfect.
(or a disguise of such storyline)

(I have a little collection of DC and Marvel comics, and I do enjoy them.
But I also want to see something different, you know.)

> >It shows not everything in the world is black or white;
> in fact, the whole world is more like a grey area.) <
>
> Well, superheroes these days are becoming more and more grey all the
> time. But I'll spare the newsreaders the dissertation on moral relativism...
>

Maybe in comics.
In animation, most superheroes are still "all good and perfect."
But since most animation here are aimed at younger kids,
it's easier for the kids to understand it that way.
(But boy oh boy would they be surprised when
they encounter the "real" world. :-) )

> >At least, with all these animated films coming out,
> we'll finally get some variety.
> (I like Disney films and all,
> but if something's almost always the same,
> I get bored.....hu-hummmmm.......) <
>
> Hasn't happened with me yet :)
>

Well, do you have a Disney collection of your own? ;-)

>
> >Do you believe that the stars hold our fates?
> I do. Why??
> Because life's a lot more fun
> when you're not responsible for your actions!
>
> - according to a famous philosopher named Calvin <
>
> From Calvin and Hobbes? Never figured the guy was existential...
>

You are correct, Bob! :)
Talk to ya later.
Stan

/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/

Do you believe that the stars hold our fates?

[Harry Flashman]

To: sd0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
Subject: Re: Can Anyone Dethrone Disney?
Newsgroups: rec.arts.animation

Can anyone dethonre Disney?

Sure.

Disney themselves, probably. :)

Scott