Disney studios

First, here's a link that got me thinking about the mousey-mouse studio.

It's basically a summarization of the studios game plan when it comes to film releases. There's a few things that I found interesting. First, the fact that they want to have 2 Marvel films per year sounds like quite a chore. I think there's going to come a point where the movie going audience gets burned out on comic book films and this decision doesn't help.

Second, they want to make one Disney animated film and one Pixar film per year, maybe increasing to two Pixar films per year! I love Pixar, but this makes me a little nervous. Can they really keep up the high quality of their work if they have to churn out two films per year? Also, I wonder if this means that Disney will attempt some traditional animation again instead of CG. I know they haven't had much success with that lately, but I personally love the traditional animation medium.

Finally, they want to address the inconsistency of their live-action films. I have no idea how they can do this. They took a big chance with John Carter and it didn't pay off. Maybe scaling back on the costs of their live-action films could be a start. I really don't know, but it's an interesting problem for them to confront.

Anyone else interested in the direction that Disney is taking?

EDIT: Here's another article concerning Disney.

__________________

The problem Disney has is like you said, they've had waining success as the years have gone on.
Disney used to have huge success with absolutely anything they released but these days it seems just one or two of what they release is successful.


Maybe their mentality of churning things out over and over again, is down to panic.
Disney is no longer the top of the pops.
Simply owning a lot of contracts and owning a lot of franchises and having rights to lots of things doesn't make them the best, it just means they own a lot of stuff.


The problem I have is that if they start to churn stuff out is the creativity.

In the last decade I've seen their stuff go from mediocre in creativity, to worse. So how the hell can they expect to spew out stuff so quickly?

In the past 10 years:

The Bad

102 Dalmations
Snow Dogs
Return To Neverland
The Country Bears
Santa Clause 2
Treasure Planet
Jungle Book 2
Holes
The Lizzie McGuire Movie
Haunted Mansion
Teacher's Pet
Home On The Range
Around The World In 80 Days
Princess Diaries 2
National Treasure
The Pacifier
Ice Princess
Herbie Fully Loaded
Chicken Little
Nightmare Before CHristmas 3D
The Santa Clause 3
Bridge To Terrabithia
Meet The Robinsons
Ratatouille
Enchanted
National Treasure 2
Hanna Montana
Beverly Hills Chihuahua
Roadside Romeo
Race To Witch Mountain
Christmas Carol
Old Dogs
Princess And The Frog
High School Musical movies


The Good

Monsters Inc
Finding Nemo
Pirates Of The Caribbean Trilogy (which died off as the series continued)
The Incredibles
Wall-E
Up



Anyone notice a pattern forming?


Disney are done. They know it and they're panicking to get something done before it becomes permanent.

__________________

Whew, what's up with that "good" list? Remember, Disney owns most of Marvels projects right now including The Avengers and the films leading up to that. They also own The Muppets. Did you not like the latest Muppet film?

No no, my list was just a quick scan of their films over the past decade.

There's a few more that can go in both lists.

There's a pattern there though.

Anything that's bad, is done directly through them, and mostly made up of crap sequels and, the original ones are terrible.

The good list is primarily made up of movies that have gone through other studios with Disney only owning the rights to them. Whether original or a sequel, they've turned out ok.

Kind of says something about Walt's dream, really.

Rodent: I spot a few films in your "Bad" list that really, REALLY shouldn't be there. At all.

That being said, I agree that a lot of what comes directly from Disney, (especially in regards to animation) isn't very good. But every now and then they turn out something great.

But I think this sort of over-saturation that they're pushing for is a mistake.

__________________

I agree completely. They need to focus on quality, not quantity. They also need to learn lessons from failures like John Carter. Truth be told, I don't know what lessons that film could teach them (I haven't seen the film so I can't speak to its quality), but there has to be something they can take away from it.

I like these films.

Enchanted was pretty enjoyable imo. Also, how someone can put Ratatouille in the same category of quality as Santa Claus 3 is baffling to me.

__________________
www.catchasegnome.blogspot.com

After, what looks like, another live action bomb, I thought this was probably the best place for this.

http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/analyst-p...072513834.html

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

John Carter made nearly 300 million, that's a flop? Well, it cost 250 million to make plus IO guess another 250 million to promote, so it should have made around 1 billion to make up the losses. I though it was an enjoyable movie.

(Can't quote the URL because I'm still new, my apologies)

I keep forgetting there's going to be a new Star Wars film, guh. It seems like Disney are getting ahead of themselves again, a little bit.

Can anyone say "Lone Ranger"?

TBH, I don't think you can really compare The Lone Ranger with the Star Wars franchise. All those films are going to rake it in regardless of the quality of them because there's the audience. I couldn't see The Lone Ranger doing the same because there isn't the audience, especially worldwide, IMO.

On a related topic, Despicable Me 2 is now Universal's biggest profit making film ever.

Oh no, I agree. Star Wars is already destined to do better than Lone Ranger, even in its undeveloped stage, I just think Disney have this tendency to jump the gun, especially lately.