A Spirited Perfect Ten

[Cesar R M]

Oh, the thought of @WDW1974 in that dress. A vision of beauty, I tell ya.

really?
will @WDW1974 be the "reluctant opinionated" disney princess?

An Alice sequel is coming actually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_in_Wonderland:_Through_the_Looking_Glass

I'm surprised Burton is only "producing".

Anyone noticed that a lot of top tier directors are now "producing" but putting their protegees as directors?

Michael Bay and Del Toro for example, and now Burton.

 

[Cesar R M]

Survive? Yes. It's Disney. ESPN revenues could pay for countless losses.

But Disney still had to write off about $350 million from those films.

and probably fire people...

Tron was not a successful tent pole launch. If it was we would have Tron 3 by now. Iger flubbed the Narnia and Muppets franchises with the second movie. No sequel to Oz or Alice. Has one been announced for Maleficent? I don’t see a franchise there.

I don’t see a great track record for launching franchises under Iger. He's had some live action hits and also some legendary failures.

speaking of Narnia, I really hated the second movie. All my family did as well.
they tried to make it "too dark and too edgy".
I prefer the third and first best.

 

[FigmentJedi]

So someone shot the Disneyland Mansion with a 4K Low Light sensitive camera...

 

[Cesar R M]

So someone shot the Disneyland Mansion with a 4K Low Light sensitive camera...

I really wish they could upload the RAW video with no awful youtube redecoding.
even at 1440p it looks all blocky.

 

[WDW1974]

I think you are absolutely correct, although TWDC seems to be trying to bring Mickey more front and center as more than a corporate logo. But what I think many of these discussions lack is perspective. While sure this is 'Disney', and should stand head and shoulders above and in many ways it still is. Look how much Time Warner has shifted away from its core brands through the years, how little value they have had to the overall company for decades. TWDC is at the very least unlocking the value of those brands instead of just sitting on them. TWDC is fulfulling the corporate synergistic dreams that the Time Warner folks promised wall street decades ago.

Mickey, Animation and the Theme Parks may no longer define Disney, but I believe that is a strength and not a weakness. They have brought 'Disney' to unexpected places and businesses and while it hasn't been universally better, it has been pretty successful.

Disney is sitting on its history, its legacy, its IPs largely. Time Warner is not a great analogy, although there probably isn't one.

Disney is unique in the media/entertainment business. As soon as it becomes just a collection of BRANDS, the core of what made it special and unique is diminished. I'd argue that is exactly what has happened. I'm not an ESPN fan for life. I didn't grow up pretending I was Captain America with my friends and dressing as him for Halloween. I may love the Muppets, but I also realize that Disney likely wasted their chance to be truly relevant in a big way again. I saw the original six Star Wars films in multiplexes. But my desire to see The Young Bobba Fett Chronicles isn't even on the charts compared with seeing EPCOT get some love or the MK or anywhere at WDW. I am struggling to name three shows on ABC Family or the Disney Channel right now.

What I am saying and, likely not very well as it's been a long ar$e day, is that the day that Mickey, animation and theme parks don't define the company to the masses, then it's time to break it up and sell off the pieces. Because SportsCenter, Handy Manny, Darth Vader and the Hulk sure as hell don't.

Disney is Mickey Mouse, an animation legacy dating to the dawn of film making and Disneyland.

That is it.

If you think the other stuff is more important (and more valuable), then you've gone over to the real world dark side.

 

[BrerJon]

Yes, I think they thought the nostalgic Tron geeks would turn out in droves. Turns out, there's not as many as they thought.

But it was still profitable, and will be worth another look.

China will ensure we get more Tron.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Headline from October 1st, 2016 WSJ:

The Walt Disney Co. Changes Name To DisIger Media Holdings.

Burbank, CA: Bob Iger announced in a vast reorganisation of the companies holdings that the parent company of such lucrative brands as ESPN, Marvel, Star Wars, PIXAR and Disney would change it's name to DisIger Media Holdings.

Blah, blah blah.......and Wall Street Cheered!

 

[Tony Perkis]

I'm surprised Burton is only "producing".

Anyone noticed that a lot of top tier directors are now "producing" but putting their protegees as directors?

Michael Bay and Del Toro for example, and now Burton.

Unless it's produced from one of their production companies (like I believe with the cases of Del Toro and Bay), I have to imagine that if a first film's director doesn't return for a sequel, they can still get a producing credit if negotiated in their contact prior.

See: Spielberg with Jurassic Park 3, Chris Columbus with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and Tim Burton with Batman Forever, just to list off a few.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Spirited Big Picture Musing:

Well, I guess Juno (when did we start naming winter storms?) derailed this into At The Movies With Some MAGIC.

Thats from the marketing Department of The Weather Channel. No one else names it.

Basically, they want to make it easily searchable on social media.... and there's variable definitions for their naming criteria. Basically its a bunch of BS

 

[englanddg]

Yes, I think they thought the nostalgic Tron geeks would turn out in droves. Turns out, there's not as many as they thought.

But it was still profitable, and will be worth another look.

As a guy who LOVES the look of Tron, I really don't care for either movie much.

And I'm sure that's where their marketing / survey department went wrong when planning that movie. I can't even tell you if it was a good movie or not (the new one, not the old one) because I've never made it more than halfway through it...and I've tried watching it several times.

 

[Longhairbear]

So, I leave here last night and stick my nose in now at lunch the next day and see almost seven pages of new posts. When I left, the main topic was largely just 'What Is Disney?' now based on the jumping off points provided by those stories in the HuffPo and The Atlantic.

My contention was that Disney has become a mess of large, and mighty successful to be sure, but disparate BRANDS, IPs, franchises.

All at the expense of what the Disney BRAND is ... or was ... or will be?

Congrats, my friends!!! You have all more than proved that with seven pages of almost entirely Marvel debate and discussion. I'm not going to enter into a back and forth on how many 'Disney fans' (from fanbois, Lifestylers and Mommy Bloggers to simply families in the Heartland who own DVC) truly gave a **** about Marvel before 2010. I very strongly suspect it was a much smaller number than what some folks here believe, but again, that misses the point.

Marvel is owned by Disney. Marvel is subordinate to Disney. Yet ... Marvel is that tasty treat that Disney fans now want to consume ravenously. Is that treat good for them? More importantly, what does it do to Disney? Sure, it makes them lots of money, but what does it do to DISNEY?

It's not unreasonable to think that of all the BRANDS that TWDC owns now that one of the least valuable is actually the one that brought us all here to begin with.

Think about it!

I personally never cared about Marvel, then or now. One exception, Agent What's Her Face that takes place post war.

 

[Andrew_Ryan]

I keep saying ... telling people ... that the next head of Disney won't be one of these men and Disney's publicity machine kicks in (at least I don't believe the vast majority of fans have any degree of warmth in either individual) with all the PR and planted stories designed to create a false reality.

I've talked a lot about change here. I think people often don't understand that it comes slowly ... sometimes slower than climate change. But big change absolutely can happen. For Disney, that would be an outsider running the company. Not as farfetched a reality as it would have been a few years ago.

Where might someone like that come from? Would this individual (individuals?) be decided upon by the BoD, or possibly Bob himself? I'm just curious how a transition like that might go down.

 

[englanddg]

I'd go prequel at the start. 1930s. Pre-Temple of Doom. Make a few early stories, then fill in between Crusade and Crystsl Skull.

As a bit of an Indy fanatic, I'm all for it. Pratt works for me. Might as well make the best use of Iger's purchases since they will be his only real legacy...

You mean like Young Indiana Jones Chronicles? (which is on Netflix and is a great show!)

Indy is a great IP, but imho, is a dead one. It doesn't need a reboot. It's iconic in it's own right.

But, if they were going to do it, I think a Prequel works a WHOLE lot better with the IP than trying to sell a "passing of the hat" the Shia Lapoof (or whatever his name is).

 

[englanddg]

^^ That's probably what it would take for the suits to build an Indy jeep attraction in Florida these days...

I hope they don't ever. Each park should have their own rides...I am so sick of direct clones.

Where they do "clone" concepts, they should make them unique to the Park.

The disturbing trend (which I get from a business perspective) I've seen is that they design a ride, and at BEST reskin it and plop it with a new paintjob and theme (but no other enhancements) in the other park.

While that works for some small rides (like Teacups)...it really shouldn't be the general rule.

I'm referring to LM, mostly. It wasn't a great ride at DCA, and it's not a great ride at MK. It really feels cheap. Sourin' is another example, and probably the most prominent. They didn't even bother to change out the movie when moving it to EPCOT...

 

[englanddg]

What artifact would they have him go after I wonder.

Not all Indy stories need to revolve around going after an artifact. Temple of Doom, the "artifact search" storyline played a rather small part of the larger story, as I recall.

It just has to do with Antiquity.

Atlantis could be fun, and there's lots of stuff in Greek and Roman mythology, or Norse, list goes on.

But, his most popular stuff has had biblical tie ins...and, in my opinion, it's because more people are familiar with those objects and story due to religious influence.

 

[englanddg]

View attachment 80518

You WIN the internet for the day!

 

[englanddg]

Black Panther and Captain Marvel are definitely no since they are Avengers members. I think Inhumans could work though. They could do Big Hero 6 as configured in the Disney movie. I've wondered if SHIELD could be used, but it's sketchy with the intermingling they've done in the films and animated series.

The Incredibles could be used if they wanted to do more a general use of superheroes.

Agents of SHIELD would work very well for an improved shooter game like MIB.

The issue is...WDW already has two of them, and HS already has one with Toy Story Mania...so...

 

[englanddg]

Why not - the computer models are already built and ready to use, Just change the palette a bit and you have saved MILLIONS on production costs. And because you are using the PROVEN Frozen characters Moana (i.e. tan Elsa) will be just as big a success as was Frozen.

I'm trying to figure out what Olaf can be - perhaps a rock spirit... Sven much harder problem as large quadrupeds are not common in the South Pacific...

On the nose...though, as shallow as this tactic sounds, it's not unlike Disney (or animation studios in general) to do this.

But, specifically Disney. They did the "every feature looks similar" thing in the mid to late 60s. Jungle Book and Robin Hood are classic examples. Go to youtube and look and you'll find layover scenes where Disney has re-used model animations over and over again...

So, just because it's digital, and looks similar, I really am not put off by that. It's not new.

If they tell a new and fantastic story, that will be key. The reason why I didn't like Frozen is because it didn't do either. The story was full of tropes and the screenwriters seemed to want to create something that was a red-headed step child of Shrek and Ice Age, but with a "princess" story. And, don't get me started on the music (which wasn't bad, but really felt out of place compared to the screenwriting...)

Sure, it was popular, but that doesn't make it good. At...all...

And, if that's the future of Disney Animation, I'm sad.

 

[englanddg]

If it's succesful which Epcot country gets the leiover?

Not EPCOT. Fantasyland.

 

[StageFrenzy]

Agents of SHIELD would work very well for an improved shooter game like MIB.

The issue is...WDW already has two of them, and HS already has one with Toy Story Mania...so...

No more shooters gah