A Spirited Perfect Ten

[wdisney9000]

I get a 404 on huffpost. Can anybody else access the article, or did TWDC make a phone call and pull the same BS they did with Jimmy Fallon Show? lol

 

[Mike S]

I get a 404 on huffpost. Can anybody else access the article, or did TWDC make a phone call and pull the same BS they did with Jimmy Fallon Show? lol

That happened to me too. Just go back and read it in this post, he has the whole thing in a quote.

The Huffington Post has published an article on our favorite multinational media conglomerate earlier today. It's primary concern is if Disney is Marvel and Pixar and Lucasfilm and ESPN is Disney still special or relevant? This could be called an assault on Iger The Acquierer's legacy at TWDC. The author makes a shout out to our beloved @wdwmagic too.

ETA: post # 3,000. Oh yeah

 

[wdisney9000]

The HuffPost are Doom and Gloomers!!!

 

[alissafalco]

I get a 404 on huffpost. Can anybody else access the article, or did TWDC make a phone call and pull the same BS they did with Jimmy Fallon Show? lol

 

[wdisney9000]

View attachment 80401 View attachment 80402 View attachment 80403 View attachment 80404 View attachment 80405 View attachment 80406

Thank you, ma'am

 

[Phil12]

I get a 404 on huffpost. Can anybody else access the article, or did TWDC make a phone call and pull the same BS they did with Jimmy Fallon Show? lol

It works for me:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-snyder/disney-ceo-iger-readies-m_b_6520290.html

 

[the.dreamfinder]

The 'What is Disney?' conversation continues in a fancier publication, The Atlantic.

http://theatlantic.com/entertainmen...rying-so-hard-to-dilute-its-brand/384852.html
Why Is Disney Trying So Hard to Dilute its Brand?
On Monday, actress and feminist icon du jour Emma Watson announced via her Facebook page that she's committed to starring as Belle in the upcoming live-action Disney adaptation of Beauty and the Beast. Yes, that Belle, in that Beauty and the Beast, the film Disney made in 1991. The news comes just before the March release of Disney's live-action Cinderella (directed by Kenneth Branagh) and The Jungle Book (directed by Jon Favreau, due in 2016). All are timeless tales based on stories much older than the Disney canon, but these films are also explicitly remakes, using the same character names that belonged to their animated forbears. In this golden age of franchises, every studio is digging through its greatest hits for material—like Universal's monster movies or Warner Brothers' Harry Potter license. But Disney's move somehow feels more shocking—it's an admission that it can no longer keep such a tight rein on its brand.

A crucial part of the Disney magic has always been its total control over "the vault," its 80-year-old catalog of animated features that are only released for sale for a limited time before becoming artificially scarce again. This policy maintains movies' already-enshrined "classic" status by ensuring that, should someone want to buy Beauty and the Beast on DVD or Blu-Ray, they'd better have $60 to pony up for a used copy. The vault has lost some of its significance as more and more viewers stream movies at home, and last year Disney struck an exclusive deal with Netflix for the rights to some of its library, but even the classic films included there flit in and out of availability.

So why the live-action remake binge? It's not that Disney has given up on animation, although it's refocused its attention from hand-drawn work to computer-animated hits like Frozen and Big Hero 6—a reflection of industry trends more than anything else. Rather, the move is a focused expansion into territory Disney has cautiously explored for years. In 2010, the studio released The Sorcerer's Apprentice, a big-budget fantasy-adventure film vaguely inspired by Fantasia's famous sequence. It bombed, partly because it was hard to tell if it was being pitched at kids or teenagers, and partly because its source material was barely identifiable beyond the film's title.

Disney has made similar mistakes in the past, mistakes that usually fall along the same lines: abandoning what works. After dominating the animated film sphere in the '90s with its renaissance of sorts, the studio started producing more niche non-musicals like Atlantis: The Lost Empire and Treasure Planet, both of which which tanked, and doomed the tradition of hand-drawn animation. Now Disney has bounced back with the old is new again approach: The Rapunzel retelling Tangled and the Hans Christian Andersen-inspired Frozen both took the classic formula of an established tale, an exotic locale, and some songs, and turned them into smash hits.

The live-action remakes offer a safe road, too, and the Tim Burton remake of Alice in Wonderland and last year's Maleficent had much in common. Neither was well-reviewed, but both earned staggering grosses worldwide by leaning in to the recognizable: big stars (Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie), the imagery of beloved Disney classics, and, of course, a juicy CGI budget. Both films had enough action to expand beyond the constricting label of children's entertainment without entirely leaving that territory behind (both were rated PG, an increasing rarity among big-ticket blockbusters).

But Disney’s live-action approach is more than easy money—it's a way to expand demographics without having to worry too much about quality. Both Disney and its subsidiary Pixar make plenty of children's films that adults can enjoy, but usually to pull that off the movies actually have to be good (for example, Up and Wreck-It Ralph). Remakes allow the studio to avoid that problem. A Cinderella reboot that features Cate Blanchett vamping it up as the Wicked Stepmother can get every generation on board, kids or not. Disney was clearly careful to produce something that would satisfy a wide age range, even parting with the film's original director Mark Romanek because he had too dark a vision in mind.

The Jungle Book will have all the elements that made the original animated work such a favorite—the song "The Bare Necessities," talking animal friends—but it also has Idris Elba voicing Shere Khan and Bill Murray as Baloo, and seasoned action director Favreau (Iron Man, Cowboys and Aliens) at the helm. Beauty and the Beast, which will be directed by Twilight: Breaking Dawn's Bill Condon, can be pitched at the kids who grew up with Emma Watson playing Hermione Granger, the grown-ups who saw Disney's original take in theaters 24 years ago, and everyone else in between. Even Watson had to acknowledge the cross-generational appeal, saying on her Facebook page, "It was such a big part of my growing up, it almost feels surreal that I'll get to dance to 'Be Our Guest.'" She has the right idea, but the wrong choice of word: as surreal as the movie industry may sometimes seem, the reality is much more calculated.

 

[Goofyernmost]

It works for me:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-snyder/disney-ceo-iger-readies-m_b_6520290.html

Me too!

 

[WDW1974]

quote"WDFA is in a better shape today than it was pre-Iger"Quote I would disagree with you about WDFA. Sure it's got it's Frozen (Which should be called "The Snow Queen") cash cow now but I still mourn the death of traditional animation.

Legitimately, there is no way that you can say WDFA isn't better off today. They are, once again, on top of the animation industry. Dreamworks is in deep doo-doo and Pixar needs a few mega-hits, like we all got used to, instead of moderately successful films like Monsters U. No one else is a top tier player.

Animation was on life support pre-Iger. I still don't give him credit for its resurrection. I give that to Lasseter, Catmull and the talents of literally thousands of others.

I love traditional animation, myself, but I can't get into a 2D vs. 3D argument. At the end of the day, it's not an argument worth having so long as quality product is coming out.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

I love traditional animation, myself, but I can't get into a 2D vs. 3D argument. At the end of the day, it's not an argument worth having so long as quality product is coming out.

Also not worth getting into when the CEO and his rubber stamp BoD think a traditionally animated feature, on principle, is a wreckless financial decision.

 

[WDW1974]

You rang?

Yes, we needed the Tim Gunn of the boards to do a fashion do's and don'ts ....

I had just stumbled a few minutes ago, by pure accident, onto that wonderful HuffPo article everyone is already talking about here. Wow.

And the surprise mid-article explanation of Al Lutz and his online work to save Disneyland 15 years ago was utterly fascinating. I take it Al Lutz isn't entirely retired, as he obviously contributed to the HuffPo article as a "contributor". Then a second shout-out to this website where I spend too much time was icing on the cake. What a surprisingly fun yet scary read!

I found it amusing because as long as I've said that important people are reading (even ex-Imagineers like Sotto ... remember him?) these forums, I've gotten shot down by ignorant people who feel that their words aren't worthy, so naturally none of ours are either.

There are folks who read these forums for their paychecks and others whose livelihoods depend on knowing the pulse of the community ... and trying to control it (see my good friend Dr. Blondie).

HuffPo's descriptions of Jay Rasulo and Tom Staggs were so good, and so accurate, that I had to put down the glass of Scotch cause I was laughing so hard. I'm sure executive egos are bruised in West LA tonight, the poor dears.

I do KNOW that ... well, everyone isn't happy. And, for that, I say kudos to the writer.

As for Iger's recent sloppy dress. Yeah, it's not good, especially on an older man like Bob. As much as I love my iStuff in my life, I blame Steve Jobs for that sloppy corporate dress code. Jobs is the one who convinced every late middle aged white guy executive that they could appear on TV and launch major stuff wearing Dad Jeans and a cashmere top. Gross.

I never really thought of it, but you know your fashion (am already afraid of meeting you wearing a pair of jorts!) and Jobs absolutely pioneered that cool, laid back look. Unfortunately, Iger is no Jobs at all.

Linking the absolutely fascinating Huffington Post article about Bob Iger here, in case later folks missed it. Run, don't walk, to go read this. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-snyder/disney-ceo-iger-readies-m_b_6520290.html

Agreed.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Legitimately, there is no way that you can say WDFA isn't better off today. They are, once again, on top of the animation industry. Dreamworks is in deep doo-doo and Pixar needs a few mega-hits, like we all got used to, instead of moderately successful films like Monsters U. No one else is a top tier player.

Animation was on life support pre-Iger. I still don't give him credit for its resurrection. I give that to Lasseter, Catmull and the talents of literally thousands of others.

I love traditional animation, myself, but I can't get into a 2D vs. 3D argument. At the end of the day, it's not an argument worth having so long as quality product is coming out.

If so much of purchasing Pixar, with its $7 billion price tag, had not been wrapped up in fixing Walt Disney Feature Animation, I do not see how a good numbers guy could justify having two animation studios.

 

[BrerJon]

I love traditional animation, myself, but I can't get into a 2D vs. 3D argument. At the end of the day, it's not an argument worth having so long as quality product is coming out.

Eisner was the one who announced 2D was dead, and presided over some real clangers towards the end. If we're discussing Iger's merits as a CEO, and tearing apart his performance on the parks, we have to be fair and credit him for successes, and turning around WDFA - or at least giving Lasseter the freedom to do so - is one of them.

Eisner's last five years gave us Atlantis, Brother Bear, Lilo & Stitch, Home on the Range and Chicken Little - average at best, terrible at worst - while Iger has given us Tangled, Wreck-It Ralph, Frozen and Big Hero 6, as well as another shot at 2D with Frog and Pooh. Not a bad one in the bunch.

 

[WDW1974]

Spirit is a Redstone? Figure he wouldn't have to worry about all the CM discounts. Haha. Also, I guess full disclosure, Willow Bay (Iger's wife) is a founding member of Huffington Post, not really involved much anymore but still on the masthead.

Well, I've always wanted to be a billionaire when I grow up. But that family is a scary batch. And, alas, I'm not even worth a few hundred million ... yet!

 

[Phil12]

I never really thought of it, but you know your fashion (am already afraid of meeting you wearing a pair of jorts!) and Jobs absolutely pioneered that cool, laid back look. Unfortunately, Iger is no Jobs at all.

No, Jobs was an eccentric nut case. He was not hygienic and often wore the same clothes for days. He dressed like a slob.

 

[WDW1974]

BTW, wonder what The Weatherman thinks of his former head of corporate communications, media pro John Dreyer, advocating the message behind that HuffPo piece.

Yes, he was Zenia before Zenia ... just a nicer, classier version ... until he 'retired' in 2007, not soon after Bob Iger came to power.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

If so much of purchasing Pixar, with its $7 billion price tag, had not been wrapped up in fixing Walt Disney Feature Animation, I do not see how a good numbers guy could justify having two animation studios.

There have been some rumors that certain execs wanted to turn WDFA into Pixar South as in it would function similarly to the recently deceased PDI.

 

[WDW1974]

Spirit is not the author of the article. I can state that as fact.

I assure you, there were people who's Sunday was ruined by that one.

Analysts, the Street, media execs, not to mention all of those who were mentioned...everyone will be reading that. It's like a well-placed grenade.

Well said, as usual. So, I'm actually giving you your 'like of the month' ... especially since you wrote more than your average of four words a post!

 

[tribbleorlfl]

On an entirely different note, I really do think service animals will become the next scooter/stroller/Brazillian in-park "issue" within the next 12-18 months.

As others have said, it's not just a in-park issue. People are "registering" their personal pets as service animals so they can take them everywhere they go. Establishments that don't know the law and are fearful of getting sued under the ADA are just letting it go despite animals that clearly are not service dogs.

My wife is a teacher and was recently called into administration to be informed a student was going to be getting a service dog that would be accompanying her in class. Never mind one of her other teachers has a severe dog allergy, the handicapped student's rights trump the teacher's rights to not be under a daily assault from pet dander. Apparently under the law, moving the student to another class would be discriminatory.

Turns out the "service dog" is a poorly trained (and behaved) 1 year old puppy that is clearly not an actual service dog. She said it's displaying classic signs of poor socialization and is disrupting class. She figures it's her personal pet she used the phony certification process to bring it with her (or so her parents would get it out of the house during the day). While other students have complained, apparently they can't do anything until the animal attacks someone.

We discuss Disney theme park maintenance a lot on these threads but most of what’s said is opinion. However, by looking at Disney’s budgets over the decades, it’s possible to get a sense of where maintenance is today compared to where it used to be. The 2 most interesting numbers to consider are capital expenditures (capex) and depreciation.

Great analysis, as usual, but I think a component of the state of WDW maintenance that's just as important as capex in the discussion is labor.

I don't have any direct knowledge of reduced hours in maintenance, but I believe it's been reported hours being cut all over property to help contain labor costs (so it's probably maintenance has been impacted).

In addition, around 2007 they offered early retirement packages to many of the tenured (ie expensive) maintenance guys, presumably to bring down labor costs. My dad had been at WDW 16 years, and though he had several more to NRA and full retirement from Disney, he, like many others, took the deal. The result was a drain on the knowledgeable and experienced staff (many of which, coincidentally, ended up "down the street.").

When you don't have as many people working in a given shift, and those who are aren't as skillful as those who once did, it's a recipe for declining show quality.

 

[WDW1974]

The Huff Post brings up a point that has been stated around here before. There should be a differentiation between the "Disney" brand -- that of Mickey and animated films and theme parks with castles and pixie dust -- versus the "Disney" company -- a multi-national conglomerate that owns many different brands (not only Disney, but Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm/Star Wars, ESPN, etc.)

I'm not sure how to do it, but it might make sense to rename the overall company to a different name so that the media conglomerate is distinguished from the one distinct flagship brand. I don't know how you get away from calling the overall company "Disney" though.

I think the larger issue is that Disney has become just a BRAND in a giant stable of BRANDS (Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Lucas, ABC, ESPN etc.) They are all sort of mashed together into this giant IP stable that while impressive isn't all complementary. But when I see die cast cars at my Disney outlet store of Lightning McQueen as Luke Skywalker and Fillmore as Yoda, I'm so very convinced that JK Rowling is even smarter and savvier than her billions would suggest.

I don't know what to do (well, actually I have some ideas, but they are the kind that cost, that you don't offer up for free on a Disney fan site!) with the fact Disney itself has become diminished as it's just another brand under the giant DIS/Iger umbrella.

I don't care how great (or not) Avengers Age of Ultron is ... or how the geeks lap up whatever Star Wars: The Force Awakens. I still care about the core ... the Disney that made me a fan of its products in childhood right on into adulthood. Almost all of it was homegrown (please, don't tell me that Disney adapted fairy tales as that's almost as bad as the Disney is a business circle!) Now, I'm supposed to care about disparate BRANDS because Iger simply went out and bought them?