Monday Mouse Watch : Disney's $500 million Tinkerbell problem

re: Monday MouseWatch : Disney's $500 million Tinkerbell problem

Jim Hill — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 03:12:17 GMT

>>"Well, if it's so crucial that 'The Tinkerbell Movie' has to be great, then why don't the folks at Disney Consumer Products just ask John Lasseter & the guys from Pixar to come over & consult on their 'Disney Fairies' movie?," you query ... Well, John & Ed Catmull kind of have their hands full at the moment. You see, they've taking a very close look at all of the movies that WDFA currently has in its production pipeline.<<

And, of course, if John -weren't- such a Nice Guy in the first place, I could envision a perfect response something along the lines of, "Well, gosh, guys, I'd like to help consult, but SOMEONE TOLD ME I WASN'T ALLOWED TO..." >;)

(...Do I sound somewhat less than sympathetic to Disney's mounting Tink-franchise problems?--Oh, dear, could end up to be more trouble than it's worth.) :)

re: Monday MouseWatch : Disney's $500 million Tinkerbell problem

Jim Hill — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 03:58:50 GMT

>>Which explains that story that's currently making the rounds about how John & Ed are seriously putting "American Dog" (Disney's 2008 release) to sleep.

Not sure if you are implying that they are putting the breaks on this film cause last i heard from people working on AD....its moving along just fine...story changes..sure...dead....mmmmm no...

Tink movie....story was a mess and changed on a regular basis; like hourly. Not to mention that the animation quality (being done by a studio in India) was an even bigger mess. So they put the brakes on the flick....sent it back to story and yanked it away from the studio an India, in hopes of making a better product.....wow who would've thunk it possible....

re: Monday MouseWatch : Disney's $500 million Tinkerbell problem

Jim Hill — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 10:27:43 GMT

"Fairy Dust and the Quest for the Egg" was the first in the line of Fairies books, and there are other books in the Fairies line, too. So, at least the books and the merchandise make people aware of the Fairies line, and that will make them even more excited for the release of the first film.

"how John & Ed are seriously putting "American Dog" (Disney's 2008 release) to sleep"

*gasp*

Somepirate guy mentioned: India.

Is that animation place in India considered to be a real Disney animation studio? Is it Disney Animation India? Or just some random studio? I understand that outsourcing is cheaper, but, if you're going to outsource, then at least make the outsourcing place an official part of the company with actual Disney animators (just keep them on board)...*sigh*

Interesting artcile, Jim- I had no idea that TTBM was being delayed.

I've read that some people thought that "Peter Pan"'s Platinum Edition release was to coincide with TTBM...but maybe not now. It shouldn't anyway- PP is such an amazing movie on it's own.

re: Monday MouseWatch : Disney's $500 million Tinkerbell problem

Jim Hill — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:16:30 GMT

Well, that's what happens when you make movies for the sole purpose of selling stuff. Not because it's a good idea to make the movie. One advantage of the Princess line vs. the Fairy line is that the Princesses are based on established Disney history going back nearly 70 years. Every little girl since then has dreamed of being a Disney Princess. The Fairies are a manufactured market -- kind of like The Beatles and The Monkees.

re: Monday MouseWatch : Disney's $500 million Tinkerbell problem

Jim Hill — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:30:27 GMT

*Tink movie....story was a mess and changed on a regular basis; like hourly. Not to mention that the animation quality (being done by a studio in India) was an even bigger mess. So they put the brakes on the flick....sent it back to story and yanked it away from the studio an India, in hopes of making a better product.....wow who would've thunk it possible....*

Now if that's true, that gives me some hope. I for one think the Fairies line fits right in with the Disney legacy, and it could be a great new franchise that is GOOD for kids, as opposed to, oh, Bratz. (yech) I have read one of the Tinkerbell books (bought one for my niece) and it's a surprisingly well-written story. Anyway I'm glad the film's apparently been held back for a little Uncle-Walt-type tinkering. If the final film emerges as an enjoyable, well-made direct-to-video (like "Three Musketeers" and "Fox and Hound 2") then more power to Disney.

re: Monday MouseWatch : Disney's $500 million Tinkerbell problem

Jim Hill — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:40:50 GMT

i'll disagree, rogerrmjet, tinkerbell goes all the way back to 1953, which i'd say is a long time. yes, all the new characters will be new, but, tinkerbell, in my opinion, is very popular among the female population.

so, i'd agree if tink wasn't around before, but, since she's still been so popular for such a long time, i don't see a problem with making more fairies become popular.

re: Monday MouseWatch : Disney's $500 million Tinkerbell problem

Jim Hill — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:49:42 GMT

Three Words: Boo Hoo Hoo

Can't state it any better than RogerRmjet: "that's what happens when you make movies for the sole purpose of selling stuff."

Disney Co is too slick to guarantee a video release to vendors -it may have been implied or suggested, but I'm willing to bet not guaranteed - so Disney's not sweating. The vendors had to agree to produce Fairies garbage anyway, or they wouldn't be allowed rights to produce Pooh and Princess garbage.

As for John, this isn't John's mess so he shouldn't have to clean it up. He can't state it publicy, but he seems like he'd be ok to let a direct-to-dvd-toy-ad twist in the wind.

The hardest thing to swallow is that there's someone there concerned about story. How'd they get in the building? Sounds more like an April Fool's Day article.

re: Monday MouseWatch : Disney's $500 million Tinkerbell problem

Jim Hill — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:15:12 GMT

What, you mean they DIDN'T get the greatest results by sending the work out to the cheapest,, least experienced animators on the planet? There was something actually WRONG with the Eisner/Stainton formula for success? They must be congratulating themselves right now at the house of mouse that it only cost them hundreds of millions of dollars and the loss of a few hundred trained artists to find this out. Excuse me as I wipe away a tear.

Don't get me wrong,I have no problem with the Disney Fairies idea, this is a concept that the studio has been kicking around for almost ten years now, and I thought it was a good idea then too. Most of the concept art was so good, I remember thinking that it would take a real idiot to screw this one up.

re: Monday MouseWatch : Disney's $500 million Tinkerbell problem

Jim Hill — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:19:39 GMT

Oh, and for your information, If you check over on Cartoon Brew, Jim, you'll see that American Dog has not been shelved, just postponed, although creator/ director Chris Sanders has been let go during the most recent set of layoffs.

re: Monday MouseWatch : Disney's $500 million Tinkerbell problem

Jim Hill — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:54:55 GMT

To wit: "Update! (12/18/2006) According to Cartoon Brew, Chris Sanders was removed from American Dog last Wednesday, December 13, when Disney also laid off approximately 160 members of Feature Animation. The site further suggests that the division’s Chief Creative Officer, John Lasseter, and president, Ed Catmull, were concerned that the film may not be as critically and commercially successful as what they wanted from the true first movie under their creative supervision at Feature Animation. Hence, American Dog experienced a move similar to what happened with Pixar’s Ratatouille, when Brad Bird took over directorial duties for Jan Pinkava."

(Still, if Sanders is now considered expendable for unmarketable projects, this would be the second time in a row that a hoped-for breakout "name" director--who got his promotion for catching a lucky "It's new, it's different!" wave with audiences during a dry spell--was given studio carte-blanche for his personal-project second film and couldn't deliver...Chris's high mark may have dwindled, but let's not start crying that the Sky Is Falling.) :)

re: Monday MouseWatch : Disney's $500 million Tinkerbell problem

Jim Hill — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:07:02 GMT

Maybe Disney should have had the media content ready to go BEFORE lining up all the marketing and licensing campaigns instead of the other way around. Yeah, I know that's not the way the studios actually arrange for marketing tie-ins these days - heck, these days having the marketing deals set before the movie even goes into production is about par for the course - but it would have saved them a lot of headaches.

Of course, they could have saved themselves even more headaches by not finding another reason to strip-mine classic content for the sake of making a few more bucks, but since they're making kajillions of bucks off all the Princess junk, we knew that'd never happen.

re: Monday MouseWatch : Disney's $500 million Tinkerbell problem

Jim Hill — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:26:19 GMT

The Chris Sanders news has been intriguing me all weekend, ever since I read about it Friday at Animated News. I'm eager to hear more about the story. Can't wait to hear some more of Hill's thoughts on the matter.

Speaking of which, that's a pretty cool update, Derek J. Where did you find it?

re: Monday MouseWatch : Disney's $500 million Tinkerbell problem

Jim Hill — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:57:49 GMT

Animated-Views.com, but they were quoting Cartoon Brew, and BOTH were quoting Jim's earlier "Dog" article from last October....So let's hope Jim doesn't indirectly quote himself for sources too much.

However, it also mentions insiders saying that Dog was a deep pet project for Chris Sanders; he's hurt that the studio was "against" him on it, but he's relieved to be off if the end project's not going to be "his". (And frankly, I'm relieved too, if it isn't, but for different reasons.)

re: Monday MouseWatch : Disney's $500 million Tinkerbell problem

Jim Hill — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 23:17:21 GMT

That's very interesting, Derek. Thanks again for the update.

re: Monday MouseWatch : Disney's $500 million Tinkerbell problem

Jim Hill — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 02:09:22 GMT

blackcauldron85 said:>>"I've read that some people thought that "Peter Pan"'s Platinum Edition release was to coincide with TTBM...but maybe not now. It shouldn't anyway- PP is such an amazing movie on it's own."<<

(Just FTR, it was--Chronologically, Jungle Book and 101D should've been the next Platinum titles after Mermaid, and PP and Fantasia(s) were later added to the end of the list for '08...Until a certain cross-marketed pixie helped Peter get a free pass ahead of the existing titles. Still, who cares, as long as we've got the "real" Tink on Platinum, even if it wasn't in time to be one of the upcoming Blu-Ray restorations.)

re: Monday MouseWatch : Disney's $500 million Tinkerbell problem

Jim Hill — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 03:06:57 GMT

All this kind of points out the pitfalls of Eisnervision: Just grab some old characters and write some drek to exploit the classics. Which devalues their worth and, oh yeah, also the worth of the Disney brand. It will be nice when some of this machinery has been decommissioned and things like merchandizing are linked only to new original properties or re-releases of the classics.

Here's an idea, why not re-release the original "Fantasia" in the the theaters? If they had done it this Christmas season, which is the worst in memory for movies,it would have brought in huge returns.

re: Monday MouseWatch : Disney's $500 million Tinkerbell problem

Jim Hill — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 05:01:47 GMT

Jim, great article. That is just "...Sooooo Disney." I hope Iger is happy with his story department personnel (some of the poorest in the business - I don't even WANT to go into the plot points they've ripped off from Disney's competitors for many years, especially Japan...) It's truly hard to believe Anything that comes out of a human mouth at Disney's today. Really. It has gotten so bad that they should make the Disney Publicity people & all their VP's swear an Oath to tell the Truth usable in a court of law each time they talk to the media (this does not apply to Mr. Lassiter and Co., however). I'm reminded of Disney's publicity machine telling us all in their 2005 worldwide Press Release: "CHICKEN LITTLE, Disney’s first fully computer generated animated feature, employs cutting-edge animation techniques . . . " WHOA! Who made that computer generated movie, DINOSAUR?? I guess the 6 years in the making - with a budget of $127 MILLION (some reports have it as being much higher!), doesn't count. Sheesh. Disney's first true computer generated feature, co-directed by Ralph Zondag & Eric Leighton - and now they're trying to hide it? It's kinda' amazing to me how the Mouse House can pretend they never spent 127 MILLION DOLLARS on a movie . Maybe the IRS will give them back the money they paid in taxes while producing it . . .

re: Monday MouseWatch : Disney's $500 million Tinkerbell problem

Jim Hill — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 05:03:44 GMT

For a project that has Brittany Murphy voicing the title character, I can see why this is such a big deal.

re: Monday MouseWatch : Disney's $500 million Tinkerbell problem

Jim Hill — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:52:38 GMT

john chambers said "WHOA! Who made that computer generated movie, DINOSAUR??"

I've heard people complain about that before- CL was the first FULLY CG Disney animated film. "Dinosaur" has real backgrounds (actually filmed, not computer-generated).

re: Monday MouseWatch : Disney's $500 million Tinkerbell problem

Jim Hill — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 06:44:55 GMT

I suspect Tinker Bell, a silent, petulant character in Peter Pan, might not sell outside of cheaply priced pieces of whatnot. Redefined away from a person's imagined projections, with Brittany Murphy's voice coming out of her mouth and reconfigured for product placement, the glow of what Disney sadly calls Tink may fade away.

re: Monday MouseWatch : Disney's $500 million Tinkerbell problem

Jim Hill — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 09:47:11 GMT

I understand what you're saying, OnceUponaDream, and I would agree, except for the fact that there is a line of books. I've read the first, and it actually was interesting. If you think hard enough, and use your imagination, then you realize that Tink can only talk (in words, rather than with a bell) with her fairy friends. For some people, the new Fairies line may take away from "Peter Pan" (like some believe the sequels do), but at least the naysayers should go to the library and get "Fairy Dust and the Quest for the Egg" by Levine and maybe you'll believe in the idea a bit more.

I think that the Fairies line *could* be more popular than the princesses in the end, just because fact that the characters really do interact (I think that the Princesses had a Christmas film where they interacted, but I haven't seen it, so I could be wrong).

re: Monday MouseWatch : Disney's $500 million Tinkerbell problem

Jim Hill — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 09:59:49 GMT

And, I have a question that's been bothering me: Is the full title of the film "The Tinker Bell Movie: The Ring of Belief" or "Tinker Bell and the Ring of Belief" or just "The Tinker Bell Movie"? I've heard it called different things.

re: Monday MouseWatch : Disney's $500 million Tinkerbell problem

Jim Hill — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:33:16 GMT

One important -- very important -- distinction to note: The Princesses line will not "earn" billions of dollars for Disney. That is what Princesses (allegedly) will bring in at retail around the world. In other words, the Princesses merchandise will (allegedly) sell some $3 billion worth of products, but since Disney is primarily a licensing company on its Consumer Products side, the amount that actually comes in to Disney is far, far less (a cut of each item plus royalty and licensing fees). In the end, Disney will "earn" several hundred million from the Princesses line, but if you read the quarterly/annual reports and see what Consumer Products actually contributes, you'll see that the $3 billion figure isn't even close.

That said, it's clear that Disney would want to make a movie to drive its Consumer Products business. So far, though, the concept hasn't worked. The Pooh movies have been box-office and critical failures and haven't much affected the merchandising; the Goofy movie way back when was a disaster (though intended to spur Goofy sales); and, overall, the "Pirates" products have been disappointing sellers at retail.

Bottom line: No matter how good it sounds on paper, the tail simply can't wag the dog.

re: Monday MouseWatch : Disney's $500 million Tinkerbell problem

Jim Hill — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:45:14 GMT

I sincerely hope that this movie is pulled up to scratch - after reading the full line of Disney Fairies books to my young daughter, I have become quite a fan! I feel that the books themselves are quite strong, and the characters loveable, and it would be quite a pity for the public to loose interest in such a charming series.

Pixie Dust to Gold Dust: Princesses, Tinker Bell, and The Fairies

Jim Hill — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 18:19:22 GMT

A brand name saga is unfolding for Disney that seems to be a continuation of my September post about The Princesses brand collection. First, just before Christmas, feminist writer Peggy Orenstein wrote an article in the New York Times entitled "What's

re: Monday MouseWatch : Disney's $500 million Tinkerbell problem

Jim Hill — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 18:46:30 GMT

Hey, Epcot82... Good points about Consumer Products.

Although, I have to admit, I did like the Goofy Movie.

My beef with Consumer Products is the merchandise (especially at the theme parks) is so bad. If you look at what they've done for Pirates, for example, and compare the figures that they sell to some of the McFarlane toys, there is no comparison. Sloppy paintwork, bad sculpts- it's horrible. Same with the Haunted Mansion figures, or even some of the big figures. I would personally buy more film/park related product if it actually looked good. I bet a lot of people would.

re: Monday MouseWatch : Disney's $500 million Tinkerbell problem

Jim Hill — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:29:52 GMT

I work for the Disney Store (which no longer is a part of the Disney brand) but i am a MAJOR fan of the Disney Fairies line. I have purchased so much of the line and i dont even have children. Everyone i work with was so excited about the Tinkerbell movie release and they all look to me to push that product because im such a dork about it. We literally have huge fixtures dedicated to this franchize that may not see the light of day...soon. I'm noticing it's getting a little harder to convince our guests that the movie will be worth the wait. After reading this article and knowing that the movie wont be released anytime soon, its a little heartbreaking. I've also noticed that the characters had changed, the original characters that they introduced (Rani,Bess,Beck,Vidia,Lily,Prilla)were not supposed to be a part of the 1st Fairies movie. The new characters are listed as (Tink,Silvermist,Rosetta,Iridessa,Fawn,& Queen Ree). If you go to the www.disneyfairies.com website it has been redone as if the movie will be released tomorrow. The way everything reads on the site almost doesnt relate to the work of Gail Carson Levine the author of "Fairy Dust & the Quest for the Egg". I noticed major changes when the books were first released and how the website introduced the characters was a little strange. This is such a wonderful franchise and i hope they work out the kinks real soon, because i have first hand experience with the buyers of this merchandise and fans of the characters and they want their movie and hopefully soon.

re: Monday MouseWatch : Disney's $500 million Tinkerbell problem

Jim Hill — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 13:43:15 GMT

http://www.bendweekly.com/news/2703.html

The Tinkerbell Movie will come out Fall 2008

Monday Mouse Watch: How the "High School Musical 2" DVD will help Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment mend fences with the mega-retailers

Jim Hill — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:03:35 GMT

When the Big Boxes first learned that John Lasseter had pushed back "The Tinker Bell Movie" 's release date, they weren't real happy. But as Jim Hill reports, now that these stores realize that they'll be selling this "High School Musical" sequel in place