airlarry!
Did you know some ferns date back to Prehistoric t
- Joined
- May 30, 2000
If you read one of latest columns, about how budgets for WDI get set on whether or not a movie becomes a blockbuster, you get a sense of why, as I have always believed, a successful animation company should not have as its goal producing feature animation 1 or even 2 a year.
http://www.jimhillmedia.com/newarticles/singles/gabam.htm
He describes how WDI comes up with these great additions to the parks for movies like Dinosaur or Atlantis, only to have the suits lose interest when the movie is a 'flop'.
He doesn't say what is inherently the flaw in this system. With Disney trying to produce one or even two (like in this year) major animation releases in one year, I think the suits get caught too much on how much synergy (read: money) IN THE SHORT TERM can be made from each release, and when one release is disappointing to them, they scan the horizon and see another coming right around the bend, and abandon whatever is with this one (maybe even trying to avoid a little blame by distancing themselves from this project) to grab on to the Next Big Thing.
So, if Disney were releasing major animation every other year or definitely not within 12months -- maybe 15-18 instead -- you naturally
a. build up a bit of 'envie' or desire for fans to get ready for the next one;
b. give your departments that much more time to finish the story etc
c. give WDI a chance to design killer synergetic attractions
and since you don't have a Treasure Planet falling in step only six months behind your Lilo, I would believe the suits would be less inclined to dump WDW projects that tie into the movies just because the movies were 'disappointments.'
At least, company executives thinking in terms of long term strategy would do so.
Give your animated feature lots of TLC in production. Give WDI a chance to come up with a great tie-in. Give the audience a chance to have some desire for the next Disney Animation Event. Let them remind themselves of that event through promotion of a tie-in at the parks or resorts. (Forget Pop Century, a Treasure Planet themed discount resort or a Atlantis upscale hotel sounds yummy). Synergy.
http://www.jimhillmedia.com/newarticles/singles/gabam.htm
He describes how WDI comes up with these great additions to the parks for movies like Dinosaur or Atlantis, only to have the suits lose interest when the movie is a 'flop'.
He doesn't say what is inherently the flaw in this system. With Disney trying to produce one or even two (like in this year) major animation releases in one year, I think the suits get caught too much on how much synergy (read: money) IN THE SHORT TERM can be made from each release, and when one release is disappointing to them, they scan the horizon and see another coming right around the bend, and abandon whatever is with this one (maybe even trying to avoid a little blame by distancing themselves from this project) to grab on to the Next Big Thing.
So, if Disney were releasing major animation every other year or definitely not within 12months -- maybe 15-18 instead -- you naturally
a. build up a bit of 'envie' or desire for fans to get ready for the next one;
b. give your departments that much more time to finish the story etc
c. give WDI a chance to design killer synergetic attractions
and since you don't have a Treasure Planet falling in step only six months behind your Lilo, I would believe the suits would be less inclined to dump WDW projects that tie into the movies just because the movies were 'disappointments.'
At least, company executives thinking in terms of long term strategy would do so.
Give your animated feature lots of TLC in production. Give WDI a chance to come up with a great tie-in. Give the audience a chance to have some desire for the next Disney Animation Event. Let them remind themselves of that event through promotion of a tie-in at the parks or resorts. (Forget Pop Century, a Treasure Planet themed discount resort or a Atlantis upscale hotel sounds yummy). Synergy.
