At this point, Disney is Disney in name only. Under first Eisner and now Iger, it's long been a company uncomfortable in its own skin. They would far rather be a vast clearinghouse for other people's intellectual properties than develop anything of their own these days. I much preferred when it was still "Walt Disney Productions", and everything they did had a certain look, sound, and general feel to it so you knew it was unmistakably Disney. Today, the Disney Company's product is completely indistinguishable from every other studio's. I'm sick of it all, personally.
I stopped caring about Disney after Lion King, and I was about five-years-old when that film came out. Each subsequent film seemed like more of the same, and in the past few years their output has only gotten worse. There is no way anyone could convince me to see Frozen. It's clear to me that they're surviving only due to their mainstream appeal, given the way audiences gush over The Princess and the Frog and Tangled. Maybe this is the "fake Hollywood cartoon" I've heard about on animation blogs.
Jaime Weinman hit the nail on the head. Disney is becoming another one trick pony that's only surviving because of mainstream interest in their stuff, which is laden in formula really.
I didn't even know that he was still blogging and writing. Thanks for the link, Mr. Mayerson.
Disney raise mediocrity to mediocrity for around two decades. Everyone who know the Walt Disney's name or the peoples who work in can said that. I was highly disappointed to my own anticipation of "Gravity Falls" which feels surprisely great in concept but get poorly in execution.
I trying once more with Tangled and Brave lately, prefered watching the original English version and not the dubbed versions in fear to miss gags and references which can make dubbed companies uncomfortable (I don't longer trust to dubbing quality anymore.), but they're get both tiresomes results. Nothing i know exactly what Disney dig into animation as a great form of art.
I feel that you're unfairly bashing Disney. The entire animation industry has declined to the point where it's nothing but ad product shilling sugar-water to kids. Why bash the House of Mouse and leave the others alone?
July 28, 2013 7:38 AM
Jaime Weinman on recent Disney events:
"But some people will miss the tradition that Walt Disney created—people
who have animated for Disney, and people who aspire to. “I feel like the
latest news of layoffs has shaken up a lot of animators, especially
students,” says Bobby Chiu, founder of Toronto’s Imaginism Studios.
“They’re all a little nervous.” And of course so will some fans. While a
future dominated by Star Wars and Iron Man might make
Disney more profitable, it could also mean a future where Disney
releases movies that could have been made by any studio—and in many
cases, used to be made by other studios. In the Lion King era,
Disney was the studio that every company tried in vain to rip off. But
today, “the average person can’t tell the difference between a Disney
movie and a DreamWorks movie, or even a Sony movie,” says [Tom] Bancroft."
"The Decline of Disney"
8 Comments -
This doesn't surprise me.
July 08, 2013 11:13 AM
At this point, Disney is Disney in name only. Under first Eisner and now Iger, it's long been a company uncomfortable in its own skin. They would far rather be a vast clearinghouse for other people's intellectual properties than develop anything of their own these days. I much preferred when it was still "Walt Disney Productions", and everything they did had a certain look, sound, and general feel to it so you knew it was unmistakably Disney. Today, the Disney Company's product is completely indistinguishable from every other studio's. I'm sick of it all, personally.
July 08, 2013 2:02 PM
I stopped caring about Disney after Lion King, and I was about five-years-old when that film came out. Each subsequent film seemed like more of the same, and in the past few years their output has only gotten worse. There is no way anyone could convince me to see Frozen. It's clear to me that they're surviving only due to their mainstream appeal, given the way audiences gush over The Princess and the Frog and Tangled. Maybe this is the "fake Hollywood cartoon" I've heard about on animation blogs.
July 08, 2013 6:40 PM
Jaime Weinman hit the nail on the head. Disney is becoming another one trick pony that's only surviving because of mainstream interest in their stuff, which is laden in formula really.
I didn't even know that he was still blogging and writing. Thanks for the link, Mr. Mayerson.
July 09, 2013 1:55 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
July 11, 2013 8:49 PM
Disney raise mediocrity to mediocrity for around two decades. Everyone who know the Walt Disney's name or the peoples who work in can said that. I was highly disappointed to my own anticipation of "Gravity Falls" which feels surprisely great in concept but get poorly in execution.
I trying once more with Tangled and Brave lately, prefered watching the original English version and not the dubbed versions in fear to miss gags and references which can make dubbed companies uncomfortable (I don't longer trust to dubbing quality anymore.), but they're get both tiresomes results. Nothing i know exactly what Disney dig into animation as a great form of art.
July 11, 2013 8:52 PM
It is right and doing good work, please keep sharing .........
July 18, 2013 12:38 AM
I feel that you're unfairly bashing Disney. The entire animation industry has declined to the point where it's nothing but ad product shilling sugar-water to kids. Why bash the House of Mouse and leave the others alone?
July 28, 2013 7:38 AM