Disney Buying LucasFilm! WHOA

[WDW1974]

Fair enough. I'll be more clearer when I agree to your post with a comment. :lol

I try to be a realistic fanboy. Is that a oxymoron?

No. Not at all.

I am the biggest Disney fan I know. ... Well, OK, not quite on a Lifestyler level, but a healthy one.
But I am quite realistic and knowing how Disney operates and how WDI operates and how media giants in general operate color my opinions in a very realistic shade of gray.

 

[doctornick]

IF a Star Wars land got built and they did something like you suggested, they sure as heck better place an Indy ride in the MK if they're ousting the show. Indy needs to remain a presence in the parks. I like Star Wars, but love Indy. If they added all the Star Wars stuff but killed off Indy, they'd lose my business at DHS.

Oh, I agree with you. I'd want to see IJ keep a presence in WDW. In this scenerio, I'm imagining a new IJ ride (whether similar to the DL version or a new concept like a water ride) be built somewhere in WDW -- either a different location in DHS or on the expansion pad in Adventureland being the most reasonable options.

I do think that they'll need the stunt show land if they want to make a fully comprehensive Star Wars area in DHS. Certainly, TDO might not be that ambitious.

 

[WDW1974]

Let's.

You did say in your post that this decision was likely made recently - It seemed that Disney was trying to create a sci-fi/fantasy frachise for the young boy/teenager crowd. it is my opinon that the failure of John Carter ( and the hit to earnings and the stock ) along with the previous failure of Prince of Persia pushed Iger to go with proven winners; Marvel and Lucas. Do you think there is any validity to that?

Sure.

But Iger has no one to blame but himself there. And he's already tried blaming D-ick Cook and Rich Ross, but they followed his mandate to cut production to a small slate of films with the Disney banner and that 98% of those were going to be either big budget tentpoles or have franchise potential. That's an awful strategy for running a Studio. Where you can have a film like Avengers do HUGE business around the globe, yet not make up for a John Carter-sized disaster.

This isn't the days where you had Disney films coming out under Disney, Touchstone, Hollywood and Miramax and you released Pixar too. Where you could have a handful of total flops because some film with a small budget wound up making huge returns.

When you release a handful of films in a few years and they include John Carter, Prince of Persia, Sorceror's Apprentice, Tron Legacy, Mars Needs Moms etc you need a Pirates 4 or an Avengers just to break even. It's an awful strategy.

I think that's why this appeals so much to Iger. A new Star Wars film is guaranteed to bring in billions when merchandise is included and DVDs etc ... so he thinks that plus endless Marvel sequels and what he hopes are many more Pixar hits (although with their budgets, the profit becomes smaller than you'd think ... Brave has made $235 million domestically, yet will only be a 'hit' when international BO and merchandise is added. That shouldn't be either. The budgets are too damn high.) and he hopes that Pirates is good for another 2-3 films and that Lone Ranger and Oz can become franchises for Disney under its own banner.

You know, I'm watching Kimmel in Brooklyn and I think I went off on a Spirited tangent so not sure I directly answered your question. But I think I did in the sense of the Studios and what Disney is thinking.

I'l also just drop in that I finally saw Frankenweenie last week and thought it was just OK, and Disney will lose a bundle on that one.

 

[fractal]

Sure.

But Iger has no one to blame but himself there. And he's already tried blaming D-ick Cook and Rich Ross, but they followed his mandate to cut production to a small slate of films with the Disney banner and that 98% of those were going to be either big budget tentpoles or have franchise potential. That's an awful strategy for running a Studio. Where you can have a film like Avengers do HUGE business around the globe, yet not make up for a John Carter-sized disaster.

This isn't the days where you had Disney films coming out under Disney, Touchstone, Hollywood and Miramax and you released Pixar too. Where you could have a handful of total flops because some film with a small budget wound up making huge returns.

When you release a handful of films in a few years and they include John Carter, Prince of Persia, Sorceror's Apprentice, Tron Legacy, Mars Needs Moms etc you need a Pirates 4 or an Avengers just to break even. It's an awful strategy.

I think that's why this appeals so much to Iger. A new Star Wars film is guaranteed to bring in billions when merchandise is included and DVDs etc ... so he thinks that plus endless Marvel sequels and what he hopes are many more Pixar hits (although with their budgets, the profit becomes smaller than you'd think ... Brave has made $235 million domestically, yet will only be a 'hit' when international BO and merchandise is added. That shouldn't be either. The budgets are too damn high.) and he hopes that Pirates is good for another 2-3 films and that Lone Ranger and Oz can become franchises for Disney under its own banner.

You know, I'm watching Kimmel in Brooklyn and I think I went off on a Spirited tangent so not sure I directly answered your question. But I think I did in the sense of the Studios and what Disney is thinking.

I'l also just drop in that I finally saw Frankenweenie last week and thought it was just OK, and Disney will lose a bundle on that one.

Thanks,


Cook and Ross were the fall guys which is typical in any big company after those type of failures. I agree that ultimate blame goes to Iger but I will argue that he knew he had two strikes on him and couldn't afford another in house disaster. His head was next on the chopping block. To his credit he sought out a couple of proven winners - my concern is the amount they had to pay and the opportunity cost of that money. Had they been able to develop an in house franchise, those $billions could have been spent elsewhere.

The Marvel and Lucas deal more or less guarantees that Iger can ride off into the sunset in 2015, which is good for him and what really appeals to him, but the previous failures under his watch is much more costly to Disney than the losses on John Carter. Just my humble opinion.

Thanks for the tip on Frankenweenie. I'll now wait for video. I will see Wreck-it-Ralph in the theater.

 

[FigmentJedi]

Sure.
I'l also just drop in that I finally saw Frankenweenie last week and thought it was just OK, and Disney will lose a bundle on that one.

Not too much. Frankenweenie only cost 39 million and has made around 50 million including international box office.

 

[WDW1974]

Thanks,


Cook and Ross were the fall guys which is typical in any big company after those type of failures. I agree that ultimate blame goes to Iger but I will argue that he knew he had two strikes on him and couldn't afford another in house disaster. His head was next on the chopping block. To his credit he sought out a couple of proven winners - my concern is the amount they had to pay and the opportunity cost of that money. Had they been able to develop an in house franchise, those $billions could have been spent elsewhere.

That's for sure. But I worry (and so do some in the company) that Disney could have TWO huge disasters on its hands next year in Oz and Lone Ranger. I worry more about the former than the latter. But those films are costing a small fortune to make and market, which means they need to make a big fortune to actually be successful. Iger can gush over Iron Man 3 (which everyone will also think is a Paramount film due to the agreement when Disney bought distribution rights), but it can be another Avengers (which it won't) and the Studios will be a disaster if those two others bomb.

And while Monsters U truly looks wonderful, the last Pixar sequel (Cars 2, the only Pixar film I have yet to see) wasn't a hit in any real sense except merchandise. Monsters merchandise won't move like Cars will (hell, I almost bought a Mater toy today at the mall just 'cause I thought it would be cool in my office).

The Marvel and Lucas deal more or less guarantees that Iger can ride off into the sunset in 2015, which is good for him and what really appeals to him, but the previous failures under his watch is much more costly to Disney than the losses on John Carter. Just my humble opinion.

Oh, I think that's for sure. ... And it's why I will be so glad to see him go (and take Staggs and Rasulo on with him). I think he's been a capable manager, who has been good at purchasing talent. That's really all I can say.

Thanks for the tip on Frankenweenie. I'll now wait for video. I will see Wreck-it-Ralph in the theater.

Yeah, it wasn't bad. But it was stretched and you could tell, even if you didn't know its history. Ralph really looks great according to pretty much everyone I know who has seen it. Between Wreck-it-Ralph, The Flight and Skyfall, I will have to take a few afternoons off.

 

[WDW1974]

Not too much. Frankenweenie only cost 39 million and has made around 50 million including international box office.

Add in all the marketing costs and it needs to make quite a bit just to get out of the red.

That dog died quickly.

Shame as it's not a bad film, but it isn't one of Burton's best despite being so personal for him.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Sure.

But Iger has no one to blame but himself there. And he's already tried blaming D-ick Cook and Rich Ross, but they followed his mandate to cut production to a small slate of films with the Disney banner and that 98% of those were going to be either big budget tentpoles or have franchise potential. That's an awful strategy for running a Studio. Where you can have a film like Avengers do HUGE business around the globe, yet not make up for a John Carter-sized disaster.

This isn't the days where you had Disney films coming out under Disney, Touchstone, Hollywood and Miramax and you released Pixar too. Where you could have a handful of total flops because some film with a small budget wound up making huge returns.

When you release a handful of films in a few years and they include John Carter, Prince of Persia, Sorceror's Apprentice, Tron Legacy, Mars Needs Moms etc you need a Pirates 4 or an Avengers just to break even. It's an awful strategy.

I think that's why this appeals so much to Iger. A new Star Wars film is guaranteed to bring in billions when merchandise is included and DVDs etc ... so he thinks that plus endless Marvel sequels and what he hopes are many more Pixar hits (although with their budgets, the profit becomes smaller than you'd think ... Brave has made $235 million domestically, yet will only be a 'hit' when international BO and merchandise is added. That shouldn't be either. The budgets are too damn high.) and he hopes that Pirates is good for another 2-3 films and that Lone Ranger and Oz can become franchises for Disney under its own banner.

You know, I'm watching Kimmel in Brooklyn and I think I went off on a Spirited tangent so not sure I directly answered your question. But I think I did in the sense of the Studios and what Disney is thinking.

I'l also just drop in that I finally saw Frankenweenie last week and thought it was just OK, and Disney will lose a bundle on that one.

I don't think I quite understand how Oz could become a franchise. Disney is doing an Oz "prequel" of sorts, with the film about how the Wizard came to be in the Land of Oz. But what comes after? More films involving the Wizard and his dealings with the "Wicked" (quotation marks are deliberate) Witches?

 

[FigmentJedi]

I don't think I quite understand how Oz could become a franchise. Disney is doing an Oz "prequel" of sorts, with the film about how the Wizard came to be in the Land of Oz. But what comes after? More films involving the Wizard and his dealings with the "Wicked" (quotation marks are deliberate) Witches?

There are 14 Oz books by Baum himself and even more beyond that. There's plenty of opportunity for Disney to do more in Oz.

Hell, I'd applaud the idea of Disney taking their own whack at the original book and tell it in a new way. It might not be entirely able to get away from the MGM version seeing as even that's coloring some of what Great and Powerful is doing, but I think it'd be great to see Disney attempt a version that skews a little closer to the books that isn't quite as saccharine. People keep moaning about how "Oh Wizard of Oz is a sacred cow of a film", but I think it needs to stop just because it's been holding back every adaptation of Oz since.

 

[stevehousse]

With all the OZ talk i have mixed feeling about a land, i would love for a SW expansion for DHS!!! so many posibilities!!! BTW, Return to OZ is my fav OZ movie of all time!

 

[SirLink]

Exactly. And yet there are so many people here completely ignoring that because they're too busy jumping up and down and wetting their pants over Disney's latest acquisition. "Oh boy, a Marvel/Star Wars park in Disneyland! AWESOME!!!!" *hurl* Forget the actual Disney creations locked in the vault with no attractions built around them, forget the legacy of bold original creativity that MADE the company, forget the broken Yeti, just as long as there's a chance that CM dressed up as Darth Vader will appear in Tomorrowland breathing heavily and waving a plastic light saber. Oh, Walt, I weep for your company...

Let's not get all go forgetting Winnie the Pooh, Peter Pan and Mary Poppins had rights either negotiated for use or bought full interlectual rights for characters.

Disney has tried doing Sci Fi before its been an unmitigated disaster so why not buy rights to beloved characters, and call it a day.

 

[Vader2112]

Nope.

There is as much talent out there now as ever before. It just isn't being allowed to create. The original ideas get buried for the tried and true, yet that doesn't get us anywhere we haven't been before and where's the fun in that?

Disney isn't the only company that is risk averse, which is why we get the same crap. And they'll milk it as long as they can. But Iron Man ain't James Bond. They aren't gonna make 23 of those films. And I'm guessing we're close to a poing where some comic films will soar and others will crash and burn very badly.

Nope.

There is as much talent out there now as ever before. It just isn't being allowed to create. The original ideas get buried for the tried and true, yet that doesn't get us anywhere we haven't been before and where's the fun in that?

Disney isn't the only company that is risk averse, which is why we get the same crap. And they'll milk it as long as they can. But Iron Man ain't James Bond. They aren't gonna make 23 of those films. And I'm guessing we're close to a poing where some comic films will soar and others will crash and burn very badly.

Funny you mention James Bond. I think they see Star Wars as this type of opportunity.
I should say do not get me wrong I am excited by the news and possibility of expanding that "universe" as you can most likely tell my my screen name. I can not wait for all the casting speculation to begin and director and producer to be named. I would also like to see what if any rights Lucas
retained in the deal.
I think this deal will ultimately help Disney possibly on several fronts and could greatly invigorate a beloved movie franchise.

 

[Walter Yensid]

I keep hearing that Disney lacks creativity because they just buy IP now and do not build their own characters and stories.

However, Walt Disney was the master of taking existing IP and maximizing its value. Yes, he created amazing and memorable characters in Mickey, Donald, etc. However, the characters and stories that really put Disney on the map and drove its initial success were existing IPs (Snow White, Peter Pan, Jungle Book, Mary Poppins, etc). Walt did not create these original stories. Instead, he saw them as not being maximized and he felt he could tell the story better. Disney is the same now. Of course, Walt did not have to pay $4 bil for that, but it is a different time today.

Believe me, I also want Disney to create original characters and IP as I feel all companies are recycling the old (how many more re-makes do we all need). But, to say Disney is not creative at all just because it buys or uses existing IP, that is like saying Walt was not creative. At the end of the day, it is what they do with it. We will have to wait and see. But, like Walt seeing Snow White and the other stories just remain bedtime stories in their country of origin, Disney saw Star Wars sitting dormant as well and felt it could tell the 'story' better.

For all of us, I am hoping for them to do something great with it and revitalize characters/stories and a brand that majority of us love, but was tarnished with the newer movies.

 

[SirLink]

I keep hearing that Disney lacks creativity because they just buy IP now and do not build their own characters and stories.

However, Walt Disney was the master of taking existing IP and maximizing its value. Yes, he created amazing and memorable characters in Mickey, Donald, etc. However, the characters and stories that really put Disney on the map and drove its initial success were existing IPs (Snow White, Peter Pan, Jungle Book, Mary Poppins, etc). Walt did not create these original stories. Instead, he saw them as not being maximized and he felt he could tell the story better. Disney is the same now. Of course, Walt did not have to pay $4 bil for that, but it is a different time today.

Believe me, I also want Disney to create original characters and IP as I feel all companies are recycling the old (how many more re-makes do we all need). But, to say Disney is not creative at all just because it buys or uses existing IP, that is like saying Walt was not creative. At the end of the day, it is what they do with it. We will have to wait and see. But, like Walt seeing Snow White and the other stories just remain bedtime stories in their country of origin, Disney saw Star Wars sitting dormant as well and felt it could tell the 'story' better.

For all of us, I am hoping for them to do something great with it and revitalize characters/stories and a brand that majority of us love, but was tarnished with the newer movies.

Well with Mary Poppins it took him a long time to be able to acquire the rights for the film. They acquired the rights for Winnie the Pooh and still pay royalties back to Milner's estate - same with Peter Pan they don't own the rights, I believe they have their own deal set up between TWDC and Great Osmond Children Hospital. Walt wasn't opposed to buying IP.

And they won't tell the Star Wars story better they will leave that division, just like they did with Marvel and Pixar, to themselves.

 

[Spike-in-Berlin]

if you can't beat them buy them. Disney is risk-averse and chooses to purchase developed companies.

It has become one. Walt was completely different. He normally risked everything and normally he also won it all. He risked everything when he produced Snow White, if the movie wouldn't have been a huge success it would have been the end of Walt Disney Productions for sure. (although I am quite sure even then he would have recovered someday) he put his entire family fortune, which was already very substantial in the early 1950ies, into Disneyland and won again. To me Iger is nothing than a bean counting salesman, a bureaucrat, absolutely lacking every inspiration, imagination or other qualities Walt had or even, on a far lesser scale however, Eisner, although I hate to admit it,

 

[Spike-in-Berlin]

Correction: IGER is risk-adverse. He's a billion times worse than Eisner, and I NEVER thought I'd say that.

I think Eisner (I cannot believe that I am defending Eisner AGAIN!) was changed after the EuroDisney desaster, that ended the Disney Decade before it had begun. After EuroDisney he became far less adventureous and avoided every possible risk.
He should have asked me, okay I was only a young boy in West-Berlin, but I knew from the day they announced EuroDisney would be built in Paris that this would be not a good location for a Disney park in Europe and that it would flop. I could have told him. His own fault he didn't call.

 

[Walter Yensid]

Well with Mary Poppins it took him a long time to be able to acquire the rights for the film. They acquired the rights for Winnie the Pooh and still pay royalties back to Milner's estate - same with Peter Pan they don't own the rights, I believe they have their own deal set up between TWDC and Great Osmond Children Hospital. Walt wasn't opposed to buying IP.

And they won't tell the Star Wars story better they will leave that division, just like they did with Marvel and Pixar, to themselves.

I agree. I meant 'they' will tell it better as being Lucasfilms being under Disney and the Lucasfilms people being able to do what they have probably wanted to do for so long, rather than George Lucas who was fine holding them back. Of course, this will lead to some oversaturation, but it 'hopefully' will lead to better movies, exposure, etc.

I think they learned a lot from Pixar. I think it gave them confidence that leaving a company and culture to remain itself is okay and can be very successful. Marvel has proven that once again. I believe this will become their formula with content companies going forward. Let them do their own thing, while Disney offers its enormous channels of distribution and size to maximize the brand. Example was when the Avengers movies came out...they ran out of toys and items as they were still under the Marvel retail process. I wish I could find the article, but I remember one of the Marvel execs amazed at how fast Disney could get product on shelves once they got involved.

 

[RSoxNo1]

No. I think that's a convenient excuse that gets trotted out. ... They can buy Marvel, for instance, but that won't drive people to visit WDW or take a DCL cruise or watch ESPN or buy stuff at Disney Stores they wouldn't have before. All it means is Disney will make money off of it ...it's not growing the business organically.



That stigma wasn't there in the 1990s though, was it?

Disney XD was named after many focus groups. I have no idea why either.

I think the Stigma was certainly there in the 1990s. I know for me personally I was questioned by kids my age in high school when I joined my family at Disney World. The perception was at best that Disney World was for kids, but Disney has been consistently weak with males between the teenage years and when they start a family.

 

[puntagordabob]

I have been wondering when someone would do this. I can't wait to hear the details. Hopefully Lucas will no longer have a say in the future of Star Wars or Indiana Jones.

I am certain he has more than a little say... in fact the trilogy that has been discussed was his creation.....and will continue at some point after Return of the Jedi's timeline.

 

[Thrill Seeker]

Sure.

But Iger has no one to blame but himself there. And he's already tried blaming D-ick Cook and Rich Ross, but they followed his mandate to cut production to a small slate of films with the Disney banner and that 98% of those were going to be either big budget tentpoles or have franchise potential. That's an awful strategy for running a Studio. Where you can have a film like Avengers do HUGE business around the globe, yet not make up for a John Carter-sized disaster.

This isn't the days where you had Disney films coming out under Disney, Touchstone, Hollywood and Miramax and you released Pixar too. Where you could have a handful of total flops because some film with a small budget wound up making huge returns.

When you release a handful of films in a few years and they include John Carter, Prince of Persia, Sorceror's Apprentice, Tron Legacy, Mars Needs Moms etc you need a Pirates 4 or an Avengers just to break even. It's an awful strategy.

I think that's why this appeals so much to Iger. A new Star Wars film is guaranteed to bring in billions when merchandise is included and DVDs etc ... so he thinks that plus endless Marvel sequels and what he hopes are many more Pixar hits (although with their budgets, the profit becomes smaller than you'd think ... Brave has made $235 million domestically, yet will only be a 'hit' when international BO and merchandise is added. That shouldn't be either. The budgets are too damn high.) and he hopes that Pirates is good for another 2-3 films and that Lone Ranger and Oz can become franchises for Disney under its own banner.

You know, I'm watching Kimmel in Brooklyn and I think I went off on a Spirited tangent so not sure I directly answered your question. But I think I did in the sense of the Studios and what Disney is thinking.

I'l also just drop in that I finally saw Frankenweenie last week and thought it was just OK, and Disney will lose a bundle on that one.

Tron Legacy wasn't a flop. It broke even, even made a small profit. Why else would a sequel be planned?