DBWI: Michael Eisner Doesn't Accept the Plots of Prince of Egypt or Sinbad

spendabuck

Banned
After reading about some of the history of Disney, I was a bit shocked to find that Michael Eisner was doubtful about Jeffrey Katzenberg's ideas for The Prince of Egypt and Sinbad. Of course, both movies were eventually accepted by Eisner, with the former becoming another great movie during the Disney Renaissance, and the latter being a good post-Renaissance movie. Therefore, I was wondering what would happen if Eisner hadn't accepted either of these movies. How would modern entertainment and animation be affected by this?

(OOC: In case I didn't word it well, essentially The Prince of Egypt and Sinbad become Disney films instead of DreamWorks films; if this isn't the proper place for pop culture TL's, please move it)
 
Well, we'd have had a few less Biblical movies get produced by Disney. They later did Joseph King of Dreams as well as Daniel due to those two previous films doing quite well. They also thought about doing Samson before they kiboshed it due to being too samey to Hercules in Eisner's mind. Katzenberg's style probably proliferates a bit less in the knock-off departments as well.

Maybe DreamWorks stays more kid friendly? They mostly do PG-13 and R animated films nowadays, more the former than the latter.
 

spendabuck

Banned
Maybe DreamWorks stays more kid friendly? They mostly do PG-13 and R animated films nowadays, more the former than the latter.
Would DreamWorks be able to become major competition with Disney if they remained kid friendly? As of now Disney's mostly unchallenged when it comes to animated family films (there are Don Bluth's films, but they aren't really major competition with Disney; they're definitely competition, but not major), but I feel like a kid friendly DreamWorks would give Disney competition. Also, I feel like this would lead to less animated films specifically marketed towards adults; sure, Disney has had some darker films like The Hunchback of Notre Dame or their newest film Sleepy Hollow, but they haven't made anything inappropriate for children.
 
Last edited:
DreamWorks probably has the best shot, since they have a stronger and more stable base than Bluth does. Ironically, Bluth'd probably be forced to go studio if DreamWorks was still in the kid's market; the lack of a big competitor has allowed him more wiggle room than he'd otherwise have. All I know is Ralph Bakshi definitely felt vindicated when DreamWorks proved that animation could be adult and succeed with audiences; he was trying the older audience bracket for his work since the 70s without too much luck, namely due to financiers backing out of something that risky.
 

spendabuck

Banned
I just thought of something; how would this affect computer animation? I mean, it's popular enough - Pixar is known mostly for computer animation, and DreamWorks has experimented with it in their A Song of Ice and Fire movies (OOC: seeing as R-rated animated movies are common place here, this had to come out eventually) - but traditional animation is far more popular with audiences (as well as 'tradigital' animation, which can be seen in various Disney movies such as Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas and Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron). Could this POD lead to computer animation dominating the animated film industry?
 
Possibly if they did well enough with audiences; the reason it was and is still so tempting for some companies is the same reason why the 2000s were known as the Digital Period of animated television. Computer graphics are traditionally less expensive on the budget and can render some scenes easier than traditional animation. It's why the current decade uses Flash or other programs to do the same thing now. The thing though is that Disney attempted it once or twice, frowned at the returns, and mostly stuck to either animated or live action movies. DreamWorks on the other hand used it more precisely because their subsidiary Pixar invested the infrastructure to get it going. It's one of those quirks that mark the two as night and day when it comes to animation.
 
I have a feeling that Disney would divest in film making altogether. Keep in mind that they really needed a hit after a string of flops. I have done research on this and it was "Cinderella" all over again in the way that it helped the company.

Eisner made it clear if these projects didn't work out he would put his energies into the theme parks as well he would have started selling off Disney's patents for film making technologies. This is a really interesting era in Disney history if you ask me.
 

spendabuck

Banned
I have a feeling that Disney would divest in film making altogether. Keep in mind that they really needed a hit after a string of flops. I have done research on this and it was "Cinderella" all over again in the way that it helped the company.

Eisner made it clear if these projects didn't work out he would put his energies into the theme parks as well he would have started selling off Disney's patents for film making technologies. This is a really interesting era in Disney history if you ask me.
I assume you're referring to Sinbad, as The Prince of Egypt came out near the end of the Disney Renaissance. I wouldn't call Sinbad a hit though; sure, it was successful at the time, but it only made a bit more than its budget.
 
But you would have to agree that Prince of Egypt was just as or maybe even more important when it came to putting Disney on secure financial footing.

It was a risky move in itself, the Eighties brought a heyday of religious fervor that was tied to politics and the nineties had a huge reactionary non-religious backlash. Any bible story adapted in the nineties was decried as religious propaganda. You have to agree that the movie was artistically well done. But Eisner gave the producers strict orders to be "tactful", many religious leaders decried the movie as being "gelded". If you look at the concept art for "Samson" you notice the exact same art style eventually used in Hercules. That may be because it used the same assets and same team.

I guess that there was no pleasing everyone. They had to put "Joseph, King of Dreams" on the shelf for a while until the dust settled.

But one thing it did was spawn a new sub-brand "Disney Faith", religious based movies was something that Eisner wanted to explore again. It was a shame so many were direct to home video.

One guess I would have is that Disney would not break into small screen TV as they did buy up a network of Christian channels (under Disney Faith), that laid the frame work for their other television projects.

(OOC: ABC Family started out as a network similar to TBS IOTL, ITTL Disney was a lot slower to reformat the channel to compete with the other broadcasters and left it niche, Disney TV is present but about a half a decade delayed from what we have now)
 

spendabuck

Banned
But you would have to agree that Prince of Egypt was just as or maybe even more important when it came to putting Disney on secure financial footing.

It was a risky move in itself, the Eighties brought a heyday of religious fervor that was tied to politics and the nineties had a huge reactionary non-religious backlash. Any bible story adapted in the nineties was decried as religious propaganda. You have to agree that the movie was artistically well done. But Eisner gave the producers strict orders to be "tactful", many religious leaders decried the movie as being "gelded". If you look at the concept art for "Samson" you notice the exact same art style eventually used in Hercules. That may be because it used the same assets and same team.

I guess that there was no pleasing everyone. They had to put "Joseph, King of Dreams" on the shelf for a while until the dust settled.

But one thing it did was spawn a new sub-brand "Disney Faith", religious based movies was something that Eisner wanted to explore again. It was a shame so many were direct to home video.

One guess I would have is that Disney would not break into small screen TV as they did buy up a network of Christian channels (under Disney Faith), that laid the frame work for their other television projects.

(OOC: ABC Family started out as a network similar to TBS IOTL, ITTL Disney was a lot slower to reformat the channel to compete with the other broadcasters and left it niche, Disney TV is present but about a half a decade delayed from what we have now)
I never denied that The Prince of Egypt was helpful to Disney; you just said that they had gone through a series of flops before, but it was released near the end of Disney's Renaissance.

Besides the "Disney Faith" sub-genre, there was also the "Disney Myth" sub-genre that started with Hercules, which are largely based on traditional mythology. This genre might not exist either, seeing as much of Hercules was based on concept art of Samson.
 
DreamWorks probably has the best shot, since they have a stronger and more stable base than Bluth does. Ironically, Bluth'd probably be forced to go studio if DreamWorks was still in the kid's market; the lack of a big competitor has allowed him more wiggle room than he'd otherwise have.

True, Don Bluth's heyday from the 1980's (when Disney Animated Movies were really struggling) have come and gone, but he has had a handful of gems ('East of the Sun and West of the Moon' springs to mind) since. Enough to keep him relevant in any case. Were Dreamworks to enter the kid's market? I can see his career being pretty much over, maybe by the mid-late 2000's?

Given how he left Disney...
 
It was a risky move in itself, the Eighties brought a heyday of religious fervor that was tied to politics and the nineties had a huge reactionary non-religious backlash. Any bible story adapted in the nineties was decried as religious propaganda. You have to agree that the movie was artistically well done. But Eisner gave the producers strict orders to be "tactful", many religious leaders decried the movie as being "gelded". If you look at the concept art for "Samson" you notice the exact same art style eventually used in Hercules. That may be because it used the same assets and same team.
Huh, I thought they were parallel ideas. I guess it makes sense the former died to give birth to the latter, since a decent chunk of the same ideas that was in the script of Samson were in Hercules. Delilah for instance essentially became Megara; Hercules was mostly Samson without his hair and beard, and to a limited degree Zeus and Hera was based on how Samson's parents were portrayed. The main difference is that the villain was written differently; Hades was notably more charismatic than the Philistine King. He also took up more of the villain's role as well.
But one thing it did was spawn a new sub-brand "Disney Faith", religious based movies was something that Eisner wanted to explore again. It was a shame so many were direct to home video.
A few of them were pretty good though. The ones they did on Saul and David were pretty good and were a favorite of mine whenever they showed movies at the Church I went to as a kid.
I never denied that The Prince of Egypt was helpful to Disney; you just said that they had gone through a series of flops before, but it was released near the end of Disney's Renaissance.

Besides the "Disney Faith" sub-genre, there was also the "Disney Myth" sub-genre that started with Hercules, which are largely based on traditional mythology. This genre might not exist either, seeing as much of Hercules was based on concept art of Samson.
Disney Myth films could also be pretty fun. They did a pretty fun kid friendly Journey to the West film, and they did a role reversal film with the Anansi film, with the spider trickster god. Shame that like Disney faith, a lot of them went direct to video.
True, Don Bluth's heyday from the 1980's (when Disney Animated Movies were really struggling) have come and gone, but he has had a handful of gems ('East of the Sun and West of the Moon' springs to mind) since. Enough to keep him relevant in any case. Were Dreamworks to enter the kid's market? I can see his career being pretty much over, maybe by the mid-late 2000's?

Given how he left Disney...
Oh yeah, Bluth would've been completely hosed if he had stronger competition in the kid's bracket; I mean right now he only really deals with extremely bad Brazilian and Italian knock-offs of Disney and (funny enough) his films. He'd probably be reduced to using Benefactum or plain retire if Disney had serious competition.
 
Besides the "Disney Faith" sub-genre, there was also the "Disney Myth" sub-genre that started with Hercules, which are largely based on traditional mythology. This genre might not exist either, seeing as much of Hercules was based on concept art of Samson.

Which was when we got the whole 'Disney Mirror' thing of Dreamworks, the idea that when Disney did a kid-friendly thing, Dreamworks did an adult version.

For instance: Disney doing Hercules; then Dreamworks releasing their Trojan War movies...and showing the Greek deities and heroes as the original myths did. Right down to that infamous scene where Odysseus drops Hector's infant son off the walls of Troy.

OOC: Think a movi-fied version of Marvel's Iliad and Trojan War comics.
 
Did anyone see the trailer for "Kapiolani and Pele"? It is so great that we are going to get a Polynesian Disney princess! Sounds like it is going to be a fun movie, especially since we have never had a Hawaiian Disney movie before. But do you think Disney is ready to have a strong female character as the lead protagonist? Up until now all of the princesses have been pretty passive. (OOC: ITTL screenwriter of beauty and the beast didn't get her way with writing Belle's character)

To me it sounds like they are trying to reintergrate Disney Faith with mainstream Disney. It didn't go over well the last time they tried. But no matter what critics say "Hold Back the Waves" is an amazing movie, it was leaps in bounds in technology, especially the way they animated the water when King Knute held up his hand, they have come a long way since "Prince of Egypt". Speaking of which, I do not think that Disney would have invested that much time and money into animating water and fire if it wasn't for prince of Egypt, I think we would have a completely different art style.

As for Sinbad, there was so many other stories in 1001 nights that could be done. I would love to see sequals like "Sinbad and the Magic Lamp" and "Sinbad and the 40 Thieves". I feel that there is room to grow here.

I hear that there is also rumblings of making "Les Miserables", I am a huge Victor Hugo fan, but I think that "Notre Dame de Paris" would be more family friendly. Also, Les Mis also has music to it, are they going to just use the songs from the Broadway show? But that doesn't matter, the fact that Brian Blessed is going to be Jean Valjean makes up for everything.
 
I guess you didn't see the film Vasilisa; that has a fairly strong female character in the role of main protagonist; not in the traditional sense but more of an ingrained way. It also did a fun dynamic with the lighting, it being tied to the three riders, and the design for the movie was great. One of the better direct to video films Disney made for their Mythical Wing.
 
I guess you didn't see the film Vasilisa; that has a fairly strong female character in the role of main protagonist; not in the traditional sense but more of an ingrained way. It also did a fun dynamic with the lighting, it being tied to the three riders, and the design for the movie was great. One of the better direct to video films Disney made for their Mythical Wing.

How could I forget about that one? I was a bit surprised how fast it was made into a movie after that popular novel adaptation of it was made back in 1991.

Part of me wishes that Disney did more folk tales, it is a shame that authors like Hans Christian Andersen, Roger Lanclyn Green and George MacDonald are overlooked. I would love to see a film based on Andersen's Seven Stories.

We did get a small something with that collection of shorts "Kytice", I am not sure if that even was Disney. It did highlight the work of Antonin Dvorak, "The Wood Dove", it seems to be the only thing that people remember out of the movie "Kytice". Perhaps we would have seen more folk tales rather than Disney going the mythological or spiritual route.

From what I hear, "Kapiolani and Pele" is supposed to bring the two subcompanies together as part of some sort of reorganization in the company. They have put a lot of stock into that film I am interested to see how it turns out.

Edit - I think I was mistaken with that novel's release date, when did it come out again?
 
Top