Disney Boycott

[Skipper Timekpr]

I was looking at some pages about the Disney Boycott and I've also been reading Disney: The Mouse Betrayed, while some of the things in th book are false because things have changed since it was written some things have not, like Disney's ownership of Mirimax, Hollywood Records, and Touchstone Pictures. I began to think yes while the compnay does have problems like many others do, I don't agree that the company should own these studios that are producing films that aren't what Walt had in mind, even if it's under a different name. What do you think?

 

[wdwmaniac]

I know that Disney ownes all them companies and more but some of the best movies come out of them movie companies. SO I think Disney should keep them.
If you want them to go back to old days they need to by Dreamworks, Nick and Fox and sell off parts or form an adult Disney company some how separted.

 

[epcot71]

keep in mind that some of the not so disney things made disney a success like touchtone movies-down and out in beverly hills was one of the first non-disney branded movies and made the compnay lots of money and helped bring disney back to its glory with eisner-miramax has made lots of cash flow for the company too-i have no problems with these companies just as long as they keep seperate label and not too raunchy

 

[jojoyner55]

I have no problems with any of Disney's other film labels. They have kept them very seperate and distinct from the Walt Disney film brand. Anything that is released under the Disney label I think Walt would approve of.

 

[SteveUK]

Yeah, I agree. I think loyalty should keep the Disney name as Walt intended but these seperate companies are just that, seperate companies with completely different names. Most people wouldn't know that these companies were in any way connected to Disney if somebody didn't tell them.
I think it would be great to keep Disney as an idyllic, lovely company as Walt wanted but unfortunately the world doesn't work like that, Disney is a profit making company and it has to do whatever makes the most economic sense. If that means being involved with other companies then I would rather see them do this than end up in financial trouble and see WDW suffer as a result.

 

[MKingdom25]

I don't mind the seperation. Many people don't realize these companies are even owned by Disney, and therefore only associate it with Disney until they hear about it on the news. Like epcot71 said, I don't think it should be too raunchy but I think the current setup works for now. And the extra cash flow helps non-"Disney" parts and "Disney" parts that are still wholesome (the theme parks, Disney Channel, Disney Store, etc.)

Thats my two-cents, well 5 or 6. LOL :lol:

 

[spagmoid]

I think the "morality" boycotts hurt everyone, because they distract from the real problem hurting disney, which is greed and loss of quality.

Personally, I don't think Disney should own anything but theme parks and movies. And they shouldn't create anything "direct to video" quality, or the quality of these awful TV movies they have been making.

"Cinderella 2"?? Walt would not be happy. Not to mention how the community of tomorrow turned out..

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Originally posted by spagmoid
I think the "morality" boycotts hurt everyone, because they distract from the real problem hurting disney, which is greed and loss of quality.

Hear, hear...

Say it loud, say it proud.

 

[epcot71]

big or small-even if disney cut back to only theme parks and animation there will be always be some disney haters out there.there are hundreds maybe thousands of anti-disney wesights-disney has managed to off just about every religion,race,and creed out there.arabs dont like jafar,indians dont like pochahontas,christains dont like miramax and gay day,etc,etc,etc-so they boycott the company( a company which is one of the most diverse companies in the world)disney cnat please everyone and these boycotters will never be happy with anything disney does-boycotters live for being a thorn in a companies side-i feel that disney does a great job as a company-in everything they do-yes they have some adult venues(without the disney name) and has to grow to compete in the global economy.keep in mind disney was just theme parks and animation after walt died and almost got eaten alive by the everchanging world and almost got ripped apart for scraps by corporate raiders.

 

[Monorail_Green]

Originally posted by spagmoid
the real problem hurting disney, which is greed and loss of quality.

And they shouldn't create anything "direct to video" quality, or the quality of these awful TV movies they have been making.

Well said. Since Eisner came to power in 1984, it seems his main strategy has been to expand in every direction at once: movies, new attractions/hotels, etc etc. Granted, this has brought a lot of financial success and stability to the company (considering how it struggled for a period in the 1970s and early 1980s), but it has also created - as spagmoid said - more greed and an increased loss of quality.

Frankly, the sequels - aka, Cinderella, Peter Pan, etc - suck and pale in comparison to the quality of the originals (Walt never wanted sequels in the first place too!). They seem to be more like cheap cash-ins, than worthy followers. As Eisner has even said in the past in internal memos, the first responsibility of the company is not towards people or to the quality of the products they produce: it is simply to make money.

Personally, I think it's a shame because since Eisner has come into the fold, there has been a huge backlash against Disney with most people viewing it as just another cold, money-driven corporation hiding other a facade of fantasy and "moral" values. And to some degree, I think these views are justified.

Many of the values that Disney promotes appeal to middle-class, white America: an America that excludes other nationalities and culture at times.

Well, there's my quarter's worth right there...

 

[wdwmaniac]

Disney to video movies do great they bring in alot but not as good as they should be but they are made by the Walt Disney Television. Disney needs to come out with a new "Lion King" moive to bring it back which might be Lilo and Stitch find out tomorrow morning.

 

[pheneix]

As cheap as the sequels cost to produce, I would hope they made a good amount of money.

But I have to admit, a smile did come across my face when I read that Ice Age brought in more revenue on it's first weekend than Return to Neverland ever will. Quality will win out, always*.

* Unless you build it in France, in which case you are screwed at every turn. :animwink:

 

[MrPromey]

Originally posted by Monorail_Green


Well said. Since Eisner came to power in 1984, it seems his main strategy has been to expand in every direction at once: movies, new attractions/hotels, etc etc. Granted, this has brought a lot of financial success and stability to the company (considering how it struggled for a period in the 1970s and early 1980s), but it has also created - as spagmoid said - more greed and an increased loss of quality.

Frankly, the sequels - aka, Cinderella, Peter Pan, etc - suck and pale in comparison to the quality of the originals (Walt never wanted sequels in the first place too!). They seem to be more like cheap cash-ins, than worthy followers. As Eisner has even said in the past in internal memos, the first responsibility of the company is not towards people or to the quality of the products they produce: it is simply to make money.

Personally, I think it's a shame because since Eisner has come into the fold, there has been a huge backlash against Disney with most people viewing it as just another cold, money-driven corporation hiding other a facade of fantasy and "moral" values. And to some degree, I think these views are justified.

Many of the values that Disney promotes appeal to middle-class, white America: an America that excludes other nationalities and culture at times.

Well, there's my quarter's worth right there...

Ever since Eisner came in the fold? Excuse me. Do you realize that he's been "in the fold" for nearly 20 years now? Do you realize that WDW has well more than doubled in size since he came into the fold? Do you realize that some of the most successful animated features in the history of the art have come out of Disney since he's been in the fold? Oh, and by the way, did you know that the company was in the mists of a hostile takeover where the person trying to gain control planned to sell off everything, keeping only the parks and totally destroying the Disney company that Walt Built? Did you know that until he was criticized by the board members and stock holders for micro-managing a company that was too large to be handled that way, he insisted on having last say on everything right down to the light fixtures in resorts? Do you realize that when Imagineering was reporting directly to him we got attractions like Splash Mountain?.. It's amazing how quickly people forget everything good this guy has done for the company when it falls under hard times... Never mind that the rest of the entertainment industry has been hurting as well in light of a recession and a terrorist act that gained global notoriety. Never mind that our country is in one way or another engaged in a war with someone who can and would blow up Cinderella's castle or Spaceship Earth if it would kill enough people... I understand that at the top, the buck ultimately stops with Eisner and he as the leader is held responsible for the condition of the company weather its condition is directly his work or the work of those below him. I realize that he has control over the people that have been making very bad decisions as of late and that to some degree he is responsible as a result of inaction for things getting the way they are but what a lot of people tend to forget is that the Walt Disney Company is not an eternal tribute to Walt. It's not a concert hall or a library or some public memorial. It's a for profit company that has responsibilities to the stockholders (the people that keep the gates to those parks you like open) to direct the company. Personally, I would rather see Cinderella 2 than buy Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs under the Time Warner or Universal brand or go to a WDW managed by Six Flags... You want to look at who was bad at running the company? Do a little research and see who had it from the time Walt left to the point that Eisner came "into the fold". Then come back and tell me how bad Eisner is for Disney. People think Walt is the only person Eisner can be compared to and that's a totally unfair comparison. Walt was an icon in the same sense that Mickey is. He could get loans on his word both because of his reputation and because of the time he lived in (before the savings and loan/bank scandals in the early 80's) He would probably be lost trying to manage a company the size of Disney today, though... His successors before Eisner couldn't even manage the company that was left to them...

And for the record, the priority list of any corporation that is successful lists making money before quality. If you want to go out and start your own little business that looses money each year but produces a great product, you go right ahead. What do you do when your venture capital runs out though? I'm sure a few Dot Com executives could give you pointers on that one... People invest in the company to make money. That's how the company is able to produce what it does. If the company looses money for those that invest in it, they take their money and the company can't produce anything. It's a simple law of economics. Sure, we think the direct to video movies are crap but they are cheap to produce and make far more than they cost... The movies Atlantis which was an expensive and artistically challenging movie to produce (which was largely dismissed by theater audiences that didn't see anything cute or cuddly about it) has made over twice as much in video sales than it did in theaters... These direct to video releases are like the after school cartoons... They aren't a major bleep on the radar for Disney. The Little Mermaid II will not stand with the original through history any more than the animated series did. Many people without kids and without an abnormal fascination (like all of us) with the company probably don't even realize that these sequels are being made. That's not an accident - it's why they are direct to video releases

 

[epcot71]

vey well said mr p.im a big backer of mr eisner.no he isnt perfect and yes he has made some mistakes but he has done so many wonderful things for the company-i cant really imagine disney without him at the helm.and i like to touch on a point u made too.as a ceo of a corporation he has one and one only job-if anyone disagrees with this they can ask any ceo what their main focus is-it is TO CREATE SHAREHOLDER VALUE-end of story.we all look at the last couple of years and say he is a total piece of doo-doo.now ask this has he created shareholder value,has he done his job-well right before he took over the stock was about 5 dollars and since his tenure has gone to almost 50-even at its lowest point and around 19 it still has risen and created shareholder value-

 

[The Mom]

Whoa...Mr Promey is back, and in top form! Damn, I've missed you! Now where's that duck?

 

[DisneyWorldGuru]

If you boycott Disney you boycott everyone!

Think about it, if you boycott Disney you also have to boycott Coca-Cola, Kodak, McDonalds, Hasbro, United Communications and United Vista, AT&T, Compaq, HP, NASA, Mirimax, Hollywood Records, Buena Vista Entertainment, Touchstone, Celebration, Oriental Land Co.,Mears, Bombarder, American Broadcasting Company, and everyother company that is owned by Disney or any company that sponsers Disney either by commericals and rides and products used in films made by Disney. You would also have to boycott the independent film companies that make the TV shows for ABC, ABC Family, and The Disney Channel along with ride manu. like Arrow Dynamics who design rides for Disney.

So if someone wants to boycott Disney they better be prepared to fight a loosing battle.

 

[wdwmaniac]

Disney is every where and can not be boycotted. Like DisneyWorldGuru said about all the companies. No one can total boycott them. Unless you live in the middle of now where and live in a cave but everywhere you go there's Disney and it sponser that support them. Like you not going to not use your phone because it's AT&T and your not going to walk out a restaurant because they have Coca-Cola. I my opioion some companies have a huge influnce in everyone life and you can't change that (Microsoft- Windows controls computer world, SONY- Slow but surly going to take over your household entertainment, Disney- world-wide leader in theme parks and still is the best family company problaly will become the only one. You can't total boycott Disney. Disney is pretty much the only company that has a company for kids movies Walt Disney Pictures. Dreamworks can't say that you can't say hey Dreamworks has a new movie out lets take the kids same with Fox, WB, SONY, and many more. Disney name is means FAMILY, and nothing going to change that.

 

[DisneyWorldGuru]

I was looking into all the compinies that are tied to Disney in some way. You would not even believe some are connected. I mean there was a medical company connected because of and exibit in Epcot. At least one thing you use or do or watch is connected to Disney. I mean the computer I am on now is tied to Disney (HP). The soda I drink (Vanilla Coke) is tied to Disney. Even the cell phone I use (AT&T) is connected to Disney. So there is no way on earth to boycott Disney.

 

[Talsonic]

Disney begs for sponsors!

Originally posted by DisneyWorldGuru
I was looking into all the compinies that are tied to Disney in some way. You would not even believe some are connected. I mean there was a medical company connected because of and exibit in Epcot. At least one thing you use or do or watch is connected to Disney. I mean the computer I am on now is tied to Disney (HP). The soda I drink (Vanilla Coke) is tied to Disney. Even the cell phone I use (AT&T) is connected to Disney. So there is no way on earth to boycott Disney.

I think a better way to say it is, "Disney desperately needs these sponsors". General Motors, AT&T, Exxon/Mobil, Eastman Kodak, McDonalds, HP, Coca Cola and the others could easily pull their sponsorships from Disney. GE, Ford, United Technologies, Goodyear and many other big outfits have all ready "pulled the plug" on Disney. Disney sells, most of the time. But when they stop selling, the sponsors pull their ads. If GE was still the sponsor of CoP, it would be open 24/7/365. In consideration of the bad economy, I wouldn't want to be a Disney executive looking for corporate sponsors!

 

[JLW11Hi]

I thought GE still sponsors Illuminations?