# Is Disney Getting Too Deep? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [December 9, 2002, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-disney-getting-too-deep/141433 "2002-12-09T03:54:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-disney-getting-too-deep/141433/21 "2002-12-10T02:11:18Z")
\>\>I think it’s a good strategy on Disney’s part. They’ve adopted a formula that was first fine-tuned by the old Warner Brothers cartoons; make it flashy for the kids, and make it funny for the adults.\<\< I have to plug Rocky and Bullwinkle, here. I remember watching them again when my kids were little and being blown away by how much I had missed when I was little. ---
**Author:** ![Jinx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Jinx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jinx)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-disney-getting-too-deep/141433/22 "2002-12-10T02:28:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CrazyCatLady \* > \*\ ***Jinx** , Disney made its name doing classic fairy tales and _all_ fairy tales have darkness, evil, and fear in them. That darkness, paired with love, light, and happiness, appeals to the whole range of human emotions… \*\* I do agree, in general. But, I found Lion King far too dark - start to (almost) finish. There is very little to break up the seriousness of the storyline. Pumba and Timone play a small role in introducing some comic relief (Disney style) to soften the grim storyline. In contrast, I feel prior Disney movies, including Little Mermaid and Aladdin, have lighter storylines. With Lilo and Stitch, not realizing it was rated PG, my complaint is just that I think the writers could have handled things differently. I felt their need to include psychological explanations for Lilo’s actions, for example, was unnecessary. There’s an old rule of thumb in writing: Show, don’t tell. I think they could have easily invoked the audience’s sympathy for Lilo without delving so deeply into underlaying issues. - Jinx ---
**Author:** ![Jinx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Jinx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jinx)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-disney-getting-too-deep/141433/23 "2002-12-10T02:37:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by deathawk \* > \*\*The point regarding its bombing is substantiated by Disney restating its projected earnings based solely on the low reciepts from its opening week…Regardless of its presence in the top ten, its gross to date in relation to its budget pretty much earn it the description “bomb”. It could work its way out, but I doubt it at this point. \*\* Hmm… By that definition, hypothetically, isn’t it still possible for a movie BE the #1 all-time best seller, and yet still bomb because it had to hefty a budget? Strictly IMHO: When we (the consumers) say a movie isn’t doing well, I don’t think we tend to think about budgets and profits. I’d wager we think in less-quantitative terms such as its popularity relative to other movies of the same time period, genre, etc. Perhaps it’s one and the same…maybe I’m just splitting hairs. But again I ask, what if a picture is well-liked, sells lots of tickets, but still doesn’t turn a profit, or just breaks even? - Jinx ---
**Author:** ![Silentgoldfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@Silentgoldfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silentgoldfish)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-disney-getting-too-deep/141433/24 "2002-12-10T02:38:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jinx \* > \*\*Several posts refer to Disney’s “formula”. But, what about 101 Dalmations? Fox and the Hound? Jungle Book? I’m sure there are others, if I give it more thought. - Jinx \*\* The Disney formula as I understand it has only been in use since the success of _The Little Mermaid_. _The Emperor’s New Groove_ is easily my favourite Disney movie. It’s also one where a) there aren’t any comic relief sidekicks (everyone’s comic relief) b) there aren’t any moral lessons to be learned – except maybe don’t be a jerk – and the villains don’t die at the end of the movie, though there are some very funny falling gags. “I didn’t order a trampoline…” ---
**Author:** ![Fern\_Forest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/71c47a/32.png) [@Fern\_Forest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fern_Forest)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-disney-getting-too-deep/141433/25 "2002-12-10T03:28:36Z")
How **Treasure Planet** cost $140m compared to **Lilo** ’s $80m is beyond me. I thought it was nearly as good as Lilo. It’s a shame it wont get to break even in the domestic market. Go see it. It’s Treasure Planet in space, just don’t mind the science. I saw it twice, once at the local IMAX and had a great time both times. Although it might be a little too powerful for young children. The scene where the father simply leaves without saying goodbye to his 8 year old son or even looking back once. Just stomps out of the house leaving a weaping wife and little Jim running after him, but unable to catch up. That one might be hard to explain to a 5 year old. I want stories watered down. That’s not Disney’s full length origins. **Snow White** wasn’t watered down and it made tons at the box office then and now. From 1937 to 1961They simply made (by and large) great films for all ages. 1961-1990 was a period of watered down films which still were occasionally great. **Winnie the Pooh** and **The Great Mouse Detective** are really good movies. But **The Black Cauldron** is the absolute worst example of the watered down process that Disney employs. So bad it’s practically incoherent. That’s the last thing anybody wants. In fact Disney should redeem itself and remake that movie but do it right! 1989-1999 were Disney’s broadway musical period with highs and lows. But since then they’ve really tried to broaden their horizons. And that’s a good thing. **Emperor’s New Groove** is simply Disney’s funniest movie. And there are no musical scores, really that 1 song is simply the opening and closing theme song for the movie. Much like you’ll see on any TV show. **Atlantis** kinda has the same idea as **Journey to the Center of the Earth** with some mystical stuff which didn’t quite click with me but I liked it. ---
**Author:** ![SC\_Wolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eb9ed0/32.png) [@SC\_Wolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SC_Wolf)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-disney-getting-too-deep/141433/26 "2002-12-10T03:46:53Z")
Well, there is that one scene, Osiris, but this is the same company that brought us films like Old Yeller. ---
**Author:** ![deathawk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ed8c4c/32.png) [@deathawk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deathawk)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-disney-getting-too-deep/141433/27 "2002-12-10T04:39:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jinx \* > \*\*Hmm… By that definition, hypothetically, isn’t it still possible for a movie BE the #1 all-time best seller, and yet still bomb because it had to hefty a budget? > > Strictly IMHO: When we (the consumers) say a movie isn’t doing well, I don’t think we tend to think about budgets and profits. > I’d wager we think in less-quantitative terms such as its popularity relative to other movies of the same time period, genre, etc. Perhaps it’s one and the same…maybe I’m just splitting hairs. But again I ask, what if a picture is well-liked, sells lots of tickets, but still doesn’t turn a profit, or just breaks even? > > - Jinx \*\* Perhaps we do not consider only budget/profit, but I think it plays a part in the perception. This film is now projecting into the $40 mil range on a $140 mil budget. The public is aware of this in a general way, expecially when the studio itself does what Disney did here. And I think it is important to note that industry analysis, which centers on P&L, takes great note of box office to budget ratios. It’s one thing for a movie to just miss profitablity on its initial domestic run. It’s quite another to miss by $100,000,000 dollars. What the public does consider in addition to this is buzz, and relative placement within category (perhaps not consciously). **Treasure Planet** was almost beaten out in its opening week by **The Santa Clause 2** , a sequel that had been out for almost a month. In an era where the opening is critical to a film (except for rarities like **My Big Fat Greek Wedding** , for a film to have opened this poorly on one of the biggest weekends of the year is telling. Again, poorly should be measured against advanced estimates - most predictions for this opening in the $17 mill range, which it missed by almost 33%. Re-reading this this reply comes across a bit harsh, but I’m not sure how to best alter it & still make my point. The movie is bombing by the measure normally used (Domestic Gross to Budget) - though I grant that it appears to be well recieved by those who are going . There just aren’t (relatively speaking) all that many of 'em. And certainly not enough to justify the pre-advertising budget. Again, apologies for the tone if needed. Oh - I suspect we are now moving into the serious hijack zone. I’d be happy to continue this discussion, but another thread might be more appropriate. Let me know. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-disney-getting-too-deep/141433.md?page=1)