Post by jane on Jun 19, 2010 17:16:30 GMT -5
It is a known fact that Don Bluth's 1994 film 'Thumbelina' was a critical and commercial failure. But, would it have done better if it were a Disney release? Commercially speaking, of course it would have. But what about with the critics?
As I posted in the chatbox, Warner Bros. held two test-screenings for Thumbelina. Their first one had a low audience score. But with the second, they screened the famous blue-and-white Walt Disney Pictures logo in front of it, and it had a subsequently better audience reaction. This clearly was no coincidence.
Disney had been the animation juggernaut since the 1920's, but it wasn't until Don Bluth walked out on production of 'The Fox and the Hound' in the late 70's-early 80's that Disney had a real competitor on their hands. He was kind of the instigator of the Disney imitators. And oh, the imitators. So many.
So here's where the bias comes in -- I love almost every animated Disney movie - especially the ones released in the 90's. I love 50% of Don Bluth movies (lets just say his early 90's period - Thumbelina included - wasn't his best, by far). As for Warner Bros. and DreamWorks, I'm only a fan of The Iron Giant, Cats Don't Dance, and The Prince of Egypt. But my question is, would I still dislike movies such as Quest for Camelot, A Troll in Central Park, or that Sinbad movie if they were Disney releases? Or would I pull a Thumbelina and love them?
I found an interesting article about this, dating all the way back to 1997 (!) before Hercules or Anastasia were released. It provides some interesting insight into Disney's competitors. It also foreshadows how Disney might have gotten into their early 2000's slump (admit it, the movies may have been good, but it was a slump) by mass-producing animated films (which I think is not far off for DreamWorks either).
Btw, Planet Ice = Titan AE, Kingdom of the Sun = The Emperor's New Groove (they planned it to be an epic musical ... didn't quite work out).
Link to the article is HERE.
As I posted in the chatbox, Warner Bros. held two test-screenings for Thumbelina. Their first one had a low audience score. But with the second, they screened the famous blue-and-white Walt Disney Pictures logo in front of it, and it had a subsequently better audience reaction. This clearly was no coincidence.
Disney had been the animation juggernaut since the 1920's, but it wasn't until Don Bluth walked out on production of 'The Fox and the Hound' in the late 70's-early 80's that Disney had a real competitor on their hands. He was kind of the instigator of the Disney imitators. And oh, the imitators. So many.
So here's where the bias comes in -- I love almost every animated Disney movie - especially the ones released in the 90's. I love 50% of Don Bluth movies (lets just say his early 90's period - Thumbelina included - wasn't his best, by far). As for Warner Bros. and DreamWorks, I'm only a fan of The Iron Giant, Cats Don't Dance, and The Prince of Egypt. But my question is, would I still dislike movies such as Quest for Camelot, A Troll in Central Park, or that Sinbad movie if they were Disney releases? Or would I pull a Thumbelina and love them?
I found an interesting article about this, dating all the way back to 1997 (!) before Hercules or Anastasia were released. It provides some interesting insight into Disney's competitors. It also foreshadows how Disney might have gotten into their early 2000's slump (admit it, the movies may have been good, but it was a slump) by mass-producing animated films (which I think is not far off for DreamWorks either).
Btw, Planet Ice = Titan AE, Kingdom of the Sun = The Emperor's New Groove (they planned it to be an epic musical ... didn't quite work out).
Link to the article is HERE.
