Disney Renaissance 2/Disney Revival

[Farerb]

To me the day Disney died was the day Ron Clements left the studio.

[EricJ]

Is John Musker still there, or did he leave earlier?
Either way, we lost two of the last non-Pixar directors with a handle on story (even though it started to decline with Frog and Moana).

[Ben]

Andreas Déjà, and then Glen Keane.

In all seriousness, I think the buying of Pixar was the highpoint. Building on the success that Eisner — who doesn’t get the credit he deserves nowadays — had achieved, and then fixing what was in danger of coming undone, was the most coherent and powerful that the studio had ever been, really, on creative levels. Within the next five years, it began to go sour…and here we are.

[GeffreyDrogon]

The really sad part is that I would put that date a little earlier, actually. "Disney" stated dying between the acquisitions of Pixar and Marvel, and LucasFilm, arguably at *least* at the buying of LucasFilm, and then the 20th Century assets. Once D+ launched, it was all only about sequels, superheroes and Star Wars, and had all gotten too big, so there is no-where else to go, other than to keep buying. But nothing major is on the block anymore.

Warners has gone in with Discovery, and maybe that is up for another tech buy at some point in a few years, after the AT&T mess. Amazon has MGM. Sony, maybe? But they seem pretty happy with their device side too. Lionsgate is always rumored but would be a bad fit. And they’re really only just a mini-major.

The worse thing Iger did is still the kneejerk selling of the Miramax library. Whatever Weinstein did, that library was gold, with cult hits and Oscar winners aplenty, kind of like an even more prestigious version of Touchstone, which also still doesn’t get enough love. And all of them with the Buena Vista name as their distributor!

Ah, well, I guess all is transactional in the end. It all comes from nothing; it will all end up as nothing…

Lionsgate can't afford to buy Disney.

Aside from The Hunger Games, Lionsgate has never been a serious threat to other companies. They are more interested in acquiring properties for home media, recently shown with the acquisition of the non-Hasbro Entertainment One properties. Lionsgate has always served up smaller fare. John Wick is not Top Gun. Something like Sound of Freedom would fit Lionsgate more than the Disney Princess line would.

You know, DreamWorks Animation considered the same thing back when Katzenberg was looking for a permanent home for his company. But he settled on Universal, since they know how to market animated films since Despicable Me became its first bona fide animated hit since the Bluth-Spielberg collaborations. Lionsgate just has Alpha and Omega and a bunch of foreign animated films.

Disney will very well be bought out by Apple.

[Ben]

I meant Lionsgate was the next possible but for Disney. Of course Lionsgate couldn’t begin to even think about buying Disney! But then Lionsgate just bought out Entertainment One from Hasbro, so that gives them a few more properties.

[GeffreyDrogon]

There is nothing in Lionsgate that Disney would want.

[Ben]

Except for content, natch. But I already said they would be a bad fit.

[ShyViolet]

Building on the success that Eisner — who doesn’t get the credit he deserves nowadays — had achieved, and then fixing what was in danger of coming undone, was the most coherent and powerful that the studio had ever been, really, on creative levels. Within the next five years, it began to go sour…and here we are.

That’s for sure. I was recently at my local bookstore chain and found a “100 Years of Disney” history companion in the film section. Michael Eisner rated exactly one paragraph (JK got nothing).

[EricJ]

That’s for sure. I was recently at my local bookstore chain and found a “100 Years of Disney” history companion in the film section. Michael Eisner rated exactly one paragraph (JK got nothing).

And in the end, Eisner's place in history can blame...Shrek 2.

(Or rather, do we blame the film itself, Eisner's tyrannical overreaction, or our temporary anti-Eisner mania for it at the time, making Eisner think that we now loathed and despised Disney Princesses, and that we had placed the burden on his shoulders alone to offer his head in apology for all those terrible un-PC Cinderellas and Snow Whites, and that his studio's 2D classics had now been beaten forever by 3D CGI so it was his duty to close up shop?
There's no ONE guilty party, here. Although some of us at the time were warning that too much overidealistic Shrek-worship was not going to end well.)

[Ben]

Shrek 2 is just a movie.

Most people don’t even know what’s going on in it. It’s just a disgruntled ex-employee, now powerful-ish, having a perceived dig at his old boss. Most people don’t get that, or know who Michael Eisner is, or was, even back then.

And I don’t get which Cinderellas and Snow Whites you’re referencing? Cinders got two DTV sequels, and Snow White got…none? It can't be a park thing, as those were on the nose PC, or movies from other studios? I’m afraid your rant took over the point you were trying to make, again.

[ShyViolet]

Most people don’t even know what’s going on in it. It’s just a disgruntled ex-employee, now powerful-ish, having a perceived dig at his old boss. Most people don’t get that, or know who Michael Eisner is, or was, even back then.

Yes, I definitely feel that way about Shrek 1. Shrek 2 had a little bit more of an actual story, but was basically just an extension/reiteration of the first film.

Third was, as we’ve said many times, complete and utter crud. I can’t even imagine what would have happened if THAT had been the FIRST film!

I know Forever After isn’t liked all that much, but believe it or not it’s my favorite…it actually feels like a MOVIE-movie and not a tired meme!

Anyway, that’s basically how I feel about the Shrek series.

[Farerb]

I don't care about any Shrek movie. The only DreamWorks film I like is Prince of Egypt.

[ShyViolet]

On proxy fight: (Kim Masters podcast, 2:45)

https://www.kcrw.com/culture/shows/the- ... suit-trump