I get a 404 on huffpost. Can anybody else access the article, or did TWDC make a phone call and pull the same BS they did with Jimmy Fallon Show? lol
That happened to me too. Just go back and read it in this post, he has the whole thing in a quote.I get a 404 on huffpost. Can anybody else access the article, or did TWDC make a phone call and pull the same BS they did with Jimmy Fallon Show? lol
The Huffington Post has published an article on our favorite multinational media conglomerate earlier today. It's primary concern is if Disney is Marvel and Pixar and Lucasfilm and ESPN is Disney still special or relevant? This could be called an assault on Iger The Acquierer's legacy at TWDC. The author makes a shout out to our beloved @wdwmagic too.
I get a 404 on huffpost. Can anybody else access the article, or did TWDC make a phone call and pull the same BS they did with Jimmy Fallon Show? lol
It works for me:I get a 404 on huffpost. Can anybody else access the article, or did TWDC make a phone call and pull the same BS they did with Jimmy Fallon Show? lol
http://theatlantic.com/entertainmen...rying-so-hard-to-dilute-its-brand/384852.html
Why Is Disney Trying So Hard to Dilute its Brand?
On Monday, actress and feminist icon du jour Emma Watson announced via her Facebook page that she's committed to starring as Belle in the upcoming live-action Disney adaptation of Beauty and the Beast. Yes, that Belle, in that Beauty and the Beast, the film Disney made in 1991. The news comes just before the March release of Disney's live-action Cinderella (directed by Kenneth Branagh) and The Jungle Book (directed by Jon Favreau, due in 2016). All are timeless tales based on stories much older than the Disney canon, but these films are also explicitly remakes, using the same character names that belonged to their animated forbears. In this golden age of franchises, every studio is digging through its greatest hits for material—like Universal's monster movies or Warner Brothers' Harry Potter license. But Disney's move somehow feels more shocking—it's an admission that it can no longer keep such a tight rein on its brand.
A crucial part of the Disney magic has always been its total control over "the vault," its 80-year-old catalog of animated features that are only released for sale for a limited time before becoming artificially scarce again. This policy maintains movies' already-enshrined "classic" status by ensuring that, should someone want to buy Beauty and the Beast on DVD or Blu-Ray, they'd better have $60 to pony up for a used copy. The vault has lost some of its significance as more and more viewers stream movies at home, and last year Disney struck an exclusive deal with Netflix for the rights to some of its library, but even the classic films included there flit in and out of availability.
So why the live-action remake binge? It's not that Disney has given up on animation, although it's refocused its attention from hand-drawn work to computer-animated hits like Frozen and Big Hero 6—a reflection of industry trends more than anything else. Rather, the move is a focused expansion into territory Disney has cautiously explored for years. In 2010, the studio released The Sorcerer's Apprentice, a big-budget fantasy-adventure film vaguely inspired by Fantasia's famous sequence. It bombed, partly because it was hard to tell if it was being pitched at kids or teenagers, and partly because its source material was barely identifiable beyond the film's title.
Disney has made similar mistakes in the past, mistakes that usually fall along the same lines: abandoning what works. After dominating the animated film sphere in the '90s with its renaissance of sorts, the studio started producing more niche non-musicals like Atlantis: The Lost Empire and Treasure Planet, both of which which tanked, and doomed the tradition of hand-drawn animation. Now Disney has bounced back with the old is new again approach: The Rapunzel retelling Tangled and the Hans Christian Andersen-inspired Frozen both took the classic formula of an established tale, an exotic locale, and some songs, and turned them into smash hits.
The live-action remakes offer a safe road, too, and the Tim Burton remake of Alice in Wonderland and last year's Maleficent had much in common. Neither was well-reviewed, but both earned staggering grosses worldwide by leaning in to the recognizable: big stars (Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie), the imagery of beloved Disney classics, and, of course, a juicy CGI budget. Both films had enough action to expand beyond the constricting label of children's entertainment without entirely leaving that territory behind (both were rated PG, an increasing rarity among big-ticket blockbusters).
But Disney’s live-action approach is more than easy money—it's a way to expand demographics without having to worry too much about quality. Both Disney and its subsidiary Pixar make plenty of children's films that adults can enjoy, but usually to pull that off the movies actually have to be good (for example, Up and Wreck-It Ralph). Remakes allow the studio to avoid that problem. A Cinderella reboot that features Cate Blanchett vamping it up as the Wicked Stepmother can get every generation on board, kids or not. Disney was clearly careful to produce something that would satisfy a wide age range, even parting with the film's original director Mark Romanek because he had too dark a vision in mind.
The Jungle Book will have all the elements that made the original animated work such a favorite—the song "The Bare Necessities," talking animal friends—but it also has Idris Elba voicing Shere Khan and Bill Murray as Baloo, and seasoned action director Favreau (Iron Man, Cowboys and Aliens) at the helm. Beauty and the Beast, which will be directed by Twilight: Breaking Dawn's Bill Condon, can be pitched at the kids who grew up with Emma Watson playing Hermione Granger, the grown-ups who saw Disney's original take in theaters 24 years ago, and everyone else in between. Even Watson had to acknowledge the cross-generational appeal, saying on her Facebook page, "It was such a big part of my growing up, it almost feels surreal that I'll get to dance to 'Be Our Guest.'" She has the right idea, but the wrong choice of word: as surreal as the movie industry may sometimes seem, the reality is much more calculated.
quote"WDFA is in a better shape today than it was pre-Iger"Quote I would disagree with you about WDFA. Sure it's got it's Frozen (Which should be called "The Snow Queen") cash cow now but I still mourn the death of traditional animation.
Also not worth getting into when the CEO and his rubber stamp BoD think a traditionally animated feature, on principle, is a wreckless financial decision.I love traditional animation, myself, but I can't get into a 2D vs. 3D argument. At the end of the day, it's not an argument worth having so long as quality product is coming out.
You rang?
I had just stumbled a few minutes ago, by pure accident, onto that wonderful HuffPo article everyone is already talking about here. Wow.
And the surprise mid-article explanation of Al Lutz and his online work to save Disneyland 15 years ago was utterly fascinating. I take it Al Lutz isn't entirely retired, as he obviously contributed to the HuffPo article as a "contributor". Then a second shout-out to this website where I spend too much time was icing on the cake. What a surprisingly fun yet scary read!
HuffPo's descriptions of Jay Rasulo and Tom Staggs were so good, and so accurate, that I had to put down the glass of Scotch cause I was laughing so hard. I'm sure executive egos are bruised in West LA tonight, the poor dears.
As for Iger's recent sloppy dress. Yeah, it's not good, especially on an older man like Bob. As much as I love my iStuff in my life, I blame Steve Jobs for that sloppy corporate dress code. Jobs is the one who convinced every late middle aged white guy executive that they could appear on TV and launch major stuff wearing Dad Jeans and a cashmere top. Gross.
Linking the absolutely fascinating Huffington Post article about Bob Iger here, in case later folks missed it. Run, don't walk, to go read this. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-snyder/disney-ceo-iger-readies-m_b_6520290.html
If so much of purchasing Pixar, with its $7 billion price tag, had not been wrapped up in fixing Walt Disney Feature Animation, I do not see how a good numbers guy could justify having two animation studios.Legitimately, there is no way that you can say WDFA isn't better off today. They are, once again, on top of the animation industry. Dreamworks is in deep doo-doo and Pixar needs a few mega-hits, like we all got used to, instead of moderately successful films like Monsters U. No one else is a top tier player.
Animation was on life support pre-Iger. I still don't give him credit for its resurrection. I give that to Lasseter, Catmull and the talents of literally thousands of others.
I love traditional animation, myself, but I can't get into a 2D vs. 3D argument. At the end of the day, it's not an argument worth having so long as quality product is coming out.
I love traditional animation, myself, but I can't get into a 2D vs. 3D argument. At the end of the day, it's not an argument worth having so long as quality product is coming out.
Spirit is a Redstone? Figure he wouldn't have to worry about all the CM discounts. Haha. Also, I guess full disclosure, Willow Bay (Iger's wife) is a founding member of Huffington Post, not really involved much anymore but still on the masthead.
No, Jobs was an eccentric nut case. He was not hygienic and often wore the same clothes for days. He dressed like a slob.I never really thought of it, but you know your fashion (am already afraid of meeting you wearing a pair of jorts!)and Jobs absolutely pioneered that cool, laid back look. Unfortunately, Iger is no Jobs at all.
There have been some rumors that certain execs wanted to turn WDFA into Pixar South as in it would function similarly to the recently deceased PDI.If so much of purchasing Pixar, with its $7 billion price tag, had not been wrapped up in fixing Walt Disney Feature Animation, I do not see how a good numbers guy could justify having two animation studios.
Spirit is not the author of the article. I can state that as fact.
I assure you, there were people who's Sunday was ruined by that one.
Analysts, the Street, media execs, not to mention all of those who were mentioned...everyone will be reading that. It's like a well-placed grenade.
On an entirely different note, I really do think service animals will become the next scooter/stroller/Brazillian in-park "issue" within the next 12-18 months.
Great analysis, as usual, but I think a component of the state of WDW maintenance that's just as important as capex in the discussion is labor.We discuss Disney theme park maintenance a lot on these threads but most of what’s said is opinion. However, by looking at Disney’s budgets over the decades, it’s possible to get a sense of where maintenance is today compared to where it used to be. The 2 most interesting numbers to consider are capital expenditures (capex) and depreciation.
The Huff Post brings up a point that has been stated around here before. There should be a differentiation between the "Disney" brand -- that of Mickey and animated films and theme parks with castles and pixie dust -- versus the "Disney" company -- a multi-national conglomerate that owns many different brands (not only Disney, but Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm/Star Wars, ESPN, etc.)
I'm not sure how to do it, but it might make sense to rename the overall company to a different name so that the media conglomerate is distinguished from the one distinct flagship brand. I don't know how you get away from calling the overall company "Disney" though.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.