Jim On Film
Page 4 of 4

Problem Five: Loss of Artistic Talent
In the past several years, Michael Eisner and Thomas Schumacher have cut the animation staff in half and sharply cut salaries. This was a great short-term fix to increase revenue to make the company look healthy and successful for its investors; however, this short-term fix was unwise in planning for the long-term.

As part of this cutting and restructuring, some of the remaining Feature Animation artists have been redirected into the television animation division to work on creating the cheaply-produced sequels. For many of these artists who helped create films like The Lion King and Mulan, this is the equivalent of having Amy Tan write romance novels. This is hardly the best use of Disney’s finances in the long-term.

Even more distressing, many of Disney’s greatest artists have left the studio in order to use the training that they got at Disney for competing studios. Among the long list is Eric Goldberg (co-director of Pocahontas), Ken Duncan (animator of Jane Porter), Roger Allers (co-director of The Lion King), and Kirk Wise (co-director of Beauty and the Beast), all of whom left amidst emotional duress put upon the animators by short-sighted cuts and artistic hostility from disinterested executives.

These are the A-list stars of the animation industry, and Disney’s loss of these talents is the equivalent of KFC mailing out copies of its recipe for its secret mix of herbs and spices. Disney cannot remain competitive in the Disney name only; it will only create successful and critically acclaimed films if it has the people in place to do it, whether it is in traditional animation or computer animation. Sending such talented people to the competitors will do nothing to help Disney maintain the upper-hand in the competitive film industry.

Problem Six: The Computer Animation Fallacy
As stated above, computer animation is in the stage where traditional animation was in the early 1990s. It is still something fresh and new to audiences (just as traditional animation was for Disney as it re-entered the genre of animated musicals) that will eventually dip as other films and companies populate the marketplace.

The second mammothian problem with the move toward computer animation is the fallacy that audiences prefer computer animation to traditional animation. This has lead many analysts to suggest that had Treasure Planet been made solely with computers, it would have been successful. Besides the fact that there is no concrete evidence to support this and that it fails to identify more realistic reasons for mediocre box office performance (such as poor marketing and tough competition from proven film franchises), it doesn’t hold up to reason.

Hollywood perceives what it wants to. Hollywood is one city on this earth, and no matter how many analysts try to outdo each other in attempting to identify trends, what they say in not necessarily true.

Currently, traditional animation is very different from computer animation. For example, the characters in DreamWorks’ Shrek moved; however, they did not move realistically in the same sense as Belle, Aladdin, or Simba. If the time ever comes where it could be the same, it would only be after millions and millions of dollars were spent in developing the software to recreate what had already been done for decades by hand.

Furthermore, to suggest that the family audience--the primary audience for most animated films--care about the type of animation is ridiculous. The average parent cannot tell that computers were used to create the moving backgrounds in Treasure Planet, let alone their children. When analysts suggest that Disney needs to further integrate computer animation into its traditionally animated films, they forget that successful integration of these two forms means blending them seamlessly; the moment it becomes noticeable is the moment the audience is removed from the reality of the story. To put a greater stress on creating only computer animation and traditionally animated films with an increase in computer-generated elements ignores this fact and drives up costs for traditional animation in the attempt to develop new technology.

This idea is also clearly and loudly refuted by several other factors. Lilo and Stitch was a major theatrical success for Disney despite having very little computer animation (many critics praised its use of watercolors and traditional animation). Atlantis: The Lost Empire sold very well on video. Beauty and the Beast was re-released successfully to theaters and is a top-selling video title.

For many different factors, Disney traditional animation has entered a temporary slump. The sad reality is that in hindsight, many of these factors are Disney’s own fault. Not only have they filled the marketplace with quality product, they have flooded it with product that is watering down the Disney brand. On top of it, they have severely mishandled films that are of high quality and held enormous profit-making potential. In order to prevent this in the future, Disney needs to hire management with the ability and foresight to steer both computer and traditional animation into its bright future. It needs to learn from its past mistakes, think clearly, and rely on reason to draw conclusions about what needs to change and how it needs to change, not listen to those who draw hasty generalizations based on fallacies and fads. Furthermore, it must not make cosmetic choices or choose short-term solutions while ignoring the future.

For sixty-five years, Disney’s traditional animation has been the heart and soul of the Walt Disney company, creating loving memories for billions of children across the world. On the basis of these memories, Disney has made billions upon billions of dollars for its stockholders and for its executives. With the invention and application of new technology, Disney should see it as a new way of making money, not as a replacement for what has earned the company billions for so many years.

Who Wants to Be a Millionaire was a single television show, but Disney must learn from the mistakes it made with it. Disney animation is the division with the greatest earning potential in the immediate future and, more importantly, in the long term. Michael Eisner has steered Disney into grand waters for its investors. But unless he thinks clearly and makes these important changes, when he wakes up from his drunken stupor of cosmetic cost-cutting measures to save money, he will make Disney the weakest link.

Discuss It!

• Discuss this article on the LaughingPlace discussion board

Related Links

• List of all Jim On Film columns

-- Jim Miles

-- Posted December 26, 2002

Copyright Jim Miles. Licensed to LaughingPlace.com.