Disney Movies They Didn't Give a Fighting Chance
advertisement
VOICE OVER: Emily Brayton
WRITTEN BY: Nick Spake
Swept under the rug by blockbusters! Welcome to MsMojo, and today we're looking at Disney movies that might've performed better if only the Mouse gave them a fighting chance. We'll have a look at movies “Bedknobs and Broomsticks”, “The Black Cauldron”, “The Princess and the Frog” and more!
Welcome to MsMojo, and today we’re looking at Disney movies that might’ve performed better if only the Mouse gave them a fighting chance. What Disney film do you think deserved better? Let us know in the comments.
Disney’s 100th anniversary wasn’t exactly the celebration the company envisioned with most of their new releases underperforming (to put it generously). Although we associate Disney with ongoing success, the brand has never been a stranger to setbacks. Following the revelation of “Snow White,” Disney saw multiple flops. With World War II closing off European markets, “Pinocchio,” “Fantasia,” and “Bambi” had little hope of recouping their high budgets. Even after the war ended, “Alice and Wonderland” and “Sleeping Beauty” were too expensive to prove profitable. It’s not as if Disney didn’t give those films a fighting chance, however. Even on the heels of financial failure, Disney stood by these future classics and with subsequent re-releases, each of them became a massive moneymaker.
It was around the time Walt Disney died that the company took a step in the wrong direction, taking fewer risks and cutting corners. The theatrical cut of “Bedknobs and Broomsticks” is one example. Upon release, many felt that the fantasy film lived in the shadow of “Mary Poppins.” While that was always likely to be the case, the reception might’ve been warmer had people seen the full film. Almost 21 minutes were removed from the 1971 cut, much to the surprise of star Angela Lansbury. Disney learned the wrong lesson with its 1979 reissue, cutting almost twenty more minutes. Composer Richard M. Sherman was especially frustrated, saying, “They decided to obliterate the picture” and “it was so denuded of emotion.”
Much of “Bedknobs and Broomsticks” has since been restored, which is more than can be said about “The Black Cauldron.” Jeffrey Katzenberg notoriously cut roughly 12 minutes from the animated feature, viewing some of the content as too dark. We may never know if those lost minutes would’ve elevated the picture, but the editing controversy goes to show that Disney had little faith in it. After it opened behind “The Care Bears Movie,” Disney essentially buried “Black Cauldron” for 12 years until finally giving it a second life on home video. Along with “Something Wicked This Way Comes,” “Return to Oz,” and “The Watcher in the Woods,” “The Black Cauldron” was a dark 80s experiment that Disney struggled to incorporate into their brand.
The 90s were a sunnier decade with Disney turning in some of their biggest hits ever. Even at the peak of their power, Disney didn’t give every film a chance. The most unfortunate case is “The Rescuers Down Under,” which had to compete against “Home Alone” and other holiday tentpoles. Maybe this sequel just needed time to find its audience. We’ll never know, as Katzenberg was quick to pull all TV advertising with most families not being aware of its existence. When people reflect on the Disney Renaissance, “Rescuers Down Under” is often forgotten, but that’s not because of the film’s quality. It’s because Disney doesn’t know what to do with it, much like “The Hunchback of Notre Dame.”
In “Hunchback’s” case, it wasn’t a lack of marketing. It was the wrong marketing with most of the ads playing up the Festival of Fools and tip-toeing around the darker elements that would make “Hunchback” a cult classic. While the Victor Hugo adaptation made money upon release, Disney seems unwilling to embrace the property. We’d love to see a big-screen version of the stage musical, but Disney CEO Bob Iger reportedly said in 2023 that a live-action “Hunchback” remake isn’t a “top priority.” Keep in mind that Disney is prioritizing remakes of “Moana,” “Lilo & Stitch,” and several others. “Rescuers Down Under” and “Hunchback” have fallen by the wayside with “Fantasia 2000,” “Atlantis,” and “Treasure Planet,” all three of which failed to ignite the box office.
This convinced Disney that there was no place for 2D animation on the theatrical front, going all in on CGI. With a change of leadership, hand-drawn animation would be given a second chance… kind of. The crew behind “The Princess and the Frog” threw all of their passion into making a film that could rank among the classics. Disney set the film up to underperform, though, releasing it a week before “Avatar.” They could’ve given “Princess” more of a headstart with a Thanksgiving slot, but instead, Disney reserved that weekend for “Old Dogs.” Even more misguided, they released 2011’s “Winnie the Pooh” the same day as the final “Harry Potter” movie. Before you say, “Barbenheimer,” “Potter” and “Pooh” were both marketed to families. This wasn’t counterprogramming!
Disney is starting to do right by “Princess” with a Slash Mountain retheming and a “Tiana” series, although they remain reluctant to revive 2D animated movies. To be fair, it’s not like their CG films were lacking with “Tangled,” “Frozen,” and “Zootopia” all thriving. It seemed Disney could do no wrong until 2020. Not only was the company undergoing a regime change, but the COVID-19 pandemic took a drastic toll on theatrical revenue. Disney experimented by releasing some films through streaming with a premium fee. Yet, many felt they did Pixar dirty, sending “Soul,” “Luca,” and “Turning Red” to Disney+ at no additional cost. When a film costs over $100 million, this distribution model doesn’t make sense unless you’re Netflix… and even then it’s debatable!
It was announced in 2023 that those three Pixar films would receive theatrical runs in the new year. Considering that they’re been available on Disney+ for years, though, this seems too little too late. Meanwhile, Disney+ original films that might’ve found wider audiences over time, such as “The One and Only Ivan,” have been purged from the company’s streaming services to cut costs. Granted, nobody wanted to rewatch “Artemis Fowl,” but it still feels like a waste. “Lightyear” was built up as Pixar’s cinematic homecoming, although it went on to become a certified bomb. Pete Docter argued that Disney “trained” audiences to watch their films at home. To an extent we agree, but “Lightyear” wasn’t the best film to mark the studio’s comeback either.
Likewise, some blamed the failure of “Strange World” on streaming and a lack of advertising. While that didn’t help, positive word-of-mouth wasn’t there for “Strange World” and it hasn’t gained a following since. Compare it to “Encanto,” which performed modestly upon opening but became a phenomenon by the time it arrived on Disney+. “Encanto” still could’ve made more money at the box office if Disney hadn’t pulled it from theaters so quickly. Look at “Elemental,” which brought in some of Pixar’s worst opening numbers to date. Can you blame audiences for not being interested given the lame advertising? To Disney’s credit, they allowed “Elemental” to grow its viewership with the film becoming one of the company’s few box office success stories that year.
Disney could’ve had another success if they stood by “Nimona,” but they axed that film along with Blue Sky Studios. Thankfully, “Nimona” was completed elsewhere, going on to lead the Annie nominations with nine. Conversely, Disney’s “Wish” got zero Annie nominations and for the first time in the awards’ history, no Disney films broke into Best Animated Feature. Where “Wish” over-relied on what’s worked for Disney in the past, “Nimona” looked to the future. With so many of their recent efforts flopping, Disney may be compelled to roll the dice on something bold, different, and rebellious like “Nimona.” When a potential game-changer comes along, however, they need to give the film a fighting chance.
Disney’s 100th anniversary wasn’t exactly the celebration the company envisioned with most of their new releases underperforming (to put it generously). Although we associate Disney with ongoing success, the brand has never been a stranger to setbacks. Following the revelation of “Snow White,” Disney saw multiple flops. With World War II closing off European markets, “Pinocchio,” “Fantasia,” and “Bambi” had little hope of recouping their high budgets. Even after the war ended, “Alice and Wonderland” and “Sleeping Beauty” were too expensive to prove profitable. It’s not as if Disney didn’t give those films a fighting chance, however. Even on the heels of financial failure, Disney stood by these future classics and with subsequent re-releases, each of them became a massive moneymaker.
It was around the time Walt Disney died that the company took a step in the wrong direction, taking fewer risks and cutting corners. The theatrical cut of “Bedknobs and Broomsticks” is one example. Upon release, many felt that the fantasy film lived in the shadow of “Mary Poppins.” While that was always likely to be the case, the reception might’ve been warmer had people seen the full film. Almost 21 minutes were removed from the 1971 cut, much to the surprise of star Angela Lansbury. Disney learned the wrong lesson with its 1979 reissue, cutting almost twenty more minutes. Composer Richard M. Sherman was especially frustrated, saying, “They decided to obliterate the picture” and “it was so denuded of emotion.”
Much of “Bedknobs and Broomsticks” has since been restored, which is more than can be said about “The Black Cauldron.” Jeffrey Katzenberg notoriously cut roughly 12 minutes from the animated feature, viewing some of the content as too dark. We may never know if those lost minutes would’ve elevated the picture, but the editing controversy goes to show that Disney had little faith in it. After it opened behind “The Care Bears Movie,” Disney essentially buried “Black Cauldron” for 12 years until finally giving it a second life on home video. Along with “Something Wicked This Way Comes,” “Return to Oz,” and “The Watcher in the Woods,” “The Black Cauldron” was a dark 80s experiment that Disney struggled to incorporate into their brand.
The 90s were a sunnier decade with Disney turning in some of their biggest hits ever. Even at the peak of their power, Disney didn’t give every film a chance. The most unfortunate case is “The Rescuers Down Under,” which had to compete against “Home Alone” and other holiday tentpoles. Maybe this sequel just needed time to find its audience. We’ll never know, as Katzenberg was quick to pull all TV advertising with most families not being aware of its existence. When people reflect on the Disney Renaissance, “Rescuers Down Under” is often forgotten, but that’s not because of the film’s quality. It’s because Disney doesn’t know what to do with it, much like “The Hunchback of Notre Dame.”
In “Hunchback’s” case, it wasn’t a lack of marketing. It was the wrong marketing with most of the ads playing up the Festival of Fools and tip-toeing around the darker elements that would make “Hunchback” a cult classic. While the Victor Hugo adaptation made money upon release, Disney seems unwilling to embrace the property. We’d love to see a big-screen version of the stage musical, but Disney CEO Bob Iger reportedly said in 2023 that a live-action “Hunchback” remake isn’t a “top priority.” Keep in mind that Disney is prioritizing remakes of “Moana,” “Lilo & Stitch,” and several others. “Rescuers Down Under” and “Hunchback” have fallen by the wayside with “Fantasia 2000,” “Atlantis,” and “Treasure Planet,” all three of which failed to ignite the box office.
This convinced Disney that there was no place for 2D animation on the theatrical front, going all in on CGI. With a change of leadership, hand-drawn animation would be given a second chance… kind of. The crew behind “The Princess and the Frog” threw all of their passion into making a film that could rank among the classics. Disney set the film up to underperform, though, releasing it a week before “Avatar.” They could’ve given “Princess” more of a headstart with a Thanksgiving slot, but instead, Disney reserved that weekend for “Old Dogs.” Even more misguided, they released 2011’s “Winnie the Pooh” the same day as the final “Harry Potter” movie. Before you say, “Barbenheimer,” “Potter” and “Pooh” were both marketed to families. This wasn’t counterprogramming!
Disney is starting to do right by “Princess” with a Slash Mountain retheming and a “Tiana” series, although they remain reluctant to revive 2D animated movies. To be fair, it’s not like their CG films were lacking with “Tangled,” “Frozen,” and “Zootopia” all thriving. It seemed Disney could do no wrong until 2020. Not only was the company undergoing a regime change, but the COVID-19 pandemic took a drastic toll on theatrical revenue. Disney experimented by releasing some films through streaming with a premium fee. Yet, many felt they did Pixar dirty, sending “Soul,” “Luca,” and “Turning Red” to Disney+ at no additional cost. When a film costs over $100 million, this distribution model doesn’t make sense unless you’re Netflix… and even then it’s debatable!
It was announced in 2023 that those three Pixar films would receive theatrical runs in the new year. Considering that they’re been available on Disney+ for years, though, this seems too little too late. Meanwhile, Disney+ original films that might’ve found wider audiences over time, such as “The One and Only Ivan,” have been purged from the company’s streaming services to cut costs. Granted, nobody wanted to rewatch “Artemis Fowl,” but it still feels like a waste. “Lightyear” was built up as Pixar’s cinematic homecoming, although it went on to become a certified bomb. Pete Docter argued that Disney “trained” audiences to watch their films at home. To an extent we agree, but “Lightyear” wasn’t the best film to mark the studio’s comeback either.
Likewise, some blamed the failure of “Strange World” on streaming and a lack of advertising. While that didn’t help, positive word-of-mouth wasn’t there for “Strange World” and it hasn’t gained a following since. Compare it to “Encanto,” which performed modestly upon opening but became a phenomenon by the time it arrived on Disney+. “Encanto” still could’ve made more money at the box office if Disney hadn’t pulled it from theaters so quickly. Look at “Elemental,” which brought in some of Pixar’s worst opening numbers to date. Can you blame audiences for not being interested given the lame advertising? To Disney’s credit, they allowed “Elemental” to grow its viewership with the film becoming one of the company’s few box office success stories that year.
Disney could’ve had another success if they stood by “Nimona,” but they axed that film along with Blue Sky Studios. Thankfully, “Nimona” was completed elsewhere, going on to lead the Annie nominations with nine. Conversely, Disney’s “Wish” got zero Annie nominations and for the first time in the awards’ history, no Disney films broke into Best Animated Feature. Where “Wish” over-relied on what’s worked for Disney in the past, “Nimona” looked to the future. With so many of their recent efforts flopping, Disney may be compelled to roll the dice on something bold, different, and rebellious like “Nimona.” When a potential game-changer comes along, however, they need to give the film a fighting chance.
Sign in
to access this feature