A Spirited Perfect Ten

[Disneyhead'71]

Why do you feel that way? Iron Man 3 did $1.2B and Cap 2 did $700M without the help of RDJ.

Civil War will do well. But Avengers, as of now, has more appeal to the non-core audience.

There is nothing wrong with playing to the base as long as the base is huge. Which Marvel's is. No different than making a 7th Harry Potter film. But I bet the vast majority buying tix to Potter 7.1 were Potterheads and not the GP.

 

[Hakunamatata]

Something I wanted to throw out there. If any of you recently watched Wrestlemania you probably caught that it served as a huge stage for the promotion of the next Terminator movie. Given that Universal has a partnership with WWE's biggest competitor, I wonder if Disney would ever consider a partnership with the WWE and could we ever see something along the lines of Wrestlemania promoting a Marvel or Star Wars release?

 

[BrerJon]

You're not Disney's child.

The fact that you can even create an analogy on that level to describe your relationship with a corporation, again, says more about you than it does about Disney.

Disney wasn't always just a faceless corporation. To you Disney may be no different to Wal-Mart or McDonalds or Target, but to the kids of the 80s and 90s they couldn't have been more different.

The company under Eisner, following the legacy of Walt, espoused a vision, a way of doing things, and holding oneself to a higher account, and a quality of experience that deeply influenced generations of kids. Engineers, artists, business leaders... many people have ended up doing what they do because of how Disney inspired them... and for those of us for whom that is true, we're all Disney's children.

The strong bond people felt to Disney wasn't to The Walt Disney Company(TM), but to the dreams and ideals of Walt Disney. We were the original pixie-dusters, and while that may seem strange to you, and maybe it is, I'd say we're better people because of it.

 

[bhg469]

Disney isn't your child. Seeing them in that light says more about you than it does about them.

You're really quite full of yourself aren't you?

 

[twebber55]

You're really quite full of yourself aren't you?

why because he disagrees with you...
its great to have diverse opinions on this board, right?

 

[Hakunamatata]

why because he disagrees with you...
its great to have diverse opinions on this board, right?

That's a good question. I thought tolerance and diversity was the flavor of the generation.

 

[ford91exploder]

Disney wasn't always just a faceless corporation. To you Disney may be no different to Wal-Mart or McDonalds or Target, but to the kids of the 80s and 90s they couldn't have been more different.

The company under Eisner, following the legacy of Walt, espoused a vision, a way of doing things, and holding oneself to a higher account, and a quality of experience that deeply influenced generations of kids. Engineers, artists, business leaders... many people have ended up doing what they do because of how Disney inspired them... and for those of us for whom that is true, we're all Disney's children.

The strong bond people felt to Disney wasn't to The Walt Disney Company(TM), but to the dreams and ideals of Walt Disney. We were the original pixie-dusters, and while that may seem strange to you, and maybe it is, I'd say we're better people because of it.

Well Said. Remember the "Business" people were sure Disneyland was going to be an utter and complete failure, The irony of the situation is now that they are firmly in charge they are doing everything to make sure that happens.

Because to the business people if they felt TWDC would make more money building weapons and WDW would make more money as a 'training facility' they would make the switch in a heartbeat.

The business world is constantly in tension between those that build a company to realize a dream and those who are only concerned with short term profit. Every company ever founded was built by someone who needed a infrastructure to realize their dream, Most fail but not all, The once successful companies that fail are bled dry by soulless individuals who care only for short term profit and are berift of imagination.

 

[CDavid]

You're not Disney's child.

The fact that you can even create an analogy on that level to describe your relationship with a corporation, again, says more about you than it does about Disney.

a·nal·o·gy
əˈnaləjē/
noun

1. a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
   "an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"

"An analogy is a comparison between two objects, or systems of objects, that highlights respects in which they are thought to be similar."

You are focusing on the (obviously) large differences between the two objects which aren't being compared, whereas the purpose of an analogy is to highlight a similarity. The objects being compared do not necessarily say anything about us, but rather there is some small point on which they share similarities; There is not a literal relationship. Under the debacle known as MM+, we've compared planning a Disney vacation to doing your taxes, but that doesn't make Walt Disney World a division of the IRS, a legal requirement we vacation there, nor certainly an annual chore we dread (but there is a valid comparison among two things which are unnecessarily complex).

 

[Mr. Peabody]

http://www.slashfilm.com/live-action-winnie-the-pooh/
Throws iPhone at the wall.

Winnie the Pooh live action sounds ridiculous, but it could work. I would expect something similar to how Paddington was done and looked...

The sheer volume of these projects that Disney currently producing signals a distressing creative bankruptcy. And, of all animated properties to take into live-action, why Winnie the Pooh? The Many Adventures featurettes and their animated renditions of the characters are some of the most iconic and recognizable pieces of animation ever produced. For a company as focused on branding as Disney is, it seems counterintuitive to ditch the distinctive style of the original featurettes by making it live-action.

After watching the video that @PhotoDave219 posted, I have to wonder if Disney executives saw the box office receipts for Paddington (a fantastic movie, by the way) and decided to imitate it. I wouldn't put it past them to partially blame the poor performance of the 2011 Pooh movie on its hand drawn look (and they would be mistaken if they did).

 

[jakeman]

Disney wasn't always just a faceless corporation. To you Disney may be no different to Wal-Mart or McDonalds or Target, but to the kids of the 80s and 90s they couldn't have been more different.

The company under Eisner, following the legacy of Walt, espoused a vision, a way of doing things, and holding oneself to a higher account, and a quality of experience that deeply influenced generations of kids. Engineers, artists, business leaders... many people have ended up doing what they do because of how Disney inspired them... and for those of us for whom that is true, we're all Disney's children.

The strong bond people felt to Disney wasn't to The Walt Disney Company(TM), but to the dreams and ideals of Walt Disney. We were the original pixie-dusters, and while that may seem strange to you, and maybe it is, I'd say we're better people because of it.

I was a kid of the 80s and 90s. Disney was as much a part of my childhood as the next kid (maybe more than average as I was born in Florida).

However, I'm an adult now and I understand what Disney was then and what it is now. They are the same thing. They were just better at selling the story then or because we were children we were easier to sell to. Which one is debatable. I think it was a combination of both with more of the former than the latter.

Some of us moved on and our relationship with the company has evolved to the same consumer/producer relationship as other companies.

Others, as evidence here and the lifestylers that are so much maligned, have not. Both are still looking for that relationship they had with a corporation as jaded adults that they had when they were naive children. The "D&G" group, for lack of a better categorization and the "lifestylers" are just two sides of the same corporation obsessed coin.

You're really quite full of yourself aren't you?

That's a strange thing to say in the tenth iteration of a thread full of declarative proclamations built on fractions of information.

 

[jakeman]

a·nal·o·gy
əˈnaləjē/
noun

1. a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
   "an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"

"An analogy is a comparison between two objects, or systems of objects, that highlights respects in which they are thought to be similar."

You are focusing on the (obviously) large differences between the two objects which aren't being compared, whereas the purpose of an analogy is to highlight a similarity. The objects being compared do not necessarily say anything about us, but rather there is some small point on which they share similarities; There is not a literal relationship. Under the debacle known as MM+, we've compared planning a Disney vacation to doing your taxes, but that doesn't make Walt Disney World a division of the IRS, a legal requirement we vacation there, nor certainly an annual chore we dread (but there is a valid comparison among two things which are unnecessarily complex).

I'm familiar with what an analogy is, thank you, but my statement stands.

The fact that the affection in a consumer/corporation relationship can be seen as analogous to the affection in a child/parent relationship says more about the poster than it does about about Disney.

 

[flynnibus]

I believe that GotG proved that Marvel is willing to take chances and push boundaries. I remember that people were predicting it to be Marvel's first big miss, as well as saying it was simply too weird to hit with mainstream audiences. If nothing more, I think the crazy success of GotG, or any other surprise original hit for that matter, proves that audiences don't want more of the same old. Movie studios need to have more faith in the masses sometimes, in terms of thinking they know what the audience wants.

Or simply.. a good movie that appeals to people do well. Stop looking to your 'franchises' to be the reason to make a movie.

If the top reason you have for someone to see the movie is 'character ABC is in it...' - you're running a big risk of failure. GotG was risky because it was based on things most people had no clue about... but GotG proved that doesn't matter if you put together a good film. The Marvel/Disney tag worked to get people to give it a chance... the movie carried itself.

The take-away should be... focus on a good film, not simply looking for the next Spiderman film, etc.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Or simply.. a good movie that appeals to people do well. Stop looking to your 'franchises' to be the reason to make a movie.

If the top reason you have for someone to see the movie is 'character ABC is in it...' - you're running a big risk of failure. GotG was risky because it was based on things most people had no clue about... but GotG proved that doesn't matter if you put together a good film. The Marvel/Disney tag worked to get people to give it a chance... the movie carried itself.

The take-away should be... focus on a good film, not simply looking for the next Spiderman film, etc.

While I generally agree, there's also plenty of evidence that audiences will see a crap movie (or read a crap book) just because character ABC is in it. See: Man of Steel, Transformers, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (the book), etc.

 

[ford91exploder]

Or simply.. a good movie that appeals to people do well. Stop looking to your 'franchises' to be the reason to make a movie.

If the top reason you have for someone to see the movie is 'character ABC is in it...' - you're running a big risk of failure. GotG was risky because it was based on things most people had no clue about... but GotG proved that doesn't matter if you put together a good film. The Marvel/Disney tag worked to get people to give it a chance... the movie carried itself.

The take-away should be... focus on a good film, not simply looking for the next Spiderman film, etc.

But to the 'business' types in charge of the studios now films are successful because they are 'Marvel' or 'Spiderman' I'm firmly convinced that GotG got greenlighted because the producer had compromising pictures taken at the last holiday party as there is no way a film with unknown characters would be greenlighted at today's TWDC.

Fortunately for the Producer it worked and made money!

I'm waiting for the first franchise bomb, Think of it as Marvel's 'Heavens Gate' a picture with a half billion budget and it makes 30-50 mil because it's such a stinker, It will be fun to watch Hollyweird then.

 

[flynnibus]

While I generally agree, there's also plenty of evidence that audiences will see a crap movie (or read a crap book) just because character ABC is in it. See: Man of Steel, Transformers, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (the book), etc.

Big franchises will carry a bit of inertia with them just because of the franchise itself.. no doubt. But if that's how you plan out a film... what does that say for your ambitions and objectives?

 

[Razor Roman]

Something I wanted to throw out there. If any of you recently watched Wrestlemania you probably caught that it served as a huge stage for the promotion of the next Terminator movie. Given that Universal has a partnership with WWE's biggest competitor, I wonder if Disney would ever consider a partnership with the WWE and could we ever see something along the lines of Wrestlemania promoting a Marvel or Star Wars release?

WWE's partnership with Universal is much, much deeper than TNA formerly taping their shows on a soundstage at the themepark (like WCW used to do at MGM back in the day). Universal owns USA and SyFy network. I don't know if it would prevent Disney from doing a Marvel or Star Wars promo with Triple H dressed like Darth Vader or Chewbacca, but if WWE was going to have an Orlando presence in a theme park area, Universal would be the likely partner. There was a rumor (maybe it was unsubstantiated wishful thinking) that an actual WWE Hall of Fame museum could have been part of the CityWalk area.

 

[Mike S]

While I generally agree, there's also plenty of evidence that audiences will see a crap movie (or read a crap book) just because character ABC is in it. See: Man of Steel, Transformers, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (the book), etc.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ford91exploder]

The sheer volume of these projects that Disney currently producing signals a distressing creative bankruptcy. And, of all animated properties to take into live-action, why Winnie the Pooh? The Many Adventures featurettes and their animated renditions of the characters are some of the most iconic and recognizable pieces of animation ever produced. For a company as focused on branding as Disney is, it seems counterintuitive to ditch the distinctive style of the original featurettes by making it live-action.

After watching the video that @PhotoDave219 posted, I have to wonder if Disney executives saw the box office receipts for Paddington (a fantastic movie, by the way) and decided to imitate it. I wouldn't put it past them to partially blame the poor performance of the 2011 Pooh movie on its hand drawn look (and they would be mistaken if they did).

I'm pretty sure they just saw BOX OFFICE, I'm equally convinced that this will bomb, The 2011 Pooh movie was too long and convoluted if they had condensed it to 45 minutes or so it would have been a success.

 

[ford91exploder]

Big franchises will carry a bit of inertia with them just because of the franchise itself.. no doubt. But if that's how you plan out a film... what does that say for your ambitions and objectives?

It says the accontant mindset is in charge and creativity at TWDC is well and truly dead and buried.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The worst book I've ever read in my life. I was a Barnes-and-Noble-at-midnight Potter fan and Deathly Hallows effectively destroyed my childhood. It erased ten years of my life.