A Spirited 15 Rounds ...

FigmentJedi

Well-Known Member
I'd really have to disagree with the idea that Disney could have just started creating all kinds of new superheroes. Most of the things you are citing are some form of parody or satirical take. But hold on that one for a second.

First, because I know someone is going to say "why do they need superheroes?" - they do. Superheroes aren't just popular right now because that's what is being pushed. Superheroes have a history of popularity where they come back every couple of decades in a big way with the general public.

So that looks cyclical, right? Until you realize that it's not just because "every 20 years or so people get interested again" - it's because we tend to get involved in major world conflicts every twenty years or so, too. I mean, Superheros had their first hurrah in terms of everyone knowing their names in WWII. When you look back, the peaks of Superhero popularity are remarkably tied. And where are we now - in the middle of the longest war ever, with no signs of it letting up. In times like these, people don't want to be entertained by reality - they want good guys and bad guys and the bad guys to lose. Even today - even when Captain America and Iron Man are fighting, we know they are both good guys.

Once you realize Superheroes are the thing and are going to be around for awhile, it doesn't make a ton of sense to start from scratch when a huge existing library already exists. The very thing you are pointing out - how many "unknowns" there were to popular culture as a whole, is precisely why.

There *are* a limited number of Superheroe archetypes. Really. Sure, you can keep coming up with goofy names, and different ways to combine powers, and mix and match origin stories - but the existing Superheroes already uncomfortably bump up against each other as it is. Quicksilver vs. Flash. And even in their own universes - Joker/Riddler, Batman/Green Arrow. Disney would have had a hard time getting into the "Serious Superhero" business with all-new characters and would have risked a whole lot more trying to make them than just purchasing an entire, pre-made stable with the benefit of all those "unknowns" in there to mine for years to come.
Remember Gargoyles? The entire existence of that show is based on Eisner rejecting the idea of buying Marvel in the 90s because he had full confidence that Disney could make up their own superhero universe. That whole thing in the second season where Goliath and Eliza are stuck on a seemingly endless global roadtrip running into a bunch of different characters? Those were all intended as set-ups for spinoff series that would expand the universe, but plans changed as Disney Television's priorities shifted increasingly towards tween sitcoms and cartoons revolving primarily around kids in school.

 

NearTheEars

Well-Known Member
@WDW1974 , if you need further evidence of the type of guest that vacations at Walt Disney World during a hurricane, take a look at this eBay listing:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Walt-Disney...732769?hash=item283f8a7e61:g:kDcAAOSwT4tZugT~
View attachment 230381 View attachment 230382 View attachment 230383
Hurricane Irma devastates the Caribbean and Florida and this guest seeks to make $289.00 off of the tragedy of others. Maybe this individual is looking to cover her/his check from Citricos?

This is precisely why Disney shreds pieces of attractions (e.g., Great Movie Ride, World of Motion) and puts them in pins, because of actions like this eBay listing.

That seems like theft.
 

NearTheEars

Well-Known Member
DHS was a pleasant ghost town today with ToT being a walk on during most of our time there.
Went to 50s Prime Time for the first time and was quite disappointed in our server. The food was OK, but we didn't really get the full experience. He brought our food and we never saw him again until we got the check and clean plate stickers. I don't want to sound sexist, but I hope we get a "Mom" next time. This seems to be my luck as we also recently went to Whispering Canyon and had about the same experience. We watched everyone else around us having fun with awesome servers, and ours didn't seem like they wanted to be there. Oh, well. Luck of the draw I guess.
 

brb1006

Well-Known Member
It's for the Secret Life of Pets ride.

Rumors have it being a non-screen-heavy LPS ride taking over the Shrek area. It looks like they're going to spin the area off into an Illuminations land, which is kind of stupid. But the ride itself sounds good.
Well they got to do something to give more attention to the Ilumination film catalog besides Despicable Me. Since you hardly see any of characters from any Ilumination film at the Universal Parks. The only two that comes to mind that were seen at the resorts would have to be the characters from Hop (Mostly in the Parade before getting replaced with the Secret Life Of Pets section) but that's about it.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Universal/Comcast, Fox/News Corp, Sony would all have some vested reason to buy it due to previous interactions with Marvel. Universal's situation I mentioned previously and Fox and Sony had both previously made movies with Marvel characters and considered creating some other movies that were never made: http://marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Undeveloped_Movies

Collaborators are a long way from buyers. By your logic, put Hasbro, Haynes T-shirts, and all kinds of others in that same mix. Keep the timeframe in mind as well... this isn't a topic of "lets cherry pick names and forget about what the year was, and what other things were happening at the time in the market and in each of those companies". Since you brought Universal into the mix... lets' remember at that time NBC had slipped to FOURTH in networks, Universal's movie division was struggling. Universal was the one to be bought in that period... not the one looking to buy a fledgling studio that needed financing.

Marvel filed for bankruptcy in 1996. Batman Forever was 5th in the box office for films released in 1995 and Men in Black (based on a comic owned by Marvel at the movie's release) was 3rd in the box office for movies released in 1997.

Ugh... you are so far off in your comparisons its making my head hurt just trying to break it down in a way that even touches the remote place you are at.

The Marvel of 2008 was nothing like the Marvel of the 90s... nor even the Marvel of 5 years prior... that Marvel that was purely licensing it's content with little influence (or return) in how it was used. The Marvel that swooned Disney was a Marvel with new leadership and vision... that on the backs of success of their Fox and Sony deals that made hundreds of millions for Fox and Sony... but a pittance for Marvel... had started their own studio and aimed to produce the films themselves. So instead of a Marvel in the 90s or early 2000s that may only make 100k on a film... now stood to make 100 MILLION on a film. THIS Marvel had new leadership and vision in Kevin Feige that blew the doors off with Iron Man.. which was now making tons of money for Marvel (unlike the Marvel of the 90s.. ) and had a new formula for films - that has proven to be blockbuster. THAT is the Marvel that Disney bought... not the Marvel of the 90s.

The Disney of the 90s wasn't desperate to rebuild it's appeal to males.. the Disney of the late 2000s was. Disney of this period was cash rich and looking to buy new growth. Disney of the 90s was more organic focused.

What Marvel needed in 2008 was capital to finance it's films. It was still striking various deals to raise that capital. Selling out to Disney and rolling under their capital power fixed that issue (and made the CEO a billionaire...)

If Disney paying 4 billion for Marvel was a no brainer and Marvel having such a big list of characters that have appeared in printed and electronic media previously was correctly perceived as a big reason for buying them, then I don't think it makes much sense for it to be considered courageous for Disney to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on movies like Ant Man and GotG.

Well you weren't the guy signing on the line saying "yes, please go spend 300+ million dollars on unproven content" - so I'm sure the courage needed seems trivial to you.

The reason the 'no brainer' answer exists is not simply because Marvel was an IP holder - but because of the potential of their studio output. Potential that has been PROVEN since.

Go back and look at the Lucasfilm announcement... what dominated the announcement? The FILMS. What did fanbois cry over? No immediate plans for theme parks... because the focus was on the output of films and media (and downstream merch). Much like Marvel was before it. The Iger team knows media is the tip of the spear for which the rest of the TWDC machine follows and reaps what was sown by media.

Disney bought into the Marvel STUDIOS formula... not just Marvel Entertainment. Comparisons to 90s MEG to 2009 Disney-Marvel are just night and day.
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
Well they got to do something to give more attention to the Ilumination film catalog besides Despicable Me. Since you hardly see any of characters from any Ilumination film at the Universal Parks. The only two that comes to mind that were seen at the resorts would have to be the characters from Hop (Mostly in the Parade before getting replaced with the Secret Life Of Pets section) but that's about it.

LOL boy I feel old - I don't know what a single thing there is, except Despicable Me - that's those little yellow smurfy things in work clothes, right?
 

brb1006

Well-Known Member
LOL boy I feel old - I don't know what a single thing there is, except Despicable Me - that's those little yellow smurfy things in work clothes, right?
Yeah that's pretty much it.

HOP is basically about a male rabbit who wants to be in a band instead of a new Easter Bunny (The bunny is named EB) since his father is now a former Easter Bunny. EB leaves "Easter Island" and stays with this dude who's name I forgot and don't care who eventually becomes the new "Easter Bunny". Meanwhile EB's father sends in "The Pink Berets" (Who are the best characters of the film) track the bunny down and take him back home. There's more info to the film but it's pretty weird film.

Meanwhile The Secret Life Of Pets is basically what the film is.
 

Fox&Hound

Well-Known Member
I think the acquisitions were genius! I hate to say it but Disney could not rely on Little Mermaid, Snow White, Lion King, Aladdin, and B&B forever. Yes they are making some amazing films these days (Tangled, Wreck it Ralph, Frozen) but I love that when people hear Disney or shop Disney merchandise they also now think Darth Vader, Iron Man, and Thor. I think in order to retain boys (and men) they were smart to acquire Marvel and Star Wars. I love that Disney has Pirates,Cars, Star Wars, and Marvel!!!!!
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
The Disney of the 90s wasn't desperate to rebuild it's appeal to males.. the Disney of the late 2000s was. Disney of this period was cash rich and looking to buy new growth. Disney of the 90s was more organic focused.

What Marvel needed in 2008 was capital to finance it's films. It was still striking various deals to raise that capital. Selling out to Disney and rolling under their capital power fixed that issue (and made the CEO a billionaire...)

The reason the 'no brainer' answer exists is not simply because Marvel was an IP holder - but because of the potential of their studio output. Potential that has been PROVEN since.

Precisely.

And what's funny is that I am a DC guy through and through - till I die. I mean, I liked Spiderman growing up (but no where near what a lot of kids did). I liked the X-Men movies. I like many of the new Marvel movies (I've seen about 2/3 of them). So I don't blow smoke up Marvel's behind LOL.

Marvel had the most untapped potential - that sums up the entire point. Disney had the funds, structure in place, and the expertise for running modern franchises. That's why the Marvel and Lucasfilm deals were the best things that could have happened to each other, mutual finances, and, frankly, the fans in most cases.

Marvel's IP had been so mismanaged since nearly the companies invention, rights thrown around, and rented out their characters to anyone with a few bucks to make an indie film. On the flip side, Warners has controlled DC cinematic properties for so long they were stuck in the 1980's with their lack of foresight. One only needs to look at their own version (the not as bad as some say, but certainly not stellar) of the MCU.

Marvel's stable of characters (again, I say this as a DC fan) is also easier to translate into modern sensibilities. With the exception of Batman - who is the exception to every Superhero rule, he has proven universal enough that every generation has their own because he is one of us - DC has the Gods and Marvel has the arch-angels and the science experiments gone wrong, etc. - and inherently flawed characters, too. Just in terms of cultural shifts, it was a brilliant time to buy Marvel.
 

bclane

Well-Known Member
The one thing that stands out in the top picture to me is the guy in a wife beater holding a baby. LOL. Class and style baby, why does Disney even try?

That guys walks into any other high end hotel in the world other then Disney and he would be lucky that security wasn't having a talk with him. LOL.
Ha! I didn't even notice that guy when I took the picture. But yeah, there is always a broad range of people staying on Disney property and a lot of people who may have just jumped off the monorail to check out the lobby (like us today).

By the way, I hadn't been back to any of the resorts since they moved security for the Magic Kingdom out to the Ticketing and Transportation Center. I thought it was cool to see security check points now at all the monorail stations and was amazed at how quickly they got us through. That metal detector at the Contemporary was super sensitive though. It's the only place my wife's underwire bra set off an alarm anywhere on Disney property...at least so far.
 

No Name

Well-Known Member
Well they got to do something to give more attention to the Ilumination film catalog besides Despicable Me. Since you hardly see any of characters from any Ilumination film at the Universal Parks. The only two that comes to mind that were seen at the resorts would have to be the characters from Hop (Mostly in the Parade before getting replaced with the Secret Life Of Pets section) but that's about it.

Oh, that's not the issue, of course. The issue is that Illuminations is simply a studio name, and doesn't lend itself to a setting or a theme. It makes no more sense for the minions and pets to be together than it does for, say, Harry Potter and Iron Man.
 
Last edited:

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
The one thing that stands out in the top picture to me is the guy in a wife beater holding a baby. LOL. Class and style baby, why does Disney even try?

That guys walks into any other high end hotel in the world other then Disney and he would be lucky that security wasn't having a talk with him. LOL.

The difference is that Disney is a High Priced hotel, Not a High End hotel there is a difference a large one.
 

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
Eh, I don't see it that way. That sort of feels like how the first born feels when their parents have another kid. They aren't replacing Snow White and Cinderella. Yes, the parks are a different story, I understand people feel they are invading. But as a whole, it doesn't make sense for Disney to have built this empire and business model for content creation and not try to expand on it.

Let's face it, as much as people of all ages might love them, the company would have always been inherently limited in it's reach if it just stayed with characters who's largest audience was 2 to 9 year-old's. If it wasn't for Pixar, that would mean being largely be limited to your main earning audience further to only 2 to 9 year-old girls. That's pretty narrow, even if you manage to capture some to become life-long fans.
That was an intentional short sighted decision made during the second half of the Eisner year. With the acquisition of these brands, Disney, both the company and the BRAND, have been hemmed into a corner, not unlike a multi brand car conglomerate like GM.

Think about it. General Motors was formed over time through the accumulation of successful car brands with the reasoning that a larger organization could help all of them design, manufacture and sell cars whilst focusing on particular verticals. Chevy was the everyman's brand. Pontiac was a sportier version of Chevy. Buick and Oldsmobile are a step up from the everyman brands, but still affordable. Cadillac was the car that the successful man graduated to over a lifetime of car ownership because of its status as the elite American automobile. I've chosen to leave out brands like Packard, Saturn and Hummer, but you get the idea.

What Iger has done with his BRANDed strategy is effectively the same. Bob didn't say, "Disney has been excluding boys from its audience, we ought to expand the tent." He instead bought brands like Pixar, largely general neutral, Marvel, strongly identified with young boys/men/comic book guys, and Star Wars, perceived to be male centric, but more gender neutral than most realize. Today's Disney can remain largely a young girl's brand under this arrangement. Wildly successful non-princess female characters like Doc McStuffins and Judy Hopps are the exception when it comes to what has been pushed under the Disney moniker in this period. Aside from Mickey and friends, the princesses are the first thing that comes to mind when you say Disney. During Walt's lifetime, the company made three "princess" movies, out of 19 features. The Lasseter/Catmull years at Feature Animation alone will yield at least six, roughly half of the studio's output. Disney Junior, except for a certain MD, features largely gender segregated programming. The Disney Channel is defined by its tween sitcoms. For a generation of children, Disney is a girl's brand.

The problem with using BRANDs for market segmentation, as practiced by GM and today's Disney, comes from change, both the ability to adapt to it and to grow beyond what you are traditionally known for to embrace new opportunities. If corporate brass decides "this is what Disney is" or "Marvel is for boy's first', the company severs the opportunity to change. GM's brands faired poorly as the fifties gave way to the sixties, followed by the seventies and eighties and so on. Many of GM's once iconic brands like Packard, Pontiac, and Oldsmobile are long gone because they got left behind, optimized for a bygone era. Rising gas prices and the higher quality foreign imports from Germany, Japan and Korea decimated GM and the Big Three's stranglehold on the American market. GM's response consisted of creating new brands like GEO and Saturn to appeal to the same people who used to buy Chevys, but found Toyotas and Hondas better suited to their needs. Only through decades of painful layoffs, ignoring promising ventures like NUMMI and EV1, a government bailout, bankruptcy and restructuring has GM become move adaptive to change.

Iger's Disney, and its choice selection of BRANDs, are optimized for today. The bets paid off very nicely for the company. However, success hides problems. Like you note, Disney is still painted into the same corner it was in 2005, a BRAND for young children, particularly girls. At present there is no incentive for Disney to expand to the place where it should be, a producer of entertainment for all ages and genders, because the BRANDs it controls effectively cover this, for now.

Eisner's Disney, by necessity and perspective, wanted to build a bigger tent for Disney. Disney needed to change and grow, and it did. At the height of the Eisner years, Disney was as big as it was in Walt's day. Even as things went south in the second half of his tenure, the
need to expand and strengthen Disney under that name, and everything that comes with it as a point of pride and ownership, remained.

Disney hasn't endured for almost 100 years as General Entertainment, nor will it.
 
Last edited:

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
The Disney of today is more like Toys R Us. It's the home of brands kids love. No kid gets excited about Geoffrey the Giraffe, but they do know where they can get Lego, Barbie, Hot Wheels, Transformers etc.

The same is kind of true for WDW. Mickey doesn't mean a lot to many kids, but they know the place with the castle has Star Wars, Toy Story and Princesses. It's a bit disappointing for those of us who loved "Disney" because it meant high quality, attractive enviroments based on exotic places, different time periods and futuristic technology.

For the record, I'm fine with Disney buying Star Wars & Marvel, but feel the "Disney" I know and love has largely slipped away or been forgotten by its own fans.
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
The same is kind of true for WDW. Mickey doesn't mean a lot to many kids, but they know the place with the castle has Star Wars, Toy Story and Princesses.

Um, hardly. Mickey is very well known and popular among the pre-school/elementary school set with Roadster Racers and Clubhouse just before that. Everyone I know with young kids watches Disney Jr and you can't help but get to know Mickey and friends if you do.

And the cohort before those shows had House of Mouse and Mickey Mouse Works.

Oh, and they've brought back Ducktales as well.
 

HMF

Well-Known Member
That was an intentional short sighted decision made during the second half of the Eisner year. With the acquisition of these brands, Disney, both the company and the BRAND, have been hemmed into a corner, not unlike a multi brand car conglomerate like GM.

Think about it. General Motors was formed over time through the accumulation of successful car brands with the reasoning that a larger organization could help all of them design, manufacture and sell cars whilst focusing on particular verticals. Chevy was the everyman's brand. Pontiac was a sportier version of Chevy. Buick and Oldsmobile are a step up from the everyman brands, but still affordable. Cadillac was the car that the successful man graduated to over a lifetime of car ownership because of its status as the elite American automobile. I've chosen to leave out brands like Packard, Saturn and Hummer, but you get the idea.

What Iger has done with his BRANDed strategy is effectively the same. Bob didn't say, "Disney has been excluding boys from its audience, we ought to expand the tent." He instead bought brands like Pixar, largely general neutral, Marvel, strongly identified with young boys/men/comic book guys, and Star Wars, perceived to be male centric, but more gender neutral than most realize. Today's Disney can remain largely a young girl's brand under this arrangement. Wildly successful non-princess female characters like Doc McStuffins and Judy Hopps are the exception when it comes to what has been pushed under the Disney moniker in this period. Aside from Mickey and friends, the princesses are the first thing that comes to mind when you say Disney. During Walt's lifetime, the company made three "princess" movies, out of 19 features. The Lasseter/Catmull years at Feature Animation alone will yield at least six, roughly half of the studio's output. Disney Junior, except for a certain MD, features largely gender segregated programming. The Disney Channel is defined by its tween sitcoms. For a generation of children, Disney is a girl's brand.

The problem with using BRANDs for market segmentation, as practiced by GM and today's Disney, comes from change, both the ability to adapt to it and to grow beyond what you are traditionally known for to embrace new opportunities. If corporate brass decides "this is what Disney is" or "Marvel is for boy's first', the company severs the opportunity to change. GM's brands faired poorly as the fifties gave way to the sixties, followed by the seventies and eighties and so on. Many of GM's once iconic brands like Packard, Pontiac, and Oldsmobile are long gone because they got left behind, optimized for a bygone era. Rising gas prices and the higher quality foreign imports from Germany, Japan and Korea decimated GM and the Big Three's stranglehold on the American market. GM's response consisted of creating new brands like GEO and Saturn to appeal to the same people who used to buy Chevys, but found Toyotas and Hondas better suited to their needs. Only through decades of painful layoffs, ignoring promising ventures like NUMMI and EV1, a government bailout, bankruptcy and restructuring has GM become move adaptive to change.

Iger's Disney, and its choice selection of BRANDs, are optimized for today. The bets paid off very nicely for the company. However, success hides problems. Like you note, Disney is still painted into the same corner it was in 2005, a BRAND for young children, particularly girls. At present there is no incentive for Disney to expand to the place where it should be, a producer of entertainment for all ages and genders, because the BRANDs it controls effectively cover this, for now.

Eisner's Disney, by necessity and perspective, wanted to build a bigger tent for Disney. Disney needed to change and grow, and it did. At the height of the Eisner years, Disney was as big as it was in Walt's day. Even as things went south in the second half of his tenure, the
need to expand and strengthen Disney under that name, and everything that comes with it as a point of pride and ownership, remained.

Disney hasn't endured for almost 100 years as General Entertainment, nor will it.
This is the folly of thinking of Disney in terms of a "BRAND" rather than as a cultural institution.
quote-adults-are-interested-if-you-don-t-play-down-to-the-little-2-or-3-year-olds-or-talk-walt-disney-105-65-40.jpg
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
That was an intentional short sighted decision made during the second half of the Eisner year. With the acquisition of these brands, Disney, both the company and the BRAND, have been hemmed into a corner, not unlike a multi brand car conglomerate like GM.

Think about it. General Motors was formed over time through the accumulation of successful car brands with the reasoning that a larger organization could help all of them design, manufacture and sell cars whilst focusing on particular verticals. Chevy was the everyman's brand. Pontiac was a sportier version of Chevy. Buick and Oldsmobile are a step up from the everyman brands, but still affordable. Cadillac was the car that the successful man graduated to over a lifetime of car ownership because of its status as the elite American automobile. I've chosen to leave out brands like Packard, Saturn and Hummer, but you get the idea.

I get what you are saying, but I think you are not correct at all. I think Disney has done the opposite thing and taken brands that tended to be pigeonholed into certain groups and gone out of their way to broaden their appeal. Marvel has gone from being geeky, male dominated to something a random 20 some girl has an awareness of and can speak about. Star Wars was always very popular and diverse, but they've made efforts to make it more girl and minority friendly and child accessible. Yes, Frozen was very young girl and princess centric, but that's the minority of Disney branded stuff -- I mean, Wreck It Ralph? Big Hero Six? Zootopia? Even Moana being kinda princess-y was more adventure based just with a female lead. Pixar has always tended to have broad appeal.

Disney hasn't endured for almost 100 years as General Entertainment, nor will it.

I'm not even sure I understand this statement. Disney, over its history, has basically defined general entertainment. That's basically been their shtick with films and the theme parks of being wholesome family entertainment that can be enjoyed by anyone and everyone.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom