Forgive a bad pun, but…
The Walt Disney Company is one hell of a family. Note, The Walt Disney Company is. Not necessarily “Disney”…
Is Disney dead? Well, that is certainly a loaded question if there ever was one. To even begin to unpack such a question, first of all… It all depends on what you consider “Disney”.
What is “Disney” to me?
It is, quite simply, the films made and released by Walt Disney Pictures. Outside of films, it’s the theme parks and various television series.
I divide the movie side of things into two categories these days; Walt Disney Pictures movies and Walt Disney Animation Studios movies. The former makes live-action movies and a few animated tech demos as well (i.e. Jon Favreau’s The Jungle Book and The Lion King), the latter makes animated pictures that know full-well that they are animated. Some occasionally have worked in live-action, like the package features. Over a decade ago, Walt Disney Pictures encompassed more than just WDAS-made animated pictures. From the early 1990s up until this past decade, DisneyToon Studios made a plethora of movies: Direct-to-video sequels, TV show-based fare like A Goofy Movie, specials like Mickey’s Once Upon a Christmas, and the Planes spin-offs of Pixar’s Cars. Many live-action Disney pictures were co-productions, too. For example, do any of you 90s-borns remember Caravan Pictures? You’ll notice with the Renaissance-era films – both live-action and animated – that a name like “Silver Screen Partners” shows up in the opening credits reels, too. Some of their big tentpole-type movies were produced in conjunction with Jerry Bruckheimer (Pirates of the Caribbean), Walden Media (Chronicles of Narnia), Roth Films (Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, Oz the Great and Powerful), and plenty more.
Now what about Pixar, you ask? Walt Disney Pictures’ logo is what all Pixar films open with, all the way back to their feature film debut Toy Story. In a way, yes, they are “Disney films”. But it seems, from everything said, that the works are wholly, independently produced at Pixar. After all, trailers for their films used to state “Walt Disney Pictures presents a Pixar Animation Studios film”, or some variation of that. The in-film credits open with such distinctions. The end credits always say “Created at Pixar Animation Studios.” Covers and posters often used that kind of heading, too, to emphasize that Pixar made Pixar films. Disney simply funded and released them through the Walt Disney Pictures banner. Pixar was their own standalone company years before they teamed up with Disney to make feature films. Since Pixar’s films were always pretty family-friendly, unlike a Who Framed Roger Rabbit-type picture, it made sense. For me, Pixar is periphery. And if they are periphery, Marvel Studios’ output and Lucasfilm’s movies are even further… Despite being released as Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures (goddamn that’s still a mouthful) ventures. So one circle is everything Walt Disney Pictures bearing that castle logo, *sans* Pixar. This circle also includes Touchstone and Hollywood fare. Touchstone and Hollywood weren’t really studios, they were merely adult labels for Walt Disney Pictures movies not meant to be viewed by young’uns, so they *are* Walt Disney Pictures. Yes, the likes of Down and Out in Beverly Hills and Ruthless People. Like a Disney equivalent of DC Comics’ Vertigo imprint. I put them in that first “Disney” circle. One half of the circle is the family-friendly WDP stuff, the other half of the circle is the adult Touchstone/Hollywood stuff. Pixar is the next circle. Marvel and Lucasfilm, their own circles.
Now apply that to everything else. 20th Century Studios, FX, all the now-renamed Fox TV stations, Searchlight Pictures… What else does Disney own? ABC, A&E, Lifetime, ESPN, National Geographic, History Channel, a stake in Hulu, etc. Remember when they funded all those movies Miramax made in the ’90s? Remember when they owned the distribution rights to them? Right down to the VHS releases of films like Pulp Fiction having the bumpers and title cards you saw on mainline Disney video releases of the period. That’s where a million “Pulp Fiction is a Disney movie” jokes blossomed. Yet no one really sees those kinds of movies as “Disney movies”. Or those shows. Or even those channels. If you tell someone that Disney had ANY kind of involvement with a movie like that, they’d be shocked. If you’re me, it’s not a shock. I remember one time, a co-worker and I were talking about Avatar 2, after the Disney acquisition of Fox. My co-worker worried that Disney was going to ruin it and remove all the “adult” stuff (Avatar is PG-13, I’m pretty sure it’s not that “adult”), to which I explained to him, “Disney’s been making R-rated movies since the ’80s.” He had no idea…
But perhaps the world of the Internet film community and such feel a wave of unease these days because The Walt Disney Company, more so than ever before, tries to act like it’s all the same. Like it’s all from one mold. All in the family. All this disparate stuff, together. That recent Investor Day event stream sure rammed that home. But really, how was that content being funded by Disney any different from where we were in, say, 2000? That year, Walt Disney Pictures releases like Fantasia 2000, Dinosaur, The Emperor’s New Groove, Remember the Titans, The Tigger Movie, Disney’s The Kid, and 102 Dalmatians … shared the same 365-day span with… O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Mission to Mars, Coyote Ugly, Gone in 60 Seconds, Bounce, All the Pretty Horses, Gun Shy, and Duets. If any of that stuff was all lumped together into the same category, it was likely at an investor’s call much like this one… In some room… Not at all filmed or shown to the public. Nowadays, we see it all online.
Maybe it’s the fact that Disney outright owns what was once 21st Century Fox, Inc…. And Lucasfilm. And Marvel. But in 2000, they also owned Miramax, ABC, ESPN, 50% of A&E (the other 50% is owned by Hearst), etc. Miramax broke away from Disney in 2005, and later the distribution rights to those films fell out of Disney’s hands. (Pulp Fiction isn’t a “Disney” film, but was…) There doesn’t seem to be an end in sight for Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm, and 21st Century Fox assets, though. They may just remain at the company for the foreseeable future. Outside of a rumbling I once heard about a certain someone angrily threatening to break Pixar off from Disney in 2012, little else. They look to be staying, and maybe that too upsets people. It’s understandable. Monopolies and all. I liked Disney fine when they just made animated features and their own pictures, sometimes collaborated with others… but what about the meat of the presentation?
As far as I’m concerned, “Disney” as you and I know it, aren’t going anywhere. Walt Disney Animation Studios unveiled their fall 2021 picture Encanto (which, up until this point, us buffs knew as “Untitled Byron Howard/Lin-Manuel Miranda Film”, Howard directs alongside Jared Bush and Charise Castro Smith), already a follow-up to the original picture Raya and the Last Dragon (out in March, directed by Carlos Estrada Lopez and Don Hall), in addition to *four* animated Disney+ shows based on their recent animated pictures. A historic first. As you may know, any animated TV series based on a Disney animated feature was handled by Disney Television Animation. Everything from the 1992 Little Mermaid series all the way up until the Big Hero 6 series. Disney Television Animation, of course, will continue. They’ve got Amphibia, The Owl House, Big City Greens, and more. Nothing from them was part of the stream, because those cartoons still air on a TV channel, while this stream was all about content being exclusive to Disney+. Oh, and did I mention that WDAS has an **original** series set for Disney+ as well? A co-production with a small Nigerian entertainment company, no less. Their plan won’t be just spin-offs of their pre-existing animated features. I’d say that’s pretty big. A real departure, too. There was a time when Walt Disney Productions staffers scoffed at the idea of doing that kind of television animation, “stooping” down to the levels of Hanna-Barbera and Filmation. They were no strangers to producing TV animation, as evidenced by programs for Disneyland/Walt Disney Presents/Wonderful World of Color, but not this kind of thing. Walt Disney Television Animation came from the newly-arrived Michael Eisner in 1984, which already was a big break in tradition and allowed Disney Animation to keep at it with features… Now they’ll be doing both… The “live-action” end still has remakes and rehashes coming, and the odd-one-out not-remake (but pre-existing Disney attraction adaptation) Jungle Cruise, in addition to unannounced projects. Walt Disney Pictures, Walt Disney Animation Studios… Still here, still breathing, changing as always. I’d say the shreds of Walt are still within the animation studio. The live-action end needs help, and the Touchstone side is but dead. (Curiously, Touchstone’s name is being used for re-named Fox TV stations.)
At Pixar, originals are still happening. We had Dan Scanlon’s Onward earlier in the year, Pete Docter and Kemp Powers’ acclaimed Soul arrives on Christmas Day, Luca next summer (above left, an Italian-set adventure from La Luna director Enrico Casarosa), and the newly-announced Turning Red (Domee Shi’s new film) in spring 2022. All seems good, right? Keeping true to those “more originals in the 2020s” statements, eh? Oh but what’s this… A spin-off? Certainly the announcement that completely caught me off guard, Pixar is making an actual Buzz Lightyear movie where he’s actually a space ranger fighting evil in the galaxy. The in-universe fictitious character that inspired the toyline and action figure that Andy got for his birthday in the original Toy Story. In other words, Pixar’s “official” version of Buzz Lightyear of Star Command. Show within a show? It would be like Disney Animation making a feature-length Bolt movie where it’s actually the Bolt show that Bolt himself stars in. Of course, those burnt out on Pixar sequels and general Disney franchising have their understandable qualms with this picture, aptly titled Lightyear. For me, it’s a science fiction action-adventure with a lot of potential, take out Buzz and it could’ve been about any astronaut/galactic crime fighter. This is exactly what I had suggested in old blog posts of mine, when Disney first announced Toy Story 4. I was all like “Why don’t they just leave the trilogy alone and make a sci-fi movie where Buzz actually is a space ranger”? Looks like they did, and it seems like a fun project that they wanted to do, instead of a traditional sequel or prequel. Or even a conventional spin-off about a side character, for that matter. Does it need to exist? Probably not, but I’m actually looking forward to it. In addition to these feature announcements, Pixar is going further into the small screen realm. Having already made Forky Asks a Question, two satisfying Toy Story TV specials – Toy Story of Terror! and Toy Story That Time Forgot – and those Cars shorts, it’s no surprise to me. Pixar announced three TV shows – two based on their films, one that’s completely original – and a feature film-based shorts series.
I get why it’s troubling for some out there. Disney Animation and Pixar making straight originals, no sequels is seemingly the best way. Sequels are a weird tricky area for Disney Animation, and a heated one for Pixar. Sequels don’t bother me in general, because as a writer and creator, who am I to tell these guys “No”? Who am I tell them “You can’t do that!”? If I want to keep going on adventures with my characters, I’ll damn well do that. No one’s paying me hundreds of millions of dollars for that right now, I’m doing that because I love the characters I’ve created and I want to keep their adventures going for as long as I see fit. It’s easy to assume, because these particular creatives are all in high positions whose studios are rewarded bajillions of dollars for almost every movie that they make, that they aren’t pitching these projects passionately; like they don’t want to make these movies but they have to because Disney’s breathing down their necks for sequels/franchise extensions. I’m sure there is truth to the latter part, you know, the whole “Disney breathing down necks” part… But what if, we ex away cynicism for one second and think, hey, maybe Angus MacLane really wanted to make a sci-fi action movie about Buzz Lightyear that’s removed from the Toy Story storyline proper? I don’t know, I don’t work for Disney. Do you know? Are you a fly on their walls?
I think, more than anything, it boils down to Disney (and Pixar’s) weird history with sequels. Walt “you can’t top pigs with pigs” Disney entertained the idea of a second Snow White and a second Bambi, but then decided to keep making stories he and his artists never told before. The closest you got to a Snow White sequel was Cinderella, a very similar picture. His animated features sometimes got comic spin-offs or some form of continuation through a tie-in product, but little else. Off the top of my head, there was the Scamp comic strip based on Lady and Tramp’s wily son, and there was also a 1968 Jungle Book sequel album called More Jungle Book. Stuff like that was removed enough so that it couldn’t be considered “canon”. Disney finally broke that tradition when Michael Eisner and Jeffrey Katzenberg proposed a sequel to a classic feature in approximately mid-1986, the studio chose The Rescuers because it – at the time – was the highest grossing animated feature on initial release at the worldwide box office. Plus, Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor were still around, so they could get them back for the sequel. But we all know what happened to The Rescuers Down Under, and how its box office performance lead to a whole slew of direct-to-video sequels. Some fans consider those pictures canon, others firmly don’t. They haven’t been erased or downplayed, as the majority of them can be viewed on Disney+. Are they canon? I don’t think the DisneyToon sequels to the Walt films and the pre-Eisner films are, it’s a little murkier with the sequels to the Renaissance films and beyond because of most of the original voice casts being involved, sometimes creatives were involved, and there was that Lilo & Stitch sequel that Chris Sanders ostensibly gave his blessing to. Then you get into the TV stuff, comics tie-ins, it’s a headache. I don’t really think much about it anymore, all I know is that I’m not really a fan of the direct-to-video stuff on principle – which includes the few theatrical releases like Return to Never Land and The Jungle Book 2. It’s essentially EU to me. Sequels made in-house at Walt Disney Animation Studios, I’ll say those are definitely canon.
Maybe it is that barrier that makes the ’90s and ’00s more digestible to Disney devotees? But really, I don’t see it as different. Back then, other venues were making “official bootleg” sequels to Disney movies with lower production value and kiddie-centric writing, nowadays, Disney Animation and Pixar themselves make the sequels. For me, at least the originators are handling these follow-ups, so I always saw that as an improvement over what was going on in the ’90s and ’00s. A concern I *totally* get is sequels hogging up the slate. At least in the ’90s and ’00s, other studios made the sequels while Disney Feature Animation got to continue making original after original after original (sans Fantasia 2000, obviously). An uninterrupted streak of original movies and projects. I always wondered why Disney Animation and Pixar couldn’t open a unit similar to that shuttered Florida studio (or in Pixar’s case, the super short-lived Pixar Canada), and have that double-up their production efforts so in case more sequels get pitched. That way, we can still get an original in a year with a sequel. Pixar, with just one studio, has eased into doing two pictures every other year. Turning Red and Lightyear both open in 2022, and three months apart from one another no less. Disney Animation looks to skip sequel business entirely, making Disney+ shows out of The Princess and the Frog, Big Hero 6, Zootopia, and Moana instead. They might even do the same with Frozen, so as not to make a third movie. (Either that, or the shows will be lead-ins to theatrical sequels. Who the heck knows.)
Pixar’s sequel history is also muddled, and I think a lot of people got the wrong idea about their stance on sequels. Sure, the Hawaiian shirt guy may have said on multiple occasions “we don’t make sequels unless we have a great idea”. Sure, they went a whole ten years without making a sequel to any one of their films… But! Without context, it seems like Pixar were too good to make sequels, which was never the case. Pixar wanted to make Toy Story 3 as far back as the year 2000, right after the second film came out… But they couldn’t, because Pixar was contracted to make ONLY original movies for Disney, NO sequels. Disney would hand sequels to another team and send them direct-to-video. Toy Story 2, as you all know, was going to be a direct-to-video sequel made in another building by such a “B-team”. Pixar coaxed Disney into letting them make it into a true Pixar, theatrical production – and that caused a real rift between Pixar heads and Eisner. Did Toy Story 2 count towards their picture deal or not? This agita was what held up a third Toy Story, and any other follow-ups to their highly successful movies. Disney and Pixar even had a gentleman’s agreement, where Disney wouldn’t make Pixar sequels without their permission, but that was soon to go away. The Toy Story 2 agita and other agita lead to Disney temporarily setting up a CG studio (Circle 7) to make Pixar’s sequels without Pixar, should the two parties have split in 2005. Notice how, right after Disney acquired Pixar in January 2006, that Pixar’s “true” Toy Story 3 immediately went into pre-production and immediately replaced that “Buzz recalled” sequel that Disney/Circle 7 were going to make? Monsters University went into pre-production in 2006 as well, replacing a Disney/Circle 7-made Monsters, Inc. sequel. Finding Dory was their belated overwrite of the Circle 7 Finding Nemo sequel, the two projects bore a *shocking* amount of similarities. Now owned by Disney, and no contractual obligations to JUST make original movies anymore, Pixar made a bunch of sequels throughout the 2010s – maybe because… They wanted to? More than one original got canceled during this period, one guy got too much power and overdosed on the talking automobiles franchise, etc. etc. So the slate in the 2010s was a little too unbalanced, 7 sequels (one is a prequel, I know!) vs. 4 originals. Would’ve been 6 originals if Newt and Teddy Newton’s movie weren’t cancelled. So far this decade, there’s four originals and one spin-off.
No other animation studio gets held to that standard. DreamWorks makes a bunch of sequels, people say “They’re a crap studio anyways, all they make is, like, Shrek or whatever.” Ditto some other animation studios. The oldest still-running feature-producing animation studio, and one of the most renowned animation studios, have weird histories with sequels… And thus they are expected to not indulge in a few continuations here and there. I get it, but I’m also entrenched in their history and such, that I look at it my way. Of course, it’ll be concerning if Pixar keeps spamming their slate with sequels, and Disney Animation as well, but I don’t think that’s going to be the case. One every once in a blue moon is fine enough, and again, Lightyear is a far better option than having a fifth Toy Story. I think what’s more concerning is Lucasfilm’s slate being mainly Star Wars Star Wars Star Wars Indiana Jones Star Wars Star Wars, and to be fair, people are upset about that as well. As they should be, because Lucasfilm has made or were involved with a plethora of other movies in the past: The American Graffiti films, Twice Upon a Time, Labyrinth, The Land Before Time, etc. After Radioland Murders in 1994, Lucasfilm only made *two* non-Star Wars/Indiana Jones movies. Those were Red Tails and Strange Magic. Both came out this past decade. If it ever goes into production, their adaptation of Children of Blood and Bone will be their first non-SW/Indy film since 2015. And third one ever post-1994. Walt Disney Pictures themselves? Their slate is overwhelmingly remake/rehash central. Cruella, a Lion King prequel, Pinocchio, Peter Pan and Wendy, some live-action hybrid based on Chip n’ Dale Rescue Rangers (really?), and one picture that isn’t based on an animated property… Jungle Cruise, a theme park-based picture. I am and have been concerned about that. As for Marvel Studios… Well, what do I expect them to make other than adaptations of their own comics? Lucasfilm is Lucasfilm, not “Star Wars and Indiana Jones Productions”. Walt Disney Pictures is not supposed to be an endless remake-of-their-own-stuff factory. Marvel Studios is Marvel, it makes sense that they’d only do comic book movies, so I’m not too concerned there. If Marvel needs to up anything, it’s in the movies themselves, whatever their current faults may be.
So you’re probably saying, “But it’s the sheer number of them.” You’re right there. Marvel is making a boatload of new movies and Disney+ shows. Lucasfilm is making a boatload of Star Wars movies and Disney+ shows… But so are the other big studios. Universal is pushing for Fast & Furious movies beyond the 10th one, Warner Bros. ain’t stopping with a plethora of DC movies and shows in addition to more Wizarding World movies, a fourth Matrix (likely spawning a new trilogy), and sequels/spin-offs to a ton of other things, small hits are getting sequels, it’s just a sequel/franchise world. Disney, AT&T-WarnerMedia, Viacom-CBS/Paramount, Comcast-NBCUniversal, they’re *all* doing it. It is overwhelming, yes. You want the little guy to succeed, as do I. Netflix boosting an impressive, all-voices animation slate and backing plenty of different live-action pictures is a great alternative. Apple TV+ launched Wolfwalkers (sign up for a free trial and watch it, it’s an animated gem), which probably would’ve reached less than 500 theaters under any other circumstances. Other animation is using alternative avenues to thrive in, as are smaller and less franchise-y live-action flicks. It isn’t entirely hopeless…
And for Disney themselves, I don’t think it is, either. That Encanto, Iwájú, Luca, Turning Red, and Win or Lose are happening shows me that there is still a glimmer of hope left. The live-action end really doesn’t have anything suggesting that, yet they somehow get a pass? It’s always “too much Marvel and Star Wars!” How come that end gets off the hook? Or maybe all hope was lost in that wing to begin with after they went on an utter remake binge? I know I’ve groused about their transformation into a well-oiled machine spitting out rehashes. But why are Disney Animation and Pixar’s original projects conveniently ignored? Why are the few originals here and there not factored in? To say nothing of all the not-franchise movies that 20th Century/Searchlight are releasing in the coming years? This event was what it said on the tin: An investors’ event. Three or so hours of Disney telling shareholders “Here’s a ton of stuff that’s sure to gross $500 million each time out and gain 100m more subscribers for our streaming service.” This was typical stuff likely relegated to private meetings and summits in the past, but in this day and age, it’s all online for us to see. This wasn’t supposed to be Comic-Con, or even something like CinemaCon. It isn’t really for us creators, fans, and viewers. That they showed original stuff and did such a nifty presentation around the subjects is quite something. It kind of makes you think this is some world-shattering announcement, but it really isn’t. It was a few hours of Disney whetting the appetites of a specific audience. The very people who deemed their 2019 earnings of $24 billion “disappointing” because the number wasn’t $25 billion.
I get that we’re all worried about Disney and these big companies (not leaving them out, because Disney isn’t the ONLY one – after all, what movie giant totally botched a streaming announcement not too long ago? WARNER BROS.) engulfing things and diluting cinema to just brands. We worry about where the communal cinema experience will go after this pandemic is over. We worry about the kinds of films that thrived in the early ’70s going the way of the quagga. We know that Disney and big chain cinemas do indeed bully smaller pictures out of the auditoriums in 14-house multiplexes. But we also have to understand it isn’t just a menacing mouse that has been doing this, maybe the multiplex chains shouldn’t be partnering with a big studio to shut out little movies. The theater experience needing to up its game and change with the times is a whole other story for another day. Maybe look at the “system” that allows this in the first place? Or how about the very “system” that isn’t paying the theaters – chain and mom-and-pop – to help them stay alive amidst a pandemic where no one can really congregate in public??? I thought businesses were important in this country??? I don’t know! It’s too easy to put all the blame on a fake-smiling Mickey Mouse and some superhero movies. And I don’t believe in belittling audiences who go and see what they want to see. I can’t fault audiences for choosing what they want to see, no more can I fault someone for going to McDonald’s a couple of times a year. No, the current cinema climate is a problem beyond filmmakers and audiences, I feel.
Anyways, my main points are… Disney as we know it isn’t “dead”, and that I feel we should separate The Walt Disney Company as a whole from the main studios. It would be even easier if they weren’t called The Walt Disney Company, but rather Buena Vista or something. A little more all-encompassing. No one has a problem with a studio named after four long-deceased brothers, or a studio named after a word used to describe something supreme that also sounds like the rock formation in its logo. Oh that damn Warner Bros., oh that damn Paramount. Freakin’ Buena Vista ruining everything, has a better ring to it, because truly… Disney to me is, like I said, Walt Disney Pictures/Animation Studios, Disney Television/TV Animation, and theme parks… Not Marvel, not Star Wars, especially not anything from 20th Century Studios. If “Disney” is dying or losing their greatest strength, it would be because of those creators failing to make satisfactory entertainments. The larger bank that gives them the money to make their stuff? Oh yeah, like all these large “banks”, I have issues with them and the system that enables this kind of thing. I have issues with big bank (The) Walt Disney (Company) trying to lump all this stuff together as if it’s all from the same mold, when I’m here for the specific projects I’m interested in. I don’t care about live-action/CGI Pinocchio, but I’m game for Encanto. I’m not paying to see Cruella (really? we need an origin about a woman who wants puppies killed and turned into a coat?), but I’ll likely be there in the cinema for Luca. I’m seeing Searchlight’s Antlers whenever that comes out, but I doubt I’ll be lining up for every 20th Century Pictures movie. I never saw, say, The Art of Racing in the Rain (remember that?), Stuber (remember that?), or Breakthrough.
Of course, I’ve come to accept that even mainline Disney stuff won’t always be for me. I dislike the recent remakes and have no interest in other particular projects, but I can still get some good stuff out of the animated features and shows… And whatever I don’t get from Disney? Well, easy, I get it elsewhere. And that’s totally okay, too. That creator you like isn’t always going to make things for you. You can certainly want for them to do better. I’ve yelled at Disney too many times to name, and yelled about them a lot as well. But that’s what a wide body of entertainment has, you don’t always have to go to one place. Big as Disney is, the Marvel and Star Wars manias won’t last forever, there will always be other stuff to watch and highlight. It’d be cool if that other stuff was highlighted, though… And if some muscle went into such stuff, too.