brb1006
Well-Known Member
Apparently some of the people at Pixar (mainly the animators) weren't happy with that decision on moving the movie from theaters to Disney+.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Rumor Hollywood insiders say there's growing tension at Disney as CEO Bob Chapek chafes at Bob Iger's 'long goodbye'
- Thread starter Creathir
- Start date
doctornick
Well-Known Member
It was both Luca and Soul. It still strikes me as odd that both Pixar films were treated one way while Disney Animation and live action films were treated another. It feels like to me that they should have spread out the "free" vs "premium access" titles among different studios. Definitely seems to devalue Pixar, which is odd given their rep.
And Soul and Luca were both great films.
Sir_Cliff
Well-Known Member
Soul I kind of understood as it was scheduled to come out in the midst of the second wave of the pandemic. It then won the Academy Award, which should at least give Pixar some satisfaction. Luca being relegated to Disney+ as cinemas were opening up, though, seems strange for exactly the the reasons you mention.
owlsandcoffee
Well-Known Member
Disney Animation always looks good but I feel like they NEVER reach the story standards set by Pixar. Raya's story was a jumbled mess, Ralph 2 was dreadful, etc. Even when Pixar doesn't do anything crazy they always have a solid story, like Luca.
SpoiledBlueMilk
Well-Known Member
Pixar does story better than anyone, including Disney animation.
According to Nielsen, by the second week of Luca's release to D+, it has had 2.3 Billion minutes of views.
That's 24 million views of the movie so far.
That's 24 million views of the movie so far.
SamusAranX
Well-Known Member
Tried. Kind of an empty threat when they know they are the only high speed ISP I can get. So yeah, didn't work for me.
pdude81
Well-Known Member
I didn't think Luca was all that great. I enjoyed it but I don't think it was worth the risk of putting out in theaters and making very little money. An exclusive movie that's free to Disney+ subscribers works whether you are trying to keep existing subscribers or entice new ones.
Soul was really good and thought provoking IMO. I saw that more as a gift to the fans being free but we were also in a major covid spike and I'm not sure how comfortable families would have been at the movies then. So again, I'm of the opinion that if they thought these things would make more money in a premier access/movie release then they probably would have gone that route.
Soul was really good and thought provoking IMO. I saw that more as a gift to the fans being free but we were also in a major covid spike and I'm not sure how comfortable families would have been at the movies then. So again, I'm of the opinion that if they thought these things would make more money in a premier access/movie release then they probably would have gone that route.
Inspired Figment
Well-Known Member
Yeah.. the writing was iffy on Raya particularly during the first-middle half (though I felt the story & characters were good personally).. and Ralph 2.. man, what a mess in regards to being a sequel to the 1st Ralph (which I loved) and not staying true to those characters, the arcade world, or it’s stories, along with all the blatant corporate advertising in that.. yikes. Which is a shame too considering how fantastic Zootopia was.
Like everyone else has been saying though.. yeah.. really poor decision on Disney’s part to release Luca the way they did. Soul was understandable due to the pandemic.. but now that we’re getting out of that and movies are back in theaters. Luca ‘definitley’ should’ve gotten the premier access + Theatrical release treatment.
el_super
Well-Known Member
Saw some interesting parallels in an article posted by the Hollywood Reporter this weekend, interviewing Barry Diller (Eisner's mentor at Paramount). Diller doesn't think the movie going experience is going to stay the same, and expects that most movie theaters will be closed and gone in 10 years time.
Relevant part (bold mind):
www.hollywoodreporter.com
To me, this suggests that there is just a lot of confusion and uncertainty in Hollywood right now on the place streaming will have in the industry. Diller thinking the end of the movie going theater experience is nigh, would seem to suggest Chapek is right to push streaming experiences so high, even while the traditionalists are screaming not to. Of course it's only a good move if it works. If Chapek ends up burning a lot of relationships chasing what is *technically* the correct course of action, that can have broader implications down the line.
Relevant part (bold mind):
For traditionalists balking at the changes, the former Paramount Pictures and 20th Century Fox chief executive, who now leads IAC, said streaming isn’t all to blame. Instead, major companies have adjusted their strategies to focus too much on projects that can be made into sequels and franchises equipped with predetermined marketing budgets and merchandise, Diller said.
“It’s a viable strategy. Certainly it was for Disney. But that strategy became pervasive [and forced] out any other strategy, i.e. the development of a number of projects,” Diller said. Those changes, coupled with the pandemic and the rise of streaming, have resulted in what Diller described as the “irrelevance of ‘Hollywood'” and the sense that “nothing lasts very long.” He also zeroed in on Disney as an example of how the moviemaking business has changed to give those on the distribution or business side more power in determining where a movie goes, rather than the studios creating the film.
“When you think about that, that is a crazy idea,” Diller said. “You actually make a movie and you don’t know where it’s going. Is it going to streaming? Is it going to direct? Is it going to a theater? Or is it going to, you know, Sam’s Club?”
Why Barry Diller Thinks 10 Percent of Theaters Will Remain in the Next Few Years
Barry Diller doesn’t think the movie business is “dead,” as a recent NPR story declared, but the traditional moviegoing experience will continue to transform, resulting in a loss …
www.hollywoodreporter.com
To me, this suggests that there is just a lot of confusion and uncertainty in Hollywood right now on the place streaming will have in the industry. Diller thinking the end of the movie going theater experience is nigh, would seem to suggest Chapek is right to push streaming experiences so high, even while the traditionalists are screaming not to. Of course it's only a good move if it works. If Chapek ends up burning a lot of relationships chasing what is *technically* the correct course of action, that can have broader implications down the line.
zakattack99
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Agreed! Me and a guy at work where talking about it and I kept saying to him that it felt rushed. I have no problem with scene transitions the way they did it but it felt like the film could have been split either into 2 or 3 films. I feel that it would have helped with the pacing and allowed for deeper character development. But we know that's not how animated movies work. I almost wish they would have made this into a live action film with a PG-13ish rating and went for a trilogy type storyline. If done right it could have been a hit. But hey what do I know lol
Chapek was fortunate that Iger's Disney Plus strategy was a big hit. However, his newly-created Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution has seemingly ed off his creative executives. In addition to the article noting Marvel's displeasure, there are also reports that the various content leaders (e.g. Pete Docter of Pixar, John Landgraf of FX, Peter Rice of Disney General Entertainment) has expressed similar disappointment their reduced roles. Both heads of Searchlight Pictures, Steve Gilula & Nancy Utley, suddenly retired days before giving Disney their first Best Picture Oscar for Nomadland. Even key people responsible for Disney Plus' success have left (e.g. Ricky Strauss former President of Content and Marketing for Disney+, Uday Shankar former Chairman of Star & Disney India).
If Chapek keeps ostracising and losing talent, his kingdom will soon crumble.
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
He's really shooting the company in the foot.
Iger spent a fortune on MM+ and FP+ that didn't see the ROI they wanted. Seven years later, they're ditching it for a new means of "managing" crowds (read: herding people to where they want them to go so they spend more money), that is certainly costing another fortune. So, they want us spending more money in shops and restaurants...yet they're homogenizing all the dining and shopping...which reduces the likelihood of people spending more money when they're not in line. I mean, you can only buy so many Mickey plushes and t-shirts with one or more of the Fab Five on them. If anything, we should be seeing MORE unique merchandise and dining options...not less.
This. A bajillion times, THIS!!! But The Bob’s see more value in streamlined merchandise offerings than anything unique and creative. That means risk. Risk is bad. The entire foundation of the company was founded on a risk, but The Bob’s have to appease large shareholders, so it’s the overpriced generic crap we get.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
The movie theaters were in trouble prior to this…it’s unlikely any survive.Saw some interesting parallels in an article posted by the Hollywood Reporter this weekend, interviewing Barry Diller (Eisner's mentor at Paramount). Diller doesn't think the movie going experience is going to stay the same, and expects that most movie theaters will be closed and gone in 10 years time.
Relevant part (bold mind):
For traditionalists balking at the changes, the former Paramount Pictures and 20th Century Fox chief executive, who now leads IAC, said streaming isn’t all to blame. Instead, major companies have adjusted their strategies to focus too much on projects that can be made into sequels and franchises equipped with predetermined marketing budgets and merchandise, Diller said.“It’s a viable strategy. Certainly it was for Disney. But that strategy became pervasive [and forced] out any other strategy, i.e. the development of a number of projects,” Diller said. Those changes, coupled with the pandemic and the rise of streaming, have resulted in what Diller described as the “irrelevance of ‘Hollywood'” and the sense that “nothing lasts very long.” He also zeroed in on Disney as an example of how the moviemaking business has changed to give those on the distribution or business side more power in determining where a movie goes, rather than the studios creating the film.“When you think about that, that is a crazy idea,” Diller said. “You actually make a movie and you don’t know where it’s going. Is it going to streaming? Is it going to direct? Is it going to a theater? Or is it going to, you know, Sam’s Club?”Why Barry Diller Thinks 10 Percent of Theaters Will Remain in the Next Few Years
Barry Diller doesn’t think the movie business is “dead,” as a recent NPR story declared, but the traditional moviegoing experience will continue to transform, resulting in a loss …
To me, this suggests that there is just a lot of confusion and uncertainty in Hollywood right now on the place streaming will have in the industry. Diller thinking the end of the movie going theater experience is nigh, would seem to suggest Chapek is right to push streaming experiences so high, even while the traditionalists are screaming not to. Of course it's only a good move if it works. If Chapek ends up burning a lot of relationships chasing what is *technically* the correct course of action, that can have broader implications down the line.
This is very similar to the late Eisner brain drain. It’s not about ability…it’s about silencing dissent. The real problem is they are at a far lower starting point now due to prior purges. Not good.
…I wish I had noticed this a decade ago
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
The lack of common sense and understanding of their guests is just astounding.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
That was pressler and it accelerated under staggs and rasulo
battle was long lost. It’s Gettysburg
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
I sure as heck did...when I saw the difference in what we spent on "stuff" during our honeymoon and what we spent on our first trip with the kids 14 years later. You would have expected a huge increase as we buy the kids stuff, right? The opposite happened. Because the unique merchandise wasn't there.The movie theaters were in trouble prior to this…it’s unlikely any survive.
This is very similar to the late Eisner brain drain. It’s not about ability…it’s about silencing dissent. The real problem is they are at a far lower starting point now due to prior purges. Not good.
…I wish I had noticed this a decade ago
Last edited:
el_super
Well-Known Member
Yes. No. Maybe? It really depends on if this is a deeper transition or not, and it seems like it is. If ALL studios are wrestling with how to handle streaming and transition from traditional distribution models, creatives aren't going to find a path to moving back to the old world.
Disney (Buena Vista specifically) really is the flag bearer in Hollywood right now, so if the Buena Vista model that pushed out all those mega-marvel hits crumbles, artists aren't going to be able to jump to another studio that is still producing $200-$300M tentpoles expecting to make $1B at the box office.
The only thing that could really save the old model is if there is a mass rejection of streaming at this point... which seems really unlikely.
Those two statements seem to contradict.