>>103827368>Why is it not OK for Disney to make lesser animated movies like this?
I do agree but two things I want to point out:
1.) The movie came out when theatrical hand drawn animation was dying out and, to prove the medium’s worth, there would’ve needed to be a few mega-hits on the scale of the Disney Renaissance slate (mainly on a commercial level but also a bit on a critical level). Unfortunately, bar Lilo and Stitch and Brother Bear, the only hand drawn movies that were seeing any successes ended up being smaller scale projects, often based on existing properties. All the big hand drawn movies of the era were either marketed so poorly to the point that intentional sabatoge isn’t out of the picture (Treasure Planet) or simply weren’t good/interesting enough that many people payed attention (Home on the Range), something that leads to my next point.
2.) Home on the Range, no matter how you cut it, wasn’t a lesser Disney project in terms of scope or investment. It was made by Disney Features Aniamtion themselves as part of the Disney canon and started then somewhat big name stars (Roseanne, Randy Quaid). Even when compared to other films of the canon, it had over double the budget ($110 mil vs $45 mil) of the previous film of the canon, Brother Bear. When you pour that much money and time into one hand drawn film released during a time where the medium was being threatened, it can’t be treated as a lesser film.