Odds & Ends
Sunday, December 21, 2003
The Departure of Disney
The news in the last couple of weeks that Roy E. Disney (and another board member, Stanley Gold) have resigned from the board of the Disney corporation after disputes with Michael Eisner draws attention to the depressing future that faces the studio. I have no inside knowledge of the studio, so have no idea how effective Roy E. was as a board member. But even if his role was purely ceremonial, the symbolism of what's occurred is bad enough. Roy E. Disney is Walt Disney's nephew, and the son of studio co-founder Roy Disney. Given the elder Roy's much larger then generally understood role in the studio's operation (he ran the business end until after Walt's death, and the studio was initially the "Disney Brothers" studio), Roy E. represented a direct, tangible link to the heritage of the company, which has always been its greatest asset. It's long been easy - and largely accurate - to disparage Disney as just another soulless media conglomerate, but Roy E. was still there as a human link to the glory days of the thirties when Walt blazed his trails. (Sure Roy E. was just a kid at the time, but we're talking symbolism here).
That the corporation has lost its view of the importance of its heritage is evidenced by the slow death of its animation department. After Brother Bear there is only one more traditionally animated feature to come (Home on the Range): after that, Disney goes computer generated. A generation of phenomenal animation talent is already either being laid off or being retrained in the misguided belief that the future lies in computers. This is based on the stupid belief that traditional animation is dead, and that audiences shun traditional cel animation. This is ridiculous: audiences have neglected a series of average to poor movies (by Disney and other studios) in favour of computer animated movies that were better written and more fun. The move to computers is particularly foolhardy given Disney's partner (and inevitable future rival) Pixar already occupy Disney's market niche as providers of quality family entertainment in the market. You get the sense Disney's execs haven't seen their previous in-house computer generated effort, Dinosaur. It sucked. (The same year saw the successful release by Dreamworks / Aardman of Chicken Run, made using stop-motion techniques that are as old as cel animation - further evidence that technique is secondary to quality). The corporation has let animation die before: between the fifties and the eighties, the once-great animation department was allowed to die a long, drawn-out death. They were amongst the leanest years for the corporation. I sense more bad years are to come, and while animation will rise again, I hope it doesn't take four decades this time. (For excellent coverage of this issue, I recommend Jim Hill's site.) Comments Comments can be made on the individual post's page. |
 This page is for assorted musings and editorialising that don't fit elsewhere on Cinephobia. AFCAtastic: Film Writing Awards Polanski's Repulsion Miffion Impossible Based on a True Story... You There - Have you Ever Kissed a Girl? Round Up Exhibition Review: Star Wars - Where Science Meets... Picking the Classics Exhibition Review: Setting the Scene at ACMI December 2003 May 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 October 2008 November 2008 January 2009 February 2009 May 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 Want to contact me? 
Become a fan on Facebook |