>Atlantis Lost Empire. >Treasure Planet. >Meet the Robinsons. >Mars Needs Moms. >Strange World

>Atlantis Lost Empire
>Treasure Planet
>Meet the Robinsons
>Mars Needs Moms
>Strange World
Why is it when Disney does sci-fi in animation it always underperforms?
Is it karma for EPCOT being unfinished?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Is it karma for EPCOT being unfinished?
    You're onto something
    All of these only came out after they botched the Imagination revamp
    Disney will succeed in sci-fi animation once they restore Figment's ride to its former glory

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Well Tomorrowland flopped so probably

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Tomorowland is another example of Disney sci-fi sucking ass, and once again it failed because of the lackluster story. Similarly, Tron 2 also failed.

      You can kind of point to the core reason as to why these sci-fi Disney examples didn't do well: you can spin it any other way you want, but it's because the scripts suck and don't cater to the Disney audience enough

      >we barely spend enough time in Atlantis
      >Treasure Planet takes FOREVER to get to the point (and by then the tension falls apart)
      >Mars Needs Moms is a dumpster fire
      >Tomorrowland's pacing is ass and so is the ending
      >Tron 2 also takes forever to get to the point, most characters lack depth or charm, and it all hinges on hopes of a sequel to answer questions

      I also speculate it's because these movies didn't lean into the inherently religious throughlines of sci-fi enough, something Disney should have noticed given how Christian their customers are

      >Wall-E = Genesis, Noah and the Ark, Wall-E as the Messiah
      >Stitch is more or less a fallen angel/Satan finding a home on Earth, think of Jumba as a Demiurge, only a creator making destructive things for shits and giggles

      >maybe bring me an angel...the nicest angel you have

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        really is such a shame the only thing tomorrowland had going for it was the e-girl. It had so much potential.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Tomorrowland was a classic case of "Lore in the ARG and other side material is more compelling then the actual movie", like most things with Lindelof's name on it. While it only really amounted to exposition, did you know that Lindelof cut most of the "Walt Disney was a big part of Plus Ultra and the theme park land was a coverup" stuff because he thought it made the movie feel like too much of a Disney movie?

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't think I've ever met anyone who actually saw Strange Worlds. What is it about?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What if all of history ends because your son is gay?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The son's gayness has nothing to do with the plot whatsoever.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Basically they discover a special crop that can generate energy, which totally revolutionizes their society. However the plants start losing their energy and so they have to go underground to figure out what happened.
      It's a thinly veiled metaphor for fossil fuels.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pretty much, yeah. Which is ironic because Meet the Robinsons is easily the purest distillation of the spirit of EPCOT Disney ever produced.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I unironically think Overwatch does a better job of that

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We gonna pretend WALL•E doesnt count?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Pixar movie from before Disney completely assimilated them

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You say that as if Lilo and Stitch and Wall-E weren’t huge successes

      >Wall-E
      Pixar.
      It doesn’t count

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Is it karma for EPCOT being unfinished?
    Yes the Disney execs, not even Roy Disney(pbuh) could never understand Walt's brand of hopeful techno-optimism. it was just the spirit of his time.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's because Disney has hated being seen by consumers as a company for girls for decades. It's the reason why they bought out Marvel and then Lucasfilm because Disney lacked IP that catered towards boys and brought in the big bucks. Nearly all of the examples you listed were primarily aimed at boys or released during a time when Disney was dialing back on princess-centric movies and making movies that didn't fit the expected brand or formula.

    >specifically, however

    Atlantis and Treasure Planet failed because as stories, they just never live up to their potential: not to say that they don't have good parts worth enjoying, but that they don't "click" when compared to say, Prince of Egypt, or other movies made by Disney.

    >Mars Needs Mom was garbage in both writing and visuals

    Meet the Robinsons was and has been praised for the storytelling, but it came out during an awkward period when Disney was struggling to make CGI hugely successful (it wasn't until Tangled and then Frozen that things began to change).

    But the real problem is that these movies were made for boys, and because Disney is considered to be for girls, boys tended to stay away from it before Disney bought boy-centric media. And not enough girls watched these movies because they weren't about princesses.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That must be why they retooled Toon Disney into Disney XD, to reach that male demographic

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >meant to refer to Dreamworks as making Prince of Egypt, error

      There's always been rumours and accounts of people within Disney sabotaging Atlantis and Treasure Planet.

      The current issue now is that Disney keeps trying to cater Star Wars and Marvel to women when Marvel and Star Wars were both IP totally dominated by men as primary consumers. Women enjoy Marvel capeshit and Star Wars, but there's just not enough of the two camps of women who do:

      >geeky women who like capeshit and space fantasy/sci-fi
      >women who watch/read what their boyfriend is into

      Hence why Star Wars and Marvel have been desperately trying to appeal to normie women/aunt wines/SINK cat ladies but it doesn't work since to normie women, geekshit like sci-fi and superheroes is still social suicide: even if it's popular.

      You say that as if Lilo and Stitch and Wall-E weren’t huge successes

      Lilo and Stitch was successful because on top of being a quality movie, it had a strong marketing campaign that emphasized how it WASN'T adherent to the Disney Formula (literally having Stitch interrupt previous Disney movies). Lilo and Stitch was also always intended to push merch with Stitch as the big mascot, as the sequel movies and the TV series was already in development before the movie was finished, intending to cash in on Stitch's cuteness and the "collect them all" appeal of the other experiments.

      That must be why they retooled Toon Disney into Disney XD, to reach that male demographic

      Precisely. Disney XD ended up failing because most of the programming either sucked or wasn't widely available (making it another premium channel to buy was a bad move).

      Sci-fi in any capacity is too weird for the normalgays that comprise the bulk of Disney's audience.

      Lilo and Stitch is barely sci-fi, they spent most of the movie in Hawaii

      If a Disney animated movie LOOKS too sci-fi, Disney audiences tend to reject it: Wall-E got around this by taking place on Earth (albeit, post-apocalyptic) and then the inside of a spaceship (that admittedly also heavily resembles a cruise ship), and emphasizing the CUTE ROMANCE of the CUTE ROBOTS. And yes, Lilo and Stitch banked on the Hawaiian setting and the found family aspect rather than looking and being in a too sci-fi setting.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Wall-E got around it because the Pixar name was still strong back then.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      lmao, they bought Marvel and Lucasfilm to turn them into girl directed IPs. Disney hates the male demographic, always has.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This is why I hope that whenever Disney tries to change their tune male customers reject Disney wholesale. Simply fricking let Disney fail out of spite. I don't care if Disney makes a new X Men movie that's good or anything I will never forgive them for the shit they created. And Star Wars fans especially have every reason to let Disney rot even when that feminist b***h drops dead of old age.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You say that as if Lilo and Stitch and Wall-E weren’t huge successes

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Lilo and Stitch is barely sci-fi, they spent most of the movie in Hawaii

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sci-fi in any capacity is too weird for the normalgays that comprise the bulk of Disney's audience.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Disney's clientele have always been veganas. Anything male wants nothing with Disney's estrogen shit. And lets face reality Disney is especially bad at making male media when they try. The things dudes like is inherently Anti Disney. Dudes like cool characters, violence, sexy females, etc. Americans in general are quite horrible at doing this but Disney especially. So when you deliver some half assed effort of course it will fail.

    Disney should stick to twats if they want to stay alive though here's hoping they never recover and that Frozen 3 and 4 are monumental expensive failures that permanently tarnish the Frozen brand.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    WDAS was never good at pandering to boys. All their successful movies are either aimed at little girls or have animals. Every time they've tried something male-focused it flops, probably because Disney has a preconceived brand.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is why Disney's adaptation of Tarzan is not that successful. Customers already think of Disney are being for twats so why bother to see a most likely bad rendition of Tarzan hence what you said a preconceived brand.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Tarzan actually did reasonably well (better than Mulan, Hercules, Hunchback, and Pocahontas), it might be the one exception to the rule. Probably benefited from having a major female lead, a bunch of animals, and Phil Collins.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The animation is pretty, but the stories are often subpar. Also bad marketing efforts and release times.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *