November 9, 2001
Hollywood Journal
Lack of Family Fare Costs
Disney Its Holiday Throne
By TOM KING
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
The holiday season is a time for family bonding -- and a booming box office.
Too bad the Mouse isn't stirring.
In a tale of missed opportunities, erosion in quality control and downright poor planning, Disney finds itself in the once-unthinkable position of being a second-rank player this Christmas. The company that once dominated family entertainment at the holidays -- "Snow White" came out at Christmas in 1937 -- has no more family-friendly releases for this year. While the studio's "Monsters, Inc." just had a huge opening, those creatures are likely to get clobbered by a boy wizard next week. (Read: Warner Bros.' "Harry Potter.")
Families Matter
Disney's holiday blues say a lot about the growing battle for families at the box-office. While that's probably good for moviegoers -- there are at least seven major family films this Christmas -- it also means more players vying for a piece of Disney's turf. A few studios have taken the unusually bold step of launching entire holiday franchises, like "Harry Potter" and New Line's "Lord of the Rings." Paramount is also aiming at Disney on the animation front, using its alliance with sister company Nickelodeon to produce holiday cartoon movies.
With kids out of school and many adults on vacation, the holidays are the second-most lucrative time of the year for studios, and movies with broad appeal are key. "When you've got the family in from out of town visiting for the holidays, you've got to try to find a movie that all 10 people can agree to see," says Bob Harper, vice chairman of Twentieth Century Fox.
Attack of the Green Guys
But lately Disney has missed the mark. After winning the holiday movie season in 1998 and 1999, Disney's Christmas goose was cooked last year by Universal's "The Grinch," the biggest box-office hit of 2000. Disney's animation company has also seen competition from DreamWorks, which this summer quashed Disney's animated "Atlantis" with "Shrek," the highest-grossing movie so far this year.
But beyond increased competition, Disney's slip also has to do with lackluster movies and bad timing. Last year, it stumbled with "102 Dalmatians," the live-action sequel to the 1996 hit that starred Glenn Close; the studio handed the project to Kevin Lima, a director from its animation unit who had never before helmed a live-action film. It got terrible reviews and took in just $67 million.
Then it dropped the ball with Santa. Last December, Disney ran a short trailer promoting "The Santa Clause 2: Escape Clause," a sequel to its Tim Allen winner from 1994. But the studio, which had years to come up with a good script, decided only a couple of weeks later that the script it had didn't cut it. The project was halted and Mr. Allen went across town to make the family comedy "Joe Somebody" for Fox, which opens next month. ("Santa Clause 2" is now scheduled for next November.)
Missing Out on Harry
With an already advertised "Santa Clause" sequel pulled, Disney found itself with just "Monsters, Inc.", its latest collaboration with "Toy Story" maker Pixar, for families this season. In recent years, Disney has had two all-audience movies for the holidays; this year, its only other major offering is "The Royal Tenenbaums," an R-rated picture about a dysfunctional family. But perhaps the deepest cut of all: Disney missed out on what many think may be the biggest family film of all time. A former Warners studio executive picked up on "Harry Potter" during the book's initial press run in the United Kingdom; Warners got the rights to Harry for a pittance before he became a world-wide phenomenon.
The Christmas(es) of Disney Past
In years past, Disney has released two big family films at Christmas, and as a result has often ended up controlling the season. Here is a list of Disney's past holiday films, and their respective box-office rank in that season.
Date Film/Rank
1994 The Santa Clause #1; The Lion King (reissue) #8
1995 Toy Story #1; Mr. Holland's Opus #5
1996 101 Dalmatians #3; The Preacher's Wife #12
1997 Flubber #6; The Little Mermaid (reissue) #21
1998 A Bug's Life #1; Mighty Joe Young #12
1999 Toy Story 2 #1; Bicentennial Man #13
2000 The Emperor's New Groove #9; 102 Dalmatians #14
Source: Exhibitor Relations Co.
Disney believes it will be back on top next year with its usual double-barreled family-movie strategy. It pooh-poohs the notion that "Harry Potter" will eat "Monsters, Inc." like a holiday appetizer. Disney says that despite its early November opening date, "Monsters" will be strong enough to make it to the New Year. "I think the audience is going to want to see both 'Monsters, Inc.' and 'Harry Potter' many, many times," says Dick Cook, chairman of Disney's motion picture group.
To be sure, "Monsters" will lift Disney's fortunes. Its $63.5 million opening was the biggest ever for an animated movie and the eighth-biggest opening of any film in history. As tremendous as that sounds, this year has actually seen six of the nine biggest movie openings of all time. Movies are having bigger openings than ever -- and bigger second-weekend drops -- because films are being released in so many theaters at once. At 3,237 theaters, "Monsters" had the second-widest debut of any Disney film in history.
Meanwhile, competition isn't going away. Warners is planning a Thanksgiving debut in 2002 for its next "Harry Potter" film, the same time that Disney is planning to open "Treasure Planet," an animated movie set in the parallel universes of the 17th and 23rd centuries. The following year, there's yet another possible installment of "Harry Potter." Disney's plan? "Sweating Bullets," an animated musical-comedy Western in which Judi Dench provides the voice of a cow.
Credit Watch
Michael R. Bloomberg is headed for the spotlight. No, not just in the mayor's office. We're talking Hollywood.
Mr. Bloomberg, the billionaire businessman who this week was elected mayor of New York City, has made a lot of noise on the political stage lately, but hardly any for his little-noticed foray into the movie business. He is the principal financier of "Focus," a film based on a novel about racial intolerance by Arthur Miller.
At the movie's premiere in New York a few weeks ago, Mr. Bloomberg said he was most proud of the fact that the film came in "under budget." Industry executives estimate the film cost a few million dollars at most -- just a fraction of the $50 million of his own money that Mr. Bloomberg is estimated to have spent in his mayoral bid.
How did the mayor get involved in the movies? A friend, Neal Slavin, a photographer and commercial director, took the book to him. After reading it, Mr. Bloomberg agreed to front the money to option the movie rights. (People involved with the film won't say how large his investment was.) He turned out to be the classic movie moneyman, the kind of guy who supplies the funds but then disappears. His involvement was so low-key, in fact, that executives at Paramount Classics, which is distributing the film, called him "The Wizard," because they never saw him.
Entertaining Questions
With "Harry Potter" circling Hogwarts, and people in Hollywood anticipating a monster-size opening of that film next Friday, we thought we'd ask you a few questions this week. Do you plan to see it? And do you think "Harry Potter" will set a box-office record for the biggest opening in history? (The 1997 sequel "Jurassic Park: The Lost World" currently holds that record, having taken in $92.7 million in its first weekend.) Finally, just take a wild guess: How much do you think "Harry Potter" will take in on its opening weekend? Send your responses -- as well as any questions you have about Hollywood -- to me at
tking@wsj.com1; I will report the results of our survey in an upcoming column.
