How does everyone feel about Disney these days?

[Vernadyn]

But when you look at the studio's upcoming slate of films, you see Zootopia, which has a single director and developed as an idea fairly recently.

According to a WDAS Facebook post (made on March 3), Zootopia now has two directors (Byron Howard, who I believe has been attached to the project from its announcement, and Rich Moore) and one co-director (Jared Bush). But the film's still a ways off; I seem to remember Jennifer Lee becoming a director on Frozen a relatively short time before it came out. (And let's not forget The Good Dinosaur).

I suspect everyone here already knows this, but remember that a few films from Disney's 80s/90s renaissance had director changes as well. Richard Purdum was booted off Beauty and the Beast, George Scribner from The Lion King, and Richard Rich from Oliver & Company.

I suppose the difference is that Eisner, Katzenberg, and Schneider never touted Disney as a director-driven studio at the time. But "director-driven" doesn't always necessarily equate with quality. Sure, The Incredibles and Toy Story were superb, but Cars, while not without its merits, pales in comparison to most of the recent "director-switched" WDAS films.

[Ben]

Disney has always arguably been director driven, especially from the Woolie Reitherman days. In the 1990s, JK was super-reliant on his directors, especially Ron and John...it was when the execs - who thought they were the ones responsible fr the films since they gave the greenlight- started to meddle too much and make changes that the wheels fell off.

[Vernadyn]

Yeah, Ron and John are the one constant Disney team now, and have been for awhile. I watched Waking Sleeping Beauty again, and I'm amazed how many faces I saw are now scattered to the four winds (or, like Kirk Wise, sadly not really doing anything now).

I'm no expert on Disney's earlier years, but it seems that Walt himself was more prominent (or at least portrayed as such) than the directors before Reitherman came along. No one really talks about David Hand, Ben Sharpsteen, Wilfred Jackson, Clyde Geronimi, etc. as much as the Nine Old Men or animators such as Vladimir Tytla, Norman Ferguson, Art Babbitt, or Hamilton Luske (yes, I know he became a director later).

Something else I find interesting is that, after Reitherman, Disney animated features were most often directed by two or more people. Only George Scribner (Oliver & Company), Mark Dindal (Emperor's New Groove and Chicken Little), Stephen Anderson (Meet the Robinsons), and Rich Moore (Wreck-It Ralph) went solo. (Some of these did have additional directors who ended up leaving or getting booted off, though.)

[Jpcase]

I was just reading a the latest issue of Time Magazine, and it has a brief profile on Bob Iger. Apparently he had been planning to step down next year, but is postponing his retirement until 2018.

Has anyone heard anything else about this?

[ShyViolet]

I think the TAG blog mentioned it briefly. I know I have been harsh on Iger but it's true that he made some brilliant moves financially. Marvel, Lucasfilm, Pixar--all wise decisions economically. But aside from acquiring Pixar and bringing back WDAS (if not to its former glory, but a heck of a lot better than it was), in some ways I think Disney has lost its soul. Their only real creative hope is with Pixar and WDAS, but we still haven't been "dazzled" the way we were in the late 80s/early 90s.

Also, I know that it's a different time now but I really wish that the "folksy" feeling of Disney Co. was preserved. Sad that Iger chose not to host Wonderful World of Disney the way Eisner did. It was really neat for its time, and it's not like Iger doesn't have TV speaking skills--the guy used to be a weatherman. Maybe he was afraid that fans and shareholders would accuse him of trying to steal the spotlight the way Eisner supposedly did, but still. It would have been cool to see him interact with Mickey and Minnie rather than just taking a random picture with them here and there for some photo-op.

Iger was very careful not to make Eisner's mistakes. And he achieved this. But in focusing on Disney economically, a lot of the magic was lost along the way. (Also, despite accusations that he was too corporate-minded and not creative enough, I'd say Eisner was actually not corporate-minded at all--at least not as much as he should have been. He made quite a few bad decisions because he didn't have Frank Wells to guide him, and his wrong moves were no longer tempered by his creativity the way they were when Wells would steer him away from a bad idea.)

I think Iger did some great things. But it's time for something different.

[EricJ]

Also, I know that it's a different time now but I really wish that the "folksy" feeling of Disney Co. was preserved. Sad that Iger chose not to host Wonderful World of Disney the way Eisner did. It was really neat for its time, and it's not like Iger doesn't have TV speaking skills--the guy used to be a weatherman. Maybe he was afraid that fans and shareholders would accuse him of trying to steal the spotlight the way Eisner supposedly did, but still.

However unpopular Eisner may have been with the fans in the early 00's, he was even LESS so in the late 80's and early 90's--Originally, Tom Hanks was set to be the WWoD host, but Eisner grabbing the host spot himself (there was a determination to connect the new regime with the Walt/Ron regime in the minds of the audience, to not be seen as "conquerors") was not seen as "neat", but as pure presumptive ego, and only cemented the "conqueror" image in the fans minds from day one.

[ShyViolet]

Actually a lot of young children really enjoyed watching him--look up profiles of him from the 80s talking about all the little kids who wanted to talk to the man who talks to Mickey Mouse.

http://youtu.be/-GNo6IbbPQk

This is really cute! (I'm on my phone so I couldn't embed the video)

Not to overdo it but I love this one too lol!

http://youtu.be/R9gZNUPqLVs

[Farerb]

10 years later, what is your opinion nowadays?

Mine is not good. Not good at all.

[ShyViolet]

Still the same. He did so much good for Disney, and not just in the first half of his tenure. What about the Disney Cruise Lines, Animal Kingdom, Tower of Terror? All in the second half. What about films like Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules and Mulan? (He didn’t write/direct them of course but they WERE made under his watch.). Not as good as Lion King or Aladdin, maybe, but quite entertaining just the same.

He wasn’t perfect, but he often gets a bad rap.

[Farerb]

I meant Disney nowadays in general, not Disney under Eisner.

[ShyViolet]

Oh, OK, gotcha. Yeah, I don’t like it much either, to put it mildly. It not only doesn’t measure up to the stunning Renaissance years, (1984-1994) but to the early Iger years which had some promise. (Princess and the Frog, Bolt, Frozen of course.).
And properties like Marvel and Star Wars have diluted the magic in so many ways.

[Ben]

The most disappointing thing with the company right now is that it is no longer an innovator. Disney is just treading water in film, television, parks and even streaming. Even the cruise line, admittedly a unique experience, is now just going larger with more boats than giving the company a new angle.

I’m not sure what the next new frontier is — VR and AI I guess, but they’re still kind of "boring" now when it comes to being something truly new — but it doesn’t feel like the company will be at the forefront of it as it was back in Walt's time with sound, colour, television, theme parks, and then, under Miller then Eisner (who, no, doesn’t get enough credit for being a visionary executive), home video, content creation and the first of the major acquisitions.

Iger's made big waves with more big acquisitions, and left those companies to run themselves for the most part as he said he would do (Pixar), but has fumbled at least one (LucasFilm, which actually really needed him to intervene more). Historically, he’s devoured a whole studio (20th), yes, but none of that has really been toward creating anything new (and, indeed, we now can’t access a lot of that content).

The only major cultural shift and impact Disney has made in the last twenty years, really, and it’s not ultimately going to be looked back on terrifically fondly in the long run, are the Marvel movies and, as admittedly entertaining as they have been, the way they have transformed/dumbed down/streamlined/homogenised/pushed VFX/digitised the whole way movies are made and watched.

That all said, I wouldn’t want Disney itself to be devoured by some other faceless entity. It still remains too unique for that. But it needs to fund a solid footing again and rebalance itself after the upheaval of the past five years. Feels like that is coming, a bit, but we’re still lacking the excitement of "new" — and more importantly the excitement of new and of sure quality — that we used to have.

[Randall]

I still love Disney for its history (I had a blast at D23), but the latest projects have been swings and misses. The last few animated films were relative duds critically, aside from maybe Encanto. Wish was sadly awful. Two of the next three are sequels, following Moana 2. Marvel was generally great until Endgame, and has floundered since. Star Wars has been a mild disaster, though with a few good projects in the mix (e.g. Andor). Indy 5 was another letdown. Pixar may still be the crown jewel; even their lesser films are pretty good. But two of their next four films are sequels again, coming off of Inside Out 2.

I still get excited about Disney, but that's becoming more of an effort. I'd like to see some projects really wow me again. Fantastic Four may be such a project, but a few great animated films would be nice, too.

[James]

I’ve said somewhere else that I think the problem with Disney and Pixar (and even Star Wars and Marvel!) now is that they are afraid of saying “no”. Let’s be blunt, the studios are focusing on making more “diverse” content. Which is totally cool. But the mostly male white dudes in charge that used to have no problems saying “no” to the mostly male white filmmakers while trying to make the best movie possible seem to have lost their nerve at treating women and people of color filmmakers with the same tough love. They may have good intentions but it’s really like a weird form of racism if you think about it.

I think the fix is for Disney to get out of the creator-driven stories business and get back to a more rigorously collaborative process. We can still start from a story idea from a creator with a unique perspective, but they can’t be given free rein over the production with any criticism seen as potentially problematic.

[Ben]

The most disappointing thing with the company right now is that it is no longer an innovator.