Jim on Film
Page 3 of 3

(c) Disney

Any studio can have an off-time. Just because a film executive greenlights Battleship Earth doesn’t mean that he or she doesn’t have the capacity for great ideas. After all, this was the same studio who just a year ago gave us Freaky Friday and Pirates of the Caribbean. One must wonder what changed overnight. Is it a fluke or are the rumors true that every last talented executive fled the studio?

I’m not exactly sure where the problem lies. As stated in my previous column, Dick Cook and Nina Jacobsen seem to have a strong vision for the studio’s Disney releases. Most of this year’s big disappointments had big names attached to them—Garry Marshall directing Raising Helen, Jerry Bruckheimer producing King Arthur, the Cohen brothers and Tom Hanks in The Ladykillers, and big names starring in both The Alamo and Hidalgo. But a problem, there seems to be, and yet, no one seems to be too quick to fix it.

While I hate to jump on the bandwagon, the first major dilemma lies with Michael Eisner’s response, one that is sadly too typical for the leader of the most magical company on the planet. He’s gone on record as saying that the studio will cut back on its film output in favor of focusing attention and resources on other means of revenue. So, in other words, instead of getting it right, he’s resigned to doing less.

Unfortunately, this seems to be Eisner’s vision for the future of Disney, and it hasn’t been too successful. The Disney Store is but a shadow of its former glory. What used to be a pleasant place to find a potpourri of Disney products for adults and children now looks like DMart. Shelves are stocked only with toys and other kids’ products, and items are stacked on the floor like it’s a perpetual going-out-of-business sale. Merchandise is always on mega-sale as if they are desperate for someone to buy something, and in my last visit, the big screen television at the back of my local store no longer played song selections from the studio’s movie vault but was playing a Disney movie, like the television in Target’s children’s clothing department. The video seems to speak for the entire chain, that the company is resigning themselves to get by rather than spending the time, money, creative resources, or management skills to do it right. Why make a new video when you can save money by popping an already produced DVD? Instead of getting it right, Eisner has resigned himself to getting by.

In Feature Animation, Eisner’s film cutting seems more appropriate since the studio was flooding the market with animation, including the Straight-to-DVD sequels (released to both theaters and on DVD) and Pixar’s films, but instead of learning from past mistakes, Eisner seems to be digging the studio into further problems. Not only are there no traditionally animated features currently in production through Feature Animation, but no one is learning from any mistakes. Word is that master animator Andreas Deja is working on the STD sequel to Bambi, which is the equivalent of having Michelangelo creating coloring books. This sequel is one in a long line of STD sequels that will hit the market and devalue the studio’s quality animated productions and will further devalue the Disney name. And while we can look forward to Mark Dindal’s Chicken Little and Glen Keane’s Rapunzel (both CGI films), the latest feather plucked from Walt Disney Feature Animation’s tail was recently reported by Jim Hill. Those in charge of animation (who are not those most knowledgeable of the art form) have decreed that before any work begins on a film, a full script must be approved to prevent costly production problems. As Rhett Wickham has been advocating for some time now, this will only make matters worse because animation is a visually driven storytelling form, one that requires extensive story work done by story artists like in the days of Walt Disney. Instead of taking a serious look at the problems within Walt Disney Feature Animation, Eisner has allowed misguided management to run the division for far too long. The real cuts in Feature Animation need to be to the top-heavy, talently handicapped executive positions and not in the artists, the medium, or in the creative process. Instead of making it right, Eisner is allowing Walt Disney Feature Animation to crumble, to get by.

When I first started studying the films of the Walt Disney studio, I remember following the company’s history through the car-chase obsessed 70s and into the lost vision of the early 80s. The success of the company could be seen through the dwindling number of films because those in charge of the company at that time couldn’t seem to get a grasp on what would be successful. While I don’t intend to imply that the studio is disintegrating at that pace, from the examples set forth by Eisner’s management of The Disney Store chain and Walt Disney Feature Animation, among others I’m not knowledgeable enough to discuss here, it is apparent that there is a danger is letting troubles slide instead of fixing them. After all, if the company doesn’t stop running from its problem areas, there could be no place to which it can run.

Just a year after The Lizzie McGuire Movie, Holes, Pirates of the Caribbean, Freaky Friday, and Finding Nemo, we’ve seen Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen and Around the World in 80 Days. The Village, The Princess Diaries 2, and The Incredibles look like they will be big hits, but how long can the studio expect to survive on three hits a year?

Discuss It!

• Discuss this article on the LaughingPlace discussion board

Related Links

• Part One of this article
• Rhett Wickham's article referenced above
• List of all Jim On Film columns

-- Jim Miles

-- Posted August 5, 2004