The Winter of Disney Studio's Discontent

I'm sure it looked good on the calendar: three sure-fire hits for the holiday movie season.  First, a 3-D animated Christmas film from award-winning director Robert Zemeckis, using the same motion capture technology that Zemeckis used to create "The Polar Express."  Instead of Tom Hanks performing multiple roles, it would now be Jim Carrey performing in "Disney's A Christmas Carol."  Next, a broad family comedy reuniting the director of the surprise blockbuster "Wild Hogs" with star John Travolta and adding Robin Williams for "Old Dogs."  Last, a triumphant and long-anticipated return to hand-drawn animation and classic fairytales, "The Princess and the Frog."  Now on the cusp of the new year, Disney instead has two disappointments and an outright bomb.  What happened?

"Disney's A Christmas Carol" -- First of all, I hate this title.  This will be addressed in a future post, but to me it's a branding shortcut that insults the audience.  When the film debuted to a less than stellar $30 million, some blamed the release date (first week of November) as being to early for a Christmas film.  But other Christmas-themed films have successfully debuted in that same time frame.  "Carol" showed some staying power and has grossed a respectable $135 million, but that's still less than "The Polar Express" made five years ago.  And for all the talk of dead-eye syndrome and the uncanny valley, "The Polar Express" is an original and charming story.  "A Christmas Carol" is, well, a tale as old as time.  Zemeckis keeps getting better at the motion capture animation and he makes excellent use of the 3-D environments, but his film lacks warmth and wit and charm.  It's simply a very competently told version of the story.  Without the 3-D gimmick there's not much of anything unique to recommend it.

"Old Dogs" -- I don't have much to say about this.  I have not seen the movie, but from the early trailers onward this looked like a lazy, tired, formulaic comedy that aimed squarely for mainstream audiences and apparently mainstream audiences completely saw through it.  The marketing conveyed nothing but uninspired gags, the movie title and poster were confusing (is this a "Beethoven" type of comedy about dogs?) and it's been over a decade since Robin Williams toplined a successful movie.  What were they thinking?  The movie has grossed about $46 million since it's debut a month ago and its box office run is essentially over.  A total dud.

"The Princess and the Frog" -- There was so much hope and promise bound up in this film, it may have been impossible for it to fully deliver.  But, realistic or not, this was supposed to be the beginning of the next golden age, the return of the great fairytale musicals of Disney's past such as "The Little Mermaid" and "Beauty and the Beast," and the coronation of John Lasseter as savior of Disney animation.  Personally, I think they nailed it.  I loved it.  The animation is truly beautiful, the songs are charming, the vocal performances are perfect.  Most critics seem to agree.  Richard Corliss at Time called it the movie of the year (that may be a bit much, but okay).  But you know what?  Audiences aren't really buying it.  It's grossed $70 million to date, and it looks on track to finish in the range of Disney's other recent middling animation successes such as "Bolt" or "Chicken Little."  To be an unqualified success, this needed to be a Pixar-sized hit.

I don't know why the audience isn't showing up, but I have a kernel of a theory.  The uniqueness of the film is that it is Disney's first modern fairytale.  It is not set in a storybook world, it's set in 1920s New Orleans.  The net effect is that the film really plays like a richly layered valentine to the Big Easy.  The attention to detail is truly remarkable.  As a native son of the Bayou State I loved it, but I wonder if it also limits the broad appeal of the film.  In the upcoming weeks we'll learn if word-of-mouth will sustain the film to higher grosses, but right now the "Alvin and the Chipmunks" sequel has a clear a strangle hold on the family market.  The redeeming hope for "Princess and the Frog" is that it will prove itself on the consumer products side by reinvigorating the Disney Princess brand.  This would follow the pattern of "Cars," which continues to be a merchandise juggernaut after what was considered to be a disappointing box office run in 2006 (and it grossed over $460 million worldwide!).

What does this mean for the future?  Three thoughts: 1) Iger's decision to dismiss former studio chief Dick Cook continues to look justifiable.  2) John Lasseter has yet to produce a big hit outside of Pixar.  There's no question that "Princess and the Frog" is a high-quality product, but  Lasseter is supposed to re-build Walt Disney Animation Studios into a powerhouse on par with Pixar.  Lasseter's success with Pixar has given him broad influence not only over animation but also into merchandising and the theme parks.  If Disney animation continues to struggle, will his influence and reputation diminish?  3) Disney has signed high-profile deals with Zemeckis (through his ImageMovers production company) and with Steven Spielberg (though DreamWorks Pictures) to help fill their pipeline of filmed content.  The first product of those deals was a disappointment.  Will Disney come to regret these deals?  With product from Zemeckis, DreamWorks, Pixar, and soon Marvel, in addition to Disney live-action and Disney animation, will new studio boss Rich Ross have trouble positioning all of these productions successfully?  This calls to mind the problems Disney had with Walden Media regarding the Narnia franchise.  2010 will be an interesting transition for Walt Disney Studios as they release another ambitious and unproven slate of films.

Strange Tides

Two weeks ago today at the D23 Expo, Walt Disney Studios Chairman Dick Cook offered a star-studded, crowd-pleasing look at Disney's ambitious upcoming film slate, showcasing stars and celebrity filmmakers such as Johnny Depp, Miley Cyrus, John Travolta, Nicolas Cage, Tim Burton, Robert Zemeckis, Jerry Bruckheimer, Guillermo del Toro, and even the Muppets.  One week ago today, Cook was fired from the place he had worked for 38 years.

All the messy details have been widely reported, but suffice it to say that 1) Mr. Cook was completely blindsided and 2) he probably should have seen it coming.  For the last couple of years, the studio has released a steady stream disappointments and under-performers.  Some recent examples include "Bedtime Stories," "Race to Witch Mountain," "Confessions of a Shopaholic," "G-Force," and the 3D Jonas Brothers concert movie.  "Bolt," which was supposed to be the animation studio's return to quality and was well-reviewed, couldn't even match the box-office haul of the much maligned "Chicken Little."  Disney CEO Bob Iger has been so frustrated by the studio division that he called them out during a conference call with financial analysts. 

Since 2006, the only real bright spots for Disney have been been sequels to established franchises (Pirates and National Treasure), Pixar films, 2007's surprise hit "Wild Hogs," and this summer's Sandra Bullock comeback vehicle, "The Proposal."  Even some franchises have fallen short.  Disney killed their own golden goose when they botched the release of "The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian;" and "High School Musical 3," the first film from Disney's crown jewel franchise to be released in theaters, could only muster $90 million in box office, far less than other recent movie musicals such as "Hairspray" and "Mamma Mia!".  Today marks the release of another likely high-profile bomb, the Bruce Willis sci-fi flick "Surrogates."  Never heard of it?  That's okay, it seems like Disney only started marketing it a couple of weeks ago, as if they expected it to fail.

Clearly, then, some changes were necessary.  The studio's recent strategy already seemed to concede that they couldn't figure out what they were doing wrong, and thus they were going to outsource alot of their filmmaking to other people and hope they could do better.  This has led to long-term relationships with other production companies and filmmakers such as Steven Spielberg, Robert Zemeckis, Jerry Bruckheimer, and now Guillermo del Toro.  This was also part of the motivation for Disney's acquisition of Marvel.

At this point, you may be thinking, "well no wonder they fired him," but there is still more to the story.  Cook is what you could call a Disney lifer.  He started his career running the monorail at Disneyland and gradually worked his way up into the studio and eventually became Chairman.  He was a company man who understood the Disney brand and culture.  On top of all that, he was well-respected in the industry and had tremendous relationships with Hollywood talent.  They guy got Johnny Depp to appear in character as Jack Sparrow on stage at the D23 Expo.  Do you think just anybody could do that?  He was there to announce with Cook that a new Pirates movie is slated for 2011.  After learning about Cook's departure, however (Cook called him personally), Depp said "There's a fissure, a crack in my enthusiasm at the moment," for a new sequel.  Whoops.  Spielberg was also reportedly shocked by Cook's firing, as Cook was a big part of the reason why Spielberg took DreamWorks to Disney.  Double whoops.

It's probably a bad idea to jeapordize Disney's relationship with the star of its most important film franchise and with the most powerful filmmaker in Hollywood, so Iger better have a handle on these and other talent relationships.  Disney has alot of encouraging projects in the pipline right now, and it would be a disaster if Cook's departure sank any of them (may I personally make a plea for the Muppets?  Please?).  Another wrinkle of the story is the out-of-the blue handling of the announcement, which seems very reminiscent of the kinds of things former studio chief Michael Eisner would do (which isn't the kind of comparison you want). 

For now, all eyes are on Iger.  Does he have a clear vision for the future of Walt Disney Studios?  What are his plans for Cook's replacement?  Will he pick a Disney insider or perhaps divide the role into multiple parts reporting to him (John Lasseter already works quasi-independently as head of Pixar and Walt Disney Feature Animation)?  To me, the most important thing is to maintain the uniqueness of the Disney brand.  Although there have been a few missteps, Cook did an admirable job of restoring the Disney label as a signifier of family-friendly quality.  I hope the future promises more of the same.