Spirited News, Observations & Thoughts IV

[fosse76]

It seems that the film (Splash) was the first released under the newly formed "Touchstone Pictures" to distance the Disney name from anything in the PG realm. Disney was tired of defending itself over releasing PG material. They needed a place to put films like; The Black Hole, Condorman, and Tron. The move was successful and generated a ton of money during the 80s.

I bet you snuck into that dirty little mermaid movie. Didn't you?

*1023*

Exactly. And unlike then, Disney's acquisition of Star Wars and Marvel is well publicized...there is no separation of the brands. Even if you can argue that everyone new Touchstone and Mirimax were owned by Disney, their "brands" never really connected with the Mouse, so whatever they did or released wasn't ever too associated with Disney.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Gonna derail this thread with movie news one more time (of course you know I had to!). BOM has interestingly listed Man of Steel among this summer's "toss-ups":

Man of Steel:Zack Snyder-directed Superman rebootMan of Steelset a June opening weekend record with an incredible $116.6 million ($128.7 million including Thursday night grosses). Unfortunately, lukewarm word-of-mouth caused the movie to collapse after opening weekend, and it will wind up earning less than $300 million at the domestic box office. Add in good overseas figures ($360 million and counting) andMan of Steelis absolutely going to turn a profit. Still, the much-publicized decision to add Batman to theMan of Steelsequel suggests that this wasn't the kind of runaway success that Warner Bros. was hoping for.

Indeed, more than two-thirds of MoS's domestic total came within its first 10 days of release. That thing was really front-loaded. $660 million worldwide isn't bad, but for the most hyped movie of the summer (and how much it cost), that's kinda weak.

The same article also reveals the point that Hollywood only gets 25% of the earnings generated in China, which is not good for Pacific Rim or Lone Ranger, which has yet to open there (not that it'll make that movie's $239 million worldwide total much better). Though China is now second only to the US in largest country for box office returns.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3724&p=.htm

 

[MattM]

Someone hop over to Yahoo Finance (with their new logo, or your finance site of choice) and tell me to which industry The Walt Disney Company belongs?

When you see it, you'll recognize that the company in more adult type markets is not incomprehensible. Not even a little bit.

 

[willtravel]

When considering what's impacting Deluxe Resort occupancy rates, don't forget the astronomical room rates at WDW's Deluxe Resorts. WDW is set to cross a dubious milestone this year when the price of a Grand Floridian Theme Park View room breaks the $1000/night barrier for Christmas 2013. (Price: $1026/night with tax. ) No suite, no concierge. Just a room with a pretty view of Cinderella Castle.

DVC certainly has cannibalized Deluxe Resort occupancy as well. It's a matter of numbers. WDW has about 5600 Deluxe Resort rooms and over 4300 DVC rooms. 10 years ago, WDW had less than 1800 DVC rooms. Those 2500+ additional DVC rooms are targeted directly at the Deluxe Resort market.

And people wonder why Deluxe Resort occupancy rates are down.

Disney better hurry up and get those empty rooms at the Poly converted to DVC.

What I am trying to figure out is GFH. Is it always filled to capacity? If it is, then I understand building a DVC. But if not, why not convert rooms to DVC like Animal Kingdom ? Why a whole new building.

 

[fosse76]

The difference to me is that this is absolutely nothing new for Marvel. For decades now they have had no qualms with having different versions of characters aimed at different audiences. This is a big part of why Disney promised not to interfere with Marvel, because it was known that Marvel had some very different versions of characters, many of whom did not fit the Disney image. In these very threads we've discussed how Marvel has stood up to Disney and made them stay out of their affairs. Marvel doing business as Marvel has done for decades is not a big revelation.

I think the issue is more that Disney "claims" that they will not interefere CREATIVELY with Marvel. But left to its own devices Marvel isn't exactly the king of entrepreneurship. Disney is absolutely interfering with the business aspects.

The issue WDW1974 has is that Disney publicly states that they oppose gambling on moral grounds. He is pointing out the hypocrisy that this moral indignation starts and ends in Florida. It is actively allowing one of its business units to engage in a business it is morally against. Flynn's view, I believe, is: all businesses are hypocritical, so why is this shocking? All companies lie, and to me, that really should't be ok with anyone. Someone else posited whether or not we would accept this behavior from a person, and we all know we wouldn't. Should a company publicly get away with this kind of "fraud"? The attitudes supporting the Mouse on this issue are what allow businesses to continue to behave in this manner. That said, I don't think the disclosure of Disney actively allowing subsidiaries to prostitute their IP to the gambling industry would get any one's ire up unless it were Mickey and gang or the princesses. But we really shouldn't, as consumers, just relegate that behavior to the status of "it's just business."

 

[nytimez]

Here's something interesting.

Wdw is redefining what they consider to be a credible media outlet & whom they let In to their events.

"Behind the thrills" was your first casualty.

I don't keep up with all the various blogs and sites that cover the theme parks, so I'm not sure what this means - but it does make me interested/curious. In your opinion, what separates "Behind the Thrills" from the other bloggers/lifestylers WDW lets into its events?

Are they any more or any less legitimate? Or is this an issue of they didn't toe the party line on something?

 

[misterID]

The difference to me is that this is absolutely nothing new for Marvel. For decades now they have had no qualms with having different versions of characters aimed at different audiences. This is a big part of why Disney promised not to interfere with Marvel, because it was known that Marvel had some very different versions of characters, many of whom did not fit the Disney image. In these very threads we've discussed how Marvel has stood up to Disney and made them stay out of their affairs. Marvel doing business as Marvel has done for decades is not a big revelation.

I can tell you this, not even Eisner would have allowed a Spiderman Slot Machine. Because he knew how it would look. Like the Pixar deal, Disney doesn't interfere so much creatively, but they have a whole lot of say over things that go on, especially IP which was what they wanted. To think Disney dropped the bread they did and yet have no say over how they handle their IP is ridiculous. Again, you and @flynnibus have made your opinion. I stated mine. I think the gambling is lame. Not Splash, Not Pretty Woman or Tarantino, but the IP they're using to sell action figures and pajamas to kids with. If you don't get that, you won't, or don't want to. I think I've explained my perspective very well. If you want to argue it again, talk about Touchstone or Mirimax, or Tony Stark's boozing and womanizing, go ahead and do it with yourself. A Disney product is endorsing gambling, using a well known IP they use to attract kids to buy merch and watch cartoons. I think that's lame. You don't have to agree or go on a tangent or rant. Pretty simple.

 

[lebeau]

Gonna derail this thread with movie news one more time (of course you know I had to!). BOM has interestingly listed Man of Steel among this summer's "toss-ups":

Man of Steel:Zack Snyder-directed Superman rebootMan of Steelset a June opening weekend record with an incredible $116.6 million ($128.7 million including Thursday night grosses). Unfortunately, lukewarm word-of-mouth caused the movie to collapse after opening weekend, and it will wind up earning less than $300 million at the domestic box office. Add in good overseas figures ($360 million and counting) andMan of Steelis absolutely going to turn a profit. Still, the much-publicized decision to add Batman to theMan of Steelsequel suggests that this wasn't the kind of runaway success that Warner Bros. was hoping for.

Indeed, more than two-thirds of MoS's domestic total came within its first 10 days of release. That thing was really front-loaded. $660 million worldwide isn't bad, but for the most hyped movie of the summer (and how much it cost), that's kinda weak.

The same article also reveals the point that Hollywood only gets 25% of the earnings generated in China, which is not good for Pacific Rim or Lone Ranger, which has yet to open there (not that it'll make that movie's $239 million worldwide total much better). Though China is now second only to the US in largest country for box office returns.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3724&p=.htm

Here's some more interesting reading for you.

The New York Times suggests that the entire concept of the summer movie season has failed.

From an economics perspective, this summer schedule is baffling. The studios are choosing to release all of their big films precisely when they know their competitors are doing the same thing. “There’s rational behavior and there’s, well, other behavior,” says Peter Broderick, a film-distribution strategist who runs Paradigm Consulting. “Decision-making in Hollywood, perhaps more than anywhere else, is driven by conventional wisdom and inertia and a whole lot of things that are more complicated than just being rational.”

 

[flynnibus]

. Flynn's view, I believe, is: all businesses are hypocritical, so why is this shocking?

No - it's that Disney is not one universal entity. If you truly believe it is -- your head should be exploding on a daily basis as Disney conflicts itself over and over.

Second, if you believe Disney is against gambling in Florida based on moral high ground... I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think the issue is more that Disney "claims" that they will not interefere CREATIVELY with Marvel. But left to its own devices Marvel isn't exactly the king of entrepreneurship. Disney is absolutely interfering with the business aspects.

The issue WDW1974 has is that Disney publicly states that they oppose gambling on moral grounds. He is pointing out the hypocrisy that this moral indignation starts and ends in Florida. It is actively allowing one of its business units to engage in a business it is morally against. Flynn's view, I believe, is: all businesses are hypocritical, so why is this shocking? All companies lie, and to me, that really should't be ok with anyone. Someone else posited whether or not we would accept this behavior from a person, and we all know we wouldn't. Should a company publicly get away with this kind of "fraud"? The attitudes supporting the Mouse on this issue are what allow businesses to continue to behave in this manner. That said, I don't think the disclosure of Disney actively allowing subsidiaries to prostitute their IP to the gambling industry would get any one's ire up unless it were Mickey and gang or the princesses. But we really shouldn't, as consumers, just relegate that behavior to the status of "it's just business."

Just at Walt Disney World it seems like there are plenty of times where the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. We all know how dysfunctional Disney can be as an organization. I take more issue with the framing of this as some sort of shocking revelation. It's not like Disney and Marvel were trying to hide this from being known. The machines are there for people to see the licensee issues press releases and lists their currently licensed properties on their website.

I just have a hard time getting worked up now over something that is not new from a Company that loves to have its cake and eat it too. The shock of The Walt Disney Company's hypocrisy has long since worn off.

Personally, I also do not see the moral/ethical issue of properties marketed to children being on gaming machines or lottery tickets. I roll my eyes at them but in the same way I roll my eyes at the Value Resorts, I just see no value in slapping properties onto otherwise generic products.

 

[asianway]

I don't keep up with all the various blogs and sites that cover the theme parks, so I'm not sure what this means - but it does make me interested/curious. In your opinion, what separates "Behind the Thrills" from the other bloggers/lifestylers WDW lets into its events?

Are they any more or any less legitimate? Or is this an issue of they didn't toe the party line on something?

I've never even heard of them-where do I mail my wdwmagic curmudgeon card? I feel like I should

 

[PhotoDave219]

I don't keep up with all the various blogs and sites that cover the theme parks, so I'm not sure what this means - but it does make me interested/curious. In your opinion, what separates "Behind the Thrills" from the other bloggers/lifestylers WDW lets into its events?

Are they any more or any less legitimate? Or is this an issue of they didn't toe the party line on something?

I believe - personal opinion/interpretation- they are looking at reputation/site traffic and trying to weed out "guy who started a blog to get free ."

As they should, IMO.

 

[PhotoDave219]

I've never even heard of them-where do I mail my wdwmagic curmudgeon card? I feel like I should

1 Microsoft way
Redmond Washington.

 

[nytimez]

I believe - personal opinion/interpretation- they are looking at reputation/site traffic and trying to weed out "guy who started a blog to get free ****."

As they should, IMO.

Agreed.

I tend to believe there's room in the "new media" landscape for independent bloggers with quality info, even if they will always be outnumbered by "guy who started a blog to get free ****."

But, I can't help but believe that the ultimate distinction will be on how well the blogger plays ball rather than the content/quality on the blog itself.

Of course big companies have always tried to play this game... but when journalists are part of bigger media outlets it's harder to get away with it. Which leads me to my second concern, and that's when companies such as Disney ultimately try to do an end run around traditional media and go straight to friendly bloggers that essentially depend on the company's cooperation for the survival of their Web sites.

 

[spaceghost]

This seems like a good place to put this:

http://www.nbcnews.com/travel/disne...retionary-dollars-8C11045092?ocid=msnhp&pos=4

Another mainstream media article that talks about MM+ and just tows the company line. Love the quote from Staggs about how the visitors spent more money because "they had fun with the technology." It was also interesting to hear the SW land rumors stated the way they were.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Agreed.

I tend to believe there's room in the "new media" landscape for independent bloggers with quality info, even if they will always be outnumbered by "guy who started a blog to get free ****."

But, I can't help but believe that the ultimate distinction will be on how well the blogger plays ball rather than the content/quality on the blog itself.

Of course big companies have always tried to play this game... but when journalists are part of bigger media outlets it's harder to get away with it. Which leads me to my second concern, and that's when companies such as Disney ultimately try to do an end run around traditional media and go straight to friendly bloggers that essentially depend on the company's cooperation for the survival of their Web sites.

Yes well, Disney tried that and it seems to be failing....

 

[nor'easter]

But, I can't help but believe that the ultimate distinction will be on how well the blogger plays ball rather than the content/quality on the blog itself.

Of course big companies have always tried to play this game... but when journalists are part of bigger media outlets it's harder to get away with it. .

Unless you work for the Orlando Sentinel.

 

[HMF]

The difference to me is that this is absolutely nothing new for Marvel. For decades now they have had no qualms with having different versions of characters aimed at different audiences. This is a big part of why Disney promised not to interfere with Marvel, because it was known that Marvel had some very different versions of characters, many of whom did not fit the Disney image. In these very threads we've discussed how Marvel has stood up to Disney and made them stay out of their affairs. Marvel doing business as Marvel has done for decades is not a big revelation.

That is my problem with Marvel and the Comics industry in general, rather than building a big inter-connected fictional Universe Ala, Star Wars, They have 30+ different continuities. That to me feels contrived and fake. I want to be immersed in a different believable world. Numerous continuities tells me that you don't take your world seriously so why should I? It's like somebody announcing it is all fake. You know it's all fake but you can believe it because there are no Inconsistencies.

 

[HMF]

No - it's that Disney is not one universal entity. If you truly believe it is -- your head should be exploding on a daily basis as Disney conflicts itself over and over.

Second, if you believe Disney is against gambling in Florida based on moral high ground... I have a bridge to sell you.

I think that most of us know this. But I believe that the way to operate is consistent oversight of a whole entity, There needs to be someone to focus on the big picture. The more subsidized and divided a company gets the more difficult it is to make sure things are properly taken care of. That is why I am against Disney acquiring things like Marvel. The money Iger spends to take over these entities usually comes at the expense of what they already have. Disney Animation has not made a truly great film in years rather than wisely investing in animation, Iger buys Marvel. Walt Disney World is falling apart, We get reserving rides month's in advance and guest survellince,. Etc. If you actually take care of what you actually have you will reap the rewards but instead we see the company buying more and more things to cover it's blunders up with . That type of constant growth is impractical, If your foundation is weak then all the layers built on top will inevitably crumble.

 

[Kuhio]

I don't keep up with all the various blogs and sites that cover the theme parks, so I'm not sure what this means - but it does make me interested/curious. In your opinion, what separates "Behind the Thrills" from the other bloggers/lifestylers WDW lets into its events?

Are they any more or any less legitimate? Or is this an issue of they didn't toe the party line on something?

I believe - personal opinion/interpretation- they are looking at reputation/site traffic and trying to weed out "guy who started a blog to get free ****."

As they should, IMO.

If Disney is serious about culling the numbers of credentialed bloggers, then using these relatively objective criteria is an effective way to go about it.

There is a sharp drop-off in traffic (based on Twitter and Facebook numbers) between something like Behind the Thrills (~5000 Twitter followers and ~4000 FB likes) and Inside the Magic (~28000 Twitter followers and ~24000 FB likes). Superficially, the two sites are a lot alike: they not only have similar-sounding names, but are formatted similarly and cover a similar range of topics.

The big difference, of course, is the fact that I'd never heard of Behind the Thrills... before now.

And this method should also be pretty effective at weeding out relatively new bloggers who started their sites solely or primarily to get free stuff. However, I wonder how many of today's most reputable/well-trafficked sites started out as labors of love, but essentially transformed into personal gravy trains and swag factories for owners who would have quit the blogging business long ago if not for Disney's pandering in recent years to the socially-connected quasi-"media."