I think it is, ever since Walt's death and everything after 2000 has been a shitfest. Look at the Disney channel now and it's like they're dumbing down kids.
Nope, I mean just look at the success they have had with Tangled and Princess and the Frog. These animated features have brought Disney up significantly. Especially since Princess and the Frog brought back the traditional 2D animation. Also Disney isn't going anywhere as long as they have their Theme Parks, which draws in Millions of people every year from all around the world.
To be honest, i think disney is trying to get better.
you seen all the recent movies they are making? Tron sequel was good imo, they have pixar to keep them up, The Muppets movie is badass. Tangled is awesome. Much more stuff i can't list off my head right now.
They have a amazing theme parks full of people rushing everything everyday.
Not to mention Disney XD is one of the best cartoon lineups of today (rarely any new shows that are terrible combined with classic 90's-80's Cartoons and awesome superhero cartoons.)
my only complaint would probably be their pop music section. they ruin good songs with terrible remixes.
example of the terrible pop music:
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bYDtPcRMlg[/url]
compare to the original:
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSJOKcK5vGQ[/url]
They were in a massive slump with the whole "kid friendly" fad that happened awhile back, but they're starting to get better.
You guys do know that disney bought out marvel? Then they released an extreme flurry of box-office hit superhero movies.
That along with the fact that almost every 4-10 year old in america (That has TV) watches disney channel, and families watch all the *insert generic 3d kids movie here* flicks.
i think that disney is an evil conglomerate of out of touch mormon weirdoes and shitty hack producers who spend their time either crushing all creative and interesting thought or trying to bilk the standardless masses out of their money by making overly expensive vapid cartoons that any other decent animation studio could do better and for a tenth of the budget
and then they make it 3d
So to answer your question, I have no idea. But I hope they are.
[editline]5th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=lifehole;33573795]You guys do know that disney bought out marvel? Then they released an extreme flurry of box-office hit superhero movies.
That along with the fact that almost every 4-10 year old in america (That has TV) watches disney channel, and families watch all the *insert generic 3d kids movie here* flicks.[/QUOTE]
You do realize that most of the marvel movies that people remember and like the most came out before that, right
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;33573960]i think that disney is an evil conglomerate of out of touch mormon weirdoes and shitty hack producers who spend their time either crushing all creative and interesting thought or trying to bilk the standardless masses out of their money by making overly expensive vapid cartoons that any other decent animation studio could do better and for a tenth of the budget
and then they make it 3d
So to answer your question, I have no idea. But I hope they are.[/QUOTE]
Wow, if you had no idea why even make a post?
Crushing creative or interesting thought? Give an example.
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;33573704]Nope, I mean just look at the success they have had with Tangled and Princess and the Frog. These animated features have brought Disney up significantly. Especially since Princess and the Frog brought back the traditional 2D animation. Also Disney isn't going anywhere as long as they have their Theme Parks, which draws in Millions of people every year from all around the world.[/QUOTE]
Disney didn't bring back 2D animation. 2D animation has been around. Disney just raped and killed it's American subsect, then grudgingly restored it for a fleeting moment.
2D animation still gets made, it's just that it gets made in Europe and Japan. And 92% of Americans don't know that those places exist.
What do you have against Disney films, please do tell.
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;33573990]Wow, if you had no idea why even make a post?[/QUOTE]
Because the question itself is too simple.
Disney is so fucking bloated and massive that even if it were dying it would probably just splinter into a bunch of smaller companies, assuming they don't get bought by another media conglomerate.
That or they'd just hack off any division that's unlucky enough to look wasteful or risky. You know, like their animation division a decade ago.
[editline]5th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;33574018]Crushing creative or interesting thought? Give an example.[/QUOTE]
remember black cauldron
oh, that's right, nobody does
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;33574037]Disney didn't bring back 2D animation. 2D animation has been around. Disney just raped and killed it's American subsect, then grudgingly restored it for a fleeting moment.
2D animation still gets made, it's just that it gets made in Europe and Japan. And 92% of Americans don't know that those places exist.[/QUOTE]
What I meant to say was bring back the traditional 2D animation that they are known for with Princess and the Frog
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;33574074]What do you have against Disney films, please do tell.[/QUOTE]
Nothing whatsoever. Tangled was a morally confused bland cash grab that was raped by producers, and Princess and the Frog was an equally bland and uninteresting paint by numbers animated movie with exactly one good character and one good scene and one good song, but things like Hunchback, Cinderella, and Lion King are classics.
Granted, Lion King was shamelessly stolen, but still, it was good.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;33574185]Nothing whatsoever. Tangled was a morally confused bland cash grab that was raped by producers, and Princess and the Frog was an equally bland and uninteresting paint by numbers animated movie with exactly one good character and one good scene and one good song, but things like Hunchback, Cinderella, and Lion King are classics.
Granted, Lion King was shamelessly stolen, but still, it was good.[/QUOTE]
Judging by this post you do have something against Disney films
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;33574175]What I meant to say was bring back the traditional 2D animation that they are known for with Princess and the Frog[/QUOTE]
That I understand. But I hate it when people give it to them like that's a gift they gave to us, when they were the ones who tossed out their entire animation wing like a two dollar hooker in the first place.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;33574091]
remember black cauldron
oh, that's right, nobody does[/QUOTE]
I do. Even with the censorship it was still a dark movie for Disney and even after being censored it still did bad because of how dark it was, imagine if they hadn't censored it.
However I think nowadays they'd just leave it uncensored and use a flagship. The company has changed a lot in those few decades.
disney owns ESPN. creatively in their traditional animation, yeah it's probably not as great as it used to be when they pumped out animated films and shorts, but they are in no way in a decline.
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;33574198]Judging by this post you do have something against Disney films[/QUOTE]
I could make an equally emotional post about how Hunchback is beautifully scored, written, and animated, with one of the most imposing and operatically dramatic villains of all time. Or about how Disney laid the groundwork for animation wordwide with it's first few films and it's teaching methods. Or about how they usually employ some of the greatest animators in the business.
Would that theoretical post make me have something for Disney films, or would it just be another example of me writing about a specific topic I have an opinion about?
[editline]5th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;33574286]I do. Even with the censorship it was still a dark movie for Disney and even after being censored it still did bad because of how dark it was, imagine if they hadn't censored it.
However I think nowadays they'd just leave it uncensored and use a flagship. The company has changed a lot in those few decades.[/QUOTE]
Black Cauldron did terribly because Black Cauldron was terrible. And it was terrible because it was a disjointed, confusing, white washed mess.
Yes, Disney has changed a lot. I mean look at the artistic freedom shown in Repunz- I mean, Tangled.
Black Cauldron wasn't [I]horrible[/I], IIRC they didn't cut anything vital to the story anyway, merely some of the more violent scenes.
Quality wise, I think Disney is getting better.
Their movies coming out lately have been much better than about 5 years ago, when everything they made tried to appeal to the teeny bopper demographic.
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;33573704]Also Disney isn't going anywhere as long as they have their Theme Parks, which draws in Millions of people every year from all around the world.[/QUOTE]
They also own ABC and ESPN. So I'd say they would have to be doing well financially.
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;33574397]Black Cauldron wasn't [I]horrible[/I], IIRC they didn't cut anything vital to the story anyway, merely some of the more violent scenes.[/QUOTE]
want to hear a black cauldron joke
so a Tim Burton walks into his bosses office and says, "Hey boss, I got this idea for Black Cauldron". Boss says, "Sure thing." Tim says, "What if, when the pig is being chased, these big black hands come down from the sky and start crawling after it". Boss looks at Tim and says, "What are we making here, [I]Yellow Submarine?"[/I]
then the tim quits and starts drinking. many years later he comes up with an idea that makes a lot of money and then people start caring about him. the end.
Their content is in a decline. But financially they are doing better than most companies.
How could you be in a decline when you sell 8 ounces of coke for [b]six whole dollars[/b] which millions buy a year?
I am trying to figure out why I saw a lot of their stores either close or reduce size in my state.
[QUOTE=npx190;33574973]I am trying to figure out why I saw a lot of their stores either close or reduce size in my state.[/QUOTE]
Walmart?
I loved Tangled
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;33574018]Crushing creative or interesting thought? Give an example.[/QUOTE]
If it was up to Disney executives Woody in the first toy story would have been an attitude riddled horny prick "boss of the toys". Tom Hanks had been quoted as saying "wow this guy is a real jerk!". Disney thought the woody we have now was a mistake, and proceeded to impose all kinda of strict things they wanted to see out of the characters.
By the time the first version of movie was half finished Disney didn't like it, even with their new asshole Woody character (the guys at pixar wanted woody to be the one we have now) so they stopped production and stopped funding it. Steve jobs spent almost all of his money at that time (he also was blowing cash on his other company called neXt) trying to fund Toy Story after that point to bring it back to the original story that they had planned (and did this behind Disney's back)
When they brought it back to the executives to pitch their new version in full, the movie they originally wanted to make, even though pixar/jobs continued without permission, Disney finally agreed to take it. Then Disney tried to take most of the credit. Steve jobs eventually sold pixar for a 5% stake in Disney giving him a seat on their board of Directors. Even before the movie even came out and became a hit, Disney tried to charge Pixar for "receiving their (the studio execs) creative advice"
It's all in Walter Isaacson's new book
[QUOTE=Stick it in her pooper;33575084]If it was up to Disney executives Woody in the first toy story would have been an attitude riddled horny prick "boss of the toys". Tom Hanks had been quoted as saying "wow this guy is a real jerk!". Disney thought the woody we have now was a mistake, and proceeded to impose all kinda of strict things they wanted to see out of the characters.
By the time the first version of movie was half finished Disney didn't like it, even with their new asshole Woody character (the guys at pixar wanted woody to be the one we have now) so they stopped production and stopped funding it. Steve jobs spent almost all of his money at that time (he also was blowing cash on his other company called neXt) trying to fund Toy Story after that point to bring it back to the original story that they had planned (and did this behind Disney's back)
When they brought it back to the executives to pitch their new version in full, the movie they originally wanted to make, even though pixar/jobs continued without permission, Disney finally agreed to take it. Then Disney tried to take most of the credit. Steve jobs eventually sold pixar for a 5% stake in Disney giving him a seat on their board of Directors. Even before the movie even came out and became a hit, Disney tried to charge Pixar for "receiving their (the studio execs) creative advice"
It's all in Walter Isaacson's new book[/QUOTE]
Interesting. Executive meddling is inevitable unfortunately. At least they've learned their lesson.
Does this even have to be discussed? It's been in decline since like 2002.
[editline]5th December 2011[/editline]
I used to be exicted when I watched disney but now its just full of shit. Besides Phineas And Ferb.
That shit's cash.
Heh, decline...
Ever been to Walt Disney World? They practically have a small country there, and I'm sure they are making an absolutely ludicrous profit off of it. Not to mention their toys, films, TV channel, ect.
Are their films experiencing a decline in quality? maybe.
Are they declining economically? Hell no.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
