A Spirited Perfect Ten

[WDW1974]

I think you touch on a point here that you've made several times before.

Iger is leading the company in a positive direction with IP acquisition, but through the process is diminishing the Disney brand itself.

Correct?

Yes. I think all this IP, as valuable as it may be, is watering down the value of Disney's own IP.

Heck, that doesn't even include making a deal with Cameron to use Avatar at DAK (much like NGE was touted to go world-wide, so was Avatar originally ... now, they're both confined to the swamps!)

I sit back and wonder why Iger has so little faith in IP that has made the Disney BRAND one of the best known and most respected in the world over the last 85 or so years. Han Solo and The Incredible Hulk may be kewl, but did Disney need them? And at what price?

(I know this is unpopular amongst fans, not that I care. And every fanboi and his blowup doll will be crowing about how Age of Ultron is the best movie ever in just about a week, so my timing may not be good. But I stand on the point.)

 

[doctornick]

I'm trying too hard because I'm trying to force this nugget of information called "nuance" into your brain. You're absolutely failing to see the difference between owned content and branded content.

Marvel at D23 means Marvel is Disney-branded? Okay, please explain to the reader the difference between that statement and this one: "Marvel attractions exist at Universal theme parks. Therefore, Marvel is obviously being branded as a Comcast product."

You don't see how absurd that sounds? Marvel is Marvel. That's its BRAND. Presence at or in events, places, or publications owned by various entities does not somehow negate that fact and make Marvel instead branded as whatever umbrella entity is organizing said event, place, or publication.

I've said before and I'll say again now: There are two different things that we talk about when using the term "Disney". They are very distinct but get conflated because both use the term "Disney".

One is The Walt Disney Company. This is a multi-national entertainment conglomerate. Marvel (and Lucasfilm, ESPN, etc.) is absolutely part of this. Obviously -- the company owns those properties. So they are part of the Disney company umbrella.

The second thing is the Disney brand. That is more nuances and indistinct, but generally covers things closely related to the historical Disney company founded by Walt and Roy. So, the animated movies, the theme parks, films like Mary Poppins or Herbie the Love Bug, etc. Some would include Pixar in this, given how tightly it has been associated with the core Disney brand, and because it seems to share the same "family entertainment" values. I would say very definitely that this Disney brand does not include Marvel or Star Wars or ABC/ESPN, etc.

They are two different things. Both are referred to "Disney" in the shorthand because, well, we refer to things in the shorthand. But I think it is very obvious that when people speak of and refer to the Disney "brand" that they aren't talking about Marvel. And I think this is reflected by the company not using the castle in front of those films -- they want that line to haven identity separate from that of the core Disney brand. Now, mind you, they want people to recognize that it is the Disney company putting out those massively successful films (and corresponding consumer products) but that's a different situation.

 

[spacemt354]

Or the crash of arrogance.

Frankly, I'm both nervous and curious about the Marvel release schedule. To plan that out either they have most of the scripting largely done, or they are going to be forced to shove films out quickly of lesser quality (specifically in terms of character and script development)...

I like to think it's the former...but we shall see.

I think it's the former as well. But I actually don't think they should have released the schedule to all those films.

When Spider-Man was added everything shifted and people were worried some films were being kicked to the curb (notably Black Panther who's film is now in-between Avengers: IW part 1 and 2, instead of originally placed before the 2 part film)

If they just kept things quiet and under wraps nobody would have any reason to worry. But 3 films per year is going to be tough. I hope the superhero market doesn't become saturated, as some think it already has, but they haven't done anything so far for me to not trust their plan, so we shall see.

 

[AEfx]

Before the Star Wars buyouts there were crossover toys, and Lucas certainly wasn't against pimping out his brand...in fact, that's where the core value of the IP traditionally lay.

That's the kicker - Disney is doing far more right by Star Wars than Lucas has in a very, very long time.

There is this completely inaccurate belief out there that Lucas lorded over everything Star Wars as the gatekeeper, but that's complete fiction. He hasn't even read one page of one Star Wars novel (he admits this, it's not conjecture). Lucasfilm never really made the brand cohesive, there are so many Star Wars "universes" they had to have them broken up by nearly every letter in the alphabet to differentiate them all.

Disney was the best thing that could have ever, ever happened to Star Wars - and the reverse is also true, Disney has wanted Star Wars since the 1980's when they started adding attractions. I just fail to see any negative here whatsoever - it's pretty much the most perfect media marriage of all time.

I wonder if they had acquired Star Wars in the 1980's if people would feel differently. For some reason, it seems that what company owns what really, really impacts their experience - I don't get that, because I care about what I get to experience, not who's name was on the invoice that paid for it.

 

[WDW1974]

When the best Disney can come up with "on it's own" is John Carter (which isn't even it's own, any more than just about anything else Disney has ever done), then yeah - I think it's good for Disney.

I'm sure people said the same things about 20K Leagues once upon a time.

Bull says I.

Disney could come up with good stuff on its own, but it isn't allowed to.

You see the slate of films coming out in the next three years. How much original content is there? How much from the Disney Studios?

They have decided to go in the all franchise, all tentpole, mostly sequel business. I'm sure they'll make a pooh-load of money right thru Bob Iger's retirement. Five years from now? A decade? Not quite so sure.

 

[englanddg]

That's the kicker - Disney is doing far more right by Star Wars than Lucas has in a very, very long time.

There is this completely inaccurate belief out there that Lucas lorded over everything Star Wars as the gatekeeper, but that's complete fiction. He hasn't even read one page of one Star Wars novel (he admits this, it's not conjecture). Lucasfilm never really made the brand cohesive, there are so many Star Wars "universes" they had to have them broken up by nearly every letter in the alphabet to differentiate them all.

Disney was the best thing that could have ever, ever happened to Star Wars - and the reverse is also true, Disney has wanted Star Wars since the 1980's when they started adding attractions. I just fail to see any negative here whatsoever - it's pretty much the most perfect media marriage of all time.

I wonder if they had acquired Star Wars in the 1980's if people would feel differently. For some reason, it seems that what company owns what really, really impacts their experience - I don't get that, because I care about what I get to experience, not who's name was on the invoice that paid for it.

Regarding how Lucas pimped out the IP, completely agreed.

With respect to how Disney is treating the IP? Ehhhhh....sortof.

They assigned JJ to it, which I'm mixed about. He certainly didn't do right by Star Trek.

(waits for flames to explode)

So far, I'm pleased, but I'll reserve final judgement for the final film. The #2 Teaser did its job, it did excite the fan base, but most of the fan base was excited by the re-release and the prequels as well (if you look back)...

It will make a lot of money, that's not in question. What is in question is...will it live up to the expectations it is setting for itself?

 

[AEfx]

As I said, it could turn out impressively amazing...but, it could just as easily go the other way.

At least that's my opine.

Oh I hear you. And for full disclosure, I am absolutely not a Marvel fan. When I was a kid I watched Spiderman and his Amazing Friends, but that was it. I have always been a Batman/DC guy. To this day I don't own a single Marvel comic book.

But...I've now seen all the Marvel films. I didn't even know who the hairy heck Guardians of the Galaxy were (and outside of the film, I still don't). I'll be going to Avengers 2 this week - one of my 2-3 times a year visit to the theaters (down from 2-3 times a WEEK when I was a kid).

I couldn't give the tiniest pooh about Marvel as a brand - yet, they are making good movies, so I willingly pay to watch them.

That says quite a lot, and makes me think that they must be doing something right so far to keep me interested - so while yes, the unexpected can happen - all evidence thus far seems to be pointing to continued success. I mean, my goodness - outside of comic readers, even Thor and Iron Man were like "really? they are making films of them?" head-scratchers, and once we saw what they did to the almost completely unknown outside of comic fandom Guardians (and even there they still were rather obscure) - I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt until I see otherwise, because they are doing a heck of a bang up job so far.

 

[WDW1974]

Speaking of that era, I do daresay that Star Wars and Marvel are more appropriate to the "traditional" Disney audience than Bette Midler mouthing off with four-letter words, or movies about prostitutes and their johns.

Except back then, Disney actually kept its Touchstone movie shingle separate from the squeaky clean Disney one.
There were some great films that came out -- some with Bettle Midler and four-letter words -- but they didn't become cross-marketed with WDW or Disney Animation etc.

Marvel and Lucas (and, obviously, Pixar) are all intertwined with the Disney BRAND now.

 

[doctornick]

Speaking of that era, I do daresay that Star Wars and Marvel are more appropriate to the "traditional" Disney audience than Bette Midler mouthing off with four-letter words, or movies about prostitutes and their johns.

Exactly. I don't see how what they are doing now with Marvel and Star Wars is any different from what was done in the past with Miramax. One company, different brands that it owns.

Honestly, I don't think I know anyone who thinks of Marvel or Star Wars as being part of the Disney "brand". Many don't even realize/remember that Disney owns them. In regards to the Infinity game, it's more like people would say "hey, I can play a game with both Marvel and Disney characters together" not that the Marvel characters themselves are Disney characters. I mean, you had Marvel vs. Capcom video games and it didn't make people think that Captain America was a character from Street Fighter or anything.

 

[AEfx]

Bull says I.

Disney could come up with good stuff on its own, but it isn't allowed to.

You see the slate of films coming out in the next three years. How much original content is there? How much from the Disney Studios?

They have decided to go in the all franchise, all tentpole, mostly sequel business. I'm sure they'll make a pooh-load of money right thru Bob Iger's retirement. Five years from now? A decade? Not quite so sure.

Can you give historical examples?

Because outside of Touchstone, Miramax, etc. - successful live action Disney films have been few and far between since the 1960's, anomaly, at best.

I mean, I guess they could make more sequels to The Princess Diaries?

 

[englanddg]

Bull says I.

Disney could come up with good stuff on its own, but it isn't allowed to.

You see the slate of films coming out in the next three years. How much original content is there? How much from the Disney Studios?

They have decided to go in the all franchise, all tentpole, mostly sequel business. I'm sure they'll make a pooh-load of money right thru Bob Iger's retirement. Five years from now? A decade? Not quite so sure.

They certainly are...through their now Pixar-esk animation division and through their independent films division.

That said, John Carter and Lone Ranger were terrible flops, and for good reason.

I have a personal feeling that we are about to see another drop in quality from Disney Pictures, but slumps and highlights have plagued them ever since Walt passed...so it's nothing new.

Disney live action has suffered ever since the late 60s/early 70s...and I certainly don't think we are in the new "golden age" of Disney animation. Rather it's a hiccup that reveals a deeper disease.

 

[englanddg]

I think it's the former as well. But I actually don't think they should have released the schedule to all those films.

When Spider-Man was added everything shifted and people were worried some films were being kicked to the curb (notably Black Panther who's film is now in-between Avengers: IW part 1 and 2, instead of originally placed before the 2 part film)

If they just kept things quiet and under wraps nobody would have any reason to worry. But 3 films per year is going to be tough. I hope the superhero market doesn't become saturated, as some think it already has, but they haven't done anything so far for me to not trust their plan, so we shall see.

There is no guarantee Spidey will make it into any of the films. Sony just released the rights.

If he does, I certainly hope he's not shoved in. And, the last thing the general public needs is another Spidey "origin" story...unless they do it like they did with Daredevil and let Spidey rebuild.

Just my opine.

 

[englanddg]

Can you give historical examples?

Because outside of Touchstone, Miramax, etc. - successful live action Disney films have been few and far between since the 1960's, anomaly, at best.

I mean, I guess they could make more sequels to The Princess Diaries?

Yeap, see my post, exactly my point.

 

[AEfx]

Marvel and Lucas (and, obviously, Pixar) are all intertwined with the Disney BRAND now.

I get it, but to be honest - just like you seem to think that everyone who doesn't think it's the end of the world is a "fanboi" - you keep going 'round the same circles on this topic but just make declarations but don't really explain your point, except the nebulous "it's not Disney". You have a well-known hate of Iger, and I honestly think if the man found the cure for cancer you'd still find a way to tear it down. I think if you could just see past who oversaw the purchases, you might see things a bit differently.

Again, I point to 20K Leagues Under the Sea - you don't get a lot more Disney than that when it comes to live-action, or Davy Crockett - all things that Disney acquired or absorbed from other places. The entire history of the Walt Disney Studios is based on other people's original work or stories, one way or another.

 

[WDW1974]

I love ya WDW1974, but man...this "thing" you have about Disney Infinity is really odd. You bring it up constantly as this negative thing but based on previous discussions I really don't think you know what it is.

I don't have a 'thing' for Disney's Infinity. It is what it is. A gaming platform that attracts more 31-year-old geeks likely than it does 11-year-olds. But not the point.

The point is that all of Disney's BRANDS and their IPs are tossed in play with it if you purchase the pieces etc.

I am not negative about it nor am I positive about it. I really don't wish to talk gaming because I have zero interest. But a game in which you can use Tonto ... and Hawkeye ... and Donald ... and Mr. Incredible is one in which all of Disney's BRANDS take part in the same world, even if it is created by users.

 

[englanddg]

I don't have a 'thing' for Disney's Infinity. It is what it is. A gaming platform that attracts more 31-year-old geeks likely than it does 11-year-olds. But not the point.

The point is that all of Disney's BRANDS and their IPs are tossed in play with it if you purchase the pieces etc.

I am not negative about it nor am I positive about it. I really don't wish to talk gaming because I have zero interest. But a game in which you can use Tonto ... and Hawkeye ... and Donald ... and Mr. Incredible is one in which all of Disney's BRANDS take part in the same world, even if it is created by users.

I dunno, my kiddo seems to enjoy it. I don't even have a copy...and I'm a neckbeard fanboi.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I bolded the sentence I feel like responding to. I generally hate LEDs. They give off an incredibly harsh (hospital or prison, I like to say) feel in general. I also don't like how the whole campaign to switch to them was sorta shoved through when no one seemed to be paying attention.

But WDW can still use incandescents as long as it wants as stage lighting/theatrical lighting is exempted from the law if I understand it correctly (if I don't, then I'm sure someone will use it to show what a fraud I am and damage my BRAND!) ... Not that it matters as WDW seems totally incapable of creating proper lighting just about anywhere on property. A few nights back I was walking out of the WL late at night and thought I saw one area where the lighting was all the same and synched and that was the flickering lantern like lights between WL and the Villas. Alas, a few were flickering like they were having a seizure with non-stop blinking ... like I said, Disney can't even get the basics right anymore. They are so totally lost.

You redo pricey hotel rooms at the BC and you don't sand down doors and wooden baseboards, you just throw another coat of paint over the 11 below? And then charge $500 a night for the room.

Then you're just not paying attention to LEDs. Regardless of legislation, they are a prime case of Disney bending over backwards to pick up pennies while dollars fly over head and lying about their commitment to being green. Disney would be saving tons of money if the entire resort was switched to LED and if properly designed nobody would notice the difference. But of course the upfront costs are greater than a half order of incandescent bulbs, so it doesn't happen.

 

[spacemt354]

There is no guarantee Spidey will make it into any of the films. Sony just released the rights.

If he does, I certainly hope he's not shoved in. And, the last thing the general public needs is another Spidey "origin" story...unless they do it like they did with Daredevil and let Spidey rebuild.

Just my opine.

Well he's going to be in Civil War next year. And his film is released in Summer 2017.

Marvel said they are done with origin stories when Spider-Man returns he will already be Spider-Man and they will skip all the Uncle Ben stuff.

 

[WDW1974]

@WDW1974 did you see the puff piece on Staggs in the Sunday New York Times?.

Yep. Commented on it last night ... so likely 8-9 pages ago!

 

[AEfx]

In regards to the Infinity game, it's more like people would say "hey, I can play a game with both Marvel and Disney characters together" not that the Marvel characters themselves are Disney characters. I mean, you had Marvel vs. Capcom video games and it didn't make people think that Captain America was a character from Street Fighter or anything.

And the kicker is, Disney Infinity doesn't even work that way, which is why I've never understood the point about how awful it is that Marvel characters are in it. I honestly think folks don't understand what it is.

Disney Infinity is a PLATFORM, not a single game. And, in fact, in the themed content sections - you CANNOT bring a Disney character into the Avenger's, or vice versa. Even though the software code of the disc in the box is the same, Disney and Marvel are marketed completely separately from each other in distinct packages, it just happens that the software platform that runs it is the same. You simply access different aspects of it depending on if you are playing Marvel or Disney.

In "ToyBox" mode, user generated content, you can have them in the same physical place, that is true. It would be odd if you couldn't. But this perception that Disney is just throwing them all together willy nilly into the same world is simply uninformed.