| 1. | (27 posts) | Lack of "Spirited Away" Promotion |
| 2. | (14 posts) | Your Attention Please: Disney Thread Spotted |
| 3. | (17 posts) | Anime, Animation, Japanese Animation |
| 4. | (6 posts) | US/Japan Animation Styles |
| 5. | (6 posts) | Decline and Fall |
| 6. | (5 posts) | Pixar and Disney like Ghibli and Disney |
We looked at 242 posts by 73 different contributors.
Monster week, some rehashing.
With the release date of "Spirited Away" approaching, Roberto Askins wondered, "Don't you think is a little weird that "spirited away" is a month near to be showed in U.S. theaters and there is not:
1.-a teaser o a trailer?
2.-a Web site like many other disney films?
3.-More news or sneak peeks in TV or magazines or what do i know?!"
David Mankins wrote, "I don't want to do any bashing, but I think they are targeting this at an older market. However I think it's more logical to get the children's / teenagers audience.
Oh, AND they're also releasing it after the kids go back to school???
ie. it's a children's animated film, with some dark stuff so cut a trailer that would appear to a "slightly" older kid audience - and cut an art-house trailer with "winnner of the ??? festival" etc - but keep them seperate.
Marc Hairston replied, "Actually, that may be a better time. People still go to see movies after school starts, kids included. Sept/Oct is a good time to be since you're no longer competing against all the summer blockbusters coming out every week and the next batch of kid's blockbusters aren't going to be out till November or December (Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Treasure Planet, etc.) So this is a good time for a smaller film to get noticed rather than be lost in the crowd."
Marc Gregory added, "Point of history. Miramax did not launch their official U.S. _Princess Mononoke_ web site until mid September 1999. Roughly 6 weeks before it's October 29th, 1999 U.S. premiere."
Marc Hairston came back with some research, "Much as I'd like to see a big splashy website *yesterday* for "Spirited Away", we may be losing perspective here. I did a sanity check to see how Hollywood is treating its other films. Looking up the release schedule on www.comingsoon.net I found that exactly half of the films coming out on Sept 20 and 27 do not have official websites up yet either.
. . .If nothing else, looking over this list shows there isn't going to be a lot competing against "Spirited Away" and no other kids movies at all.
movie website yet?
Sept 20
Banger Sisters No
8 Women Yes
Four Feathers Yes
Invincible No
Secretary Yes
Spirited Away No
Trapped No
The previous thread started up another MML Disney Thread©, this time by new subscriber Ben Bowen, "Call me paranoid, I think they bought the rights to Ghibli films to control their release and make them difficult to see over here."
That sounds familiar, wonder why?
German Gomez wrote, "Disney as a Corporation cannot handle Ghibli films. Maybe the individuals working on the film are well intentioned, many of them are (more than casual) fans. But we are talking about different types of stories and treatments (and a whole different culture). I am not bashing Disney, I like what Disney Artists (and their creative departments) have done in the past and I think they are doing a great job currently. I am talking about the Corporation mentality, they are too conservative and adhere and have become dependent on formula too much. Ghibli works do not fit in their vocabulary and just freak them out."
Albert Brown replied, "I think your exactly right. But also think that if anyone can bring Ghibli mainstream in the USA, it's Disney. Disney has such a huge hold on the American concept of Animation Films, that they are truely, the only ones who can break into American's minds and concepts of Animation (and change it). . . What Disney really needs to do is to bring people that know Ghibli/Miyazaki like the back of their hand, have Marketing Directors from Japan and successful American Animation movies on hand, and they need to advertise the heck out of the Western TV sets."
Gregor Menasian sent a humongous message (233 lines) chronicling his thoughts, "I was absolutely shocked when Disney actually released Kiki on video and Mononke theatrically - the Ghibli films were the perfect property for them to buy and bury - after all, it's cheaper to do that than let a competitor market the Ghibli films as "More whollesome and entertaining than Disney's tired formula" and steal market share from them as a result.
However, even if they make money for Disney, the films could not be allowed to surpass any Disney films or the public would want more of
Ghibli and less Disney product...
I suspect that Mononoke's US theatrical release logistics were either an intentional disaster or the most incompetent thing Disney has ever done.
Mononoke was distributed VERY limitedly to a TINY number of arthouse theaters - here in the SF Bay Area, even bad movies which make the art
theater circuit are in 3 or more art theaters at once, but Mononoke stayed in just ONE theater in the entire greater SF Bay Area for the bulk of the time it was in release. Add to that the doomed decision to release a dubbed only version epic piece of culturally based historical fiction featuring mainstream US actors on voices in arthouse theaters, who'se patrons are used to subtitles and are not exactly going to be drawn in by big name Hollywood actors, and you have a recipie for disaster!. . .
I read several articles last year and early this year claiming that in the wake of Sen's runaway success in Japan that Disney USA had firmly stated that they wanted no part of the film's distribution in the US, and that other companies including Dreamworks were trying to get the rights to it until Disney finally broke down and took the film.
Even at the Spirited Away premiere, Suzuki-san clearly stated that *several other* companies wanted the US rights to Spirited Away, but
Disney got the deal by implying that Miyazaki's personal friend John Lasseter from Disney affilliated Pixar would work on the US version of the film if Disney got it. . .
If you look at how they treat other foreign films, you'll realise that Mononoke's probably intentional flop was actually some of the more respectful treatment Disney has given to a foreign film, as sad as that is. . . I was again shocked and amazed when they not only allowed Sen to be shown at the SFIFF but actually let John Lasseter introduce the showings and announce that there would be a US theatrical release of it!
Jonathan Miller replied, "That's not Disney's fault. It's the theaters that make the decision what films they're going to play--unless Disney owns the theaters?. . . Say it with me: Disney and Tokuma didn't care a bit about US distribution when they made the deal. The deal was for *worldwide* distribution and both companies cared far more about the Japanese video market and markets like Germany and France than the US--markets where Disney knew they could more than make back any initial investment. These paranoid "let's buy the films so we can bury them" comments are at the same time amusing *and* infuriating because they selectively ignore facts. . .
As for marketing, I think we can all agree that Disney simply didn't know what to do with Mononoke, having had little experience with this type of film. Miramax did what it could, releasing it in an arthouse circuit (Although *I* saw it--twice--in the Seattle area at two different multiplexes) in much better distribution than most "anime" films get, and with better press. At the same time, they testmarketed it in what is considered to be one of America's better yardsticks--the Midwest. In the test areas, they reportedly went with good print ads and some (though not enough, since this is a bit of a niche film) tv ads. Mononoke did *not* pull in crowds. From a test marketing point of view, the attempt at opening wide in a test area failed, whereas the small arthouse circuit seemed to be a success. Which do you think they'd want to continue with?
Hanno Mueller added, "Movies fail, all the time. Good movies fail, bad movies fail, good movies make a box office hit, bad movies attract huge crowds. It cannot be explained. If there was a formula for successful marketing of films, every movie would be would be successful. . . And you think Disney put a gun at the cinema owner's head and told him not to show Mononoke? Here in Hamburg, Germany, three art house theater owners I talked with weren't INTERESTED in showing Mononoke. . . Which I still think is just the usual business strongarming. Tokuma wanted to force a better deal from Disney. But Tokuma has proven one thing: Just as many many other anime companies selling licenses for their films, they don't care what happens *after* the deal."
Ben tossed in, "There's more than a little Miyazaki to the Lilo and Stitch designs and backgrounds. Disney's been trying to market animation for both adults and kids since the success of The Lion King, hence the over-earnest Pocahontas and the adventurous yet messy Atlantis... Ghibli's got the formula right, not treating kids like idiots.
Give the right amount of fantasy, awe and wonder to something and you can away with adult themes - look at Alice In Wonderland! Disney are a quick-fix merchant, they've lost their way but are regaining it through the influence of others. Watership Down is another example of a captivating movie that kids can watch, yet has a very dark underbelly with themes of death, the afterlife and war. These films can be successful.
Chris Wallace put together, "As for Disney worried Ghibli will be a "threat" to Feature Animation, "Lilo & Stitch" is the film that saved it. If "L&S" had bombed, Eisner was ready to shut-down 2D production and go all 3D. . . Disney would probably love the Ghibli films to do as well in the US as they do in Japan. Then Disney could close Feature Animation and just rake in hundreds of millions of dollars a year as they do with the PIXAR films. It's all about profits, now. If Ghibli could make more money for Disney than in-house, well, that is what the stockholders would demand. . .
So many anime fans think we're the rule, and not the exception. That if we hear all three-hundred thousand of us jumping up and down and screaming at how good it is, then the other three-hundred million citizens must also feel the same way.
We're a niche market. There is a reason AnimeEigo, ADV, and Manga are not in the league of AOL-Time Warner, Viacom, and Sony. They cater to our desires and demands to the letter, they price their product attractively, they gives us everything we want, and we buy it all. Yet these companies make millions, maybe tens of millions, in revenue, while the "big boys" make billions. Because our tastes do not reflect the tastes of more than 1 or 2% of the population. . .
Disney wanted the Japanese home market distribution rights because there, anime is mainstream. And they have succeeded immensely. Hundreds of millions for both "Mononoke" and "Sen" and probably hundreds of millions more (in total) for the remainder of the films once the aggregate earnings are combined. Again, if they could make this in Europe or America, they'd be here in a heartbeat. . .
You would not be if you understood the Disney Marketing aim at that time. Which I guess is unfortunate that only Michael, Larry (Greenfield), and I were the ones to speak with them. They wanted people who had never seen Ghibli to see it, which is why they created the Retrospective - to get his films out amongst the people. They went the art house circuit because, as you and others have noted, that is the best "first market".
I am not "shocked and amazed" by Disney's actions because I don't believe Disney bought the films to bury them. I used to work for Disney, including a year in their Marketing Department, so I see the marketing of these films differently from the fan who has little or no experience with marketing in general. And I get frustrated when they say "if only Disney spent a hundred million to market these films, everyone in the US would watch it!". Of course, they don't say "a hundred million", but they don't understand that what they want/demand would *cost* a hundred million. They don't understand the relationship between studio and cineplex and all that jazz (heck, even I don't, and I used to do it). They just assume that since Disney is not showering the airwaves 24x7 with commercials and that every cineplex does
not have at least one screen showing the film, "it must be because they want to kill it lest it kill them".
Kevin Wagner started a lively thread with, "Is studio Ghibli's work even recognized as anime outside of Asia? Here in the US, I've shown both the Totoro and Kiki dubs to children with their parents in the room and I wonder, now, if it even occurred to them that they were watching foreign films?"
Lee Johnson replied, "Probably not, given that the Ghibli films (like most anime) do not fit into the stereotypical view of anime films. I.e. no sex, violence or bad language. Also consider that Miyazaki's films don't seem Japanese (with the exception of the most recent). And (I hate to say it but) the relatively good dubbing hides the fact that the films are not of English language origin."
Sandy Drobic put the question in a different light, "I guess you should have asked "Do they recognise Ghibli films as japanese animation?" The casual viewer will not recognise it as such."
James Vandenberg wrote, "As for being anime, yes I would certainly say Ghibli is Anime. Anime is Japanese Animation, and Ghibli is a studio in Japan that (mostly) produces films for a Japanese audience. It is only westerners that put anime into categories such as "DragonBall and Pokemon". Just because you may not like DragonBall, does not mean it isnt anime, or visa versa, that Ghibli isnt anime."
Kevin came back to clarify, "Ghibli films, when places in the Anime genre, are associated with films and styles that are almost wholly unrelated. If I go to my sister and say I want to show her young children some Anime, she might suggest instead one of the MANY more appropriate Disney animations shelved neatly in their clamshell cases next to the VCR. Now when I brought Totoro and Kiki to their attention, I did not take that approach. I did not mention anime or Ghibli or Japan at all. I think that associating Ghibli with anime hurts the studio."
Andrew Pam replied, "I think it's unfortunate that Anime has become associated with less savoury examples of the genre (and I think the confusingly named "Manga Video" company in the UK has to take some responsibility for this, since they deal mainly in the more violent material). However this is hardly unique to Anime; other popular media have been fighting this battle for a long time, such as animation in general and graphic novels as in the example I gave above. Like so many other things, education is the only solution I know." Chris Kuan echoed, "Indeed; I think *failing* to associate Ghibli with anime hurts the medium."
Semi-related to the previous thread (something of this week's theme) was a "US vs. Japan Animation style" thread. Ben Bowen spotted on Don Bluth's site, "We find that Anime has great design, layout and special effects, but we are not overwhelmed by the actual character animation. The characters do not really "come to life" for us, like classical animation. The product sometimes reminds us of the old anime TV series, "Speed Racer". We don't mean any disrespect by that comment. While we really enjoyed Princess Mononoke, the animation was only so-so for us."
I posted a link to an article this debate (originally posted last year).
Warren Savage wrote, "American audiences are 'trained' to look for certain things: full animation (every moving object changes every frame); 'rubberband' animation with a lot of ease-ins, ease-outs and overshoots; exact lip-sync; exaggerated body language and facial expressions; <add to this list here>. (I wanted to add the double-bounce walk, but it might not really fit into this list.)
If they don't see these things in sufficient quantity, they seem to judge the animation as being cheaper.
They're not trained to notice: Detailed backgrounds; subtle shifts between background elements to create an illusion of a moving camera; subtle changes in a character's facial expressions (even when a character is shown frozen still and staring at something, the animators will probably animate the glints in his or her eyes); group or crowd scenes with many characters independently animated; subtle character acting; 'camera' dollies, trucks and cranes (these shots take a LOT of time to animate; <.add to this list here>.
Of course, Japanese animation also has some cliches -- The "I'm embarrassed" hand-on-the-back-of-the-head pose, and the hair that gets
spikey when the character gets angry or rattled come to mind. But, it's part of anime film language. Western film (and animation) has its own cliches.
James Vandenberg added, "I knew a couple of animators from Disney, and both looked down on anime, because of the lack of "real character animation". I believe this means lack of wanabe3D, and over expression. See I find traditional "disneyesque" animation is riddled with over reaction and expression to get the point across. So when these people dont see Mai's mouth wiggle and do the textbook expressions that these studios are taught to use, they automatically put it down to poor character expression. Personally, I find the work from Ghibli to be oozing with character and emotion, its subtle, and real, not bloated expressions and over movement.
I dont put down disney's animation techniques simply because I dont really like all that over expression, because I appreciate the tradition, but the same respect should be seen visa versa, Im sure Ghibli could do a movie with all that goofy animation style we see here,
but thankfully they have a different style and a different path to go down.
Ghibli does not need to win the respect of these people, the studios work speaks for itself and countless millions from all over the world
love and charish the films that Ghibli makes for us, if they cannot see the beauty then it's their loss. It's a shame though, that those
opinions might stop people from picking up a Ghibli movie the next time they're at the local blockbusters.
Sharon Westfall mused, "I think US animation studios put a lot more emphasis on matching mouth movements than the Japanese. Even when watching the movies in Japanese language, the mouths still don't match. I'd think that maybe for a studio to put in so much effort in getting details like that perfect, it may make them feel that another studio's lack of this effort inferior to theirs.
And truthfully, I think this attitude probably goes both ways across the ocean.
With Disney receiving a pummeling for "mundane commercial garbage" I questioned, "Anyone get this feeling from "Neko no Ongaeshi"?"
Lee Johnson replied, "I'm afraid to say it, but yes. As I stated on one of my web pages (WotH DVD page):
Disclaimer: Although, of course, I've not yet seen it yet...
"Also we get trailers for future theatrical Ghibli releases (which i hope are not all that is in store, if they are then I fear Ghibli may be going the way of the big eared mouse - sequels and spin off franchises)."
James Vandenberg wrote, "It's hard to say until you actually see the movie, I've only seen the trailer and it doesnt seem to be a rehash of Whisper, but will see. There is nothing wrong with episodic stories, as long as the purpose is focused on telling a larger story, not doing the same thing over and over again and letting the money roll in."
Hanno Mueller added, "For me: not yet, also because I haven't seen it to make up my mind about this. But after watching WotH, I *wanted* to see a sequel, which I did not for any other Ghibli movie I saw so far.
(I also wanted to see a sequel to "the rescuers" and was pleased with what we got from Disney, but never did I want to see the Tarzan, B&tB,
Hunchback & Peter Pan etc. sequels...)
After the previous Disney threads calmed down, David Mankins wrote, "I think all this talk of "Disney sits on the Ghibli films to keep from being upstaged" might sound silly if one tried substituting "Pixar" for "Ghibli", yet the relationships are similar, and, I think the "argument" for supressing Pixar's films is, if anything, stronger. Pixar's films really *do* appear to be hurting Disney's traditional animation.
Why aren't these evil anti-marketing geniuses devoting their talents where it's truly needed: keeping Pixar's films in the art-house circuit where they can't harm Disney's other films? What's wrong with them?
Larry Virden challenged, "Could you describe the 8 or so films produced by Pixar that have been international hits, that Disney has the rights to distribute, and yet that Disney is not distributing?"
Chris Meadows replied, "His point was that they were *not* doing the same thing to Pixar films as they are to Ghibli: Disney didn't have anything to do with *making* Pixar's films, but licensed them...and then *did* distribute them, even though the films are doing "damage" to Disney's own animated films' popularity.
This argument was posed as a rebuttal to people who claimed Disney had licensed Ghibli's films in order to sit on them because releasing them might do "damage" to Disney's own animated films' popularity...i.e. if they were so afraid of losing their own films' lead, they should be sitting on *Pixar's*, too, but they aren't.
David chipped in, "Note the logic of the argument about Disney sitting on Ghibli films: they do it to keep from being upstaged by Miyazaki's talent. If that were the case, surely they'd sit on Pixar films, too --- because they certainly *have* been upstaged by Lasseter's talents.
But they don't. If they're not afraid of profiting handsomely from Pixar's talents, why should they fear profiting from Ghibli's?
Can you name a single Ghibli film (other than _Sen_) that could qualify as ``an international hit''?
Not an international *critical* success --- but a financial one. We all know from the experience of _Princess Mononoke_ (or _Iron Giant_), being a critical smash is no guarantee of financial success.
The Ghibli films are all hits in their domestic market (where, curiously, Disney does not fear to distribute them in competition with their own works) but how well do they travel outside of anime-fan circles?
Frederic Faucheux posted box office results for "The Cat Returns". Achille Autran wrote up a review of how "Le voyage de Chihiro" was handled in France and posted trailer links. Michael Johnson spotted "Totoro" in a different setting. Majin Gir linked to a web project being done by a former Studio Ghibli animator. Miyazaki to appear the Hollywood premiere of "Spirited Away". Marc Gregory spotted the US soundtrack to "Castle in the Sky", in Japan. Raz Greenberg does some sleuthing and links Touchstone Pictures to "Spirited Away".
That's all, see you next time.