Box-Office Letdown for Disney Raises Worry About Animation (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/05/business/media/05DISN.html?ex=1039669200&en=dc762110a0fd5d68&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE) - New York Times, 12/4/02

QuikQuote: But it has led some in Hollywood this week to give whisper to a suspicion that until recently would have been considered heresy. Perhaps the famed Disney animation division — which dominated the family film market for more than half a century, spurred the studio's resurgence in the 1990's and gave Hollywood its most enduring brand — is running out of gas.
"This definitely suggests that Disney will no longer have a lock on the animation market," said David Davis, an entertainment analyst for Houlihan, Lokey, Howard & Zukin. "It's something that Disney is going to have to seriously think about. Maybe it's time for them to rest a bit in animation, pull back and wait for the next wave."

I don't think Disney has had a "lock" on the animation market for some time. I also think that the point made in the article about a strong movie like Lilo and Stitch (which made $145 million) is something to take into consideration.

I think these movies that are geared at young boys are gonna be a tough sell with the Disney name on them. I (shudder) agree with something Merlinjones said in another thread, the movies should be more "all-family" oriented. That's what they do well, Lilo and Stitch showed that.

Its too bad there was so much competition from Harry Potter and the Santa Clause 2, its a pretty good movie and deserves to be doing better.

I want a job as an Entertainment Analyst, so I can make bonehead statements like that and get paid for it.

Lotsa folks really liked this movie, so it wasn't a completely dead duck until Disney pulled that earnings restatement stunt, IE **officially** declaring it a 72-million-dollar flop. (Was it 72 or 74? I forget.)

Disney must be REALLY frightened of Sarbanes-Oxley.

I would ignore the "teen age boy" stupidity but....

the floop of TP does suggest is that there are only a few "animation wennies" out there that will go to a movie because of its artistic skill and beauty.

The rest are going for story and good movie making.....and Adults require either topical humor (see Aladin, Shrek, Ice Age, Monster's Inc.) or musical scores of the highest quality (see Beauty, Mermaid, Lion King [though the disappointment with those numbers I would suggest reflects what I thought was a weaker score])

Action may not "work" as that added element in animation because, with the rise of CGI, you have so many more options of what you can show in a "live" action" movie.

So formula for future success.......

GOOD Story +
GOOD topical comedy AND/OR
GOOD musical score

(That ALL said, I found New Grove to be pretty darn funny...)

I think that part of the problem might be that Disney has been flooding the market with animated product (Return to Neverland, Jungle Book 2, plus all of the direct to video animated sequels.) Audiences are being more choosey, rather than saying, "Oh, it's a Disney film we have to go see it." Like I stated at the beginning of this post, I think that this is only part of the problem.