Search form

Disney?

20 posts / 0 new
Last post
Disney?

This is by no means a post/thread to start a war but I must ask why is Disney so popular? I pose this question here because everyone in here seems to be "real" animators.

I don't claim to be an animator nor will I ever, I create short films for art galleries that on occassion has some animation bits thrown in but I love animation always have always will. I tend to lean towards more stop motion features as my favorites, i.e. "Alice" Jan Svankmajer being my favorite. I've never owned, at least to my knowledge, a Disney feature, but I've watched several of them.

Again, this is not a proclamation for animation war, it's just a simple question.

Well no doubt your going to get numerous different responses towards this question because so many people all have a different idea to why its so popular. I suppose it's because the created the first ever full length feature animated film which was extremely unique and had a wide range of diverse characters. It has kept it's popularity by experimenting with new ideas and new characters constantly, although in the last 10.15 years i'm pretty sure their popularity has dropped. But the company that was aimed at children managed to bring in a whole other audience purley because of their story telling and art form.

I notice so many of you new folks don't even put a vague idea up as to your location. With the global aspect of the whole net it's hard to know who we are responding to, but for those of us in states. Disney is what it is because it touched our lives somewhere along the way. That's it pure and simple. You have to have something to say to your audience, that relates to their experience.

Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.

a bit busy but iil take a stab at it.
bunch of reasons why they are popular. they were of course one of the first few to put in the capital behind full features.
they were in the market early on and the characters they created seemed to have stayed on longer in the market. Also unlike say WB animation was their core business so their energies were spent on it.

revision

So why is their animation so innovative? It's seems to me that I've seen better animation, storylines, character developement, and sound usage other places than Disney. All that could be purely ones opinion but it seems to this viewer that they've found a formula that works and they're sticking with it and not trying to push the boundaries of animation. Maybe a lot of the innovative stuff that they do is more behind the scenes rather than on the big screen.

I'm not one of those people that think Disney ruined the world or anything like that I'm just curious to why they seem to reign supreme. I just attribute it to history rather than anything else.

They knew their market, because they were part of it, and they fashioned their stuff on things that would relate....it's not such a stretch. Sure later they had money to throw at it, but the success was in the early days when they were creating material for people like themselves. They only lost their market when they could no longer relate....tune in marketers.

Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.

So why is their animation so innovative? It's seems to me that I've seen better animation, storylines, character developement, and sound usage other places than Disney. All that could be purely ones opinion but it seems to this viewer that they've found a formula that works and they're sticking with it and not trying to push the boundaries of animation. Maybe a lot of the innovative stuff that they do is more behind the scenes rather than on the big screen.

I'm not one of those people that think Disney ruined the world or anything like that I'm just curious to why they seem to reign supreme. I just attribute it to history rather than anything else.

Disney has missed the boat quite a bit especially bits in the 70s and 80s. Recently there was Brother Bear and to a certain extent with Dinsoaur.
I think you need to pretty much establish what you are considering their greatest animation.
i think their ability to portray a technically slick and cinematically involving film peaked with the Lion King. which was HUGE.

but the market has changed a lot and im not sure Disney has along with them. But then Disney outgrew animation decades ago.

anyway. i digress. what it comes down to is they were the first big boys of the animation scene. they made the whole concept popular therefore they got to impress a lot of your minds (viewers and animators) with what a good piece of animation is (style, content, colors) They found their formula and tried not to deviate from it. The fact that the audience loved it was also because there werent many similarly produced and funded projects in cinemas. So you got to take the kids out what do you do?

of course as things went on from Toy Story onwards quite a few studios have gotten involved and its diluted the hold Disney enjoyed on its audience.

dj, I doubt you'll ever get an answer that satisfies you. Disney appeals to popular, mass-market tastes, which is not your taste. There's no right or wrong here, but that is the way it is.

You prefer Svankmajer over Mickey - cool. Svankmajer does interesting stuff that pushes boundaries, but at the same time doesn't concern himself over whether the work will have mass appeal. Disney, on the other hand, does concern itself over that (and as a publicly-held company, they should).

So you have one "entity" that is focusing on the market and trying to please it, and one "entity" that wants to make a personal film. Two polar opposites. And since your tastes run to the latter (again, no problem there), it's not surprising that Disney's output and popularity would be a puzzler to you.

It's cool - it's just different, y'know? ;)

It's all good

dj, I doubt you'll ever get an answer that satisfies you. Disney appeals to popular, mass-market tastes, which is not your taste. There's no right or wrong here, but that is the way it is.

You prefer Svankmajer over Mickey - cool. Svankmajer does interesting stuff that pushes boundaries, but at the same time doesn't concern himself over whether the work will have mass appeal. Disney, on the other hand, does concern itself over that (and as a publicly-held company, they should).

So you have one "entity" that is focusing on the market and trying to please it, and one "entity" that wants to make a personal film. Two polar opposites. And since your tastes run to the latter (again, no problem there), it's not surprising that Disney's output and popularity would be a puzzler to you.

It's cool - it's just different, y'know? ;)

I understand that it's my opinion vs. others opinion it just seems to me that a lot of people "gauge" where animation should be off of what Disney is doing. I don't dislike Disney for what they do or anything, I was just curious if the product that they produce is actually as impressive as everyone makes it out to be, on average. I was just curious about this from practicing or soon to be practicing animators.

I'm getting the responses I expected. I wasn't looking for a comparison between Svankmajer and Disney, I was using that as a point of reference as to what I have the most "knowledge" on. I really just wanted a technical point of view on the animation. I like older Disney stuff, it just seems to me starting at the time Little Mermaid came out or Aladdin things just started to become similar to me and they slipped as far as innovation was concerned.

I understand that it's my opinion vs. others opinion it just seems to me that a lot of people "gauge" where animation should be off of what Disney is doing.
...
I like older Disney stuff, it just seems to me starting at the time Little Mermaid came out or Aladdin things just started to become similar to me and they slipped as far as innovation was concerned.

That's exactly my point. Disney animation is a big, commercial success. Other studios that want big, commercial successes will mimic what Disney does, at least until someone comes along with something different that becomes a big, commercial success; then they'll chase that (see "Pixar").

Disney as a company has no interest in innovation; they are concerned about the bottom line, period. If innovation will pour money into the coffers, they're all for it. If it won't, then forget it.

The time in their history that you picked is telling - it's about that time that animated films started making money again, and studios like Disney started playing it safe with subsequent releases. And since it's called the movie "business", it's not really surprising.

Not dumpin' on ya dj; just trying to clarify...

Not dumpin' on ya dj; just trying to clarify...

It's all good. I'm one of those lonely artists just trying to make ends meet. I was just wondering why animators say Disney is the end all be all of animation. That's all. Their financial success is wonderful and you're right, it's a business. I guess this was my sad attempt at figuring out why people still consider Disney animation as the "thing" yet everyone says how mediocre at best the product has become. I'm not talking business or marketing, just product.

I'm not talking business or marketing, just product.

The average person (ie. not aware of some of the other animation styles out there) will most likely find it hard to separate the two. Lots of money is often hard to separate from quality for many. They're told it's the best and they believe it. It's the blockbuster theory of filmmaking: bigger and more extravegant = better.

In many regards, Disney's animation is very beautiful. It's animated on ones many times. Nearly every frame of every character is redrawn and looks 'alive'. Lower budget films have to rely on animating on 2's, 3's or even more (see anime). They'll rely on on holds for background characters (and even foreground characters). They'll use tricks like mouth swapping instead of redrawing each head.

It all adds up to more chrome and shiny stuff on the end product. But it all takes money and time, something that most indy/low budget products don't have much of.

It's the chrome and polish that everyone is responding to. It's that every frame is suitable for printing in the "Making of..." book. That sort of production quality/quantity is going to draw a crowd, especially a crowd that isn't as interested in art as it is in being entertained.

Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com

Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight

Apples and oranges

Hello.

Dj you are comparing apples and oranges. Feature animation be it Disney and everyone else is narrative based directed to a mass audience - that not only goes to the films but also buys the products associated with the films.

Independent animation has a much, much smaller niche and experimental animation has an even smaller niche. Jan Swankmier's animation has a comparatively small but none the less dedicated base.

For many in the industry, Disney has ALWAYS represented the best - the best movies, the best following, the stories, the most prestige and the best money...remember, the feature industry is a BUSINESS, an INDUSTRY.

At the moment, most folks will agree that Pixar is "king of the hill". We will see what happens when Disney's CHICKEN LITTLE- hits the theaters the end of this week....

....it will be interesting....

Thanks.

WARNING! Thread hijacking immenent!

At the moment, most folks will agree that Pixar is "king of the hill". We will see what happens when Disney's CHICKEN LITTLE- hits the theaters the end of this week....

....it will be interesting....

Or Cars for that matter. The preview (granted they were mostly just showing test stuff), but more importantly the idea behind it, leaves me feeling flat. I'm sure it will be marketed the hell out of and do very well in middle America. I'm sure it will look pretty, but I have close to no (make that less than no) interest in seeing a movie based around cars, let alone one that's playing up to the Nascar crowd.

Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com

Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight

Disney has enought $$$ to properly market their movies, where many others don't. They also have enough money that they don't have to settle for "good enough." They can spend the money to make it "good." Think of the worst Disney animated feature, and it's better than Ferngully, Quest for Camelot, Swan Princess, Troll in Central Park, etc. Stuff that is an "A" project at other studios would never even get a green light at Disney.

Anyway, it's all about Marketing. They spent $150 million marketing Cinderella this year. Pooh is everywhere. Anything with that kind of money behind it can be successful, but only Disney has the kind of money to keep it alive year after year after year. Veggie Tales, Barney, TeleTubbies, Pokemon, TMNTurtles... they've all come and gone. Some have come again. But Disney stuff just keeps on keeping on because they've got the money to keep throwing at it.

But Disney stuff just keeps on keeping on because they've got the money to keep throwing at it.

And they get that money back and then some more. Disney is a bit of an oddity in that the product is as much a product as it is an advertisement for their other products. Although they are far from alone in this, look at WB with Batman and Lucasfilm with Star Wars. Very similar if slightly less than what Disney can accomplish.

Take Pooh for example. Every new Pooh movie creates new interest in games, toys, bed sheets, toothbrushes, cereal, gummy snacks, pencil toppers, diapers, dinner ware, books, candy, honey bottles, window decals, back packs, t-shirts, hats, sneakers, rain boots, snow boots, roller skates, stuffed animals, twisty straws, balloons, other Pooh movies, other Disney movies, theme park rides, birthday candles, birthday cakes, birthday plates, wrapping paper, pencil boxes, pencil sharpeners, themed Monopoly boards, themed Risk boards, special edition mini-vans, etc.

Each one of those products not only makes money, but serves as advertising for all the other products that haven't been bought yet, including the movies. It's a giant net of marketing cast over the population. Enough of the population is going to buy into it, then gradually grow into expecting it, and eventually believe that it's all they want. That is one of the main reasons that Disney is so overwhelmingly popular.

.

Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com

Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight

Disney has enought $$$ to properly market their movies, where many others don't. They also have enough money that they don't have to settle for "good enough." They can spend the money to make it "good." Think of the worst Disney animated feature, and it's better than Ferngully, Quest for Camelot, Swan Princess, Troll in Central Park, etc. Stuff that is an "A" project at other studios would never even get a green light at Disney.

Anyway, it's all about Marketing. They spent $150 million marketing Cinderella this year. Pooh is everywhere. Anything with that kind of money behind it can be successful, but only Disney has the kind of money to keep it alive year after year after year. Veggie Tales, Barney, TeleTubbies, Pokemon, TMNTurtles... they've all come and gone. Some have come again. But Disney stuff just keeps on keeping on because they've got the money to keep throwing at it.

yet they arent where they should be in terms of financial performance. they are huge, top of the mountain when you look at it in terms of animation. but you take a look at them in terms of a corporate entity - they suck. all the debt, lethargic stock performance, Euro Disney losses. Weinsteins leave Miramax, they cant get along with Pixar.

dj, I doubt you'll ever get an answer that satisfies you. Disney appeals to popular, mass-market tastes, which is not your taste. There's no right or wrong here, but that is the way it is.

This is a key statement, along with Harvey's discussion on how big a company they are. Disney is similar in many ways to a Bruckheimer film (also, ironically enough, a Disney partner). Some of them are very good (Black Hawk Down, Gladiator) while others wouldn't be considered works of art (Armageddon, Days of Thunder). But they all share one thing in common, they have the money behind them to make them polished and nice looking. The general public is going to the movies as an escape mechanism, not usually for art appreciation.

Disney is very similar in many respects. Techinically, their animation is by the book, near perfect. Many people respond to that 'perfection'. It has the money to follow through with the production 'polish' that many smaller companies, however innovative and artistic, don't have. The general audience will choose shiny chrome plating over just about anything else almost all the time.

And Harvey hit the nail on the head. Disney owns a major network television station, a major cable directly with its name, and numerous other media outlets. It can afford to 'brain wash' kids with a non-stop barrage of commercials up to a year before a film comes out. Try watching Saturday morning cartoons a week or two before a Disney film is due for release. Without exageration, every single commercial break on ABC (and many other channels as well) has at least one ad that is about their upcoming film, whether it's directly about the film or through McDonalds or toys that you can buy, not to mention the book stands at Walmart, Barnes and Noble, posters, songs on the radio, in the movie theater while you wait for the movie to start, etc. For one to two weeks every year, the nation is forced to live and breath Disney animation. Most people absorb it and don't notice it, soon finding they need it. It'll drive you crazy once you notice it.

Artistic films find success primarily through word of mouth.

Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com

Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight

Artistic films find success primarily through word of mouth.

Isn't that the truth!

why is Disney so popular?

If you'd asked this question 70 years ago, the answer would be that their animation was so innovative. The animation styles they created were adopted by every other animation studio during the 1930s and 40s.

Today Disney characters are popular simply because they've been around for 75 years. Your parents, and their parents, and their parents watched Mickey Mouse cartoons or played with Winnie the Pooh dolls when they were kids. (Pooh merchandise generates $1,000,000,000 annually for the Disney corporation.)

Disney also created the most expensive-looking animated features for 70 years, and after all that time they have hundreds of characters in the marketplace.

Besides its history, Disney is popular today simply because they are a huge multinational corporation that permeates world culture. They, along with only a few other media conglomerates (Newscorp, Viacom, Time Warner, etc.), own our culture and can dictate what's to become popular.
If Disney created Poriferanfred Trapezoidshorts today, he would be in magazines, comic books, television, Happy Meals, and advertisements throughout the planet.
If Svankmajer created Poriferanfred Trapezoidshorts today, he would be in a few film festivals and then never heard from again.

You should also take into account that Disney animation mainly targets toddlers or small children: a huge market. Svankmajer's work would scare the crap out of or confuse most children.