A Spirited 15 Rounds ...

[Sir_Cliff]

That was always one of the more bizarre concepts he brought up and he said it repetitively. I mean, sure maybe there are a handful of people, even a few dozen, who would unequivocally start "liking" something solely because Disney bought the IP. But considering how incredible mainstream and popular Marvel is among literally millions of people, it was pointless to even care about.

If there were some piece of crap product that Disney put out that Disney fans would hype just because it is owned by the company, then there might be a point to calling them out on being zombie brand advocates who aren't objective, but this is Marvel which as found massive appeal among industry critics, hardcore genre fans and the general audience.

Like most things, it didn't offend me as it did him, but I will admit that I still find it an interesting aspect of Disney fandom. I remember a while back on a completely unrelated podcast that I listen to that one of the hosts asked just what Disney fans are fans of? It does seem a reasonable question to me as I'm not entirely sure myself. Looking at how easily things get absorbed into Disney fandom as the company expands, I guess it's fandom of the company?

Again, people can like what they want and it doesn't bother me. I will admit, though, that I've never quite seen things like Marvel in the same light as what I think I am a fan of when it comes to Disney.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

That was always one of the more bizarre concepts he brought up and he said it repetitively. I mean, sure maybe there are a handful of people, even a few dozen, who would unequivocally start "liking" something solely because Disney bought the IP. But considering how incredible mainstream and popular Marvel is among literally millions of people, it was pointless to even care about.

If there were some piece of crap product that Disney put out that Disney fans would hype just because it is owned by the company, then there might be a point to calling them out on being zombie brand advocates who aren't objective, but this is Marvel which as found massive appeal among industry critics, hardcore genre fans and the general audience.

They had “familiarization” panels for both Marvel and Star Wars at past D23s. It’s very much a thing.

 

[peter11435]

They had “familiarization” panels for both Marvel and Star Wars at past D23s. It’s very much a thing.

I think the point is that Marvel offers a quality product. So brand followers may not be becoming fans purely because Disney now owns the product. Rather the fact that Disney now owns the product leads some brand followers that otherwise would not have been consumers of marvel product to see the films. Once exposed they become fans not because it’s “Disney,” but because it’s actually quality.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

I think the point is that Marvel offers a quality product. So brand followers may not be becoming fans purely because Disney now owns the product. Rather the fact that Disney now owns the product leads some brand followers that otherwise would not have been consumers of marvel product to see the films. Once exposed they become fans not because it’s “Disney,” but because it’s actually quality.

Your use of the term “brand followers”, in place of just saying fans of Disney, is very telling as to the current state of the company.

(I don’t necessarily disagree with what you said though. For example, I’m not sure if I would have become as interested in Cirque if Disney didn’t have La Nouba at DtD in the 90s.)

 

[doctornick]

Like most things, it didn't offend me as it did him, but I will admit that I still find it an interesting aspect of Disney fandom. I remember a while back on a completely unrelated podcast that I listen to that one of the hosts asked just what Disney fans are fans of? It does seem a reasonable question to me as I'm not entirely sure myself. Looking at how easily things get absorbed into Disney fandom as the company expands, I guess it's fandom of the company?

Again, people can like what they want and it doesn't bother me. I will admit, though, that I've never quite seen things like Marvel in the same light as what I think I am a fan of when it comes to Disney.

As I've said many time in the past, I think there is a different between Disney (the brand) versus The Walt Disney Company [shorthand "Disney"] (the company). The vast majority of people who are fans of "Disney" are not fans of the company per se but of a certainly wholesome, family friendly segment of the products they put out typified by the Feature Animation (WDAS), Pixar, the shows on Disney Channel, the theme parks, etc.

Do such fans also like Marvel and Star Wars? Some, even most, certainly do -- because the sensibilities of those fantasy worlds often overlap with the appeal of the more traditional Disney brand. Yeah, they skew more "boyish", older and violent but it's not like they are selling Nightmare on Elm Street. People are able to like different products at the same time, whether they are owned by one company or many. The assumption that people liked those products exclusively or predominantly because Disney bought them just seems so specious.

Are they other Disney fans who don't care about Marvel or Star Wars and just want to enjoy their Mickey or Pooh plush? Absolutely. It's not exactly a perfect overlap. Then again, just because people enjoy the theme parks doesn't mean they like every attraction contained within.

I don't think "Disney fans" were going out and buying tons of copies of Pulp Fiction just because the company made the film.

I just feel like massive leaps of assumptions are made and some very broad stereotyping of "Disney fans" done to justify the feelings that some posters have about modern day TWDC and/or its leadership. It strikes me as very odd.

 

[Hakunamatata]

I definitely wouldnt like churros if Disney didnt sell them.

 

[doctornick]

They had “familiarization” panels for both Marvel and Star Wars at past D23s. It’s very much a thing.

My word. Do you mean the company promotes products from other segments to their existing core fan base? How horrible.

It makes sense to advertise directly to existing consumers of your products. That's not nefarious, it's just logical business for an entertainment company.

I think the point is that Marvel offers a quality product. So brand followers may not be becoming fans purely because Disney now owns the product. Rather the fact that Disney now owns the product leads some brand followers that otherwise would not have been consumers of marvel product to see the films. Once exposed they become fans not because it’s “Disney,” but because it’s actually quality.

This. People - even pre-existing "Disney fans" - like Marvel because it offers quality output. It's not because they mindlessly love and promote everything Disney does. I mean, if "brand advocates" were such a big issue then thinks like John Carter, Tomorrowland (talk about something mindless Disney drones could rally behind!) and The Lone Ranger would have made bank.

Again, I'm not saying there aren't a couple dozen people you might be able to point to that do unquestionably promote all Disney things - with literally billions of people in this world, you can always find the rare exception to any general rule - but they are so small and meaningless that it is pointless to even mention them. There no widespread conspiracy of Disney brand addicts who will buy anything and everything that the company puts out. Its a red herring put out for some people with an axe to grind to condemn TWDC.

 

[shernernum]

My word. Do you mean the company promotes products from other segments to their existing core fan base? How horrible.

It makes sense to advertise directly to existing consumers of your products. That's not nefarious, it's just logical business for an entertainment company.



This. People - even pre-existing "Disney fans" - like Marvel because it offers quality output. It's not because they mindlessly love and promote everything Disney does. I mean, if "brand advocates" were such a big issue then thinks like John Carter, Tomorrowland (talk about something mindless Disney drones could rally behind!) and The Lone Ranger would have made bank.

Again, I'm not saying there aren't a couple dozen people you might be able to point to that do unquestionably promote all Disney things - with literally billions of people in this world, you can always find the rare exception to any general rule - but they are so small and meaningless that it is pointless to even mention them. There no widespread conspiracy of Disney brand addicts who will buy anything and everything that the company puts out. Its a red herring put out for some people with an axe to grind to condemn TWDC.

Exactly, the Disney "platform" definitely opens up new audience segments to a product that might have otherwise struggled to be noticed by said segments, but the long term ability of the product/property/franchise to sink or swim depends on it's ability to provide entertainment that continues to interest those who have been introduced to it.

Like your above examples, Disney promoted the h*ll out of "A Wrinkle in Time" which also had the nostalgia factor of having been read by nearly everyone in the US over the age of 20 in grade school, but the movie didn't resonate and it was basically failure, if an ambitious one.

 

[peter11435]

(I don’t necessarily disagree with what you said though. For example, I’m not sure if I would have become as interested in Cirque if Disney didn’t have La Nouba at DtD in the 90s.)

I think this is actually a perfect example of what I was saying.

 

[MotherOfBirds]

That was always one of the more bizarre concepts he brought up and he said it repetitively. I mean, sure maybe there are a handful of people, even a few dozen, who would unequivocally start "liking" something solely because Disney bought the IP. But considering how incredible mainstream and popular Marvel is among literally millions of people, it was pointless to even care about.

If there were some piece of crap product that Disney put out that Disney fans would hype just because it is owned by the company, then there might be a point to calling them out on being zombie brand advocates who aren't objective, but this is Marvel which as found massive appeal among industry critics, hardcore genre fans and the general audience.

Agreed. The notion reeks of gatekeeping. It's condescending to people who were introduced to something new that they genuinely enjoy, and not because they are deluded Disney stans, but because Disney has the bucks and the clout to bring Marvel to a mainstream audience. I get so tired of people desperate to separate "real fans" from "bandwagoners." It does not matter. Just let people enjoy the tiny scrap of joy they manage to scrounge up in this hellscape.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Agreed. The notion reeks of gatekeeping. It's condescending to people who were introduced to something new that they genuinely enjoy, and not because they are deluded Disney stans, but because Disney has the bucks and the clout to bring Marvel to a mainstream audience. I get so tired of people desperate to separate "real fans" from "bandwagoners." It does not matter. Just let people enjoy the tiny scrap of joy they manage to scrounge up in this hellscape.

Marvel was a mainstream staple of American and Global pop culture well before August 2009. The MCU was not a Disney project, Phase One was already financed by Morgan Stanley and confirmed to proceed to “The Avengers” when “Iron Man” was a big hit.

The issue with discussions like this is that TWDC isn’t necessarily interested in appealing to its current fans, it’s looking for more fans that don’t necessarily like Disney. What Spirit was talking about was a subset of Disney fans that are more fans of the Brand versus, what I’ll call, the “world of Disney” with its many mediums of access including animation, live action, theme parks, comics, music, and the theater.

The Fox deal wasn’t made “for the fans”, it’s not about getting the X Men and FF into the MCU, which Disney could have paid for specifically out of pocket. It was done for Domestic/International TV and production assets to build out a global, adult oriented SVOD service. The position of the fan entirely warps what this deal was about. It factors too much into discussions on fan forum.

“Disney” is, and has been, much bigger than Disney for twenty years.

 

[Cesar R M]

Exactly, the Disney "platform" definitely opens up new audience segments to a product that might have otherwise struggled to be noticed by said segments, but the long term ability of the product/property/franchise to sink or swim depends on it's ability to provide entertainment that continues to interest those who have been introduced to it.

Like your above examples, Disney promoted the h*ll out of "A Wrinkle in Time" which also had the nostalgia factor of having been read by nearly everyone in the US over the age of 20 in grade school, but the movie didn't resonate and it was basically failure, if an ambitious one.

Reminds me of John Carter too.

 

[seascape]

Marvel was a mainstream staple of American and Global pop culture well before August 2009. The MCU was not a Disney project, Phase One was already financed by Morgan Stanley and confirmed to proceed to “The Avengers” when “Iron Man” was a big hit.

The issue with discussions like this is that TWDC isn’t necessarily interested in appealing to its current fans, it’s looking for more fans that don’t necessarily like Disney. What Spirit was talking about was a subset of Disney fans that are more fans of the Brand versus, what I’ll call, the “world of Disney” with its many mediums of access including animation, live action, theme parks, comics, music, and the theater.

The Fox deal wasn’t made “for the fans”, it’s not about getting the X Men and FF into the MCU, which Disney could have paid for specifically out of pocket. It’s a Domestic/International TV and production assets to build out a global, adult oriented SVOD service. The position of the fan entirely warps what this deal was about. It factors too much into discussions on fan forum.

“Disney” is, and has been, much bigger than Disney for twenty years.

You are right to a large extent but it is not just for TV and streaming. The Walt Disney Company is now a complete global media and themepark company. The future not only is international Television. Movies and Streaming but also a much larger international themepark business. Expect a second Chinese location, an India location and at least one in Latin America. In the longer run, Africa will eventually get a Disney park also. Iger's goal is not just a 250 billion dollar valuation but to reach the trillion dollar valuation club and that requires making sure the American model is duplicated in each continent.

 

[Cesar R M]

You are right to a large extent but it is not just for TV and streaming. The Walt Disney Company is now a complete global media and themepark company. The future not only is international Television. Movies and Streaming but also a much larger international themepark business. Expect a second Chinese location, an India location and at least one in Latin America. In the longer run, Africa will eventually get a Disney park also. Iger's goal is not just a 250 billion dollar valuation but to reach the trillion dollar valuation club and that requires making sure the American model is duplicated in each continent.

Can't wait until The Walt Disney company buys Shell, Amazon and one of the new space business.. to become BUY N' LARGE

 

[VJ]

Disney Parks, Experiences and Consumer Products has been (slightly) shortened, to Disney Parks, Experiences and Products.

https://dpep.disney.com/

 

[Sped2424]

I was absent from the forums for a while and missed this completely.

Has really changed my thoughts on 74. I have no problem with lively internet forum banter, even when done in poor taste, even when it borders on "insulting." But making light of such a tragedy is a bridge too far for me. What a donkey.

Now I will admit he went to far with a lot but I believe his changing of his profile was to mock the Disney company erasing any mention of alligators in their parks following the tragedy rather than mocking the boy and his family.

 

[RSoxNo1]

So last week a thread was started over on Theme Park Insider about each WDW park having a new sister park created, starting with the Animal Kingdom. I for one am very excited about the Beastly Kingdom sister park as well as the villains park being built next to the Magic Kingdom. The Disney Parks have an amazing future.

 

[Nemo14]

So last week a thread was started over on Theme Park Insider about each WDW park having a new sister park created, starting with the Animal Kingdom. I for one am very excited about the Beastly Kingdom sister park as well as the villains park being built next to the Magic Kingdom. The Disney Parks have an amazing future.

I've been waiting all day for an April Fool's post!

 

[the.dreamfinder]

I've been waiting all day for an April Fool's post!

Joe Rohde’s running for President.

 

[Missing20K]

Now I will admit he went to far with a lot but I believe his changing of his profile was to mock the Disney company erasing any mention of alligators in their parks following the tragedy rather than mocking the boy and his family.

Yes it was discussed a few pages prior. And I responded in kind.

Didn't know any of this. Appreciate everyone for informing me.

Perhaps there would have been a more tactful way of presenting his argument. Though 74 was never known for being tactful.