Disney (and others) at the Box Office - Current State of Affairs

[Chi84]

And that's a fine answer. The issue in this whole thing is hypocrisy. I respect you saying you'd guess it's upwards of 75%. You might be right. But your answer would be no more right than me saying it potentially offended half the country. I could be right too. Neither one of us has data on everyone. I don't want to be lectured about not having facts, only to be countered with made up facts. And the post I was replying to was clearly saying 25% of the public, not voting public. And that's just as made up as anything.

I lost you. Who said she offended half the country? I thought the idea was that Snow White is doing poorly because Zegler offended half the country with her political comment.

 

[erasure fan1]

I lost you. Who said she offended half the country? I thought the idea was that Snow White is doing poorly because Zegler offended half the country with her political comment.

Yes that's what I'm talking about. She made comments, and it potentially could have offended half the people. And that's one factor the movie could be doing poorly. Maybe it wasn't a factor at all, but that seems unlikely in the political climate we are in.

 

[LittleBuford]

I went on YouTube looking for reviews of the film and pretty much all of them, regardless of the political leanings of the content creator, are declaring it a terrible movie (an unfair characterisation, in my view). From what I can tell, viewers across the ideological spectrum aren't showing up.

 

[Chi84]

Yes that's what I'm talking about. She made comments, and it potentially could have offended half the people. And that's one factor the movie could be doing poorly. Maybe it wasn't a factor at all, but that seems unlikely in the political climate we are in.

I disagree. The subset we’re talking about are the people who felt insulted enough to let her comments change their decision to see a movie they wanted to see.

My take is that the people who care deeply enough about someone else’s political comments to let them affect their decision probably had no interest in seeing this film - or were actively opposed to it - in the first place.

This would include all the people who said they were offended but had already decided not to see the film for their own reasons.

In short, when you subtract them her remarks likely had a negligible impact.

 

[Agent H]

Eisner enjoyed having people around who actually cared about the art and the legacy rather than making a profit (they're all gone now), but he also had the same issues that Iger has. I always need to remind people of the awful DTVs that completely damaged the reputation of Disney, hand drawn animation and the original movies that received these treatments.

I'll say this in favor of Eisner is that at least he allowed the filmmakers to take more risks compared to Iger who just demands every movie to be the same, but I guess it also has to do with the culture at Hollywood at the time (less focused on franchises and more originality and creativity).

Are you talking about the guy who let superstar limo become a thing?

 

[HauntedPirate]

Are you talking about the guy who let superstar limo become a thing?

If you’re trying to take a shot at Eisner, you have many lessons that will be coming your way on the man.

 

[Farerb]

Are you talking about the guy who let superstar limo become a thing?

When you take risks, you sometimes achieve the highest highs and sometimes the lowest lows.

 

[Agent H]

If you’re trying to take a shot at Eisner, you have many lessons that will be coming your way on the man.

I’m not sure what you mean by” many lessons coming my way “ but it’s ironic you’re calling me out for taking a shot at Eisner when half your posts are making fun of Iger.

 

[Farerb]

Are you talking about the guy who let superstar limo become a thing?

By the way, not sure why you got the impression that I'm a fan of Eisner when my post clearly criticize him. I think that from my overall posts, it should be quite clear that my favorite era of Disney was when Walt was alive (even though I wasn't even born in that era). But back in the '90s those films were released on VHS and later on DVD and there was a sense of respect to the legacy of Walt and those films that just doesn't exist right now.

I like the Disney Renaissance films, but I also think they were compromised by Eisner with his insistence to produce one film per year. Their animation isn't the greatest despite animators' hard work, they had to work with the limitations they had. Beauty and the Beast is my favorite film and there are embarrassing shots in that film animation wise. In addition it was Eisner who demanded they added kiddy humor by known comedians in the films themselves, especially after Aladdin. The Gargoyles are a great example, but I also think that Mushu and Terk feel out of place in their respective films (it only works in Hercules because that movie is a farce), and the humor has become an issue to this date, only nowadays it's also irreverent. I think this is why Disney never managed to produce a true Classic after The Lion King. Classic in the sense of a movie that has become recognized for its historical or artistic significant, not in the nostalgic sense.

 

[Agent H]

By the way, not sure why you got the impression that I'm a fan of Eisner when my post clearly criticize him. I think that from my overall posts, it should be quite clear that my favorite era of Disney was when Walt was alive (even though I wasn't even born in that era). But back in the '90s those films were released on VHS and later on DVD and there was a sense of respect to the legacy of Walt and those films that just doesn't exist right now.

I like the Disney Renaissance films, but I also think they were compromised by Eisner with his insistence to produce one film per year. Their animation isn't the greatest despite animators' hard work, they had to work with the limitations they had. Beauty and the Beast is my favorite film and there are embarrassing shots in that film animation wise. In addition it was Eisner who demanded they added kiddy humor by known comedians in the films themselves, especially after Aladdin. The Gargoyles are a great example, but I also think that Mushu and Terk feel out of place in their respective films (it only works in Hercules because that movie is a farce), and the humor has become an issue to this date, only nowadays it's also irreverent. I think this is why Disney never managed to produce a true Classic after The Lion King. Classic in the sense of a movie that has become recognized for its historical or artistic significant, not in the nostalgic sense.

I don’t think you’re some big Eisner fanboy but I tire of the white knighting of him over Iger when both have had their fair share of bad ideas.

 

[HauntedPirate]

I’m not sure what you mean by” many lessons coming my way “ but it’s ironic you’re calling me out for taking a shot at Eisner when half your posts are making fun of Iger.

Bob portfolio consists mainly of purchasing IP and wringing money out of the work of those who came before him. Eisner's accomplishments? To name a few:

Disney-MGM Studios
Animal Kingdom
Disney's California Adventure
Disneyland Paris
Hong Kong Disneyland
Walt Disney Studios Paris
Typhoon Lagoon
Blizzard Beach
Tens of thousands of themed hotel rooms
Disney Cruise Line
The Little Mermaid
The Lion King
Aladdin
Beauty & The Beast
Tarzan
Mulan
Hercules
Partnered with Pixar for a few movies...
Your beloved Jack Sparrow

First decade Eisner is different than second decade Eisner, without question. But your vast reading of Disney history surely knows that. I hated the case of Sequelitis he developed. The first iteration of DCA was bad. WDSP was underbuilt (and he admitted that). Eisner cared about creativity and story and the parks, specifically. Bob's only appearances in the parks seem to be for photo ops. by and large. So don't sit there and take a juvenile shot at one ride and then claim, "I know quite a bit about Disney history". I, and many, many others around here, didn't just "read" about the Eisner years - We lived them. We have perspective you'll never have, so maybe, just maybe, you should sit back and learn from those people instead of taking potshots at a guy whose jock Iger couldn't carry with a forklift.

 

[Disney Irish]

Your digging.

You are clearly talking about HALF the country. Not the voting population. And it's funny because you said that about me when I was asking the percentage of the vote. You are clearly being disingenuous. Or you don't want to just say sorry, I didn't phrase it right. Either way it doesn't matter because the agendas are clear around here. Here's my question. You said you never said anything about 75%. So if less than 25% of all people were offended. How many were not?

I'm not digging at all, or being disingenuous. You're taking different meaning into my post than what was intended. So I have nothing to apologize for as the reader bears responsibility for taking different meaning than what the author intended. You're taking "insulted" here to mean those offended. When I'm clearly talking about those whom the post was supposedly insulting, hence the first paragraph. Which you again left off your quote because you're trying to pick a fight. Context matters which is why you cannot just take a piece of a post out of that context and try to find different meaning, something you often like to do.

I don't know how many people were actually offended, which is why I never was talking about that in the first place. For all I know only 10% of people in the entire country were actually offended.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I don’t think you’re some big Eisner fanboy but I tire of the white knighting of him over Iger when both have had their fair share of bad ideas.

I think both had very similar trajectories as CEOs and both are great examples of staying too long. The first 10 years of the Eisner era was mostly good, after the EuroDisney struggles it was mostly bad, I’d say the same of Iger, the first 10 years were mostly good, the last 10 years mostly bad. Both started out as CEOs intent on fixing problems and strengthening the brand, and I’d argue they both succeeded, unfortunately they both then transitioned into been counters who only worried about quarterly profits and both seemed to forget they lead a company based on creativity.

Both did a lot of good, both have also done a lot of bad. Had both retired after their first decade I’d have 90% positive things to say about both, unfortunately they didn’t and both are now a mixed bag of good and bad.

 

[erasure fan1]

My take is that the people who care deeply enough about someone else’s political comments to let them affect their decision probably had no interest in seeing this film - or were actively opposed to it - in the first place.

That's where we differ. It doesn't have to be "care that deeply". It's been said by a few of us that many things contributed to what's happened. Her comments didn't help anything. I think a problem is that a bunch of people here are framing this as we think it's the only reason it tanked and it really had no impact. When people like me have argued that it's not far fetched to think it did have an impact. Especially in combination with everything else.

Would it have had a better opening week if she didn't make those comments? Personally I say yea, it would have done better. It wasn't going to be a smash hit or anything, because in the end the movie was by most accounts, bad. So there was very little chance it would have any legs anyway.

 

[erasure fan1]

I'm not digging at all, or being disingenuous. You're taking different meaning into my post than what was intended. So I have nothing to apologize for as the reader bears responsibility for taking different meaning than what the author intended. You're taking "insulted" here to mean those offended. When I'm clearly talking about those whom the post was supposedly insulting, hence the first paragraph. Which you again left off your quote because you're trying to pick a fight. Context matters which is why you cannot just take a piece of a post out of that context and try to find different meaning, something you often like to do.

I don't know how many people were actually offended, which is why I never was talking about that in the first place. For all I know only 10% of people in the entire country were actually offended.

Great than. Everything you interpreted of what I said was completely wrong. So all you've said is invalid. See how that works? I guess we just both need to get better at interpretation.

 

[Disney Irish]

Great than. Everything you interpreted of what I said was completely wrong. So all you've said is invalid. See how that works? I guess we just both need to get better at interpretation.

Once again not everything is about you. I wasn’t talking specifically about you or your posts, so stop taking everything so personally and trying to pick fights. It was a general comment about all who have framed her post as insulting half the country, when clearly it wasn’t.

 

[BrianLo]

And that's a fine answer. The issue in this whole thing is hypocrisy. I respect you saying you'd guess it's upwards of 75%. You might be right. But your answer would be no more right than me saying it potentially offended half the country. I could be right too. Neither one of us has data on everyone. I don't want to be lectured about not having facts, only to be countered with made up facts. And the post I was replying to was clearly saying 25% of the public, not voting public. And that's just as made up as anything.

I’d like to counter on your end of the argument that offense would most likely be reflected in approval ratings. Which is 45%, so it is closer to half of the broader country still. Whether people actually voted or not.

Edit - though that would assume that full batch even knew about it, but I admit it has gotten more air time than expected. Though many people can be pretty dense on the news cycle.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I have decided that 97.7% of the US population was deeply offended by Zegler’s comments and resolved not to see the film. I have no evidence for this but it confirms my partisan priors and thus is objectively true.

In a related decision, I have resolved that the multi-year hate campaign that commenced immediately upon Zegler’s casting and which unearthed and broadcast those later comments was entirely the work of two unemployed Mississippian polecat giggers and absolutely no one else was ever aware of the effort.

Please note that these decisions are in no way contradictory. Thank you.

 

[BrianLo]

Bob's only appearances in the parks seem to be for photo ops. by and large.

Eisner liked the parks more than Iger, Eisner saw the value in general entertainment more than Iger. These things I think are fairly hard to argue.

But Iger has weirdly softened in his old tenure. What I quoted I think ‘was’ true, other than Shanghai Disney. But I think he’s been in the parks for non photo ops the last 2 years more than his other 18 combined. He’s been through every resort multiple times now and very few of them associated with new land offerings. He was even at Aulani.

Likewise he seems to have done a mild about face on general entertainment, but that may be driven by his newest audition and heir apparent.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Eisner liked the parks more than Iger, Eisner saw the value in general entertainment more than Iger. These things I think are fairly hard to argue.

But Iger has weirdly softened in his old tenure. What I quoted I think ‘was’ true, other than Shanghai Disney. But I think he’s been in the parks for non photo ops the last 2 years more than his other 18 combined. He’s been through every resort multiple times now and very few of them associated with new land offerings. He was even at Aulani.

Likewise he seems to have done a mild about face on general entertainment, but that may be driven by his newest audition and heir apparent.

To what extent is that “softening” on the parks and to what extent is it a growing concern for his physical legacy? And are those different?