Spirited News, Observations & Thoughts IV

[twebber55]

I've spoken with some former colleagues in the media and there has been a LOT of talk about what's going to happen with the Avatar sequels because more data (and the studios love data, polling, surveying, it's patently absurd) is showing that the massive earnings of the film go hand in hand with the modern 3D craze that occurred when Avatar was being released. As you mentioned in the Entertainment Weekly piece and there are many others out there lately, the 3D gimmick is falling as fast as the proverbial lead balloon.

It's very much expected that as 3D continues to cool, Avatar will lose the largest factor that drove a grand scale of audiences to the theaters for the film. The belief is that the 3D (I have not seen the film) was so ground breaking that many who watched the first film would be willing to fork over the extra two to five bucks to see it in 3D, but the question is the larger audience as a whole and whether a film like Avatar is more of a one and done film vs. a studio franchise film.

Dissecting the film business and what can or might happen can go on all day and is pretty entertaining by itself. 2015 is going to be fascinating year for movies because it's the year that will either allow the studios to continue with the absurd "tent-pole" model and oddly loading too many films into too short of a period actually adversely hitting box office results or will yield a completely different business model, make that the classic business model of the film business because the gamble on $400 million dollar films with marketing and associated worldwide costs simply don't pan out.

To me, personally, latching onto Avatar for Animal Kingdom reminds of American Idol at the Studios, getting a property after it has peaked, but the Mouse has always been quite good at misreading trends and then keeping properties way beyond their popularity shelf life.

dont want to turn this into an avatar thread but if 3D was "the only" reason for success of avatar how come it set home sale records for Blue Ray/DVD? could it be maybe a lot of people liked the movie?

again i apologize for this derail

 

[Beholder]

Hearing that Disney does something for "the good of the people" is like hearing a politician say "it's what the American people want", or "it's good for America". I stopped believing that rhetoric along with believing that ANY company or business (of Disney's scale) has anything of interest other than profit. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but being shocked or surprised that Disney or Coke or Honda or HP doesnt really "care" about us, the environment, the American red white and blue way of life or my dog isn't going to happen. The only thing I really expect anymore from anyone is "am I getting what I'm paying for?" Is it a quality product? Does it deliver as promised? Do I get value for money spent? Sure, Disney, at one time, was considered a bastion of moral and ethical standards, but with these times and current corporate attitudes, that is over. I don't like it, but I deal with it. I just try to worry about my own "moral compass".

And spider-man is now basically a tool. He sells food, movies, toys, clothing, books, and even entices you to gamble. He stopped being marketed to just "kids" a while back. Most comics now days aren't really that kid friendly anyway.

 

[lazyboy97o]

What other justification is there, besides the moral/family one, to ban gambling by consenting adults? "We don't want to share" does not work as a public political position.

 

[WDWFanDave]

At the end of the day (today), all I can really say is you are missing the point. I don't think it's deliberate on your part, you just don't get it.

And I am not going to make you get it. I can tell you as someone who has followed Disney and gambling for decades that this really is a huge deal and if you don't see it, then you don't.

These are Disney characters marketed largely to children that are being used in gambling activities. You either get why that is potentially devastating to the company or you don't.

But I can practically guarantee you of one thing: and that is if a major media outlet exposed this hypocrisy on Disney's part those machines and lotto deals would end very quickly.

As a dad, I think the thing that would disturb me the most would be to see the characters represented on lottery scratch tickets...you know the ones that they sell in the machines, or are prominently displayed on the counter in your local convenience stores? Yeah, those. I liken it to the marketing of tobacco products with images that were attractive to minors, only on a much bigger scale...Disney characters are part of our society, and they used to represent something special. Taking them into this realm, in my opinion, is absolutely damaging to the brand.

There was a time when it felt like TWDC stood for something...something good, something respectable, something inspiring. I'm just not sure what it stands for anymore, besides profit centers. And, yes, I know...it's a for profit company. But what about corporate social responsibility? So many companies have figured out how to stand on values and draw higher profits from that.

Just my two cents worth.

 

[flynnibus]

If Disney is shifting it's stance on it's association with gambling this is VERY important to take note of.

Changing it's stance? Or simply letting a subsidiary continue it's business as Disney promised it would? The bigger story would be Disney meddling in Marvel. "Disney kills Punisher Comic properties because it doesn't align with parent company image"

Overlooked in this conversation is that Disney committed to letting Marvel be Marvel.

We have seen Disney spend MASSIVE amounts of cash to buy Marvel out of contracts it wasn't a fan of

No, we've seen Disney buy out contracts it intends to not share the money and control with other companies. What examples can you provide of Disney buying out Marvel deals so they can bury the concept?

 

[FigmentJedi]

Most comics now days aren't really that kid friendly anyway.

Bingo. After the success of Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns, everybody tried superficially copying the idea of comics for adults by making them all violent and gritty. Then there was the speculator bubble when comic collecting lead to a bunch of variants and gimmicks that were hoped to become valuable and junk that ended up popping sometime after Death of Superman, and then you had Diamond Distributors, who pretty much gained a monopoly on comic distribution for all the publishers, choking the comics market by limiting monthlies to specialty stores. Archie's one of the few companies that didn't fall for that and that's why the only comics you see in grocery stores are Archie-based.

Limited distribution and pandering to a mature audience ended up leaving the kids high and dry as far as comics for them goes and beyond licensed tie-ins, nobody really tries making kids comics anymore. Hell, a writer that recently left DC after they turned down his pitch for an all-ages Kamandi reboot was basically told by editorial that their target audience is nerds in their 30s and that the only kids comic DC could sell is Scooby Doo. If it wasn't for movies and cartoons, the industry would be even more screwed now.

 

[flynnibus]

The question isn't whether I know marvel (and I do). The question is do you know Disney and its history and stance on gambling?

Disney isn't trying to make Marvel into Disney. And Marvel isn't just for 'boys'. Such passing comments show you are oblivious to the main line of what comics and their products are built for. Even with mainstream coverage of every -Con out there, you'd think you'd catch onto that. And the Sony flicks (which weren't really aimed at the core demographic) were aimed for teens and young adults.. not simply boys.

Flicks like Man of Steel weren't built for 8 year olds.. even tho the properties spawned from a format initially focused on tweens/teens decades ago. The same goes for most of the comic industry now.. including much of marvel

 

[Beholder]

Bingo. After the success of Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns, everybody tried superficially copying the idea of comics for adults by making them all violent and gritty. Then there was the speculator bubble when comic collecting lead to a bunch of variants and gimmicks that were hoped to become valuable and junk that ended up popping sometime after Death of Superman, and then you had Diamond Distributors, who pretty much gained a monopoly on comic distribution for all the publishers, choking the comics market by limiting monthlies to specialty stores. Archie's one of the few companies that didn't fall for that and that's why the only comics you see in grocery stores are Archie-based.

Limited distribution and pandering to a mature audience ended up leaving the kids high and dry as far as comics for them goes and beyond licensed tie-ins, nobody really tries making kids comics anymore. Hell, a writer that recently left DC after they turned down his pitch for an all-ages Kamandi reboot was basically told by editorial that their target audience is nerds in their 30s and that the only kids comic DC could sell is Scooby Doo. If it wasn't for movies and cartoons, the industry would be even more screwed now.

Exactly. This is and has been the trend for going on 20-30 years now, it's just more wide spread and "excepted" now. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a Human Torch cigarette lighters or Thor selling sledge hammers at my local Lowes.

I used to love riding my bike to the corner gas station to buy my fix of comics. And all for around $2-$3!

 

[Adrian DIxon]

OK, so as some of you may know I have spent parts of the past two weeks in Orlando. Some of it was personal business, some themed entertainment related and some just kicking back and enjoying paradise in July.

In addition to experiencing UNI's new Transformers ride and Springfield area, I also checked out Antarctica at SW, spent time at three of Disney's parks as well as DD and CW.

I also spent time at Disney's Contemporary Resort and BLT, the Wilderness Lodge and Villas, Port Orleans and All Star Sports.

I did not stay at a Disney resort. I did stay at UNI's amazing Portofino Bay Resort for part of the visit.

Since I love food, I had meals at Be Our Guest, Fulton's, Portobello, and Benihana at WDW and Lombard's Landing, Pat O'Brien's and Bob Marley's Tribute to Freedom at UNI as well as drinks at quite a few others at both resorts.Because I just had a Faux Top One Percent Spirited Spring Holiday, this wasn't a trip where meals were planned out far ahead. I should probably point out that every meal I had on WDW property was, in essence, free for me. ...anyway...

I spoke to many folks at all the parks, but the comments from an Imagineer, a UNI creative and a WDW exec were fascinating and I will place things out here as I feel comfortable doing. During part of my stay, I got a very close up view of some of the gizmos Disney is using (all Apple tech, silent prayer at the cult of Jobs) for NGE and even was allowed (no, I doubt Georgie will be happy when he reads this) to test the tech and see for myself just how much information will truly be at CMs fingertips. Simply put, a troubling amount.

It's late, and most of my allotted MAGICal time tonight was spent going back and forth about our awful criminal justice system, so this is largely just an introduction for what will follow this week.

But I did hint in my prior thread (you know, the one with half a million hits that no one reads!) about the driving underlying theme of my visit being transformation. That covers so many things I hope to discuss with y'all (how else will there ever be a book or a consulting contract?)

On one hand this was a very transformative trip for me, personally (watching Georgie K eat ribs will do that to a man). But transformation is also what is happening at UNI and at WDW. The entire paradigm of what an O-Town visit has been versus what it is now becoming has changed and is continuing to do so, to morph in a very Chaz Bono type way. Universal is transforming in some amazing ways while WDW is changing fundamentally, but in a drastically different way. Sea World ...well, I'm not really sure what is going on there, but at least they can add a major new attraction for summer while WDW brings out Chicken Little and Robin Hood foamheads and offers Christmas desserts in July and calls it a day.

Oh, and expansions or additions (or changes and replacements at WDW). Yeah, we may just get into that a bit too.

Can someone remind me to discuss show lighting at EPCOT, soda thievery and why self flushing toilets aren't all that too?

Thanks and I look forward to a great discussion ...

Pat O'briens? did you get a good Guinness beer?

 

[MattM]

Nope.

Ultimately, Disney has control over all the characters in terms of how they are used. It is the same with the theme park deal with UNI.

Wait, so Disney can't change the contract with Marvel characters at Universal because the deal was done before Disney bought Marvel. But you say that Disney can change the contract with Marvel characters at casinos because Disney has control over characters in terms of how they are used.

No doubt I'll be accused of twisting points, etc. But it can't be both ways.

 

[MattM]

Disney has spent millions lobbying against gambling here in Florida for one reason - competition. Gambling equals another way for people to spend their discretionary income and new resorts opening all over the state. Disney doesn't want that.

While the target audience may be different, Disney doesn't want mom and dad running to the casino and spending vacation money or choosing to spend an adult weekend at a gambling resort instead of taking Little Johnny to WDW.

And just think about how many international travelers might take time away from WDW to spend time somewhere else gambling.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Disney trying to look out for the wholesome morals of the public and everything to do with them protecting their stake in the Florida tourism industry.

It is so obvious that you are correct. It is good basic business sense for Disney AND Universal AND SeaWorld to be anti-gaming in Florida because it is competition to their market. Sometimes the answer is simple, and there is no need for paranoia, conspiracies, and sensationalism.

 

[MattM]

Or, perhaps Disney has realized that gaming will eventually come to Orlando, and when it does, it will undoubtedly want a slice of the pie... perhaps gaming isn't being looked at as negatively as it used to be looked at.

Gaming will not be in Central Florida in the lifetime of anyone on these boards.

 

[Lee]

Wait, so Disney can't change the contract with Marvel characters at Universal because the deal was done before Disney bought Marvel. But you say that Disney can change the contract with Marvel characters at casinos because Disney has control over characters in terms of how they are used.

No doubt I'll be accused of twisting points, etc. But it can't be both ways.

It likely depends on the terms.
We know the Uni deal is virtually untouchable. The casino deals could possibly be not renewed when they end.
If Disney wanted to...

 

[flynnibus]

Wait, so Disney can't change the contract with Marvel characters at Universal because the deal was done before Disney bought Marvel. But you say that Disney can change the contract with Marvel characters at casinos because Disney has control over characters in terms of how they are used.

No doubt I'll be accused of twisting points, etc. But it can't be both ways.

Unless you can find a cite otherwise - I don't buy this was a pre-existing arrangement given the title's release date of Sept '12. Titles like these in gambling and coin-op are per-title deals. Licenses are typically per title, with specific lifespans of right-to-use, and with the IP holder having final say on usage. Yes there are many deals that span multiple instances (Like Monopoly) but these are nothing like the Universal contract.

These games are typically licensed 'one-off' and companies may pay for exclusivity of a IP's use... but these are not blanket, nor perpetual arrangements.

 

[Lee]

It is so obvious that you are correct. It is good basic business sense for Disney AND Universal AND SeaWorld to be anti-gaming in Florida because it is competition to their market. Sometimes the answer is simple, and there is no need for paranoia, conspiracies, and sensationalism.

Agreed.
And they should be open about stating their position, rather than cloaking their opposition in a moral stance.

That's the issue.

 

[MattM]

My biggest takeaway of @WDW1974 post about Disney and gambling is the hypocrisy in lobbying so hard against casino interests, but that's all in protecting their business interests. Hypocrisy and business and politicians all go together, so there is no surprise there.

How is it hypocrisy to be against something that hurts your business interests? And is it hypocritical for Universal and SeaWorld to be against gaming in Central Florida as well? Because they are just as active in the anti-gaming push as Disney.

 

[MattM]

Agreed.
And they should be open about stating their position, rather than cloaking their opposition in a moral stance.

That's the issue.

To what moral stance have they cloaked their oppostion?

 

[MattM]

Unless you can find a cite otherwise - I don't buy this was a pre-existing arrangement given the title's release date of Sept '12. Titles like these in gambling and coin-op are per-title deals. Licenses are typically per title, with specific lifespans of right-to-use, and with the IP holder having final say on usage. Yes there are many deals that span multiple instances (Like Monopoly) but these are nothing like the Universal contract.

These games are typically licensed 'one-off' and companies may pay for exclusivity of a IP's use... but these are not blanket, nor perpetual arrangements.

I can't produce any documents, just like any insider here doesn't produce any documents. But to say that Spiderman or the Incredible Hulk or any of those characters have not been on a slot machine or video style gaming machine before Disney bought Marvel is incorrect.

 

[rodmansju]

Or, perhaps Disney has realized that gaming will eventually come to Orlando, and when it does, it will undoubtedly want a slice of the pie... perhaps gaming isn't being looked at as negatively as it used to be looked at.

i would be willing to bet that if Disney wanted in on gambling, then there would be a casino on at least one of their cruise ships, since gambling is a big part of cruising. unless i missed it, disney does not have a casino on any of their boats.

also, someone else mentioned junk food and disney tie ins...marketing is what it is, but if they really didn't care, they would not have ceased disney movie tie ins with McDonald's happy meals. maybe they haven't said no to all that is unhealthy, but they have stood up.

 

[MattM]

It likely depends on the terms.
We know the Uni deal is virtually untouchable. The casino deals could possibly be not renewed when they end.
If Disney wanted to...

That's right. Could, possibly...all words to describe that nobody really knows what Disney can and cannot do with contracts that were made before the deal with Marvel. To apply the logic, as the OP did, that Disney can control all Marvel characters should apply to Universal as well. It does not in that case. And it does not here.