Killing the Goose and Chroming the Golden Egg
Page 2 of 3

Michael -- and anyone else bothering to listen to my feeble voice at this point -- this isn’t an argument against the video market. Bill Mechanic was right in convincing you and others to overcome the fear of "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs" by releasing the classics to video. Hey, I’m grateful. But the goose’s gold is in the egg, not pig-iron knock offs. Just because they can earn money is no excuse for making these sequels! Nor is a demand from the public for more of these characters. You’re either Tiffany or you’re Walmart. You’re either unique or you’re in every mall in America. You’re either an orchid or a weed. Take your pick. Churning them out because there’s a demand and you can supply it on the cheap just makes all those golden eggs - and the knock-offs - just another egg, and the goose is just another bird. And that bird needs you now, more than ever, to make it special once again.

When a public shows faith in a company by ponying up dollar after dollar the very wisest corporations guide their buyers as carefully as their buyers guide them. And they pause long enough to explain to their stockholders about the value of re-investing in new ideas - a little research and development, or "R & D." R&D ensures that a company’s dividends pay off consistently now, and down the road. R&D secures a company against less stable times. When other corporations simply flex big quarterly returns without nourishing the soul of the company they fail to impress the financial skeptics. Why? Because Wall Street is all too accustomed to the thud that follows every fool with new found power who gallops headlong toward the cliff riding the bull and chased by the bear. Might lowering buyers/audience expectations explain the recent lowering of Disney’s ratings on Wall Street?

The best "R&D" is never purely technological, it’s an investment in human potential. The lack of visible "R&D" over at Walt Disney Animation seems so nearsighted. Is this timidity rooted back in Eisner’s discussion of the decision that led to investing in the CAPS system and the rather vocal skepticism of the late Frank Wells? Wells balked at the estimated cost of $12 million for developing this revolutionary technological advance (first put to full use in "The Rescuers Down Under") and Eisner quotes Wells as saying that Disney was "not an R&D company." Eisner’s thoughts on this exchange read as conflicted. He relied so heavily on Wells’ input and trusted him as he never before - and surely never since - trusted anyone else. Yet he countered Wells’ comment by pointing out that they should trust Roy Disney, who was urging them to proceed with the CAPS process. Eisner points to how CAPS "dramatically enriched (their) color palette" and "revolutionized the archaic method by which animated movies had been made since Snow White." Eisner’s impulse was a very good one. So what happened to that impulse? Creativity is at the center of everything the Disney Company stands on and can continue to deliver. Creativity is a worthy investment. Investing in creative capital means inspiring people - not firing them. That requires someone who trusts people, nurtures them, and can guide both staff and board as well as investors on a course where they see the value in re-investing in the company even (and especially) during lean times. Roy Disney clearly believes in the legacy of quality, the intrinsic value of a fine creative product, and in animation in particular. Michael Eisner was attracted by this quality. What’s Tom Schumacher’s excuse? It’s well known that Schumacher doesn’t really like animation, so what is he doing other than trying to deliver profit by essentially raping the art and the artists without regard to the integrity of what makes Disney "Disney" - their animation!

I assume that Michael has tuned out by now. So let me say that this is about more than my being some loony fringe "What Would Walt Do" cultist. The company has to grow, diversify, and reinvent itself in ways that ensure it survives in a competitive market. But it feels as if the integrity of the best work produced under both Walt’s AND Eisner’s watch is being sacrificed.

I wrote off the first couple of direct to video releases such as "Enchanted Christmas" and "Return of Jafar" as irritating blips that indicated an immaturity on the part of the company’s then new leadership - over-eager to cash in on the growing video market while they could. I figured that they’d come to trust themselves, and understand the precious and unique new animated feature films they were creating. They would understand that these films were more than mere franchises - they were successfully reestablishing the Disney brand for quality; quality that separated them from the flock of live action lame-ducks so devoted to make sequel after sequel to each successful film until the original was all but forgotten. I was certain that films like "The Little Mermaid" and "Beauty & the Beast" would mature the Disney management team and help shepherd them safely into corporate adulthood where they would catch a glimpse of the big dividends in store if they proceeded with some integrity and pride in their work, rather than mere hubris over register receipts.

Sadly, the ever increasing number of direct to videos and announcements of theatrical sequels to films has simply resulted in the Disney brand being diluted to water, regarless of how much they’ve earned. This practice of placing "II" and "Return Of" in front of and behind every possible title in the cannon has lead to an overwhelming sense of the leadership of Disney Animation belittling and taking for granted both the old and new generation of talent who at the core of the original features. This corporate myopia apparently makes the artists of feature animation look like assembly line robots to the Disney brass. It is almost as if no sooner is a pitch for a new film delivered than the response is "Great! We can see this as a television series and we should start to work on a video sequel!"

Even in my most calm and practical reflections on the "synergy" of it all, I’m still deeply troubled by why is it that under Michael Eisner’s watch, the talent of women and men like Susan and Eric Goldberg was assumed to be found in the same folks who brought us a "Aladdin & the Prince of Thieves." So it is just as nearsighted - nay blind! - to be reducing Baloo and Mowgli to just another pair of characters that (as opposed to the more appropriate "who") can be easily brought to life with the same genius of Ollie Johnston and Frank Thomas by animators not yet seasoned enough to have supervised original animated features! I don’t question their talent, but I won’t pretend that it compares. So why frame it as if it was? Because it’s profitable? And I repeat - don’t tell me it’s because audiences want more and more of their favorite characters. Keep feeding them and they’ll throw up pretty soon. They’ll catch on. Trust me!

If this is a matter of finding the "older" films to need a new coat of paint, then please explain the need to tamper with the most original and dynamic new idea the studio has produced in a decade - "Lilo and Stitch" - which was conceived, created and produced by artists who grew up in Disney animation. It was barely a week old when the company announced a television series and a direct to video! Michael….Roy…somebody! Pay attention to what has happened! You’ve taken solid gold and chromed it!

*sigh*

Michael, if by some chance you’re listening, you’re a New Yorker so let me speak to the New Yorker in you. As a child I had a fascination with the Statue of Liberty. I had pictures and postcards and read endless stories about Auguste Bartholdi, the sculptor, and knew all the details. It was a wonder of the world to me.