LA Times: Is Disney Paying Its Fair Share In Anaheim

[Darkbeer1]

It's really beside the point now that Disney has sanctioned the LAT for reporting a story that it didn't like. Even if you don't take issue with Disney's too cozy relationship in Anaheim politics...

I have a major issue with the union's too cozy relationship in politics, especially when they fight for wages for the city's employees, or make rules that require private companies to use union labor.

Anaheim just passed a Sunshine set of rules that regulate how businesses and lobbyists deal with the city, but the union's got exempted from the rules thanks to Tait/Moreno. And that is truly unfair, everyone should play by the same rules.

http://www.anaheimblog.net/2017/07/25/morenos-sunshine-ordinance-drafted-in-shadows/

>>His comment begs the question of why the process of crafting the ordinance was shrouded in secrecy. Then again, Moreno pushed back against subjecting his Welcoming Anaheim to open government meeting requirements.

Moreno’s so-called Sunshine Ordinance is contradictory, inconsistent, over-reaching and arbitrary – which isn’t surprising since it was primarily driven by a desire to handicap political opponents rather than craft sound public policy. When the law is drafted with the objective of harming perceived political enemies while shielding political allies, convoluted laws result.<<

http://www.ocregister.com/2017/08/12/anaheim-needs-a-little-more-sunshine/

>>Murray has suggested some changes to the ordinance, including adopting specific language addressing conflicts of interest and expanding the rules to unions and nonprofits. She also wants to bar council members from hiring former campaign staff.

Details can be debated, as banning campaign staff, for example, seems unnecessary if they meet all the other requirements of the ordinance, but Murray’s point in the abstract is well taken.

If lobbyists have an incentive to influence government, that surely extends to those who are paid or funded by government. They shouldn’t be excluded simply because they are a “nonbusiness” entity.

Anaheim took an important step, but it could go further.<<

 

[Travel Junkie]

Its only up 1% over what they setup as the deal for Force Awakens, 65% versus 64%. Theaters will still make a boat load of money not just from ticket sales but from concessions, so it evens out in the end. Last Jedi will likely hit over $1 Billion domestically, more than Force Awakens, with the return of Mark Hamill.

That was far from the only part of the deal. Large multiplex's can handle it and make it up on the backend. They can put Last Jedi in their largest theater for at least 4 weeks (also part of the terms.) Smaller theaters can't afford to do that and miss out on other new releases. Many smaller theaters with only 1 screen or a few have a very tough decision and some are skipping. The margins are very slim at 35% if they don't hit it big with concessions.

 

[Travel Junkie]

They'll make tons- between concessions, ticket sales, and the additional traffic their theater will have.

It's my understanding that theaters often have agreements with the studios that allow the split of ticket sales between theaters and studios to fluctuate throughout the duration of the theatrical run. For example, it could start at 90% to studios opening night, but then shift towards theaters, so next week the studios get 80%, then 70%, etc.- but in lieu of this, Disney is taking a flat cut throughout the entire run.

But, the most basic way to look at this- Disney paid a lot of money for the rights to Star Wars, and paid a lot of money to have The Last Jedi made. They own the film, and have every right to set conditions on theaters to play their film. If a theater were to decide that Disney's demands are too extreme, and would be detrimental to the theater's profits- it is within the right of the theater to not show the film. They aren't owed anything by Disney. If enough theaters were to do this, it would hurt Disney- but I doubt any theaters have so I don't blame Disney for getting the best deal they can to maximize their revenue.

I actually worked in the entertainment industry for years so I have a very good understanding of the terms. I'm not saying Disney is doing anything wrong. Merely pointing out that they are flexing their muscles in a number of ways. This is hardly the first time they have done so. Theater's have been upset with them over a number of demands in recent years and they keep agreeing. And so Disney keeps pushing more, much like they are doing with theme park pricing.

The margins are much thinner than you think on the theaters end. The large multiplex's won't will still make money (although many of their stocks fell sharply on the news) but the smaller chains and theaters with only a couple of screens will have a very tough time keeping Last Jedi for a minimum of 4 weeks. Will the film still be playing to a full house or even half full 4 weeks out? This would have to be a very unusual case to do so.

 

[Travel Junkie]

Look, the LA Times selectively edited the Disney article to "prove" that Disney is evil, and that Tait/Moreno are the saviors to the city

I'm sorry, but I simply did not take that view at all. The article points out in several areas the good Disney has done for the city, but some selectively choose to focus on the aspects they don't like and call it fake news or overly biased and slanted towards one point of view. A hit piece or trying to prove Disney is evil would not have pointed those out. If you take the view that Disney is portrayed as evil after reading those two articles then I would call you a selective reader.

I don't see Disney any differently than before. Companies do these sorts of things. They get involved in elections, they try and to negotiate the best terms for themselves. Lobbying is big business. Name a Fortune 500 company and they almost assuredly have done the same things. And newspapers have covered the companies doing do. The companies aren't evil and journalists aren't biased for covering it and letting the public know that it is going on..

 

[Travel Junkie]

4 critics groups have now denounced Disney's action and are disqualifying them their awards until the ban is lifted.

According to a joint statement by the four critics groups, “Disney’s actions, which include an indefinite ban on any interaction with The Times, are antithetical to the principles of a free press and set a dangerous precedent in a time of already heightened hostility toward journalists.”


The statement concluded, “Disney’s response should gravely concern all who believe in the importance of a free press, artists included.”


https://www.thewrap.com/critics-denounce-disney-blackout-la-times-disqualify-awards/

 

[flynnibus]

The reaction to Disney giving the LAT a timeout feels like a facebook newsfeed.... outrage, hyperbole, and the desire to make viral noise...

 

[Darkbeer1]

Once again, Disney is doing nothing to prevent the LA Times from covering Disney. They can buy tickets and watch the film, and then review it both positively and negatively.

Same with the 4th Hotel, Disney wrote the story and reported it, just not with Disney's help.

Heck, I would say that a review in which the ticket is purchased, is a more fair review than one where the film production company gives away freebies, and most advance screenings come with a meal and free merchandise..

This to me is a group demanding special privileges for its members.

How about live theater? A special preview might offer only the primary cast, and maybe extra actors and special effects. Is that a fair review of the play?

How about audience reaction? A special preview doesn't allow that.

How about reviews of other things? The Unofficial travel guides are popular and well known due to the fact they pay their own way to purchase tickets and lodging.

I am watching the Morning News, do you know that many segments are paid for by the company being featured

When the local Station, KTLA 5 films live inside of the Disneyland Resort, all the production costs are paid for by Disney. Disney writes the featured segments, Disney provides all the folks to be interviewed and controls the entire remote.

Disney will provide in studio interviews and prizes as part of a TV Commercial purchase for a specific period. During that time, KTLA can't promote Universal, Six Flags and Knott's. The other parks do the same thing, and purchase time and provide production staff for live in-park remotes.

KTLA has a marketing agreement with the Tournament, and is obligated to cover certain things live during the year, such as selecting the Rose Queen and her court, the grand Marshall, and Parade Float building.

So it is truly pay for play, which is now happening in the print media.

 

[c-one]

Different review cultures for different fields. You'll notice that most restaurant critics take pains to remain anonymous and their employer pays for their meals, for example.

Film is different because studios want big openings, there isn't the long tail of several years that a restaurant may have. Plus the film is the same, whether you see it before or after it comes out, so the critic getting special fawning treatment is less of an issue.

 

[Darkbeer1]

Here is a good article regarding press screenings,'

http://www.mtv.com/news/2764707/how-press-screenings-work/

>>This carefully constructed and cautiously guarded world is all for the purpose of making the experience as enjoyable as possible, and it works. It's hard not to factor these niceties in when giving a review, in the same way that it's sometimes difficult to give a bad review to a film when the people involved have been very kind or thoughtful toward you. This is the entire premise of Almost Famous, that as a journalist you're supposed to write the truth, but it becomes difficult when you like the talent or when you connect with the people involved. Sometimes it seems as if press screenings and favors are doled out dependent on your willingness to play the game and go along writing favorable reviews forever. There are always going to be people willing to do or say anything to get ahead, willing to give a bad film a glowing review to get in the studio's good graces. But that isn't the truth, and there are a lot of bad movies out there that people shouldn't spend their money going to see.

The press screening is a gift not given to all, and it's the responsibility of journalists not to allow the freebies and the special treatment to sway their judgment, or to allow the concerns of studios to come before the reader. You, the general public, are our boss, and we are here to serve you the best we can. <<

 

[c-one]

Anyway, glad we're debating whether the LA Times is biased while unironically posting links to InfoWars. Let's talk about child vaccinations next.

 

[c-one]

Here is a good article regarding press screenings,'

http://www.mtv.com/news/2764707/how-press-screenings-work/

>>This carefully constructed and cautiously guarded world is all for the purpose of making the experience as enjoyable as possible, and it works. It's hard not to factor these niceties in when giving a review, in the same way that it's sometimes difficult to give a bad review to a film when the people involved have been very kind or thoughtful toward you. This is the entire premise of Almost Famous, that as a journalist you're supposed to write the truth, but it becomes difficult when you like the talent or when you connect with the people involved. Sometimes it seems as if press screenings and favors are doled out dependent on your willingness to play the game and go along writing favorable reviews forever. There are always going to be people willing to do or say anything to get ahead, willing to give a bad film a glowing review to get in the studio's good graces. But that isn't the truth, and there are a lot of bad movies out there that people shouldn't spend their money going to see.

The press screening is a gift not given to all, and it's the responsibility of journalists not to allow the freebies and the special treatment to sway their judgment, or to allow the concerns of studios to come before the reader. You, the general public, are our boss, and we are here to serve you the best we can. <<

This is actually pretty good; but I would argue that, again for the sake of journalistic independence and getting as close to truth as humanly possible, those decisions ought to be made by the journalistic outlets, and it is not the role of the companies to make it for them.

 

[flynnibus]

Different review cultures for different fields. You'll notice that most restaurant critics take pains to remain anonymous and their employer pays for their meals, for example.

Film is different because studios want big openings, there isn't the long tail of several years that a restaurant may have. Plus the film is the same, whether you see it before or after it comes out, so the critic getting special fawning treatment is less of an issue.

Dining is also largely about service and execution of the product... which can be modified on the fly. Hence the need to stay anonymous to get a true "normal" sampling of the product.

Media reporting is all about access... hence why its such an easy string for Disney or others to manipulate. Some are just too naive to think reporting is some utopian democracy, protected, and some completely flat playing field. It's far far from it.

 

[c-one]

Dining is also largely about service and execution of the product... which can be modified on the fly. Hence the need to stay anonymous to get a true "normal" sampling of the product.

Media reporting is all about access... hence why its such an easy string for Disney or others to manipulate. Some are just too naive to think reporting is some utopian democracy, protected, and some completely flat playing field. It's far far from it.

I would certainly agree with this. That said, a lack of pure neutrality does not, to me, mean it isn't worth at least trying to get most of the way there, nor does it mean a third-party film critic and an official Disney PR blog have the same authority and usefulness in my view.

 

[flynnibus]

I would certainly agree with this. That said, a lack of pure neutrality does not, to me, mean it isn't worth at least trying to get most of the way there, nor does it mean a third-party film critic and an official Disney PR blog have the same authority and usefulness in my view.

Oh I certainly want the reviewer to be objective... but I also recognize there is a game to play. So I don't get all wound up when the player's shift their pieces in the game. I expect businesses to play FAIR, I don't expect them to play EQUAL.

 

[Disney Analyst]

Well Disney is certainly in hot water over it... I am guessing they won't make a move like this again anytime soon.

 

[BrianLo]

This is quite stupid. Early screenings of Thor does not equate to an attack on free press.

Dis was quite dumb in drawing further attention to this whole debacle. LAT publishes a one-sided "investigative journalism" attack piece to create a stir, for information that Dis has been quite flagrant about and the city council is snivelling over post-humerously.

Now a few other news organizations need a piece of the drama in a justice flag-wave over free press... over Thor.

Let's call this what it is, a fight over entitlement. Welcome to 2017.

 

[Travel Junkie]

Heck, I would say that a review in which the ticket is purchased, is a more fair review than one where the film production company gives away freebies, and most advance screenings come with a meal and free merchandise..

I agree that the most fair review is one where the reviewer was not given special access or paid in any way for a review. In this case however one outlet is being denied access it normally receives because they said something Disney didn't like.

This to me is a group demanding special privileges for its members.

They are asking for the same access given to other outlets of similar scope and more importantly they are calling foul because they are being denied access and you could argue being put at a competitive disadvantage for being critical. It's the same thing when there are arguments over which blogs get invited to special parks events. The message Disney is sending is publish nice things about us and we'll give you inside access. Publish things we don't like and we'll prevent you access. They have a right to do this, but it raises questions as well.

Overall this was a minor "revenge tactic" but one that Disney was dumb to pursue. In this time when there is a lot of sensitivity over freedom of the press being attacked, Disney had to have seen this would do nothing but draw more attention to the issue they were trying to suppress. It had largely gone away on its own and now the articles and issue has been brought to the forefront. I'm guessing Disney will soon back tract by saying it was only for one movie and it will be over.

 

[SuddenStorm]

I actually worked in the entertainment industry for years so I have a very good understanding of the terms. I'm not saying Disney is doing anything wrong. Merely pointing out that they are flexing their muscles in a number of ways. This is hardly the first time they have done so. Theater's have been upset with them over a number of demands in recent years and they keep agreeing. And so Disney keeps pushing more, much like they are doing with theme park pricing.

The margins are much thinner than you think on the theaters end. The large multiplex's won't will still make money (although many of their stocks fell sharply on the news) but the smaller chains and theaters with only a couple of screens will have a very tough time keeping Last Jedi for a minimum of 4 weeks. Will the film still be playing to a full house or even half full 4 weeks out? This would have to be a very unusual case to do so.

But none of the theaters have to show star wars. If Disney's conditions make it so it won't be financially viable to play the movie, the theaters shouldn't play it.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Overall this was a minor "revenge tactic" but one that Disney was dumb to pursue. In this time when there is a lot of sensitivity over freedom of the press being attacked, Disney had to have seen this would do nothing but draw more attention to the issue they were trying to suppress.

Exactly. By pressuring the LAT and simultaneously praising the OC Register Disney has deliberately underscored once again that it will use questionable tactics and persuasion to get what it wants, which was the whole focus of the LAT piece that started this debate in first place.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

This whole situation is just sad...but also speaks to Disney's current "we can get away with anything" mantra.
It will backfire.