Why is Disney/Pixar releasing flop after flop now? What happened to this company that less than 10 years ago was releasing successful films such as Frozen and Zootopia?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
The bowed to the ESG and Blackrock, thinking they would be able to push the globalist message onto the masses, turns out people are sick of it.
These movies are competing with the internet, youtube, and video games all while people are having less kids and everything is getting more expensive. Yes, the lack of breakout hit songs like Let it Go severely impact, but there is also aging Disney adult demographic that is less and less likely to be hyped without trendy music. You can chalk some of the loss in sales based on "brown princess, don't care" but there are bigger factors.
This doesn't explain Mario.
>biggest established video game IP gets all the star power in Hollywood to do a fun animated movie from the minions studio
Wish didn't stand a chance.
Wut? I thought the point was to destroy western civilization. It's not about money.
>It's not about money.
Conspiracy and culture war morons have done such a disservice to everyone. It's right there, it's obvious, you see where money and power go and what people do to maintain their place or climb upwards, but when it comes time to apply that knowledge, there's all this "no they just want to destroy the west" or even "they just use their power to abuse people, they get off on it". And even if you believe that, the answer is still to limit their money and ability to do that, but that is also part of some other conspiracy narrative so the answer becomes violence. Like the Walmart episode of South Park.
I think I'm bored of [current thing] on this website.
I don't believe Disney knows what its workers are doing nor has control over their culture. Zootopia was set up to fail with no direction and bad management (there were multiple fundamental rewrites late into production). It could be that when your goal is just to make as much money as possible for all your mates, you don't understand anything other than a line and if it's going up.
Remember that corporate kulture right now is that blacks and women and LGBT and et cetera are the future, that they need to be prioritised as the ONLY desired market.
how is it fricking possible a company this big and this controlling allows its employees ANY freedom?
>corporate culture
is supposed to be about money. why is it now anti-money? who let those people in? why aren't stockholders ejecting those people?
>how is it fricking possible a company this big and this controlling allows its employees ANY freedom?
Sometimes they can slip up and accidentally let their workers do things without corporate oversight. It's the only reason Lilo and Stich was allowed to be any good, because they made it in a separate studio without the Mouse watching over them in Burbank.
This is a lot more commen than you would think, they literally admitted that they didn't plan out new star wars and the directors got to do whatever they wanted
>stockholders
Stockholders and marketing are usally the problem
its a type of management called auteur theory that is mainly found in companies that produce entertainment or things close to art where artists are basically given almost free creative control over their own projects
>Picture
Byron and his gay bdsm fetishes hidden in plain sight
>I don't believe Disney knows what its workers are doing nor has control over their culture.
It's the opposite, these movies are driven entirely by the corporate side of things now. You can't tell me shit like Ralph Breaks the Internet or Wish are the byproduct of actual animators, it's entirely cynical products the way down.
And you can also notice how the recent Disney have been sanitized to absolute corporate blandness in order to chase that mythical four-quadrant audience. Ironically, the real four-quadrant movies of the past two years have been films made by creatives just doing their own thing - Avatar 2 and Oppenheimer.
>invincible armor
disney has literally never consistently made a profit. its entire history is "well shit, we're not making as much money as we expected, let's push along but make it cheaper" until the renaissance. and then afterward "okay now let's make it brain-damaged. oh what the hell, this isn't as popular? well let's just stop making animated movies."
>keep releasing samey looking 3D cartoons
>wonder why people get bored of them
Honestly the art styles seem to be getting worse and worse every movie. The character designs are downright ugly at times.
I think the design by itself is boring look at that star in OP
Its so boring
This will be pure speculation because I don't know who writes for Disney and their track-record(s):
Maybe the company bought its' own hype and figured "well anything we make is bound to be quality" which lead to allowing untested people write half-assed scripts and just shooting those?
Oh, putting aside that speculation and going with a personal opinion of more recent movies: The music just fricking sucks and if a disney movie has bad music then I don't want to watch it again.
Let it go's success was disastrous.
Moana had good music though
But that's a personal thing and I admit that stuff I don't like is popular.
They need to get new people doing music for sure. The Bruno song was the only song I can remember from Encanto and I can't remember a single one from Frozen 2.
>What happened to this company that less than 10 years ago was releasing successful films such as Frozen and Zootopia?
Jennifer Lee happened.
Just wait until Toy Story 5 and Frozen 3, homosexual
>Star Wars
People thought the prequels sucked and believed that Disney would have heavy quality control with the sequels. Turns out Disney had like 0 quality control at all and the honeymoon period ended. They've just started implying multiverse shit is canon with Ashoka.
>Marvel
Endgame served as a solid finale for most people but Disney wanted the billion dollar box office streak to never end so they streamlined the production of MCU content. COVID happened which means the streamlining had to be doubly reenforced which means now it's nigh impossible to course correct after people stopped liking Marvel shit.
>Animation
Their styles are indistinguishable from Pixar and the writing quality is piss poor. The people in charge don't seem to know what makes a movie work. Additionally, people know that these films are going to go onto streaming in like a month so they're just waiting a little longer until the movie comes to the ticket they already paid for rather than buying a ticket at the theaters.
>People thought the prequels sucked
if this was true than explain why they made so much money and why everyone loves the TCW
The movies were shit, but everything around them was pretty good.
Good games and good cartoons.
I also want to say that they had more CGI spectacle back when it was more novel. The Phantom Menace predates the first Harry Potter movie.
But by the 2010s cgi had pretty much plateaued so it wasn't as much of a draw. You had enough cgi spectacle in every other movie that no one really cared about Star Wars' use of it.
Disney weirdly left nu wars out to dry, clone wars had a SHIT ton of media with it. Nu wars got...... a shitty cartoon no one liked and no video games
Who's the fricking idiot that didn't knwo lucas IS the marketing master?
>Disney weirdly left nu wars out to dry
Well yeah, it wasn't beloved instantly, why waste more time or money on it?
The Phantom Menace used a lot of practical effects that were enhanced with CGI.
It was also the first major film to be filmed on digital film, back when the guard still had a hard stance on 35mm.
>The Phantom Menace used a lot of practical effects that were enhanced with CGI.
>It was also the first major film to be filmed on digital film, back when the guard still had a hard stance on 35mm.
Only a portion of TPM was shot digitally as a test. It was AOTC where he went 100% digital!!!FACT!!!
>if this was true than explain why they made so much money and why everyone loves the TCW
people are looking at the prequels in a new light because of how horribly Disney handled the sequels
people are having buyer's remorse. George Lucas got so much unnecessary flack.
>people are having buyer's remorse. George Lucas got so much unnecessary flack.
George deliberately sold Lucasfilm to Disney under the provision that witch Kuntleen Kennedy would take over and the reason is that he knew as he was nothing more that a stupid pencil pushing coffee b***h and Spielberg's lapdog and that she's run Star Wars into the ground to such an extent that it would make his prequels look good as he's still bitter over their reception. Problem is that the prequels are still fricking trash and no amount of revisionism will ever change that!!!FACT!!!
>George deliberately sold Lucasfilm to Disney under the provision that witch Kuntleen Kennedy would take over and the reason is that he knew as he was nothing more that a stupid pencil pushing coffee b***h and Spielberg's lapdog
no, it's that he thought he could trust her to oversee his vision and consult him
both she and Bob Iger lied to him. Iger says this in the book about considering Lucas' ideas.
>and that she's run Star Wars into the ground to such an extent that it would make his prequels look good as he's still bitter over their reception.
You think he isn't furious about the sequels? He called Disney "white slavers", said he only considers his 6 canon and didn't even show up for TROS
Disney also plays a huge role for wanting to speed the movies up while also pushing for yearly movies
>Problem is that the prequels are still fricking trash and no amount of revisionism will ever change that!!!FACT!!!
nah, he swung for the fences and had a bold vision. The franchise was still in a good spot after, and no matter how mixed - millenials and Gen Z loved it.
George Lucas won. He got the last laugh.
>he swung for the fences and had a bold vision
The prequels have just as much original trilogy fanservice as the sequels you lying sack of shit
>The prequels have just as much original trilogy fanservice as the sequels you lying sack of shit
and it had a lot of bold attempts at other things too. And the franchise was healthy after the prequels.
>bold attempts at other things too
Like Jar Jar
>Like Jar Jar
like the Clone Wars, cool villains and ROTS
The clone wars is narratively perhaps the weakest element of the entire prequel trilogy. The only reason that people hold it in high regard is because of all the kick ass designs used for the clone and droid armies. The moment you start thinking about it practically it essentially creates multiple plot ruinint retcons the necessitate the existence of the Original trilogy. The republic's army should never have been composed of clones.
>George Lucas won. He got the last laugh.
If you call this winning!!!FACT!!!
having a strong businesswoman black ebony QUEEN standing next to him while he drives off into the sunset?
Yeah, I think he's winning.
>having a strong businesswoman black ebony QUEEN standing next to him while he drives off into the sunset?
>Yeah, I think he's winning.
Still doesn't make up for his balls getting ripped off in a car crash!!!FACT!!!
Is that why he adopted
Kind of creepy both he and Jammill almost died in a car crash
>Is that why he adopted
>Kind of creepy both he and Jammill almost died in a car crash
>George Lucas got so much unnecessary flack.
No he got rightly criticized because the prequels fricking suck. Just because Disney somehow made something worse doesn't excuse how bad the prequels are. The only reason people like the prequels is because they have solid art direction
Dude the prequels made less than ever Disney Sequel.
>doesn't know where the REAL money is made
Merchandising
They try to hard to pander to both sides of media right now, and everybody can see how shitty and fake they are for it. They tried to appeal to everyone and by attempting this they appeal to nobody.
>checked r34
>more magnifico
I expected as much but I'm still disappointed. Maybe next week.
Asha has more ai art
Is Disney themselves prompting it?
How the frick did this shit cost 200 million?!?
Good fricking question
Disney hasn't released specific budget information in years so most of the numbers connected to these films are just industry estimates; Little Mermaid's commonly cited budget basically came about by taking a couple of the other live action remakes and slapping fifty percent more on top of it. That's why most articles on Wikipedia give Disney films a roughly fifty million dollar range for their budget.
Industry magazines tend to lean towards the high side for the estimates. Probably because studios prefer it that way since they can argue that a film didn't make as much money when it comes to paying taxes or other expenses. Like how Forrest Gump made like twelve times its budget but "lost" money when it came to paying Winston Groom a percentage of the profits.
Thanks to Hollywood Accounting, most movies can be claimed to have been financial failures so they can write it off on their taxes.
>Industry magazines tend to lean towards the high side for the estimates.
That's the old way of doing things. If anything, they wayyyy underball things nowadays. Most recently and notably, Rise of Skywalker was touted as being 275 million by pretty much everywhere, including disney "insiders"
Turns out that thing cost a fricking absurd 416 million. AFTER rebates. As in, it cost even more than that, and they still shaved off a shitload for filming in the UK, and even after all that it ended up so high that nothing short of 1.4 billion would've turned a profit. Rise of Skywalker is a legit billion dollar bomb.
> Rise of Skywalker is a legit billion dollar bomb.
Which is baffling, because if anything the obvious smart thing to do after the reaction to Last Jedi would have been to play conservatively and prepare for the third movie to do badly as well. They had already been dealt a losing hand, they just had to play it out. Instead, they decided to go double or nothing for some fricking reason.
>If anything, they wayyyy underball things nowadays.
This is nonsense. Legit industry media (e.g. meaning not some YouTube/TikTok or social media idiot, or even Screen Rant or sites like Heroic Hollywood) report accurate enough figure, particular when you look at reporting by Deadline and they do their annual assessment (Most Valuable Blockbuster Tournament) on box office success and failures.
Here's there reporting for 2022 on this, for example, and you can see they get into the weeds whereas other people literally are pulling numbers out of their asses without designating in any way that someone else could independently dispute or verify.
https://deadline.com/2023/04/biggest-box-office-bombs-2022-lowest-grossing-movies-1235325138/
>https://deadline.com/2023/04/biggest-box-office-bombs-2022-lowest-grossing-movies-1235325138/
>Source, Deadline estimates
>Source, Deadline estimates
Meanwhile here's the actual numbers from the information Disney itself provided to the UK government. Unsurprisingly, Deadline itself reported Rise of Skywalker cost 275 million in 2020. They "Go into the weeds" with numbers they estimate which are massively lowballed.
>Rise of Skywalker
>$416.1M
Jesus H Christ.
>Andor
>$194.8M
Justifiable from an artistic point of view.
Messy production, most likely. I can see this being more thrown together last minute than frozen 2.
Take your pick:
-They're just not good
-Too many flops have ruined the public's faith in them
-Everyone just waits for it on Disney+ now
all 3, parents only want to spend to take kids out to an experience not this lukewarm half baked shit they're pumping out
>-They're just not good
>-Too many flops have ruined the public's faith in them
>-Everyone just waits for it on Disney+ now
All of the above plus the fact pricing on everything increased to watch mediocre movies that look genuinely worse than anything their competition is doing, hell, have you seen some of the Animation movies Netflix gets from Korea and China these days? Did Cinemaphile or Cinemaphile ever discuss Green Snake?
The tastes of the new generation have been warped by the internet age and Disney can't seem to find the proper balance and brand power isn't enough to cover that
Kids have access to all sorts of media now. They don't have to go to Disney to get stimulated. An example is Five Night as Freddy's or Skibidi Toilet. Kids are feral for this but it's stuff Disney would never make and in the past kids would have a harder time gaining access to them. That barrier is gone now so the quality of media needs to make up the difference. Kids who want to watch Toilets in Gmod kill each other aren't going to find a movie about a girl trying to grant everyone's wishes compelling and Disney will never make a proper horror of action movie
This is the best reply. Kids don't want Disney princess. They want fazcoins and toilets. Disney will never get it and likely go out of business before making some weird ass movies that appeal to today's kids. Netflix and Universal seem to be more in touch with the newer generation. They may have more success. People in general want stupid, but good stupid. Disney is bad stupid. Woke preachy, old fashioned stupid. Won't go well for them.
>This is the best reply. Kids don't want Disney princess.
Complete lunatic take. Your loyalty for the brand can't excuse such a moronic brainless take on reality, fatso.
I think you're right that saying kids don't want Disney Princesses is a lunatic take, but we can go a step further in that kids don't want the type of Princesses Disney is selling now Remember how the person in charge of Frozen wanted to kill Elsa in Frozen 2 and make her boring plain sister the star.
Kids want beautiful princesses. The type of beauty that IS almost unobtainable and there's a concurrent against those expectations. Name the last really traditionally beautiful Disney princess after Elsa and you can see that Disney has been avoiding them for some reason
Kids (as in people who were young enough to have been children during the last 15 years) only care about Disney princesses because Disney created a princess merchandising line in the mid-2000s. Princess movies and princess characters were fairly rare during Walt era and during the post-Walt decline, and even the fabled renaissance era was quite balanced. Movies like Aladdin, Lion King, Hunchback, Hercules and Tarzan all have male leads and concepts that at least theoretically resonate better with male audiences. It's funny how Disney has become a "girl thing" even though historically they made family movies with no particular male or female focus. Is The Three Caballeros a "girl movie?" Is The Sword In The Stone? Disney has messed up their branding in more ways than one.
Seethe. You have no idea what people actually want to see. You just want your Disney nostalgia to continue. You're not seeing things through the eyes of a iPad riddled child.
They perfected the formula for making box office bombs by running out of great or at least new ideas and excessive executive meddling in every project.
3D animation is lame, it was cool when toy story came out, but it has worn its welcome by now.
>t less than 10 years ago was releasing successful films such as Frozen
Frozen was released exactly 10 years ago.
To put it simply, they're out of touch.
The corpos are out of touch because they flatly don't know what audiences want. They're lost and afraid because all they understand is making money number go up on the chart and they don't know how to make something that does that. Meanwhile the creatives are out of touch because they simply don't care what the audiences want. They just want to do their own thing that appeals to their own niche (or even just the creator individually), often in direct opposition to what a general audience would actually want.
The result is the company getting ripped apart by these two out of touch forces pulling in opposite directions. What I don't get is why the heads aren't rolling yet. People should be getting fired when there's this many successive frick ups, things should be getting restructured, new leadership should be brought in to steer things in a new direction. But it just keeps tumbling down instead. Is this some symptom of endemic nepotism resulting in too many unfit, but untouchable nepo hires ending up in power positions? It makes me wonder.
That's always been the case. There's always been executives who go "I know, that movie bombed because it had Mars in the title! Remove Mars from the next title!" and creatives who have one good movie, then flame out when handed a stack of cash and editorial control. The only difference now is the internet.
More like they don't know what humans want.
In fairness, threatening to kill someone then saying "I'm kidding" would destroy pretty much any marriage.
Oh I can explain my dear fellow. It's because nobody wants the jobs. Either as the management or as the artists. There's no fresh blood in either section of the company. Why would an up and coming business person choose to pitch their tent with Disney when they could join a tech or software company and make much more money? So the fossils who were around before the tech boom continue to hold positions or hand their positions down to family members but there's nobody fresh to take over. As for the artists the industrial complex has been chewing them up for decades and killing their passion for art, so you don't have a great deal of veterans except the real crazies or the real folks with agenda.
They're stuck with each other. The artists want more progressive leaderships and the leadership need more artists but neither of them are getting it so you get leaders who cloak themselves in progressive talking points and artists who can't make anything good but that's all they have because who the frick wants to work for Disney instead of gambling on making your own thing that can get big now. They all wanna be FnAF
>They just want to do their own thing that appeals to their own niche (or even just the creator
Explain to me why this is a bad thing. Japan did this and it sells, that's why you see isekai shits everywhere
Very different models. Japanese creators make niche-facing stuff, but they do it in such volume on the indie level that most fail and only the most popular stuff floats to the top and succeeds. Its personal and niche, but a vibrant ecosystem of it that covers all bases.
That is not what Disney makes, and doesn't ever want to make. Disney wants to make one movie that appeals to everyone and becomes a cultural touchstone, every time they release a movie. Niche appeal is the exact opposite of their plan, and they can't keep the lights on releasing niche appeal movies at mass appeal production costs. And because they are doing top down design instead of bottom up indie market, there is no filtering process happening. A bad idea, top down, gets the full budget and production cost before an audience sees it and it bombs.
Remember that Disney thought that quantumania was going to be a smash hit, and when it wasn't they were in full panic mode because they didn't understand how this could have happened.
So you're saying that they should make a movie that only white people can appreciate and frick all other races.
Nah just tone down the gay shit and if you need to make a person a gay dont make their entire identity revolving around the fact that hes a gay, instead make a good character who just happens to be a gay.
>if you need to make a person a gay dont make their entire identity revolving around the fact that hes a gay
When has this happened?
All I can think of is Shoreleave and he's a great character.
Shoreleave isnt Disney and he has a great personality he doesnt make it out to be that hes gay hes just flaming flamboyant about it which is tolerable plus hes badass.
So then it happened in Strange World. What's the problem?
Cant make an argument for that film, I've never seen it. Hell I didnt even know it existed till about a month later.
they have shite writers but didn't want to acknowledge that there's a dunning krueger effect going on there. some of them rather fight people on social media than see what's exactly wrong with their movie. the disney adults fighting naysayers to shield them against critcism and (attempt to) guilt trip people into consuming their products by labelling people as bigots aren't helping either.
Everything is brown and gay and looks like generic garbage. They coasted a good bit on good will from past successes but that wore off.
This is mostly chud cope. Yes, brown and gayifying everything lost them older people but that's never been their target market. Plenty of brown gay stuff, like nu-Spiderman, finds success
>Why is Disney/Pixar releasing flop after flop now? What happened to this company that less than 10 years ago was releasing successful films such as Frozen and Zootopia?
Like many others it's been infested with SJW woke parasites determined to make trash that pushes their "message" that amounts to hating straight white men which is at the core of everything they think say and do while only looking for reasons for name calling because it's mostly women behind this shit enabled by ~~*you know who*~~ that specialize in subversion, demoralization and creating division between people to divert attention away from their crimes and destruction of our civilization!!!FACT!!!
>Frozen and Zootopia?
boomers made these.
you gotta admit western millennials cant make any interesting shit whether they are woke or tradcon. they are creatively bankrupt. this is why zoomers gobble manga and anime up.
Wasn't it gen x?
Why is everybody forgetting the period after Lion King but before Frozen, when Disney was also in a slump and forced to make cheaper direct-to-TV videos to keep afloat? Disney has gone through a lot of low spots where they just didn't have the skills or production or some capability to produce good work. We'll need to see if Disney is willing to pull back like they did before, or if they're willing to drive a trainwreck straight off a cliff pretending that everything will be okay.
And there was the Bronze Age before that. This happens in cycles.
>now
The financial performance of Disney's movies has been on a slide after Endgame. You just don't see it being reported honestly, nor was the public getting accurate budget numbers from Disney. I've been saying since last year that 2023 was gong to be a bigger disaster for Disney than 2022, but people don't want to hear it.
Anyone who's honest and not part of the culture war can still acknowledge that mainstream companies cannot serve only one political side and still be mainstream, and that hiring by quota will produce worse results than hiring by merit. But let's set that aside and look at it purely as a numbers game. The moment you have movies that don't break even, that's going to have a trickle effect on the budgeting of the next film, until that trickle turns into a torrent. It's a cascading effect, like how a single car braking when it shouldn't can cause a traffic jam 20 miles away. Each flop causes the budget to go down, which leads to lower quality, which leads to lower merch, which leads to delays, which leads to higher cost, which leads to more cuts and so on. Disney was not living cleanly within its means. Once budgets reach the $300 million range, a movie needs $1 billion just to break even. Break even isn't even really break even, because people don't consider the financing costs for that budget, or the distribution costs of getting that movie into theaters, and so forth.
Activism is the main problem, but it's also hubris and ego that allows the main problem to persist. Disney behaved like a tech startup. They stopped caring about their real financials, stopped giving dividends, and poured money into activism like tech companies pour money into R&D, with the goal being to raise market capitalization. But stock price is not about real income. It's perception. That was always going to fade without real money coming in, and you can't have real money coming in when every project needs to hit one billion.
most of their employees want to "work for Disney" as a nice line in their resume, they have no real desire to actually make good movies, to tell great stories or pushe their artistic skills at their limit, as long as they are "at Disney" they believe they achieved everything in life already.
Is that a lie? So long as you present yourself as one of the protected groups currently, I bet you can do anything at Disney. Just show up and not do shit.
It's not REALLY a flop until it gets beaten by Illumination ducks
If you ask me. Disney has NOT changed at all. They are still the same company as they were one hundred years ago.
They still do anything in their power to force any concept to be lame family friendly inoffensive trite.
They combine their movies with sing along songs to force them to become trendy and memes as early as Snow White's Heigh Ho dwarf song.
The only difference I mention about Disney back in the day compared to now? Disney has run out of famous public domain works from Europe (Fairy Tales) and does not seem to bother with trying to get the license of something like how they used to for Bambi or Dalmatians. This in turn leads Disney to try to create original ideas like Brave and Wish and it leads to bad results as you can all see. Disney has NEVER had good writers. And if by some miracle they do a decent original like Wreck it Ralph well you all saw how the sequel to Wreck it Ralph turned out so I repeat Disney has never had good writers.
Another separate thing you people fail to mention that helps Disney fail is the competition. Look Disney almost died during the Dark Era after Walt passed away. And that was with no competition and they had their theme park as well (Universal's theme park did NOT exist yet). And despite this Disney still almost ended up bankrupt. Kind of reinforces what I said about above a little with the whole Disney having terrible writers because they also didn't have animation studio rivals like Dreamworks who at the time of Disney's Dark Era did not exist.
But lets get back to competition. Disney has competition for the attention of girls, because Disney does not appeal to boys. Disney has...
1) Animation studios like Dreamworks, Sony Animation, illumination and even the rising Nintendo Animation Studio.
2) Internet entertainment like twitch streams or youtube channels.
3) Japanese media such as video games, manga, and anime.
The listed above indicate Disney NOW actually has competitors to worry about.
>If you ask me.
onbody cares about your drooling obese fat face feefees, no
> Disney has NOT changed at all.
And the moron already shits himself, I'm out.
Walt era Disney animation is distinctly different from the company's contemporary offerings. Probably the biggest difference is in how the classic movies dedicated a lot of their runtime to visual comedy and gags. Not dialogue, but clever interaction between characters and objects based on them being cartoons, that could both contribute to how events played out or could also just spice up a scene that wouldn't otherwise be visually interesting. This is something that surprises me when I go back to watch the 40s and 50s feature length movies, they're consistently entertaining just to look at. Disney's recent cgi movies on the other hand are more selective in when they choose to do stuff like that. The cartooniness seems to need diegetic excuses like magic powers or creatures being mutants instead of just allowing things to be a bit silly.
The other thing is obviously that the classic movies were conservative morality tales that romanticised the aesthetics of pre-industrial Europe, but the animated shorts were often set in modern day so it's not that clear-cut. The main difference here is that the ideology in classic Disney was embedded in the aesthetics and cartooning whereas it's the other way around now. Disney animation used to make movies that unavoidably reflected the conditions that produced them, whereas Disney animation now is a vestigial institution that serves the corporation's ideological needs. Walt Disney came up with shit like Epcot to further his idealised society, he didn't need the animation department to make propaganda films about techno-totalitarianism. Think of it like this, Walt canned the porn his animators made but he didn't order them to make a movie that attacked people who were into cartoon porn featuring trademarked corporate IPs.
Zootopia 2 but Judy always wears dolphin shorts
It'll make billions
Kek this. If I were a Disney executive I would lean into furhomosexualry hard as you're guaranteed to get ticket sales from furries and there's relatively little moral panic about furries to drive away parents
Too many "Me" projects by little girls that can't relate to Batman. The movies are vanity projects made by and for the creative, in misguided believe that they embody massive target audiences. The worst is when you give them a known IP to tailor to look like themselves, but just their own unique projects are too self-serving, and create "biased" writing. The hero's have daring milk toast or bad opinions that are tested by people that at first seem to have everyone's best interest at mind, but turn out to be secret Hitlers.
Too many creatives that can't relate believing they're relatable.
How can a streaming device cost so much?
Pumping high quality video over the internet at a fast bitrate is one of the most expensive things you can do with a computer right now. There's a reason that most streaming services offering 4K video have a hard time making a profit. It would be easy if they just offered 480p or maybe even 720p, but then nobody would bother paying for the service to begin with.
Disney specifically? They try to do all content in-house, and they make too much content, and they make expensive content with low ROI. When every studio has their own streaming service, they lose the economy of scale they had when everything was sold to Netflix. That's why distribution is a thing. That's why Diamond is/was a thing. Think of all the infrastructure these studio need to run their service that are duplicated.
>first spanish princess woooo
>makes her black
>design the companion to be a boy made of starlight
>no, turn it into a featureless blob
>fifth quirky so random personality "princess" based on Rapunzel who was a shut-in with no experience of the outside world
>is my mouth droopy? it feels droopy
I didn't want to see more Frozen
Disney miss understand it own customer again.
>Tell your core audience of heterosexual families to frick off for not embracing grooming propaganda aimed at their children
>Chase after Twitter homosexuals
>Not only are Twitter homosexuals not numerous enough to offset the audience you just alienated, they’re only interested in the same products said alienated audience prefer
>Cant backtrack because it’s politically inconvenient to the narrative
>Double down
You get what you fricking deserve
Jennifer Lee happened. I'm sorry, but even though Frozen is a good movie, I thought it was overrated. And ever since Lee took control, their animated films have been mediocre at best and complete trash at worst.
Jen made a whole film just to separate the sisters, after admitting that Anna would always put her sister ahead if her boyfriend. Should have written sisters, but it comes off like a sexless, codependent romance.
Movies look boring in terms of concept. We can argue about quality but these concepts just aren't what kids are into. Toys coming to life made me want to see toy Story. This new shit like Strange World and Wish looks uninteresting. What's the draw? They need to get more interesting concepts/artwork.
Multiverse of Madness killed the MCU by making fans realize they were actually expected to watch the Disney+ shows in order to follow the movies, which no one wanted to do.
Star Wars probably could have survived the Last Jedi, which was at least divisive and interesting to argue about, but *no one* liked the Rise of Skywalker and it kind of killed the franchise.
In animation, the Pixar/Disney "look" has gotten very stale. Elemental clawed its way out of flopdom, and honestly Wish probably will as well, but Disney/Pixar feels very dated now. I know people want to blame "Go woke" but Spiderverse was way woker and did way better because it was something different.
Spiderverse did well because they are good movies. Good movies are good movies regardless of if you think they are "woke" or not, and likewise a bad movie is a bad movie regardless if you think it was "woke" or not. Quality of the products is what matters in the end over everything else.
Wish has a way worse WOM than Elemental did. Most people who have seen Elemental agree that it’s a solid and genuinely heartwarming movie, but the best praise for Wish seems to be “it’s okay” and “not as bad as the critics say”. I don’t think it’s gonna have Elemental tier legs,
Elemental didn't even have legs, it was a staggered release that barely missed breaking even. By all accounts it's a flop, just not the complete disaster it was originally penned as.
Not true. It was very leggy both internationally (in my country it was still in the weekly Top 20 until last week, reaching a multiplier of 13.25x) and in the US, climbing from the 29M US opening to 149M eventually. That’s a 5x multiplier, which is pretty good. It’s the very definition of a sleeper hit; not exactly what Disney was hoping for, but it’s a respectable result. Wish is gonna be none of those things.
the problem is that disney will look at the industry leaving them behind and concluding people want sequels
Wasn't an issue people had with MoM was that they acted as if the secondary media was neccessary? Then it turned out if you knew anything of the said media, your opinion on MoM was lower than those that didn't?
Second MoM being the straw though
>I know people want to blame "Go woke" but Spiderverse was way woker and did way better because it was something different.
Woke stuff might be a problem to a certain extent, but I think it's mostly a red herring. Barbie was pretty woke and it was a smash hit.
Mostly because Ryan Gosling stole the show.
Barbie wasn't woke. In fact its central message is something anti-woke people would agree with: Barbie is an aspirational fantasy figure for a specific audience, and injecting real world expectations and political causes du jour into her world would ruin the fun.
Morales has been here long enough that nobody cares anymore.
>but Spiderverse was way woker and did way better because it was something different.
In a bubble, but considering the last Spider Man movie featuring the multiverse crossed 1.8 billion, there's no denying that it's a steep drop.
Fun fact, Miles still has not made as much money as the worse performing Peter Spider-Man movie. Amazing Spider-Man 2, which was such a bummer it canned their series and ended countless plans on top of making them crawl back to Disney, made more money than Spider-Verse 2. None of them have even come close to the level of a single Raimi film. Miles is carried HARD by the Spider-Man name, but that name is more successful with the real deal, full stop.
>take thing and make them gay and lame
Because it will be on Disney Plus in four months and I don't feel like bringing my kids the theater for no reason
I like bringing my kids to the theater but theres nothing good for them to watch.
Now I just set up the projector and aim it on the side of the house and we watch whatever there.
They literally just became too soulless that even normies look at them and say "Damn that movie looks soulless."
Disney has the same problem that a lot of companies do now: executives are fundamentally incapable of understanding that twitter isn't real life. Responses on twitter, negative or positive, DO NOT TRANSLATE into real world results. You cannot use twitter as a focus group, or a litmus test, or a forecast of audience response to your product. Every time you do this, it will be wrong more often than it is right and it will lead you to making the wrong choices as a result.
Because they're releasing films nobody really asked for, simple as. We didn't need a Buzz story that's about an AU Buzz. We didn't need a rote Disney princess story with with a weak villain. We didn't need two Marvel stories that just spun their wheels and didn't progress anything.
>Disney does so many flops they'll inevitably run risk adverse
>this will happen before an animated gay Disney prince movie
It's not fair