180º
Well-Known Member
I'm not a big fan of Iger, but do like how you made the pilgrimage to this forum just to post in this thread.
I'm not a big fan of Iger, but do like how you made the pilgrimage to this forum just to post in this thread.
If I had to really boil it down, the core of Disney to me is "family fun with an artistic and moral benefit." I think that standard still stands.I believe Iger has brought incredible expansion and success to the company, but at the cost of its original identity--to the point where many fans (especially older lifetimers like me) are realizing that the Disney they grew up loving doesn't really exist anymore. But money talks, and that's what makes the world go 'round. At least Disney remains the one entertainment giant still commanding any kind of perceivable studio identity at all, and a soulless money-gobbling corporate octopus is preferable to the company being sold off piece by piece... I *guess* . Still, great things still emerge from the company, fun is still had and the younger generation seems happy with the changes in the parks. Iger has made many decisions that drive me crazy, but...the next CEO could be worse. Oh, so much worse...
Thank you for finally explaining this. In all honesty, I'm surprised that Pixar is even a topic of debate for some Disney purists. Unlike Marvel and Lucasfilm, Pixar is made up of nothing but pure, unbridled, Disney DNA. Also unlike Marvel and Lucasfilm, Pixar's entire history and is inseperably tied to Disney as can be seen in your comment.John certainly *was* in-house, trained at Cal-Arts, the school created by Walt himself and still receives funds from his estate. Brought into the Disney animation fold, he began to experiment and explore new technology for animation...right up until Ron Miller fired him after John's pitch for "The Brave Little Toaster". So John joins Pixar in its infancy, and uses new tech to tell stories that could have come straight out of Disney. Goes on a creative and commercial tear, costs Disney $7 billion to get him back and bring Pixar under the Disney Animation banner for good.
I'm not sure you can find that in one person. The best times of the company is when they had two guys in power that brought different things to the table. Walt and Roy then Eisner and Wells.
Perfectly sums up the state of the studios right now. Also, how do you think Lucasfilm is doing?The sequel factory already crashed and burned. 2016 was a bloodbath for sequels people didn't want. However, the sequel factories include all the other major studios these days.
WDAS is the furthest any animation studio is currently from a sequel factory. Especially with Ghibli taking a break. That's the most important thing in my mind. Pixar dabbles and seems to be refocusing on their own original content. But between the two, the Walt Dis co.still produces a ton of original animated efforts annually.
Marvel is still going to be Marvel, it's not a sequel factory, it's a comic book factory. Sequels, serialization and spin offs are how comic books have always worked. As long as they continue exploring new heroes and don't give us Iron Man 9, the universe continues expanding. The credit is quickly lost in retrospect, but the studio has made a lot of risky bets on Guardians, Ant man, Dr. Strange etc. I always scratch my head when people complain about Marvel movies, when their complaints pretty much boil down to they are too much like comic books. Serialization is kind of the whole point.
Then we have Disney live action. Which, yes, is an adaptation/sequel factory. The most disposable film division of the lot. Animation is the life blood, live action has rarely actually been a successful thing historically.
The film divisions wont crash and burn due to sequels, they will crash and burn when the quality slips. The public in 2016 rewarded 'quality' films. Sequels are clearly no longer assured success.
Thank you for finally explaining this. In all honesty, I'm surprised that Pixar is even a topic of debate for some Disney purists. Unlike Marvel and Lucasfilm, Pixar is made up of nothing but pure, unbridled, Disney DNA. Also unlike Marvel and Lucasfilm, Pixar's entire history and is inseperably tied to Disney as can be seen in your comment.
How to sum up Iger's time at the helm of Disney.... All IP, all the time, baby! Disney is a BRAND! Playing it safe = $$$. And don't forget one of Iger's biggest contributions to Disney - Making the word "creative" into seemingly a four-letter word with his paint-by-the-numbers approach to damn-near everything.
And now we're looking at even MORE time with Iger as CEO?!?!
Good for Bob - he's great with talent, and in my opinion, easily the best leader of the company since Walt.
How to sum up Iger's time at the helm of Disney.... All IP, all the time, baby! Disney is a BRAND! Playing it safe = $$$. And don't forget one of Iger's biggest contributions to Disney - Making the word "creative" into seemingly a four-letter word with his paint-by-the-numbers approach to damn-near everything.
And now we're looking at even MORE time with Iger as CEO?!?!
I didn't say 100% of the history, but close to it. I question whether or not Pixar would've ever gotten their big break if Disney didn't pursue them in the early 90's. Very few other studios were willing to pull the plug on CG before Disney gave them the chance to make Toy Story. Even with Jobs, Pixar probably would've continued to make shorts and commercials until an inevitable disbandment which would've likely sent it's talent down separate, but likely somewhat successful, paths. But even if they somehow did get a big break, the circumstances would likely result in a different Pixar then the one we know today.Except that Pixar started out with George, was spun off and saved by Steve. I give Jobs more credit than Disney.... if he hadn't stepped in....
I didn't say 100% of the history, but close to it. I question whether or not Pixar would've ever gotten their big break if Disney didn't pursue them in the early 90's. Very few other studios were willing to pull the plug on CG before Disney gave them the chance to make Toy Story. Even with Jobs, Pixar probably would've continued to make shorts and commercials until an inevitable disbandment which would've likely sent it's talent down separate, but likely somewhat successful, paths. But even if they somehow did get a big break, the circumstances would likely result in a different Pixar then the one we know today.
...I cannot fathom the problem here. Iger actually did something right (in placing Lasseter where he did) but because John proved himself somewhere else first, it doesn't count as Disney anymore?
I'll keep that in mind the next time a quarterback acquired from another team throws a touchdown to a receiver who was drafted on day one. Those points won't be put on the scoreboard for his current team.
I never said they didn't. He is integral to the operations with the studio leadership wise for many years. I was just saying that if you're going to talk about how they went from a small commercial company to a making the film's they're most known for, Disney is a crucial part of that discussion 2006 and prior. Also, despite all the great he did for them, did any of the staff you talked to have some not so nice things to say about him? He was known to have screwed over most of the people in his life and they rightly grew to hate him for it.All true. But if you talk to Pixar staff - we had the opportunity on a DVC cruise - they consider Jobs their daddy...and savior.
I never said they didn't. He is integral to the operations with the studio leadership wise for many years. I was just saying that if you're going to talk about how they went from a small commercial company to a making the film's they're most known for, Disney is a crucial part of that discussion 2006 and prior. Also, despite all the great he did for them, did any of the staff you talked to have some not so nice things to say about him. He was known to have screwed over most of the people in his life and they rightly grew to hate him for it.
I never said they didn't. He is integral to the operations with the studio leadership wise for many years. I was just saying that if you're going to talk about how they went from a small commercial company to a making the film's they're most known for, Disney is a crucial part of that discussion 2006 and prior. If you take Disney out of the equation, there future is wildly different no matter how you cut it.
Sorry, I thought it didn't post for some reason. Delete.You're repeating yourself....
I completely agree with this statement. Knowing about Pixar's early stages in the '80's and early '90's is crucial to understanding and appreciating what they are today. My overall point was one of the central pieces to Pixar's development prior to 2006. Aside from theme park rights with Lucasfilm and a few short lived series of comics in the mid-1990's from Marvel, Disney had minimal impact on either prior to the purchases.No, and I wouldn't have expected him to say something like that to fans who are strangers. Yeah, Jobs could be an SOB. But so was Gates before Melinda. We just need to remember the road Pixar took to reach Disney. I wonder if George ever thinks about what might have been if he hadn't let that part of the company go....
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.