New Disney titles for 2012 (Rescuers Aristocats Pocahontas etc.) !

[celticmoon]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Fantasia never earned a profit while Walt Disney was alive. It took Duning's Yellow Submarine to turn young audiences on to Fantasia's concept and visuals (in more ways than one, wink wink), and it was the post-Submarine release of Fantasia in 1969 that finally brought the film into the black. This is why Alice in Wonderland received a re-release in the early 70's after languishing as the black sheep of the Disney family for two decades. Fantasia remained a potent box-office draw -- the 1990 release, in particular, did very well for Disney, leading to a smash home video release in Fall 1991.

I am aware that lost money upon its original release (though I wasn't aware it took that long to return a profit with all of the re-releases that I had thought were fairly successful), but I was under the impression that it was still very much an in-demand release, but just wasn't able to return a profit due to various circumstances (namely the war in terms of its original release). I haven't looked to far into the history of it all, but for some reason that is what I always thought. Is this remotely accurate?

And going back to The Little Mermaid, I suppose I can agree with the position that the film itself was not the catalyst for the Disney Renaissance when considering the developments with An American Tail and Who Framed Roger Rabbit. However, when looking at the filmography of WDAS, I'd still have to say that The Little Mermaid holds a very important position, as it is the first huge success within the canon in a very long time, and became the most culturally important film since the Walt-era. Its success undoubtedly affected the formula they would use going into the 90s, though the true precursor was perhaps Oliver and Company, which also used a very similar formula.

[yumny]

Originally Posted by celticmoon

I am aware that lost money upon its original release (though I wasn't aware it took that long to return a profit with all of the re-releases that I had thought were fairly successful), but I was under the impression that it was still very much an in-demand release, but just wasn't able to return a profit due to various circumstances (namely the war in terms of its original release). I haven't looked to far into the history of it all, but for some reason that is what I always thought. Is this remotely accurate?

And going back to The Little Mermaid, I suppose I can agree with the position that the film itself was not the catalyst for the Disney Renaissance when considering the developments with An American Tail and Who Framed Roger Rabbit. However, when looking at the filmography of WDAS, I'd still have to say that The Little Mermaid holds a very important position, as it is the first huge success within the canon in a very long time, and became the most culturally important film since the Walt-era. Its success undoubtedly affected the formula they would use going into the 90s, though the true precursor was perhaps Oliver and Company, which also used a very similar formula.

Yeah that is an interesting one - Oliver and Co. does use a lot of "classic" Disney formula, with witty characters, a Complete Monster villain, a load of songs.. but people seem to have forgotten all about this title or consider it among the "worst" of the DAC.

I think what really dragged it down and kept it from becoming iconic is the little girl-storyline - I for one always thought she was INCREDIBLY ANNOYING. Also the plot is kind of dull, the premise is thorougly uninteresting and the scenery, while pretty, reminds one of the worst of the Xerox era (Aristocats and SitS come to mind) because of it's lack of detail. I'd love to have this movie on Blu though just for the satisfaction of seeing it getting some recognition.

[zoodermin]

Originally Posted by yumny

Yeah that is an interesting one - Oliver and Co. does use a lot of "classic" Disney formula, with witty characters, a Complete Monster villain, a load of songs.. but people seem to have forgotten all about this title or consider it among the "worst" of the DAC.

I think what really dragged it down and kept it from becoming iconic is the little girl-storyline - I for one always thought she was INCREDIBLY ANNOYING. Also the plot is kind of dull, the premise is thorougly uninteresting and the scenery, while pretty, reminds one of the worst of the Xerox era (Aristocats and SitS come to mind) because of it's lack of detail. I'd love to have this movie on Blu though just for the satisfaction of seeing it getting some recognition.

I agree, Oliver & Co. may use the same Disney Formula that later Disney films employed but somehow is not an effective execution. I'm not really fond of this film and I find it very uninspiring and dull. Is not the worst Disney film but I find The Little Mermaid a much superior film (then again I'm a 90s kid and grew up with the "Renaissance" films so I have a special fondness for all of those movies).

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by celticmoon

I am aware that lost money upon its original release (though I wasn't aware it took that long to return a profit with all of the re-releases that I had thought were fairly successful), but I was under the impression that it was still very much an in-demand release, but just wasn't able to return a profit due to various circumstances (namely the war in terms of its original release). I haven't looked to far into the history of it all, but for some reason that is what I always thought. Is this remotely accurate?

Fantasia never turned a profit while Walt lived -- he tried some gimmicks like showing it in a cropped and stretched CinemaScope format in the 50's, but it just never performed. As Maltin said, it wasn't that people came and didn't like it, they just didn't come. The classical music approach simply intimidated some people, or didn't interest them. In an interview with Walt before his death, Disney historian John Culhane told Walt how much he loved the film and what a tremendous impact it had on him. "It still hasn't made any money, you know," Walt responded, "but I'm not sorry I made it. It's what we should have been doing with the medium at the time."

After Walt died and the release of Duning's Yellow Submarine, there was an outpouring of good will towards Fantasia, and the film became the hit Walt only imagined it could be. The film eventually went into a form of perpetual release, always playing somewhere in the world. The 1982 Kostal re-score took almost three years to make it to Austin, where I saw it in early 1985 at Austin's first THX cinema (the Southpark, which doesn't exist anymore as a cinema). Five years later, the film received a true nationwide re-release and it was a smash, and played somewhere in town for over a year. Those who were children or young adults in the late 60's had now become the establishment, and so it was no surprise to see Fantasia suddenly popping up on AFI lists and the National Film Registry, to see Fantasia-themed rides and symbols take prominent roles at the theme parks (Philharmagic, The Great Movie Ride, the Sorcerer's Hat, the EPCOT "ball" Spaceship Earth, Fantasmic, etc.) Even the new World of Color can't resist using Fantasia sequences. It has become a icon of American culture, and it's too bad Mr. Disney never lived to see it happen.

And going back to The Little Mermaid, I suppose I can agree with the position that the film itself was not the catalyst for the Disney Renaissance when considering the developments with An American Tail and Who Framed Roger Rabbit. However, when looking at the filmography of WDAS, I'd still have to say that The Little Mermaid holds a very important position, as it is the first huge success within the canon in a very long time.

This may be hard to believe, but it grossed only a few million more than Oliver and Co.. It was a hit for Disney, but it grossed half of what Roger Rabbit had earned. Beauty and the Beast was the first animated feature from Disney to pass the $100 million mark, and I think it was the home video release of The Little Mermaid that helped achieve that.

From the perspective of general audience members, that's probably why they think the whole thing started with Mermaid, because Oliver and Co. did not come to home video until the mid 90's. Little Mermaid was out on video Spring of 1990 or 1991, and I think more people saw it on home video than ever saw it in the theater. Seeing Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast released in such relative close proximity via theaters and home video led to a record smashing debut of Aladdin in theaters and on home video, and all the stars (including a home video release of Snow White) then aligned for The Lion King. Home video played a huge role in the 2nd Golden Age, and I don't think it has ever been properly addressed. But I understand why people think the whole thing started with Mermaid. The roots of the truth go a lot deeper.

[celticmoon]

All interesting facts, thanks!

I agree that home video is perhaps something that often isn't properly addressed. The format definitely allowed the films to become further ingrained into popular culture.

However, I'd hardly say The Little Mermaid grossed only a few million more than Oliver and Company. According to BOM, Oliver grossed $53 million upon its original run, while TLM grossed $89 million. That's a $30 million difference, and considering that TLM became the highest grossing animated film of all time (unadjusted, of course) upon its original theatrical run (a record that obviously didn't last long as it was subsequently broken by BaTB, Aladdin, and TLK), I'd say that was a pretty significant feat. Admittedly, it isn't as huge of an increase as I thought, but I think it is significant nonetheless, and shouldn't be downplayed either.

But as for why people believe everything started with TLM, I think it was just timing. TLM did benefit from being released right around when Disney started releasing everything on home video, as you mentioned. And unlike something like Oliver, the Disney marketing and hype machine has kept TLM alive and thriving.

[Safari-1969]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

This may be hard to believe, but it grossed only a few million more than Oliver and Co.. It was a hit for Disney, but it grossed half of what Roger Rabbit had earned. Beauty and the Beast was the first animated feature from Disney to pass the $100 million mark, and I think it was the home video release of The Little Mermaid that helped achieve that.

From the perspective of general audience members, that's probably why they think the whole thing started with Mermaid, because Oliver and Co. did not come to home video until the mid 90's. Little Mermaid was out on video Spring of 1990 or 1991, and I think more people saw it on home video than ever saw it in the theater. Seeing Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast released in such relative close proximity via theaters and home video led to a record smashing debut of Aladdin in theaters and on home video, and all the stars (including a home video release of Snow White) then aligned for The Lion King. Home video played a huge role in the 2nd Golden Age, and I don't think it has ever been properly addressed. But I understand why people think the whole thing started with Mermaid. The roots of the truth go a lot deeper.

Really? I thought Mermaid grossed $84M whereas Oliver grossed $53M (both initial releases), unless Box Office Mojo has it all wrong or something. However, Mermaid probably was more of a video hit than anything. When its release date (May 18, 1990) was announced, the film was still playing in more than 1,000 theaters. I'm guessing at the time (approx. March 1990 or so), TLM was turning into a sleeper hit. They eventually sold 10 million units of the home video release, which made it the best-selling Disney home video release at the time (beating the previous record held by Bambi).

[Ernest Rister]

Since you guys are talking about Oliver and Co., I think it is a problematic film in many ways - I find the art direction to be full of muddy browns, greys, and yellows, like something growing on the side of a trash can or belched out of a diesel engine, and I find these at odds with the cheerful and playful nature of the characterizations. I think the handling of Syke's dobermans was a bit insensitive, and the dialog either forgettable at best or inane at worst. The animation is low-budget and I'm not crazy about the character design of Oliver himself. All in all, the thing feels chintzy, ugly, dirty, dated, and even a bit mean-spirited.

It does, however, mark the first time Ashman worked for the studio - Howard Ashman penned the opening "Once Upon a Time in New York City".

[RayCRP]

You all are making me yearn for a theatrical release and 3D Blu-ray that are still well over a year away...

I think it's clear that The Little Mermaid is Disney's best option, commercially, to test the waters for a 3D conversion of a pre-CAPS film with painted cels. It's already obvious that they can successfully and effectively do so with their CAPS films containing layer data from the 90s should they choose to do more -- I'm really hoping for Aladdin 3D -- but if TLM3D is a success, it opens the door to more, older films to receive the 3D treatment.

That said, as someone pointed out, Disney is currently sticking with the policy that they will only convert animated films where the filmmakers are still alive and can be involved in the conversion process.

[zoodermin]

Domestic Box Office results for Disney films in the 80s (unadjusted for inflation):

The Fox and the Hound: $39,900,000
The Black Cauldron: $21,288,692
The Great Mouse Detective: $25,336,794
Oliver & Company: $53,279,055
The Little Mermaid: $84,355,863

The Little Mermaid may not have been a bombastic hit when it first hit theaters but it did pretty good business, more than any of the other Disney films from the same decade. Of course that alone is not the reason why the "Renaissance" period was born. As many posts above have stated, Roger Rabbit was a huge factor in renewing the interest in feature animation. Let's not forget that during the late 70s and 80s and more during the Eisner era, Disney's interest in feature animation was dwelling, moving toward live action films (Touchstone banner) and inaugurating the TV animation division (DisneyToon studios) that produced cheaper animation than the main studio. Home video was also a decisive factor in reviving old classics and also maintaining the public's interest in Disney's films. But I think that The Little Mermaid has a "special place" in the Disney Co. because it was the first film that surpassed a Don Bluth production in the box office. That alone was a hit for Disney but also the number of accolades that the film received was something that Disney didn't saw in a long, long time. It won 2 Academy Awards, the first Disney Animated film to win an Oscar since Dumbo in 1941 and that feat was repeated by Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King and Pocahontas (with box office success in each case) so is understandable why Disney considers Mermaid the beginning of the second golden age and why is still continuously promoted by Disney (much more than its 80s predecessors). And also, going back to the home video factor, TLM has always sell very good both in video and DVD. The VHS sold 10 million units while the DVD sold 7 million units only on the first year of production.

Regardless of wether TLM is suitable for 3D or not, is undeniable that it has staying power and it will be a very profitable endeavor for Disney (Both in theaters and when it hits the Home Video market as the next Diamond title).

[zoodermin]

Originally Posted by RayCRP

You all are making me yearn for a theatrical release and 3D Blu-ray that are still well over a year away...

I think it's clear that The Little Mermaid is Disney's best option, commercially, to test the waters for a 3D conversion of a pre-CAPS film with painted cels. It's already obvious that they can successfully and effectively do so with their CAPS films containing layer data from the 90s should they choose to do more -- I'm really hoping for Aladdin 3D -- but if TLM3D is a success, it opens the door to more, older films to receive the 3D treatment.

That said, as someone pointed out, Disney is currently sticking with the policy that they will only convert animated films where the filmmakers are still alive and can be involved in the conversion process.

I really don't care about the 3D conversions but I'm glad that Disney is sticking to the films in which the filmmakers still have a say so they don't screw things up. Even if this means that films like Fantasia (a film I may actually consider watching in 3D) or Peter Pan may never be converted.

[yumny]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Since you guys are talking about Oliver and Co., I think it is a problematic film in many ways - I find the art direction to be full of muddy browns, greys, and yellows, like something growing on the side of a trash can or belched out of a diesel engine, and I find these at odds with the cheerful and playful nature of the characterizations. I think the handling of Syke's dobermans was a bit insensitive, and the dialog either forgettable at best or inane at worst. The animation is low-budget and I'm not crazy about the character design of Oliver himself. All in all, the thing feels chintzy, ugly, dirty, dated, and even a bit mean-spirited.

It does, however, mark the first time Ashman worked for the studio - Howard Ashman penned the opening "Once Upon a Time in New York City".

Yeah, I know this sentiment is shared by many. Although the VHS copy of Oliver and Co. I have at home is really washed out from the many screenings, it was never specifically my favorite, because somehow it didn't quite *feel* like a Disney movie.

Originally Posted by RayCRP

You all are making me yearn for a theatrical release and 3D Blu-ray that are still well over a year away...

I think it's clear that The Little Mermaid is Disney's best option, commercially, to test the waters for a 3D conversion of a pre-CAPS film with painted cels. It's already obvious that they can successfully and effectively do so with their CAPS films containing layer data from the 90s should they choose to do more -- I'm really hoping for Aladdin 3D -- but if TLM3D is a success, it opens the door to more, older films to receive the 3D treatment.

That said, as someone pointed out, Disney is currently sticking with the policy that they will only convert animated films where the filmmakers are still alive and can be involved in the conversion process.

I think it's absolutely groundbreaking that they're converting a pre-CAPS film to 3D and I'm very much looking forward to the result. No worries, I think Aladdin 3D is pretty much a no-brainer; how could they possibly skip over that one?

I heard a rumour from a Disney insider once that there were plans to re-release Sleeping Beauty in 2016 theatrically; imagine that, and imagine that in 3D.. Who knows, we could have Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in 3D! Can't you imagine the awesome? Either way, it would be really cool to see some of their "older" movies in cinemas! Obviously this rumor of mine is quite unconfirmed and I really don't know the truth of it, but you never know!

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by zoodermin

Domestic Box Office results for Disney films in the 80s (unadjusted for inflation):

The Fox and the Hound: $39,900,000
The Black Cauldron: $21,288,692
The Great Mouse Detective: $25,336,794
Oliver & Company: $53,279,055
The Little Mermaid: $84,355,863

Who Framed Roger Rabbit: $150 million give or take.

The Little Mermaid may not have been a bombastic hit when it first hit theaters but it did pretty good business, more than any of the other Disney films from the same decade.

A little more than half the take of Roger Rabbit.

Let's not forget that during the late 70s and 80s and more during the Eisner era, Disney's interest in feature animation was dwelling

It was Eisner who seriously contemplated closing the animation division, that didn't happen in the 70's. Thank god Walt founded CalArts before he died.

...and moving toward live action films (Touchstone banner) and inaugurating the TV animation division (DisneyToon studios) that produced cheaper animation than the main studio.

Sport Goofy premiered in 1988, and DuckTales shortly after.

I think that The Little Mermaid has a "special place" in the Disney Co. because it was the first film that surpassed a Don Bluth production in the box office.

Secret of NIMH grossed $14, the Black Cauldron $21. Land Before Time $48, Oliver and Co, same year, $53 (forgive me, I thought it was over $60...rusty brain). The only time Bluth beat Disney was 1986, with An American Tail vs. Great Mouse Detective.

It won 2 Academy Awards, the first Disney Animated film to win an Oscar since Dumbo in 1941.

But clearly not the only Disney film - Song of the South, 20,000 Leagues, Mary Poppins, etc. Competition for Best Song wasn't as ferocious in 1989 as it was in say, 1956. Walt was oscar bait for most of his life - Saludos Amigos earned three nods alone.

And also, going back to the home video factor, TLM has always sell very good both in video and DVD. The VHS sold 10 million units while the DVD sold 7 million units only on the first year of production. Regardless of wether TLM is suitable for 3D or not, is undeniable that it has staying power and it will be a very profitable endeavor for Disney (Both in theaters and when it hits the Home Video market as the next Diamond title).

I don't think anyone is arguing the converse.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Who Framed Roger Rabbit: $150 million give or take.

BUT--as Disney found out when they tried to market it, and establish Roger as the new corporate character-icon of New Meets Old--it wasn't Disney, or even Touchstone. It was Amblin'.

(Spielberg only needed Disney's blessing for the distribution and character rights.
You recall, it wasn't even Disney animation, but Richard Williams, and if that sounds like I'm saying that contemptuously, it's because I'm watching "Thief & the Cobbler" on Netflix even now. )

Secret of NIMH grossed $14, the Black Cauldron $21. Land Before Time $48, Oliver and Co, same year, $53 (forgive me, I thought it was over $60...rusty brain). The only time Bluth beat Disney was 1986, with An American Tail vs. Great Mouse Detective.

A year after the Care Bears Movie 1 beat Black Cauldron, in 1985.
They were just beatable back then.

I don't think anyone is arguing the converse.

Why are we even IN a discussion about who "deserves" to be in 3-D? Like Clint says, deserve's got nothing to do with it.
Beauty/Beast and Lion King got 3-D conversions A) because they were all-CAPS digital, and B) because they're #1 & 2 interchangeably on the list of "Most Zombified When-in-Doubt Fanbase", whose horse they can hitch any new technology cart to without any fear that the audience won't feel it their "duty" to throw money at them...IMAX, DVD, Blu-ray, download, build it and they'll come. (Believe me, if it WAS about "deserving", B&B and TLK would be somewhere near the bottom of the 90's, and well in the lower tier of the canon. )
Aladdin used to be fourth on the Zombie list, but that was back before the IMAX showing was canceled, and Nightmare Before Christmas got promoted a notch after it started getting big numbers for the 3D re-releases...And Tim Burton's Alice is still applying for membership.
Guess who's third (leaving Roger Rabbit out of the equation).

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by celticmoon

considering that TLM became the highest grossing animated film of all time (unadjusted, of course) upon its original theatrical run (a record that obviously didn't last long as it was subsequently broken by BaTB, Aladdin, and TLK), I'd say that was a pretty significant feat.

Oliver and Co. held that title as well, so did An American Tail, The Fox and the Hound, The Rescuers, Robin Hood, and The Jungle Book.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Why are we even IN a discussion about who "deserves" to be in 3-D? Like Clint says, deserve's got nothing to do with it.

I don't think so, either, I just think The Little Mermaid doesn't have the staging to make a 3-D conversion worth the trouble. As I said, artistically, it doesn't make a lot of sense. The theatrical release will help move units of the Blu-Ray, though, which is what this is all about.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I don't think so, either, I just think The Little Mermaid doesn't have the staging to make a 3-D conversion worth the trouble.

[Show spoiler]

Ariel at Philharmagic - YouTube

(And even in terms of the original ink-and-paint film, show of hands, how many were immediately thinking of the exact same scene when they heard "3-D"?
As far as Disney gauging their fanbase is concerned, they can't remember any other scenes from the movie either, but that's enough to get the memo greenlit.)

As I said, artistically, it doesn't make a lot of sense. The theatrical release will help move units of the Blu-Ray, though, which is what this is all about.

(Again, it's not about "art", it's about what's digitally convertible with a solid default marketing fanbase.
And, well, Mermaid's got one. 90's-sentimental, maybe, but it's got one, and not just parents.)

[blu_ben]

What's with everyone trying to undermine TLM's success, I'd say it was pretty undeniable.

[Safari-1969]

Originally Posted by blu_ben

What's with everyone trying to undermine TLM's success, I'd say it was pretty undeniable.

No one is. We're just saying it didn't necessarily kick off the Second Golden Age.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by safari-1969

no one is. We're just saying it didn't necessarily kick off the second golden age.

+1

[BobbyB]

Originally Posted by blu_ben

What's with everyone trying to undermine TLM's success, I'd say it was pretty undeniable.

No doubt. I think Little Mermaid unequivocally began Disney's return to animation greatness in the late 80's. It was very well received, a big success for the studio, and kicked off a string of unabashed hits with Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and the Lion King.

And while I absolutely love Who Framed Roger Rabbit, it was an Amblin' release first and foremost and had animated characters from many studios besides Disney (WB, Betty Boop, MGM, etc.)

Need any further evidence? You might find scant traces of Roger & Jessica Rabbit hidden in obscurity in Disney World while Ariel has her own grotto and is preparing to debut an entire castle and ride in Fantasy Land at Magic Kingdom.