Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg/@comment-1672596-20151116133731/@comment-1672596-20160101212743

"Ludicrous comment! Katzenberg assumed Disney when "The Black Cauldron", a film terribly received by both critic and public, was nearly at end of production. He tried to do what he thought it was the best thing for the film by resorting to the only remaining option: Edition. He cut out some minutes in order to tight the plot and was that. Then you say that he ruined the film. Ruined what? The film was problematic since the beginning of its production. And then you say "At best, only six or four minutes out of the ten he cut actually would need to be cut." How do you know that? Were you in the editing room during "The Black Cauldron" development? No? So the only thing you're doing is guessing. Differently of you, Katzenberg saw the early cut of the film and decided that some minutes were not necessary, the most usual thing in the production of a feature film."

Did I say it would be a blockbuster hit if Katzenberg didn't make the cuts? No. And nor did I even imply that would have been the case. I know it had troubling production, and would have at best been a moderate success. However, if Katzenberg didn't make those additional four minute cuts over the necessary six (and that's on public record. To quote TVTropes:
 * Contrary to popular belief, the infamous cuts made to the more violent and nightmarish scenes of death, decay, and destruction weren't made because Disney believed cartoons were for kids (far from it. Had the executives not intervened, this would have been Disney's first foray into more teen- and adult-based animation). The reason was because then studio chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg didn't know about Disney's plan to make an animated movie that had more adult content in it and forced the producer Joe Hale to cut the film by 12 minutes without being given a thorough explanation first. If the original had stayed, viewers would have seen this fully uncut upon its initial premiere.
 * Katzenberg originally only wanted ten minutes cut, but the filmmakers only cut six minutes, feeling any more would hurt the story. It turned out that he meant literally ten minutes and, when he discovered that they hadn't met his specific demands, proceeded to personally edit out even more than he originally requested until company chief Michael Eisner forced him to back off when word of this got to him.) it probably would have fared better, even if it ultimately didn't end up a resounding success in the end.

"Then you claim that "Aladdin" and "Beauty and the Beast" are films with bad plots, but both of them are extremely well received films. In fact, "Beauty and the Beast" was the first animated film ever to be nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. Then you complain that "Beauty and the Beast" is too far from the original tale. So what? Do you think that "Sleeping Beauty" is close to the original tale, do you? Or "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs", by the way? Did you ever saw the version Purdum was doing? Obviously Katzenberg ordered the film to be rewritten, and thanks goodness he did it, because the fact that "Beauty and the Beast" was rewrote until it got far from the original tale and took its own route is one of the motives it is one of the most fine and worldwide celebrated animated films ever. If you think that "Beauty and the Beast" should have been closer to the original tale, then it shows that you don't understand good storytelling. The same goes to your claim that the plot of "Aladdin" is a "mess" (guess what, it is not, as clearly shown by the reception it has)."

Have you even heard of Black Friday? That was the event where they had to drastically rewrite Aladdin and really had to rush in regards to writing the film due to Katzenberg not even extending the deadline to allow them to finish it in an appropriate amount of time. The fact that both it and Beauty and the Beast got praise was in SPITE of, not because of Katzenberg. And for the record, just because critics say it was good or bad doesn't mean it actually IS that. Let me remind you that The Master won a LOT of awards even though it if anything was a horrible movie. Same with Avatar by James Cameron. Same for if critics say it's a bad movie. Remember, it was also critics who claimed Ariel was "cloyingly sexist" for going for Eric despite her proactive nature, which ultimately resulted in the changes in Beauty and the Beast.

So far as Sleeping Beauty and Beauty and the Beast, in all fairness, the original story for Sleeping Beauty had some dank elements that really wasn't suitable for children (like Aurora being raped by an ogre prince and that getting her out of the coma, NOT Love's First Kiss), so it was understandable there. It was also especially understandable why they would decide to alter The Jungle Book radically since the original source wasn't child-friendly at all. Beauty and the Beast, however, didn't even NEED to redo the entire plot to be utterly divorced from the original story as there was nothing that would have been inappropriate for kids (if anything, the Disney version was a lot MORE inappropriate considering Lumiere's womanizing nature, to say little of the utter cynicism the writers displayed to their viewers with the Gaston reprise by having Gaston openly gloat about his plan to knowingly incarcerating a man under false pretenses as blackmail to force Belle's hand in marriage in public and being cheered on.). Not to mention the reason he even did those unnecessary rewrites to the film and even going as far as to hire a certain feminazi to write the film was to push the feminist agenda after critics stupidly claimed Ariel was "cloyingly sexist" for wanting to go for Eric. And for the record, there was absolutely NOTHING in that film on Belle's end that actually PROMOTED the moral of true beauty coming from within, nor does she even learn that moral in the end. I might as well point out that the Richard Purdum draft was not the only draft during that time. There was an earlier draft, written by Jim Cox, which was true to the story, and was even thought to be good by Michael Eisner, back before he decided to tarnish Disney's name. That got nixed by Katzenberg, obviously. Read it up here.

"Finally, you say Katzenberg "didn't even have much involvement in" "The Little Mermaid" and "The Lion King". What? Do you even know what you talking about? Katzenberg did have extreme involvement in "The Little Mermaid" and "The Lion King". He was the one who pushed "The Little Mermaid" into production, supervised almost all aspects of the film, and in "The Lion King", guess what, he not only coordinated the story tone, but was the one who originally envisioned the film in late 1988."

He also tried to have Part of Your World cut out and was vetoed in that decision, so no, he didn't have that much involvement in it. Probably the closest he's gotten to actual involvement was his altering the ending slightly to make it more like Die Hard. Also, he basically said that The Lion King was a guaranteed failure just because it had talking animals, and decided to just focus on Pocahontas which he was confident would actually be a more massive success. Actually, it was The Lion King that was successful, and that had nothing to do with Katzenberg at all.

"Katzenberg may be narcissist, dictatorial, intolerable, pushed the production staff to exhaustion, and made decisions that may be considered bad when seen through contemporary eyes, but is a fact showed in box-office results and critic reception that when he entered Disney, the animation department was at rock bottom ("The Black Cauldron"), and when he left, it was on a historical top ("The Lion King"). During his management, Disney created four culturally changing movies ("The Little Mermaid", "Beauty and the Beast", "Aladdin" and "The Lion King") and right after he left the company, all the films suffered in quality, beginning right after with "Pocahontas" (that he was never able to finish) and ending up with the tragedy that was "Home on the Range" and "Chicken Little" (before Lasseter and Catmull saved WDFA). The worst thing that happened was him left Disney. Katzenberg has many flaws, but he saved Disney Animation with his management, and it is something that cannot be forgotten or diminished."

He was part of the reason it entered rock bottom, since it was his edits to The Black Cauldron that made it a box office bomb. And BTW, The Little Mermaid and The Lion King are the ONLY films of the Renaissance era that are actually remembered quite well and actually ARE still getting a lot of merchandising, INDEPENDENT of the DP franchise I should add. The former even has its own convention. What has Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast gotten? Heck, Pocahontas, even?

"P.S.: read "DisneyWar" by James B. Stewart to understand better the important role Katzenberg played during the Disney Renaissance."

I read that book, and I saw some statements in it that made some sense, but there are plenty of stuff in there that didn't jive well (for example, the book claimed he had altered the ending because he didn't see it as plausible that Ariel would tackle a giant octopus. However, that conflicts with the statement that he altered the ending specifically because he wanted the ending to be more like Die Hard. And besides, Ariel moved a friggin' boulder blocking her grotto out of the way, and it's not implausible for Belle to lift Beast and Maurice up unaided as if she were a Kryptonian? Also, it claimed that like The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast's original tale originally had a sad ending, when in fact, the original tale [both Beaumont and Villeuneuve versions] had happy endings. Only The Little Mermaid had an actual sad ending.).