Disney and their Downfall into Creative Bankruptcy

[Poya]

“The way we used to look at each potential film was, could it be Disney? Now, the question becomes, should it be Disney? Does our brand mean more than if our competitors make the film? Looking at it that way, the Disney brand has become a competitive advantage. As eager as I am to see Dunkirk, a movie like that wouldn’t be where our competitive advantage lies. Beauty And The Beast and Maleficent, that’s a different story.” - Walt Disney Motion Pictures President Sean Bailey

In 1923, a new studio was formed by a man named Walt Disney. There is a lot to be said about this bit of context but that would take too much of the thread for me to make my point, so I'll just abridge it. His studio was seen as a haven for groundbreaking animation techniques, such as the first sound cartoon to growing even more ambitious, which lead him to creating the first full-length animated feature, which you all know as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Afterwards, he's had his ups and downs all the way to his death. After his passing, the studio was like a chicken without a head, stumbling around aimlessly without any direction. Around this time, a new division was formed called Touchstone Pictures, which would release more adult fare while keeping the family friendly Disney image. They had their hits, such as Splash and Who Framed Roger Rabbit, which helped Disney quite a bit. A few years later, they would acquire Miramax, which specialized in groundbreaking films that changed the indie scene, more specifically with Pulp Fiction.

However, in 1989, they entered into a renaissance that began with The Little Mermaid and it its arguable peak with the first animated Best Picture nominee, Beauty and the Beast. However, as then-CEO Michael Eisner became even more controlling towards the company and his many infamous bonehead decisions, the renaissance was coming to a close and Disney was becoming a walking punchline, with many bombs, such as Home on the Range, which is believed to have killed off the idea of 2D animation being relevant in the cinemas ever again. Eisner finally left, with Robert Iger replacing him. Iger's influence to what Disney has become can't be understated. He is responsible for Disney's acquisitions of Pixar, Marvel, and Lucasfilm, along with a second renaissance that arguably began with Bolt or later on, and a slew of remakes of the films from their canon, starting with Alice in Wonderland, ushering in a new age of success for the company. Along with chairman Alan Horn and president Sean Bailey, Disney has been releasing films that have made billions each year.

With all that out of the way, what is the problem? Well, the lack of genuine original content is a serious problem. The remakes, in particular, are very distressing. Now, I have no problem with remakes. I'm a huge fan of 1982's The Thing and 1983's Scarface, and both are remakes of classic, beloved films (coincidently enough, both have Howard Hawks involved in some capacity), so a remake can be a great film on its own, but it also needs to be its own film as well. To be fair, Disney's remakes have attempted to add new additions to them but they end up becoming overwhelmed by how similar they are to their source. Especially this year's Beauty and the Beast, which nearly quotes the original film line by line. These remakes have been absolutely successful and have garnered billions altogether, so no use in complaining, huh? Next, we have remakes of Peter Pan, Dumbo, Snow White, Mulan, The Little Mermaid, and many more. Is it because they weren't that good so they wanted to redo them to correct whatever mistakes they made? Probably but the real answer shouldn't come as a surprise.

Their Marvel and Star Wars films have also been concerning to me, especially with their "producer-driven" approach to the films, Kevin Feige and Kathleen Kennedy as the heads of the respective divisions. Many directors have challenged this approach and have ended up leaving, only to be quickly be replaced by directors who will conform to whatever the studio head wants the film to be like. But the result are films that feel similar to the last film, not too much of a problem for Star Wars but has been a persistent problem for the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which is their most common criticism, even by those who like the films. There have been defenses for this practice, as this is the only way to have a connected universe for these respective franchises, but I disagree. If done right, you can have a franchise that has films that neatly connect with each other while also letting the director make the film he/she wants to make and have them stand on their own without having to watch the other films. For example, the controversial DC Extended Universe isn't perfect in this regard but they have been keeping a "director-driven" approach to their cinematic universe, and even if you don't like the films, at least each one from a different filmmaker has a different tone and feel than the last, especially Wonder Woman, which perfectly fits with the established universe while also being a great, stand-alone film.

Of course, there is the other defense of that they are releasing original content through their Disney Animated Canon with films like Zootopia and Moana and through Pixar, such as Inside Out. I'll concede that there is a point to be made there, as these films aren't based on any existing property, but the fact that they are released through the Disney Animated Canon and Pixar, both arguably brands in their own right, do they actually count? Now, granted, just because they're released from these divisions doesn't mean they are guaranteed hits. Just ask the majority of the 2000s Disney films and The Good Dinosaur. But at the same time, would they have done as well if they were released through a smaller animation company? This is obviously up for debate but I wanted to bring this up for the sake of argument.

But you're probably saying that it's pointless for me to complain. Disney is a company and it's their job to make money. Yes, that is absolutely true. They wouldn't exist if they didn't make money to make more content. That's how business works and it's naïve to suggest otherwise. They can keep making blockbusters, I don't mind that, regardless of my opinions of them. It just would be nice if they would release more smaller affair here and there. They had two divisions that would allow for more risky ventures and creative films. Unfortunately, Miramax has been sold off to another company (though, in Disney's defense, it was a sinking ship due to internal conflict) and Touchstone is practically dead. After Iger came on board, he had a strong stance on delivering content that was less risky and more profitable and Touchstone hasn't exactly fulfilled those qualifications. The only think keeping them going was though releasing DreamWorks films, though now that founder Steven Spielberg has decided to bring his company to his old home back at Universal, Touchstone basically belly-flopped, with their final film at the moment being the box office bomb The Light Between Oceans. Of course, Disney has been releasing smaller films though their ESPN division, like the underrated Queen of Katwe, but that bombed due to lack of good promotion and a terrible release date.

As pointed out at the interview I posted, it seems that Disney is afraid of investing in more content that doesn't conform to their brand, such as John Carter and The Lone Ranger, but those flopped for a variety of different reasons than not being "Disney". perhaps they shouldn't have shilled out that much to make them? Perhaps they could've been of better quality? I don't know but there are other reasons. Why not vary the slate? What if Warner Brothers made gangster films throughout their years? What if Universal only made horror films? They need to trust the audience to accept these type of films. They had a good run when Touchstone was releasing films of varying genres and content. Is it really a good idea to turn back on that for the sake of profit?

Now, I fully understand that there is a fanbase for these films and they are genuinely adored by the general public, and that is absolutely fine. This is an entirely subjective essay. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I just want a middle ground for Disney. I mean, Universal has their big franchises and even they release smaller, riskier films because they want to give variety to their filmography. Heck, one of them, Get Out, was insanely profitable and critically acclaimed. I'm not saying smaller films mean automatic greatness. As much as I say how A24 is my favorite studio right now, they've made a few films I wasn't too crazy about, but at least I can respect that they tried. If other studios can achieve this, why is Disney reluctant to do so? They're already making an insane amount of money through their parks, films, and merchandises. Not even the fledging ESPN can bring them down. All I want is a creative return to form from Disney.