A Spirited Perfect Ten

[spacemt354]

First of all..."she"?

And oh brother, "100% the same", are you for real? What would happen if Disney made its own Disney version of oh, say, Spiderman, one that varied widely from what Marvel and other studios have already done with the character? Answer: fans would scream bloody murder, because the way Spiderman is portrayed on film (over and over and over and OVER again, I might add) has been well-established. There is nothing Disney can add of any significance, and that was actually the attraction for a venal bean-counter like Iger, because all of the creative and financial risks have already been taken. Marvel, to him, is just a means of printing money.

To try to make in plainer to you, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was a huge financial and creative risk. Another Marvel movie isn't. Hopefully you know enough about the history of the Disney company under Walt to get the distinction.

I don't really want to start a whole Marvel debate, because it's been done so many times, but just in regards to your example...

- Fans of Spider-Man would not scream bloody murder if Disney changed the character. In fact, there has been a push for a Miles Morales Spider-Man instead of Peter Parker - because it's the same story told for the 3rd time.

- Iron Man was a huge risk. The Avengers was a huge creative risk. Most recently...Guardians of the Galaxy was a huge risk as well. People seem to forget those things when the films are successful.

 

[spacemt354]

NO it is not. Good grief. There's acquisition and then there's artistry. Walt bought the rights to stories, or adapted public-domain stories, and then developed them for the screen - that's where the artistry came in. That's what made Disney DISNEY.

What's the difference between that and buying the rights to comic book character stories and developing them for the big screen?

 

[gmajew]

NO it is not. Good grief. There's acquisition and then there's artistry. Walt bought the rights to stories, or adapted public-domain stories, and then developed them for the screen - that's where the artistry came in. That's what made Disney DISNEY. Just buying an already-developed IP is an acquisition, nothing more or less. It beats me why some people can't get the difference...and if they don't get it, what attracts them to Disney in the first place.

Ok but then your point dies with the new Star Wars movies.

Or the cartoons etc.

 

[Magenta Panther]

I don't really want to start a whole Marvel debate, because it's been done so many times, but just in regards to your example...

- Fans of Spider-Man would not scream bloody murder if Disney changed the character. In fact, there has been a push for a Miles Morales Spider-Man instead of Peter Parker - because it's the same story told for the 3rd time.

- Iron Man was a huge risk. The Avengers was a huge creative risk. Most recently...Guardians of the Galaxy was a huge risk as well. People seem to forget those things when the films are successful.

In the case of Mile Morales' Spiderman - Disney wouldn't be making any changes there - they've already occurred under the auspices of Marvel.

And one could say that any film is a huge risk, because so much money is involved. But do you really think a successful Iron Man movie made under the auspices of Disney is as significant as Snow White, or Fantasia, or the first sound/color cartoon, or Mary Poppins, in terms of creativity? A successful Iron Man movie could be made by ANY studio. But not any studio could have made a successful Snow White. See the difference?

 

[andysol]

At least we can all agree that Walt created the muppets, right?

 

[pixargal]

Yes, I think that is cool. I wouldn't do it, but I do recall attending my Grad Night at the MK in a tux (also the first time I was ever frisked ... no, not by a fanboi!) and the whole atmosphere was classy.

Obese dude in those beloved jorts and a wife-beater covered in ink and cursing at his kids says something else entirely and that is a bread and butter guest in the 21st century (as stated in many threads here, you'll have folks show up at the California Grill dressed like this and think they should be served).

I'll take the ones playing dress up provided they don't act like they work there (even if off-duty cast) and create disturbances by posing for pics with strangers. Beyond that, it's not harming a single Spirit.

I remember my Grad Nite, what a blast. The girls were required to wear a dress. I believe that because we dressed up we acted more mature and classy. Plus, the 80s were totally rad!

 

[spacemt354]

In the case of Mile Morales' Spiderman - Disney wouldn't be making any changes there - they've already occurred under the auspices of Marvel.

And one could say that any film is a huge risk, because so much money is involved. But do you really think a successful Iron Man movie made under the auspices of Disney is as significant as Snow White, or Fantasia, or the first sound/color cartoon, or Mary Poppins, in terms of creativity? A successful Iron Man movie could be made by ANY studio. But not any studio could have made a successful Snow White. See the difference?

Well technically Disney didn't even buy Marvel at the time of Iron Man in 2008 - but that's not really the point.

Your logic failed regarding the difference between buying Snow White and buying a current day IP, so now you're trying to imply that what Disney did was more significant with Snow White and others...

But didn't Universal Pictures release Snow White and the Huntsman in 2012? While I didn't really like the film, it was a box-office success and a sequel is planned for next year. So Disney is not the only studio capable of doing a Snow White film.

 

[Funmeister]

Well technically Disney didn't even buy Marvel at the time of Iron Man in 2008 - but that's not really the point.

Your logic failed regarding the difference between buying Snow White and buying a current day IP, so now you're trying to imply that what Disney did was more significant with Snow White and others...

But didn't Universal Pictures release Snow White and the Huntsman in 2012? While I didn't really like the film, it was a box-office success and a sequel is planned for next year. So Disney is not the only studio capable of doing a Snow White film.

Not to mention all of the non-Disney Pinocchio and Peter Pan (related) movies.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Not to mention all of the non-Disney Pinocchio and Peter Pan (related) movies.

And Cinderella, and Alice in Wonderland...

 

[Magenta Panther]

What's the difference between that and buying the rights to comic book character stories and developing them for the big screen?

You might have a point there with Big Hero 6. That was done in the grand Disney manner - a property that was NOT already fully developed was adapted and changed and plussed and made into a good movie. In that sense, it doesn't really matter where the source material for a Disney film comes from.

But do you think Iger bought Marvel for all of the creative possibilities? Do you really think that the way Walt operated and the way Iger operates are exactly the same?

I don't. Walt bought or adapted properties with the idea that they could be developed into great Disney movies because they could be given an original Disney spin. Ideas were what excited him. Iger buys stuff with the idea that they've already been developed and established and have proven merchandising success. Money is what excites him.

I think it's obvious that if Walt had ever been interested in superheroes, he would have had his studio create them, not bought something already fully-formed. Anyone who understands the history of the company, and what made it special, understands that. If you don't understand that, then there's simply nothing more anyone can say to you. But just remember that Marvel went bankrupt and now has to have Disney money to prop it up, merchandising or no merchandising, and the same goes for Star Wars...whereas Disney has never sold itself to another entertainment entity and has always managed to stand on its own two feet without superheroes or Wookiees. Wonder how that happened?

 

[spacemt354]

You might have a point there with Big Hero 6. That was done in the grand Disney manner - a property that was NOT already fully developed was adapted and changed and plussed and made into a good movie. In that sense, it doesn't really matter where the source material for a Disney film comes from.

But do you think Iger bought Marvel for all of the creative possibilities? Do you really think that the way Walt operated and the way Iger operates are exactly the same?

I don't. Walt bought or adapted properties with the idea that they could be developed into great Disney movies because they could be given an original Disney spin. Ideas were what excited him. Iger buys stuff with the idea that they've already been developed and established and have proven merchandising success. Money is what excites him.

I think it's obvious that if Walt had ever been interested in superheroes, he would have had his studio create them, not bought something already fully-formed. Anyone who understands the history of the company, and what made it special, understands that. If you don't understand that, then there's simply nothing more anyone can say to you. But just remember that Marvel went bankrupt and now has to have Disney money to prop it up, merchandising or no merchandising, and the same goes for Star Wars...whereas Disney has never sold itself to another entertainment entity and has always managed to stand on its own two feet without superheroes or Wookiees. Wonder how that happened?

This is an entirely different argument than the one you were pursuing earlier. Now we are talking about the motivation behind the purchase...

I'm no Iger apologist. He does seem to be about the money -- because "Disney is a business" - @Cesar R M
but I'm not going to sit back and say Walt was all about creativity and didn't care about money. If he didn't care about money, Disneyland and all his movies would be free.

The original Disney spin you refer to isn't some grand elaborate change. There was a Disney formula, one that was actually touched on quite well in Saving Mr. Banks. Both Marvel and Star Wars have formulas as well that make their movies successful. But they all derive from original source material. Disney did not create Snow White nor did Iger create Rocket Raccoon. In fact in the latter case, it's more Feige and co putting their spin on the characters.

Marvel got out of the red before Disney came along. The original Spider-Man films helped that. Star Wars/Lucasfilm has never been close to going bankrupt so not sure what you're referring to there.

And you do realize that in the late 1970s/early 1980s, Walt Disney Productions was in serious financial trouble, right? At that time, the parks generated 70% of the total company income, when the film studio had a string of unsuccessful movies.

 

[ParentsOf4]

And you do realize that in the late 1970s/early 1980s, Walt Disney Productions was in serious financial trouble, right? At that time, the parks generated 70% of the total company income, when the film studio had a string of unsuccessful movies.

"Serious financial trouble"?

This is an inaccurate representation of the state of the company in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Disney's company-wide operating margins were higher than they are today.

I agree that the film studio was struggling. I also agree that Disney effectively had become a theme park business. That did not mean it was "in serious financial trouble". Quite the opposite. Financially, the company was solid as a rock.

That was its problem.

Disney's stock was undervalued, making it a prime target for a hostile takeover.

 

[spacemt354]

"Serious financial trouble"?

This is an inaccurate representation of the state of the company in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Disney's company-wide operating margins were higher than they are today.

I agree that the film studio was struggling. During the time period you mention, I also agree that Disney had effectively become a theme park business. That did not mean that it was "in serious financial trouble". Quite the opposite. Financially, the company was solid as a rock.

That was its problem.

Disney's stock was undervalued, making it a prime target for a hostile takeover.

I said Walt Disney Productions - specifically referencing that as the part that was struggling. I did not suggest anything you inferred in this post.

 

[ParentsOf4]

I said Walt Disney Productions - specifically referencing that as the part that was struggling. I did not suggest anything you inferred in this post.

The name of the entire company at that time was "Walt Disney Productions".

 

[Magenta Panther]

This is an entirely different argument than the one you were pursuing earlier. Now we are talking about the motivation behind the purchase...

I'm no Iger apologist. He does seem to be about the money -- because "Disney is a business" - @Cesar R M
but I'm not going to sit back and say Walt was all about creativity and didn't care about money. If he didn't care about money, Disneyland and all his movies would be free.

The original Disney spin you refer to isn't some grand elaborate change. There was a Disney formula, one that was actually touched on quite well in Saving Mr. Banks. Both Marvel and Star Wars have formulas as well that make their movies successful. But they all derive from original source material. Disney did not create Snow White nor did Iger create Rocket Raccoon. In fact in the latter case, it's more Feige and co putting their spin on the characters.

Marvel got out of the red before Disney came along. The original Spider-Man films helped that. Star Wars/Lucasfilm has never been close to going bankrupt so not sure what you're referring to there.

And you do realize that in the late 1970s/early 1980s, Walt Disney Productions was in serious financial trouble, right? At that time, the parks generated 70% of the total company income, when the film studio had a string of unsuccessful movies.

And the company was in dire financial straits before, when Walt was alive. But he didn't sell his company, even though his brother Roy urged him to. He kept creating, and good thing too - because when he created the theme parks, at great financial risk, he helped guarantee the longevity of his company. Yes, Walt cared about money - but he saw it as a means to keep creating, not build up a huge pile of it for himself or his stockholders. That's why Iger bought Marvel and Lucasfilm. Does Disney need those entities? Iger might think it does, to ensure Disney's continuing profitability - because he's no Walt; creativity has nothing to do with any decision he makes. Maybe you think it all equates to the same thing. I don't. JMHO.

Here's an interesting article on the subject we've been discussing. It's a little dated (pre-Frozen), but I think it still has some validity: http://www.macleans.ca/culture/movies/the-mouse-eats-itself/

 

[spacemt354]

The name of the entire company at that time was "Walt Disney Productions".

Well that's not what I meant...I meant the films - which was the point of the conversation above.

 

[gmajew]

And the company was in dire financial straits before, when Walt was alive. But he didn't sell his company, even though his brother Roy urged him to. He kept creating, and good thing too - because when he created the theme parks, at great financial risk, he helped guarantee the longevity of his company. Yes, Walt cared about money - but he saw it as a means to keep creating, not build up a huge pile of it for himself or his stockholders. That's why Iger bought Marvel and Lucasfilm. Does Disney need those entities? Iger might think it does, to ensure Disney's continuing profitability - because he's no Walt; creativity has nothing to do with any decision he makes. Maybe you think it all equates to the same thing. I don't. JMHO.

Here's an interesting article on the subject we've been discussing. It's a little dated (pre-Frozen), but I think it still has some validity: http://www.macleans.ca/culture/movies/the-mouse-eats-itself/

Again what they are doing with the starwars movies is the same as walt did.

You are right disney was creative and our current leadership is not but they are doing the same thing walt did. Take other people's stories and use them to make their own.

you have to see how it is the same. As a walt fan I know I do and he is one of my business Heros.

 

[Phil12]

And the company was in dire financial straits before, when Walt was alive. But he didn't sell his company, even though his brother Roy urged him to. He kept creating, and good thing too - because when he created the theme parks, at great financial risk, he helped guarantee the longevity of his company. Yes, Walt cared about money - but he saw it as a means to keep creating, not build up a huge pile of it for himself or his stockholders. That's why Iger bought Marvel and Lucasfilm. Does Disney need those entities? Iger might think it does, to ensure Disney's continuing profitability - because he's no Walt; creativity has nothing to do with any decision he makes. Maybe you think it all equates to the same thing. I don't. JMHO.

Here's an interesting article on the subject we've been discussing. It's a little dated (pre-Frozen), but I think it still has some validity: http://www.macleans.ca/culture/movies/the-mouse-eats-itself/

Walt built a huge pile of money for himself and his family. Roy and Walt had a serious falling out over Walt's greed and Roy won the argument.
http://www.joshuakennon.com/wed-ent...holding-company-of-walt-disney/#disqus_thread

 

[VJ]

Yes, Walt cared about money - but he saw it as a means to keep creating, not build up a huge pile of it for himself or his stockholders.

“Money is something I understand only vaguely, and think about it only when I don’t have enough to finance my current enthusiasm, whatever it may be. All I know about money is that I have to have it to do things. I don’t want to bank my dividends, I’d rather keep my money working. I regard it as a moral obligation to pay back borrowed money. When I make a profit, I don’t squander it or hide it away; I immediately plow it back into a fresh project. I have little respect for money as such; I regard it merely as a medium for financing new ideas. I neither wish nor intend to amass a personal fortune. Money—or, rather the lack of it to carryout my ideas—may worry me, but it does not excite me. Ideas excite me.” -Walt Disney

 

[ParentsOf4]

Well that's not what I meant...I meant the films - which was the point of the conversation above.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Disney's film studios continued to make money. The only year the division lost money before Eisner took charge was 1983.

They were renting out Disney classics or pumping out cheap films with low production value but, as a result, none had to be blockbusters in order for the division to be profitable. In fact, most years, "Filmed Entertainment" (as they called it) had better operating margins than Parks & Resorts.

At no point were the studios "in serious financial trouble".

Again, the problem was that the Disney stock was undervalued.