Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

[Ben]

It's funny, since I was not surprised to find Pete Docter's favorite film was Dumbo. All through Up I was thinking that this felt just like a film Walt could have made in the 1940s.

Pixar didn't just come from people who "loved Disney", Pixar came from people who had Disney inside them. The very best of Pixar matches the very best of Disney...but you'll note it's the very best of Disney that came in the glory years when Walt was around.

[ShyViolet]

The article posted on the front page touches on some of these issues:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/con ... 7ca4501a3c

I think it's somewhat paradoxical to hear Iger talking about the importance of the "brand" and then go on to mention the importance of making acquisitions that completely dilute it.

"You have to protect but not be reverential to your brand, but also you have to be relevant and adapt to changing habits of a new world," Iger told FT editor Lionel Barber during the opening keynote session at the Beverly Hills Hotel.

To be honest, I don't think this makes much sense. There's nothing wrong with change, everything has to change to some extent but since when is it O.K. to "not be reverential to the Disney brand"?? The Disney name is so important, how can you protect it without having real, careful respect for it? So is Disney just another giant conglomerate now?

To this end, Iger continued, Pixar and Marvel bring added value to Disney, but those entities are allowed to retain their unique cultures. Keeping many different movie labels, however, seemed redundant and unfocused to Iger when he took over five years ago, hence the concentration on the Disney brand and the heave-ho given to Miramax.

This is also a little strange to me, because it also feels like buying different companies and letting them keep their unique cultures while neglecting what used to be your unique culture is just as bad if not worse than what happened in the previous era. I don't see how nixing Miramax and then replacing it with a bunch of other franchises is any different. Letting Disney be made up of a bunch of independently functioning franchises is, if anything, far more destructive than buying companies and basically taking over them like ABC; at least ABC was used to promote Disney. (as was ABC-family later on.)

I also feel that buying the Muppets is absolutely in no way comparable to buying Marvel. When the deal was first started in 1989 it was actually met with much joy by many, because Disney was the right place for them...and in my opinion it still is. Jim Henson supported it himself. They were not seen as a "unique brand" but a part of Disney.

"When I came into the job, I weighed the options. I felt that losing the relationship with Pixar when their contract expired would be a shame. And so we brought into the company a culture of innovation, of never accepting mediocrity."

Keeping the relationship with Pixar was of course very critical but it wasn't everything. It certainly is a culture of innovation but it doesn't seem like much else at Disney is right now. The phrase "never accepting mediocrity" is pretty ironic considering all the bland and disposable movies the actual Disney name puts out now.

Tangled looks really beautiful, but innovation means taking risks, which is what Pixar does. The whole point was for Disney to absorb this perspective as well; unfortunately it hasn't really happened yet. I also feel that what stands out most here is with all his talk about the importance of the Disney brand he doesn't once mention WDAS, despite the fact that Walt Disney Animation is the heart and soul of the company.

[EricJ]

I also feel that buying the Muppets is absolutely in no way comparable to buying Marvel. When the deal was first started in 1989 it was actually met with much joy by many, because Disney was the right place for them...and in my opinion it still is. Jim Henson supported it himself.

I remember the Muppet fans didn't see it as a "good thing" at the time, and "joy" wasn't exactly on the table:
90's-Disney was considered "evil" (more so than today, or at least the end of the Eisner era)...And even though we were depressed to realize that it was Jim doing the selling--because he'd been becoming depressed that his new dreams for the company weren't going to come true after Labyrinth tanked, and he needed "Disney's ability to sell a recognized brand", unquote, to give the Muppets a corporate base to keep them from fading into obscurity after he'd already tried to downstage them--it was easier to sell the image that 90's Eisner-Disney was a greedy, evil octopus that had ensnared another innocent victim in its tentacles.
Better to leave Jim's memory unstained.

Now, as to WHY Eisner still wanted, and got, the Muppets fifteen years of negotiations later, no one to this day knows why. Especially Iger, and thanks to bad timing for Eisner's career, Iger's the one stuck with it.
(Although most theories point to the popular confusion over who owns the Sesame Street characters, most just look at other evidence to support the theory that Eisner's lil' Casey Jr. train was just going round the bend... )

As for Marvel, their production company needed a solid studio base to compete with Warner/DC, and it could have been anybody--For all that could have happened, it could have been Paramount, on the strength of their movies, and not much would've been different. Like other acquisitions, the fact that Disney happened to be the one with enough availability and pockets to manage the deal was just good fortuitousness.

[Ben]

Eric's obviously never read Work In Progress...

[EricJ]

Eric's obviously never read Work In Progress...

Well, no I haven't, I'm just a witness of my time...
Okay, thrill us: So Jim WASN'T selling out his last hopes, then, or there was some corner where people did think it was a good idea?

[Randall]

The idea of selling the Muppets to Disney had good and bad points, but the bottom line is that Jim saw it as an opportunity to integrate his characters into a large corporation with proven success, that could ensure their long-lasting presence in our culture. Of course, we were still concerned about him losing control, but... once he passed away, I can't say that his family did too much to keep the brand going, either. I'm not thrilled with the Muppets being at Disney, necessarily, but I'm not sure they were any better off with Jim's kids, either. e.g. Kermit's Swamp Years and Muppets From Space were awful.

[EricJ]

Not to get too far off onto this tangent, but just so it's mentioned--
1986 was a very depressing year for Henson, and it's easy to see where the '90 deal started:
Jim had been so excited that Labyrinth was going to establish the Creature Shop as his own Lucas-like independent ILM, he tried to trivialize Kermit & Co. out of the picture--The Show franchise had supposedly been "ended" in '84 with Muppets Take Manhattan, and the intended push toward Muppet Babies marketing was a reflection that "only kids" were supposed to concentrate on those felt-and-foam characters. (Which, of course, was sacrilege to fans. )
Of course, '86 not only turned out to be the year that Fraggle Rock ended and Labyrinth turned out to be a studio-crushing flop for Henson and George Lucas, but Henson was also going through his longtime divorce, and there may have been a realization that he had now burned some of his bridges behind him....Had Jim lived to enjoy his deal, we would be watching "Muppet High School" on the Disney Channel, and you don't get more of a trotted-out resurrected franchise than that.

(Of course, if anyone knows more than that, I'm always willing to add to the story.)

[Ben]

Basically, from the back of my mind, Eisner saw the Henson potential and fought to get him his start at ABC in the 50s, so the connection has always been there. Then, when the Muppets looked like they were in danger of failing, Eisner saw that they weren't a million miles away from being a good fit with the Disney characters (as Rand said, where else could they go?) and bid to win them, since the family weren't that interested in keeping them going.

After the HEAVY flirtation with Disney, and Jim's unexpected passing, the family recognized the brand's worth and tried to keep them so that they could "front" the Henson Organization, which was due to focus on the Creature Shop and viz FX. Eisner's persistence saw a rift with the remaining Hensons, and Cheryl saw the potential to get them "signed" to her studio, Sony/Columbia. After a string of failed properties there, the Hensons knew to basically give up and sold the Muppets off to a German exploitation company, EMTV, perhaps the worst move ever.

The EMTV deal split everything up, from the Fraggles to Sesame Street (coinciding with the CTW becoming Sesame Street Studios), and the Muppets from the Creature Shop. When EMTV couldn't do anything with them, they looked to offload them...and who was waiting? Mr Eisner, of course, who brought them into the fold of a company where they truly belonged (and was endorsed by Jim himself).

The problem was, by then, the brand had taken such a hit that many questioned Eisner's thinking not for his wanting to make sure the Muppets had a safe home (which was the basic logic), but why he would spend out on a dead franchise. Since then, Eisner got ousted and there's still this "black sheep" kind of thing going on at Disney with the Muppets.

Really, they should embrace them, return to the core values, and use them as an asset every bit as quality level-good as Pixar, Marvel, etc. After all, what makes a better fit with the family values strong Disney? The Muppets, or the likes of Hulk or the Star Wars and Indy Jones rides at the parks (which, while vastly enjoyable, I never felt quite fit with the "Disney Magic" aspects).

But the Muppets? For sure, as Janice might say.

[EricJ]

Basically, from the back of my mind, Eisner saw the Henson potential and fought to get him his start at ABC in the 50s, so the connection has always been there. Then, when the Muppets looked like they were in danger of failing, Eisner saw that they weren't a million miles away from being a good fit with the Disney characters (as Rand said, where else could they go?) and bid to win them, since the family weren't that interested in keeping them going.

Although I recall Eisner, in the original '90 deal, quoted as being "surprised" that JHA didn't own marketing rights to the Sesame characters (which were still CTW/Sesame's at the time)...
Things that make you go "Hmm".

The problem was, by then, the brand had taken such a hit that many questioned Eisner's thinking not for his wanting to make sure the Muppets had a safe home (which was the basic logic), but why he would spend out on a dead franchise. Since then, Eisner got ousted and there's still this "black sheep" kind of thing going on at Disney with the Muppets.
Really, they should embrace them, return to the core values, and use them as an asset every bit as quality level-good as Pixar, Marvel, etc.

They tried to, and it didn't work. Now, Iger-Disney's almost literally just one movie away from dropping the white elephant completely (and I don't envy their chances), and as it is now, ALL the current-generation Disney Muppets have to cling to is an ad campaign reminding us they appeared once on a home-building show. The rest of us went out and bought the old Show on DVD.

[Ben]

...and an award winning, internet sensation Bohemian Rhapsody music video...

[Dusterian]

After all, we all know that Walt never would've approved of making a movie that was "different." And last I checked, almost everyone seemed to hate that "un-Disney" film that Chris made for the studio.

Walt made things different but as you know they were still all based on known stories (except I guess Fantasia but a lot of that was still rooted in folklore or mythology). So when Disney was doing things like that all the way to the 90's, that was very Disney. Even The Lion King felt like Hamlet, as well as Bambi, and dealt with royalty and the magic of stars, very Disney things. But Lilo & Stitch is nothing very Disney, and even if you think it's a little Disney, it's not Disney enough, including that I know Walt wouldn't have approved of that wreckless rude alien.

And what the public thought of it doesn't matter. They just want to see a good movie, they don't care if it feels Disney, because the majority doesn't care.

C'mon, all of you know Lilo & Stitch feels different from Disney, most especially what Walt would have done.

Ben, I admit Pixar films are good and maybe some people there embody Disney enough to make their own Disney film some day. But Pixar films, even if you consider them as "good" as Disney films, do not have the same feel and magic of Disney films. Like even Iger admitted, Pixar and Disney have different cultures. If you are a Disney fan, you have to believe only Disney can make their special kind of good films, not just any good films that Pixar or someone else can make. A certain quality, or qualities, that only they have. Frankly, I feel they have lost a good deal of it, and it may be dwindling each time the company changes so much.

I don't think Disney should be buying anything, not stuff like the Muppets or Pixar and especially not something like Marvel. I think they should try to make all their stuff in-house to better keep their own magic and their own identity.

And speaking of all this, Tangled's trailer feels somewhat Disney, especially in the animation, but not different enough from a Dreamworks or even a Pixar film. The Rapunzel we heard about before and saw some pictures from was clearly much more Disney.

[spaz]

seems to me the only reason this whole thread is happening is because in fact Pixar is challenging this thing called "Disney Classics" . Pixar is making classics right now.

[Ben]

Yep, exactly, Spaz.

What with Up, which as I said reminded me very much of the (very varied!) 1940s Disney output, it does seem Pixar are making the classic Disney films of today.

And as for Lilo And Stitch, Dusty, see those 1940s films again...there's some vary crazy stuff in those that suggest Walt would have loved to shake things up Lilo And Stitch style. After all, that movie is basically a Disney film gate crashed by Disney-anti-matter. And what happens? Does he hijack years of Disney animation? No, he becomes a Disney character by the end of it, with all the values intact and amplified.

There's a lot to be said for the placebo effect: slap a "Disney" label on things, and they suddenly "feel" more Disney? Does Home On The Range feel as "Disney" as Up? Or Roger Rabbit any less "Disney" because Roy Disney insisted on putting it out through Touchstone at the last minute? Is Nightmare Before Christmas any more of a "Disney" film now that the Touchstone label has been switched? No.

[Dusterian]

Right, you're being very smart about this whole "does it really feel Disney" thing.

But the point is in believing that only Disney can make Disney magic. It's something Disney fans do. And I thought you were one.

And I feel confident the Disney artists either intentionally or not, consciously or not, are trying to keep the qualities only Disney has in their films.

Pixar is making good stuff, it's just different from Disney. Maybe it's so good people call some of it "classic" (I haven't heard anyone say that, classics needed to be proven by time, anyway). But it's still different.

And I still completely disagree about Lilo & Stitch. Walt would have never made a film that crazy, or violent (well, with a violent protagonist).

Home on the Range does not feel Disney (from what I have seen, I didn't watch the thing), but they were trying to be like other studios, because they thought no one wanted to see Disney anymore, so they tried to be un-Disney. And it looks like Tangled started out very Disney when it was Rapunzel, but now they are going "let's make it more like other studios, what people want, instead of what Disney is" again.

[LotsoA113]

Quality is Disney. Disney stands for quality. They made many duds of course (Home on the range, anyone?), but if Tangled is quality..it will be classic Disney, just like Princess and the Frog and the PIXAR movies (not saying PIXAR films are Disney flicks, just saying that PIXAR is quality as well)

Nuff said. Take it from here Ben!!