Search  About Salon  Table Talk  Newsletters  Advertise in Salon  Investor Relations

Salon.com
Multimedia
[Arts & Entertainment][ Books ][ Business ][ Comics ][ Health & Body ][ Mothers Who Think ][ News ][ People ][ Politics ][ Sex ][ Technology ][ Travel &: Food ]

Article Finder
Business


 


Movies
- - - - - - - - - - - -


The toons that won't be "King"
The most successful cartoon ever made is also the worst thing that could ever happen to animation.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Gregg Kilday

June 2, 2000 | "Never predict the next 'Lion King,'" Michael Eisner warned financial analysts via a conference call last month.

That afternoon, Eisner was feeling a bit bullish. The Walt Disney Company had just announced better-than-expected second-quarter profits -- after all, Disney owns ABC's "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" -- and the studio's upcoming animated film "Dinosaur" looked to be big. Since then, "Dinosaur" has gone on to earn more than $80 million domestically, and it may ultimately bring home $200 million.




Print story


E-mail story


Backflip This Story  Backflip this article to find it again


But let's get one thing straight, it's no "Lion King."

"The Lion King" has been haunting Hollywood ever since it first appeared in 1994. Seemingly irresistible, though I never got its cuddly charm, it roared to a whopping domestic gross of $313 million and a worldwide take of $772 million, easily becoming the most successful cartoon of all time and spinning off an animated TV series, direct-to-video sequels and a Broadway stage show that's been packing 'em in since 1997.

It's also been the worst thing that ever happened to animation. Today, Hollywood animators can't get "The Lion King" off their minds.

A little history: When Eisner and his lieutenant Jeffrey Katzenberg first took over Disney in 1984, animation was in the doldrums. Several years earlier, animator Don Bluth, convinced that the studio had lost its way, had fled with a team of draftsmen.

The remaining animators were left toiling on a dark, Tolkienesque fantasy called "The Black Cauldron." When "Cauldron" was finally released in 1985, it coughed up just $21 million. But after a few stumbles ("The Great Mouse Detective," "Oliver & Company"), the new team began to recognize the possibilities -- both commercial and creative -- of animation.

By 1989, the Disney animation renaissance had begun: "The Little Mermaid" (thanks to a boost from the composing team of Alan Menken and the late Howard Ashman), officially heralded the toon's return as a commercial force, grossing a tidy $84 million domestically. "Beauty and the Beast" (1991) upped the ante, becoming the only animated film ever nominated for best picture.

Hollywood, which almost always treated animation like a quaint sideline, suddenly started taking it seriously -- not just as a business, but as a revived art form. Suddenly, top animators like Glen Keane ("Mermaid") and Andreas Deja ("Beauty") were stars.

Then "The Lion King" roared into town and changed everything. Since then, Hollywood has been trying -- with mixed results -- to revisit that high-water mark.

No studio is a bigger victim of this syndrome than Disney. Try as it might, its subsequent toons haven't come close to "King." Beginning with "Pocahontas" (1995) which earned $142 million in domestic grosses, they've all -- to one degree or another -- been dubbed disappointments. "The Hunchback of Notre Dame," which gamely tried to paint a happy face on the Victor Hugo tragedy, managed just $100 million in 1996. The jokey "Hercules" quipped its way to $99 million in 1997. "Mulan" rallied a bit, collecting $121 million in '98. Last year's "Tarzan" swung back up to a solid $171 million. These are hardly disastrous numbers, but they (along with their direct-to-video spinoffs) have also succeeded in flooding the market, watering down any remaining appetite for animation. Competitors, many of whom are trying to creatively break Disney's cookie-cutter format -- are finding it especially rough.

Over the next two months, six new animated movies are forcing their way into this already overcrowded marketplace.

Fox's "Titan A.E." comes out of the chute on June 16, promising a CGI-augmented Star Wars-esque space opera. The following week, DreamWorks debuts "Chicken Run," a stop-motion-animated comedy from the Academy Award-certified Nick Parks, whose Aardman Animations is responsible for the winning "Wallace & Gromit" shorts. Then -- pity the parents who have to sit through all this stuff -- it's on to Universal's "The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle" (a combination of live-action and animation ŕ la "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"), Warner's "Pokémon The Movie 2000" (a sequel to the minimally animated '98 hit that brought the trading-card cult onto the big screen) and Destination Films' "Thomas and the Magic Railroad" (based on a creaky British TV series for kids). And, just to reassert its dominance, Disney will send "Fantasia 2000," released on IMAX screens earlier this year, out into the neighborhood multiplex.

.Next page | The good old days
1, 2




 

Need a gift? Visit Salon Shop for inspiration.




More great offers in
Salon Plus

____
 
   
 
____
 
  Current Stories  

Sign up to receive free e-mail updates from Salon -- now in 17 different varieties!



Salon  Search  About Salon  Table Talk  Newsletters  Advertise in Salon  Investor Relations


Arts & Entertainment | Books | Business | Comics | Health | Mothers Who Think | News
People | Politics | Sex | Technology and The Free Software Project | Travel & Food
Letters | Columnists | Salon Plus | Salon Shop


Reproduction of material from any Salon pages without written permission is strictly prohibited
Copyright © 2000 Salon.com
Salon, 22 4th Street, 16th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103
Telephone 415 645-9200 | Fax 415 645-9204
E-mail | Salon.com Privacy Policy