A Spirited Perfect Ten

[Clamman73]

This tidbit from the recently released 2014 annual report should interest everyone:

I wish I could give you a glimpse of the amazing wonders we’re bringing to life for our guests – especially in our new park in Shanghai and expansion in Orlando -- but it’s simply too soon to share. All I can say right now is: prepare to be even more amazed.​

What a tease.

Does expansion mean using existing built on land, or knocking down trees type of expansion?

 

[lebeau]

Different day, different age. Eisner didn't have to compete with TV, streaming, and piracy. Iger does. They have to persuade the moviegoing audience to pay $10 for a movie ticket and even more for concessions. Big blockbusters and spectacles are able to accomplish this. Anomalies aside, small family films have to compete against too many home entertainment variables.

Audiences will go see good movies whether or not they cost 100s of millions of dollars.

This problem has been decades in the making. I could go on and on about how the industry got to where it is today. But I won't. It's too big of a topic.

I will just agree with Spielberg and Lucas when they predicted that the current business model can't sustain itself indefinitely. When the entire business is one high stakes gamble after another all it takes is a run of bad luck to bring the entire house of cards down on itself.

Once upon a time, anyone who suggested that a studio would make nothing but tentpole movies would have been laughed out of town. It's no less stupid today.

 

[Tony Perkis]

Audiences will go see good movies whether or not they cost 100s of millions of dollars.

This problem has been decades in the making. I could go on and on about how the industry got to where it is today. But I won't. It's too big of a topic.

I will just agree with Spielberg and Lucas when they predicted that the current business model can't sustain itself indefinitely. When the entire business is one high stakes gamble after another all it takes is a run of bad luck to bring the entire house of cards down on itself.

Once upon a time, anyone who suggested that a studio would make nothing but tentpole movies would have been laughed out of town. It's no less stupid today.

I don't disagree that the industry is heading for a collision by focusing on established franchises and superhero flicks as its theatrical offerings. The industry is so saturated with Marvel, DC, Dreamworks/Disney/Pixar CGI films, that original offerings are frowned upon because of they aren't viewed as gambles worth taking.

And Disney has been amongst the worst in regard to offering safe, predictable entertainment to counter their risks.

That's why I smaller corporate risk-taking and studio subsidiaries are so important not just to the business of the industry, but the quality of the industry. Filmmakers like Christopher Nolan are so vital to the theatre experience because they transcend the genres and offer original storytelling. Fox Searchlight, The Weinstein Company, Universal, Sony Pictures Classics makes sure there's a place for good storytellers to engage audiences on a smaller scale. The rise in arthouse theaters is great for the industry, even though these films are getting shut out of major multiplexes in favor of a fourth screen for Big Hero 6.

The industry could absolutely use smaller films produced in greater quantities to not only offset the need to strike gold with every big film, but also to allow quality filmmakers to tell superior stories.

But let's not confuse the need for these kind of films with what Disney was offering in the 90's. A few gems aside (Heavyweights), they produced mostly cheap crap in its live action comedy offerings. We really don't need most of those back.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

It's insane the amount of people who now love Star Wars or Marvel movies but had no interest in them whatsoever prior to the Disney purchase. It's almost as if they see Iger as a personal shopper, or an Amazon recommendation engine, curating brands they might like, so that they don't have to form their own opinions.

Interesting observation. Mickey certified "Family Safe".

 

[lebeau]

I don't disagree that the industry is heading for a collision by focusing on established franchises and superhero flicks as its theatrical offerings. The industry is so saturated with Marvel, DC, Dreamworks/Disney/Pixar CGI films, that original offerings are frowned upon because of they aren't viewed as gambles worth taking.

And Disney has been amongst the worst in regard to offering safe, predictable entertainment to counter their risks.

That's why I smaller corporate risk-taking and studio subsidiaries are so important not just to the business of the industry, but the quality of the industry. Filmmakers like Christopher Nolan are so vital to the theatre experience because they transcend the genres and offer original storytelling. Fox Searchlight, The Weinstein Company, Universal, Sony Pictures Classics makes sure there's a place for good storytellers to engage audiences on a smaller scale. The rise in arthouse theaters is great for the industry, even though these films are getting shut out of major multiplexes in favor of a fourth screen for Big Hero 6.

The industry could absolutely use smaller films produced in greater quantities to not only offset the need to strike gold with every big film, but also to allow quality filmmakers to tell superior stories.

But let's not confuse the need for these kind of films with what Disney was offering in the 90's. A few gems aside (Heavyweights), they produced mostly cheap crap in its live action comedy offerings. We really don't need most of those back.

I'm with you there. Disney released a lot of junk in the 90s. Lots of Whoopi Goldberg, Bette Midler, Mighty Ducks and Flubbery junk.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Disney Movies Anywhere is a much better solution than Ultraviolet. it is so easy and leverages solid existing infrastructure.

It also works with iTunes. I use iTunes, Disney Movies Anywhere and Flixster. Disney Movies Anywhere is definitely preferred over Flixster.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Belt it out Spirit!!

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

 

[Tony Perkis]

I'm with you there. Disney released a lot of junk in the 90s. Lots of Whoopi Goldberg, Bette Midler, Mighty Ducks and Flubbery junk.

Bingo. Some incredibly odd choices aside (Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen, Prom, Alexander), Disney's live action offerings have been much better under Iger than Eisner, in my mind.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I swear I just suggested Pratt for Jones the other day on my site!

Friends and I had a conversation last summer about who would should be the next Indy and the consensus was Pratt. Here's hoping it's true.

 

[lebeau]

Bingo. Some incredibly odd choices aside (Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen, Prom, Alexander), Disney's live action offerings have been much better under Iger than Eisner, in my mind.

I would have to do a side by side comparison which I haven't done yet. I like Eisner's philosophy for the studio much better than Iger's. Also Eisner's Disney included Miramax which had a great run in the 90's. Are we not counting that?

 

[lebeau]

Friends and I had a conversation last summer about who would should be the next Indy and the consensus was Pratt. Here's hoping it's true.

Pratt as Indy is just such a no brainer. It has to happen. I wonder if James Gunn would be interested?

 

[Tony Perkis]

I would have to do a side by side comparison which I haven't done yet. I like Eisner's philosophy for the studio much better than Iger's. Also Eisner's Disney included Miramax which had a great run in the 90's. Are we not counting that?

I'm not, because it technically wasn't under the Disney banner.

And everyone knows that the the Weinsteins had the real power at Miramax.

 

[lebeau]

I'm not, because it technically wasn't under the Disney banner.

And everyone knows that the the Weinsteins had the real power at Miramax.

That's true. But then we probably shouldn't count Marvel movies either. Without them, Iger's live action track record is substantially weakened.

I don't recall off the top of my head Eisner having his John Carter or Lone Ranger. Outside of Marvel, I can't think of any successful tentpoles under Iger... And that's his whole thing.

 

[Rodan75]

.. but at least under the Singles and Doubles theory of studio production... none of those stinkers put the larger company at risk on their own. Unlike the 'need to make 800m to break even..' films they huddle the studio around now.

Lone Ranger and John Carter proved the current strategy can survive a bomb or two.

 

[Tony Perkis]

That's true. But then we probably shouldn't count Marvel movies either. Without them, Iger's live action track record is substantially weakened.

I don't recall off the top of my head Eisner having his John Carter or Lone Ranger. Outside of Marvel, I can't think of any successful tentpoles under Iger... And that's his whole thing.

Tron: Legacy, Malificent, Oz, Alice in Wonderland, Chronicles of Narnia were successful tentpoles for Iger.


Eisner just didn't invest in live action tentpoles under the Disney banner. He left that to Disney animation, and it's clear that Disney animation was a juggernaut in the 90's, even with the rise in quality in the past 5 years for DAS.

 

[Tony Perkis]

Lone Ranger and John Carter proved the current strategy can survive a bomb or two.

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.

 

[lebeau]

Tron: Legacy, Malificent, rebooting The Muppets, Oz, Alice in Wonderland, Chronicles of Narnia were successful tentpoles for Iger.


Eisner just didn't invest in live action tentpoles under the Disney banner. He left that to Disney animation, and it's clear that Disney animation was a juggernaut in the 90's, even with the rise in quality in the past 5 years for DAS.

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.

 

[NearTheEars]

Yikes. Count me as a pixie duster that DIDN'T jump on the Marvel/Star Wars Disney bandwagon.

Most of my knowledge of Star Wars comes from Star Tours, and I refuse to see the new Spider-Man films because I liked the Tobey Maguire trilogy.

Go ahead and throw stones. I'm just more of a history, not sci-fi geek.

 

[Tony Perkis]

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.

Tentpole =/ franchise

 

[lebeau]

Lone Ranger and John Carter proved the current strategy can survive a bomb or two.

It's not about surviving a bomb or two. What happens when a whole slate of movies bombs? 2014 was a lousy summer. What happens when the entire industry has an even worse year?