>>103658711>Disney can have five failed CG films in a row, but if a decade released 20 CG films and more than 10 succeeded, it is a "higher rate of success".It's also blatantly meaningless.
>In the 2D era, it was only Disney who could wildly succeed in theaters (With a couple of established brand exceptions like South Park). In the CG era, there is a HIGHER RATE of succeeding even without the Disney logo and also a greater chance to make more money.
This comes back to you thinking like a dumb robot and only considering numbers and no context for why and how the movie industry has changed over the years. You can, and people have, literally write a book on the subject, but it boils down to Disney being the only company making animated movies for decades because animation was viewed as only for kids + animation is harder to do than live action + the perception that kids have no money and would be satisfied by live action just the same. So when the Disney renascence stated and the industry started taking note that Disney, (and the animators that split off from Disney like Don Bluth, initially) were suddenly making tons of money, they wanted to get in on the action but had no staff, experience or facilities to match Disney (or reputation with the public as good animation directors). So companies other than Disney in the 90s were at a major disadvantage when making animated films, and that reflected in the box office of things like Anastasia, Osmosis Jones and Iron Giant.
CG is a completely different era than the 70s or the 90s. There is no comparison, and your fundamental argument is groundless.
