A Spirited Perfect Ten

[spacemt354]

The Amazing Spider-Man is panned widely enough for lack of interest on story to be more than warranted. Spider-Man, the 2002 film, was a huge hit but is not a "Disney" film. Parts of the X-Men film series falls into the same category.

The lack of interest in The Amazing Spider-Man story was the fact that it told the same story that it did in 2002 with a less interesting villian, in the middle of a summer blockbuster season that featured The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises. Despite making over $700M in the box-office, it didn't generate much fan traction because Sony hardly did anything innovative with Spider-Man in the re-boot.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The lack of interest in The Amazing Spider-Man story was the fact that it told the same story that it did in 2002 with a less interesting villian, in the middle of a summer blockbuster season that featured The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises. Despite making over $700M in the box-office, it didn't generate much fan traction because Sony hardly did anything innovative with Spider-Man in the re-boot.

All of which is completely besides the point. Why the new films are largely disliked is unimportant, because this isn't about the general audience. That is why I pointed to the critically and popularly acclaimed 2002 film that remains of no interests to those who suddenly became fans when Disney bought Marvel. The X-Men films are also not noted despite a swing back towards better storytelling and popular success.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

For me, the biggest gamble and most creative thing to come out of Iger's tenure, and also live up to his self delusions of a being a technologist, is Disney Movies Anywhere. It is very forward embrace of digital content and letting consumers purchase once for content, versus the love of costumers buying titles again in a new format.

Speaking of which, the other Hollywood studios are circling around the possibility of licensing KeyChest.
https://www.theinformation.com/As-UltraViolet-Fades-Studios-Ponder-Options.html

 

[spacemt354]

All of which is completely besides the point. Why the new films are largely disliked is unimportant, because this isn't about the general audience. That is why I pointed to the critically and popularly acclaimed 2002 film that remains of no interests to those who suddenly became fans when Disney bought Marvel. The X-Men films are also not noted despite a swing back towards better storytelling and popular success.

How can you differentiate the select fan population that likes all Disney-products with the wide-acclaim of people who enjoyed Sam Raimi's Spider-Man, and to a greater extent Spider-Man 2? You're trying to segregate a Disney-lifestylers and the general audience but that's not easy. A Disney and general film fanatic could have liked Spider-Man in 2002 because it's a good comic film and could have simply become a more eager fan of when two interests combined in 2009.

Your argument would be easier to make if the MCU films were a critical and financial flop, yet Disney fans still like it because it's Disney. It becomes harder when the success of Iron Man in 2008 generated buzz about the future of the film Universe, particularly the post-credits scene with Nick Fury. The success was amplified with The Avengers and it's tough to make the argument now that Disney fans only became Marvel fans due to Disney/Marvel relationship, because the popularity is too widespread. Except for the vocal minority, as I had mentioned earlier, I would make the claim that people (Disney fans included) became Marvel fans again because the films were higher quality than before. 2005 Fantastic Four, 2007 Spider-Man 3, 2007 Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer.

I wouldn't call those films quality. And since Spider-Man in 2002 is out of context with the MCU, it would be natural for fans of the current Universe to chalk the film up to a success, however not have as much of an interest in it because has no relevance on the current universe. The popularity of Spider-Man is motivating the fans of the MCU to break Spidey's exclusion and have him join a popular ensemble (just as in the comics). That way a very popular character can interact with other popular characters in a more concise and understandable universe, instead of two distinct ones.

 

[Cesar R M]

That image of Moana is from a website called Project-casting.com. It is not a Disney affiliated website. Best I can tell, that's the only place it's appeared. That doesn't mean it is or is not legitimate. But a quick google search will show you numerous other versions of Moana from other seemingly official sites that aren't Disney either. SO far, the only official Disney art I've seen is scenery, not characters. Again, just giving the background I could find with a quick search. I don't have inside info on the project.

I just really hope they do not go with the same style as Frozen and Tangled.

 

[Cesar R M]

It will sell better if she were blonde

Dont give them ideas, hollywood is already whitewashed to the death.

 

[Cesar R M]

Eisner was the one who announced 2D was dead, and presided over some real clangers towards the end. If we're discussing Iger's merits as a CEO, and tearing apart his performance on the parks, we have to be fair and credit him for successes, and turning around WDFA - or at least giving Lasseter the freedom to do so - is one of them.

Eisner's last five years gave us Atlantis, Brother Bear, Lilo & Stitch, Home on the Range and Chicken Little - average at best, terrible at worst - while Iger has given us Tangled, Wreck-It Ralph, Frozen and Big Hero 6, as well as another shot at 2D with Frog and Pooh. Not a bad one in the bunch.

brother bear and lilo and stitch were above average.

As for "giving credit for letting lesetter do his thing" , really? only an idiot would pull the smoking gun that made pixar a success.

 

[Cesar R M]

The reason people like the Marvel movies isn't because of Iger; it's because of the content within the movies. It has great acting, even better scripts, and amazing footage. All work done by *le gasp* NOT Iger.

Lets not forget that Marvel was firing on all cylinders already with Iron Man.
Disney just boarded the train and put the gear on "D".

 

[Cesar R M]

As we seem to be speaking of animation... I just returned from a faux 5% Magic cruise where they were screening Lucasfilms "Strange Magic". I see few movies so I am not sure if this is in anyway a Disney project or just Lucas. But you can see a trailer on Youtube of course if you like. I lasted seven minutes, due to a horrid beginning for my taste, but even in that short time I was impressed with the animation. Disney? Lucas? Pixar? I would be curious if anyone knows who is more of a movie geek than myself.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3IWDBcWoMY

That movie looks way too much like a mixup between "EPIC" by Bluesky and "Arthur and the Invisibles"

 

[Cesar R M]

The point that I was trying to make in the beginning is that Disney does not have the rights to all their characters, particularly Spiderman. If they did, Spiderman would become a part of the Avengers team in the MCU.

which he might.
As others said..There is a rumor, talking that the owners of the Spiddy rights...caved in and will let Spiderman be used in the avengers civil wars and beyond.
But who knows if this will be the "Ultimate" spiderman, the Miles Morales one or the "amazing" spiderman.

 

[BrerJon]

How can you differentiate the select fan population that likes all Disney-products with the wide-acclaim of people who enjoyed Sam Raimi's Spider-Man, and to a greater extent Spider-Man 2? You're trying to segregate a Disney-lifestylers and the general audience but that's not easy. A Disney and general film fanatic could have liked Spider-Man in 2002 because it's a good comic film and could have simply become a more eager fan of when two interests combined in 2009.

I think a lot of the perception some have of fans only becoming fans post merger is anecdotal, so not something anyone can prove. I definitely see it though. I know lots of girls who have seem to have only started to really like Star Wars since Kennedy took over, who weren't remotely interested in it during the Clone Wars or back when Revenge of the Sith was released, and just from the Halloween costumes at Mickey's Not So Scary you can tell the presence of Marvel characters has gone up many times over.

 

[Jon81uk]

The point that I was trying to make in the beginning is that Disney does not have the rights to all their characters, particularly Spiderman. If they did, Spiderman would become a part of the Avengers team in the MCU.

Even though Marvel Studios don't have the film rights at the moment, they still have the general Spiderman rights as he is still a Marvel Comics character. One of the biggest reasons Disney wanted Marvel, I think, is the merchandising. The Disney Princesses are very popular with girls, but Disney are lacking in characters for boys. I have recently seen the same item of merchandise done two ways, pink with Princesses and red/blue with Spiderman.

 

[TP2000]

Walt didn't like neckties, I'm ok with it.

Did Walt tell you that? He wore a coat and tie regularly on weekdays until his death. And when it was time for public appearances on TV or in his park, he was almost ALWAYS in a necktie.

The only photo I know of with Walt in Disneyland without a necktie on was this circa 1957 photo shoot for Life Magazine. Walt and his wife and their lovely daughter were photographed riding a few rides, and Walt is wearing a casual shirt and a sport coat. That's about as casual as Walt ever got in public.

This was Walt's usual dress code on working visits to Disneyland, seen here on Main Street USA and mobbed for autographs by Disneyland guests circa 1962. Walt had been driving Disneyland's Fire Engine down Main Street, but had to pull over to the curb to sign autographs. Can you imagine Bob Iger doing this?!?

We also just used this photo over in the Disneyland forum here, but it works here as well. It's Walt Disney in 1966 visiting WDI's Glendale campus about 15 minutes from the Burbank Studios. Judging by the angle of the sun and Walt's lightweight (seersucker perhaps?) jacket, it's Summer '66. He's there to test out a mock-up of the PeopleMover that's going to be installed at Disneyland in 1967. He's wearing a coat and tie as he rides around on the test train at Imagineering. This wouldn't have been a photo shoot designed for public consumption, due to the ugliness of the setting and un-magical aspect of the testing process. It's just what Walt chose to wear to work that day.

 

[Nubs70]

Dont give them ideas, hollywood is already whitewashed to the death.

You could have Tan Elsa and Nordic Elsa.

 

[ParentsOf4]

Marvel will never be Disney to me. To this day I still don't understand the logic behind the acquisition outside of pure finance but I used to believe that Disney was above that and that brand integrity was more important than that.

Since Iger became CEO, Disney has spent over $40 billion on stock buybacks. (Just think what one-tenth of that could do for WDW. )

Buybacks do not generate revenue or profit. They inflate stock price but otherwise are like stuffing cash in a mattress.

Excluding 2009, the year of the Marvel purchase, Iger has averaged $4.9 billion in stock buybacks annually.

The Marvel purchase cost Disney $4.6 billion. Stock buyback that year were $138 million. (That's $2.5 billion less than Iger's next lowest year.)

$4.6 billion + $138 million = pretty darn close to Disney's average annual stock buyback.

In 2009, some administrative genius no doubt figured that it was smarter to actually invest in something rather than stuff more cash in the mattress.

 

[Mike S]

Did Walt tell you that? He wore a coat and tie regularly on weekdays until his death. And when it was time for public appearances on TV or in his park, he was almost ALWAYS in a necktie.

The only photo I know of with Walt in Disneyland without a necktie on was this circa 1957 photo shoot for Life Magazine. Walt and his wife and their lovely daughter were photographed riding a few rides, and Walt is wearing a casual shirt and a sport coat. That's about as casual as Walt ever got in public.

This was Walt's usual dress code on working visits to Disneyland, seen here on Main Street USA and mobbed for autographs by Disneyland guests circa 1962. Walt had been driving Disneyland's Fire Engine down Main Street, but had to pull over to the curb to sign autographs. Can you imagine Bob Iger doing this?!?

We also just used this photo over in the Disneyland forum here, but it works here as well. It's Walt Disney in 1966 visiting WDI's Glendale campus about 15 minutes from the Burbank Studios. Judging by the angle of the sun and Walt's lightweight (seersucker perhaps?) jacket, it's Summer '66. He's there to test out a mock-up of the PeopleMover that's going to be installed at Disneyland in 1967. He's wearing a coat and tie as he rides around on the test train at Imagineering. This wouldn't have been a photo shoot designed for public consumption, due to the ugliness of the setting and un-magical aspect of the testing process. It's just what Walt chose to wear to work that day.

Forget giving autographs. I doubt anyone would want Iger's autograph in the first place.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Even though Marvel Studios don't have the film rights at the moment, they still have the general Spiderman rights as he is still a Marvel Comics character. One of the biggest reasons Disney wanted Marvel, I think, is the merchandising. The Disney Princesses are very popular with girls, but Disney are lacking in characters for boys. I have recently seen the same item of merchandise done two ways, pink with Princesses and red/blue with Spiderman.

Case in point would be Spider-Man. Sony is able to now able to stall and have to be negotiated with over bring Spider-Man to the Marvel Cinematic Universe because Disney traded the time limits on the rights for the merchandise rights to Sony's films. Marvel Studios is stuck having to negotiate, instead of being able to pressure Sony to just give up because people are done with their films, because Disney was far more interested in selling Andrew Garfield action figures.

 

[RSoxNo1]

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

What did they do with the Fallon show?

 

[Jon81uk]

Case in point would be Spider-Man. Sony is able to now able to stall and have to be negotiated with over bring Spider-Man to the Marvel Cinematic Universe because Disney traded the time limits on the rights for the merchandise rights to Sony's films. Marvel Studios is stuck having to negotiate, instead of being able to pressure Sony to just give up because people are done with their films, because Disney was far more interested in selling Andrew Garfield action figures.

In fact I think that can be applied to a lot of Disney at the moment, Mickey mouse is just a face to put on a lunch box, mug, waffle maker, etc etc. They only want films to do well so they can sell more merch.

 

[doctornick]

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.

This has come up before, but I'm extremely skeptical that the number of people who fit that bill is large at all.

For starters Star Wars was extremely popular before Disney bought the company. To pretend that suddenly you had a whole lot of new people now "love" the product because of the Disney purchase seems specious at best.

Marvel has a better case as there are far more fans or at least much better public awareness of that brand than before the Disney takeover. But there's some significant cause and effect there at question. Are people fans simply because Disney bought them? Or at the now fans because Marvel has made some tremendous movies that have been lapped up by the general public? I would argue it is the latter, especially since it is not even commonly advertised that Marvel is part of Disney. I think the number of people who associate the two at all is very small -- there's no castle before the Marvel movies, after all.

Personally, I think people on these boards vastly over exaggerate the number of folks who are "brand advocates" for Disney and love stuff just because Disney makes it. People love high quality products and it just happens that Marvel (and Pixar before it) has been making high quality work.