Spirited News, Observations & Thoughts Tres

[Computer Magic]

I don't recall any of the A.D. gang pulling out a living man's heart...



Yes, but Touchstone was not headlined with Disney.. and that's what they are doing here. The point is they are failing to create that separation and in turn mudding up the Disney brand.

Are up saying Disney logo is shown before a Marvel movie? I really have grown tired of superhero movies and have yet to watch Marvel once Disney bought them? If so, then I would agree with your statement of blending. You never knew Touchtone was owned by Disney.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

I saw this post on Deadlines box office thread and thought this sums up some of the problems with Disney's name on violent action movies

"This is Branding 101. I have been posting on this site for 4 years now, since Disney acquired Marvel, about the dangers of slapping their brand on too many unlike products, ultimately creating confusion for consumers and eroding its value in the marketplace. A brand that has historically been the trusted go-to brand for wholesome family entertainment cannot also expect its brand to stretch into violent adolescent (i.e. more mature) content. It needs a different brand for that. Parents trust the Disney brand. They expect to buy its toys and have them be ‘safe’ for their kids. They expect to watch its movies and tv shows and have them be ‘safe’ for their kids. Putting the Disney logo on The Lone Ranger creates confusion for everyone. It misleads parents into thinking this is ‘safe’ for young children, when it is extremely violent and inappropriate. It turns away the mature and adolescent crowd, who are either too confused by the branding to know what to make of it, or simply shrug it of as an uncool baby movie by virtue of seeing Disney’s name. How many times does this formula have to fail before Disney gets with the program? Okay, hungry for more money, Diseny decided it needed to break out of its ‘princess’ stereotype by appealing to older children, especially boys. That was obvious enough from the Marvel acquisition. But these violent, mature boy movies they have been making recently are so off-brand. Not only do they lose money, but they kill goodwill. If Disney wants to appeal to older kids, then stick with things in the High School Musical-type universe. Develop or buy a different brand with no links to Diseny, and use that to sell gore and violence to the older boys. Don;t co-mingle Disney’s sacred brand name with this stuff. Seriously. Branding 101 folks."

Touchstone

 

[doctornick]

Are up saying Disney logo is shown before a Marvel movie? I really have grown tired of superhero movies and have yet to watch Marvel once Disney bought them? If so, then I would agree with your statement of blending. You never knew Touchtone was owned by Disney.

Yeah, I don't see how that's an issue. When one is seeing a Marvel film, one knows what you are getting whether there is a castle shown before the movie or not. It's a super hero flick and it will have some expected level of violence. I don't see any problems with the Marvel acquisition or how those movies are marketed that causes confusion with the Disney brand. No one goes to see The Avengers thinking they are getting Dumbo.

Same will go with when new Star Wars films are coming out under the Lucasfilm brand.

The Lone Ranger OTOH (which I have not seen) is marketed as "Disney" specifically and I think there is a valid point to be made there. If the level of violence is appreciably higher (especially more graphic) than was present in POTC -- which it sounds like it is from what I've read -- than I think that is a concern. Couldn't Touchstone still be used for that sort of film?

 

[RandySavage]

Is the Lone Ranger a violent movie or is it along the lines of Pirates or Disney Apple Dumpling Gang?

The Lone Ranger is 1st cousin to the PotC movies in every way, including the PG-13, mostly bloodless violence. This ain't 'Saving Private Ryan'. The Lone Ranger's heart scene is more implied than shown, nothing close to the 'Indiana Jones Temple of Doom' scene and not nearly as gruesome as seeing an eye getting torn out in Dead Man's Chest.

I quite enjoyed the movie (am a fan of the PotC series) and think the B+ cinemascore is about on the mark. I also find the harsh reviews a little puzzling... but then I liked MacGruber and was bored to tears by The King's Speech, so there's that...

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I saw Lone Ranger just now and it is actually good. Best climax in a movie I've seen this year. Could you have a 45 min nap in the middle and not miss much? Yep, but overall still good. No where near as bad or uneven in tone as critics suggest.

On this violence point, all that whinning is way WAY WAAAAYYYYYYYY overblown. There is NOTHING in this movie that comes close to anything shown in the Indy movies and if your kids can handle them, they'll take this one in stride. Most violence is of TV western variety (gun is shot - you see smoke - someone falls) and the infamous "heart scene" is all off camera. When it was over I was like "is that it?", and it was. Nothing like Game of Thrones. That some wuss with a HuffPost account is capable of ranting about it doesn't surprise me though. It's like the Mommy Blogger equivalent of the Fox-News-hates-Muppets bit.

I agree the Disney brand has its limits in what is acceptable to show and that's why brands like Touchstone and Hollywood Pictures exists, but that has no relation to LR as there is nothing to get offended by it.

The movie's rating in Canada is a simple PG for "violence". The MPAA once again shows how much of a joke it is.

 

[Computer Magic]

Yeah, I don't see how that's an issue. When one is seeing a Marvel film, one knows what you are getting whether there is a castle shown before the movie or not. It's a super hero flick and it will have some expected level of violence. I don't see any problems with the Marvel acquisition or how those movies are marketed that causes confusion with the Disney brand. No one goes to see The Avengers thinking they are getting Dumbo.

Same will go with when new Star Wars films are coming out under the Lucasfilm brand.

The Lone Ranger OTOH (which I have not seen) is marketed as "Disney" specifically and I think there is a valid point to be made there. If the level of violence is appreciably higher (especially more graphic) than was present in POTC -- which it sounds like it is from what I've read -- than I think that is a concern. Couldn't Touchstone still be used for that ort of film?

I don't want a Disney Castle preceding the Star Wars theme. It does set a different tone. I read someone saying they will miss the 20th Century Fox music and logo before Star Wars and I would agree.

I wonder why more PG and PG13 is running with the Disney name. I remember reading how Walt was envious at times with the adult theme movies knowing he had to keep his brand family friendly. That is where Ron Miller was genius with developing touchtone.

 

[doctornick]

If Disney wants to appeal to older kids, then stick with things in the High School Musical-type universe. Develop or buy a different brand with no links to Diseny, and use that to sell gore and violence to the older boys.

Isn't buying Marvel and Lucasfilm doing exactly as this author is proposing?

 

[RandySavage]

I saw Lone Ranger just now and it is actually good. Best climax in a movie I've seen this year.

That train finale sequence, with the re-orchestration of the William Tell Overture, was awesome. Shows how important good music is to a film.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

That extended finale, with the re-orchestration of the William Tell Orchestra, was awesome. Shows how important good music is to a film.

Hans Zimmer did both this and Man of Steel, but the climaxes of those two are a night and day difference. Of course he didn't write the WTO, but just comparing those two sequences, my god, you can level a city like 9/11x11, but it'll never top the thrill of classical music set against a good train 'n horse chase.

 

[Studios Fan]

I don't want a Disney Castle preceding the Star Wars theme. It does set a different tone. I read someone saying they will miss the 20th Century Fox music and logo before Star Wars and I would agree.

I wonder why more PG and PG13 is running with the Disney name. I remember reading how Walt was envious at times with the adult theme movies knowing he had to keep his brand family friendly. That is where Ron Miller was genius with developing touchtone.

I too will miss the Fox score but I am glad Disney bought Lucas, and Marvel as well. The problem I have is them basically slapping Disney across everything. Years ago, Lone Ranger would have been a Touchstone film a la The Rock or Enemy of the State. I also hope they don't put the castle intro in front of the Marvel films as I think it could ultimately affect some comic fans going to see the films. I have less of a problem with them putting it on Star Wars though. I just hope they don't start calling it Disney's Star Wars.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

I too will miss the Fox score but I am glad Disney bought Lucas, and Marvel as well. The problem I have is them basically slapping Disney across everything. Years ago, Lone Ranger would have been a Touchstone film a la The Rock or Enemy of the State. I also hope they don't put the castle intro in front of the Marvel films as I think it could ultimately affect some comic fans going to see the films. I have less of a problem with them putting it on Star Wars though. I just hope they don't start calling it Disney's Star Wars.

The trailer for Thor 2 does not have any Disney logos.

 

[willtravel]

1. That train finale sequence, with the re-orchestration of the William Tell Overture, was awesome. Shows how important good music is to a film.

   I too just saw the movie. I think the music was probably the best part. Unfortunately, for me I think the movie was not that good. I was really looking forward to this movie for I really like westerns and had hoped this was something Disney could build on and use in Adventureland or the railroad at WDW. Violence? The boy in front of us cried twice and wanted to leave. It reminded me of the movie Wild Wild West. The idea for a movie was great but the movie itself.

 

[Studios Fan]

The trailer for Thor 2 does not have any Disney logos.

That's reassuring to hear.

 

[GiveMeTheMusic]

I too will miss the Fox score but I am glad Disney bought Lucas, and Marvel as well. The problem I have is them basically slapping Disney across everything. Years ago, Lone Ranger would have been a Touchstone film a la The Rock or Enemy of the State. I also hope they don't put the castle intro in front of the Marvel films as I think it could ultimately affect some comic fans going to see the films. I have less of a problem with them putting it on Star Wars though. I just hope they don't start calling it Disney's Star Wars.

No castle logos in front of Marvel films - just the Marvel logo. Marvel is its own brand and can stand on its own.

I wonder why more PG and PG13 is running with the Disney name. I remember reading how Walt was envious at times with the adult theme movies knowing he had to keep his brand family friendly. That is where Ron Miller was genius with developing touchtone.

Iger has presided over what they've referred to as "brand simplification" companywide. It's either Disney, Marvel, ABC or ESPN. No Hyperion, Buena Vista, etc. Touchstone is reserved exclusively for DreamWorks pictures that WDC distributes (live action only such as The Help, DWA films are distributed by Fox).

 

[Magenta Panther]

I saw this post on Deadlines box office thread and thought this sums up some of the problems with Disney's name on violent action movies

"This is Branding 101. I have been posting on this site for 4 years now, since Disney acquired Marvel, about the dangers of slapping their brand on too many unlike products, ultimately creating confusion for consumers and eroding its value in the marketplace. A brand that has historically been the trusted go-to brand for wholesome family entertainment cannot also expect its brand to stretch into violent adolescent (i.e. more mature) content. It needs a different brand for that. Parents trust the Disney brand. They expect to buy its toys and have them be ‘safe’ for their kids. They expect to watch its movies and tv shows and have them be ‘safe’ for their kids. Putting the Disney logo on The Lone Ranger creates confusion for everyone. It misleads parents into thinking this is ‘safe’ for young children, when it is extremely violent and inappropriate. It turns away the mature and adolescent crowd, who are either too confused by the branding to know what to make of it, or simply shrug it of as an uncool baby movie by virtue of seeing Disney’s name. How many times does this formula have to fail before Disney gets with the program? Okay, hungry for more money, Diseny decided it needed to break out of its ‘princess’ stereotype by appealing to older children, especially boys. That was obvious enough from the Marvel acquisition. But these violent, mature boy movies they have been making recently are so off-brand. Not only do they lose money, but they kill goodwill. If Disney wants to appeal to older kids, then stick with things in the High School Musical-type universe. Develop or buy a different brand with no links to Diseny, and use that to sell gore and violence to the older boys. Don;t co-mingle Disney’s sacred brand name with this stuff. Seriously. Branding 101 folks."

Get this person Iger's job, stat!

 

[Clever Name]

I saw this post on Deadlines box office thread and thought this sums up some of the problems with Disney's name on violent action movies

"This is Branding 101. I have been posting on this site for 4 years now, since Disney acquired Marvel, about the dangers of slapping their brand on too many unlike products, ultimately creating confusion for consumers and eroding its value in the marketplace. A brand that has historically been the trusted go-to brand for wholesome family entertainment cannot also expect its brand to stretch into violent adolescent (i.e. more mature) content. It needs a different brand for that. Parents trust the Disney brand. They expect to buy its toys and have them be ‘safe’ for their kids. They expect to watch its movies and tv shows and have them be ‘safe’ for their kids. Putting the Disney logo on The Lone Ranger creates confusion for everyone. It misleads parents into thinking this is ‘safe’ for young children, when it is extremely violent and inappropriate. It turns away the mature and adolescent crowd, who are either too confused by the branding to know what to make of it, or simply shrug it of as an uncool baby movie by virtue of seeing Disney’s name. How many times does this formula have to fail before Disney gets with the program? Okay, hungry for more money, Diseny decided it needed to break out of its ‘princess’ stereotype by appealing to older children, especially boys. That was obvious enough from the Marvel acquisition. But these violent, mature boy movies they have been making recently are so off-brand. Not only do they lose money, but they kill goodwill. If Disney wants to appeal to older kids, then stick with things in the High School Musical-type universe. Develop or buy a different brand with no links to Diseny, and use that to sell gore and violence to the older boys. Don;t co-mingle Disney’s sacred brand name with this stuff. Seriously. Branding 101 folks."

I disagree. Disney is the Wal-Mart of media and it doesn't confuse me in the least that they take up a very wide berth in movies and other media. As for people expecting Disney movies to be "safe", I've heard that argument many times before and I don't buy it.

I recall that when "Finding Nemo" was first released, some parents were shocked by the violence shown at the start of the movie. All I can say is that if you're that much of a prude, then let me warn you not to watch Snow White, Pinocchio, Bambi, The Lion King, Dumbo and many other Disney cartoons. Some are filled with racism, violence and all manner of adult themes.

Who would have thought that Walt Disney would make a movie involving white slavery? Disney's "sacred brand name" is only sacred to a small minority of zealots that worship at the pixie-dust altar.

 

[HMF]

Iger has presided over what they've referred to as "brand simplification" companywide. It's either Disney, Marvel, ABC or ESPN. No Hyperion, Buena Vista, etc.

Or as I call it "Brand lowering" or the "let's remove Walt's name, ,s and anything that used to make different divisions of the company special and unique" initiative

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Saving Mr. Banks will also have a PG-13 rating according to IMDB, which reminds me, when is a trailer going to be released for that? It's about 5 months away at this point.

 

[ChrisFL]

I saw this post on Deadlines box office thread and thought this sums up some of the problems with Disney's name on violent action movies

"This is Branding 101. I have been posting on this site for 4 years now, since Disney acquired Marvel, about the dangers of slapping their brand on too many unlike products, ultimately creating confusion for consumers and eroding its value in the marketplace. A brand that has historically been the trusted go-to brand for wholesome family entertainment cannot also expect its brand to stretch into violent adolescent (i.e. more mature) content. It needs a different brand for that. Parents trust the Disney brand. They expect to buy its toys and have them be ‘safe’ for their kids. They expect to watch its movies and tv shows and have them be ‘safe’ for their kids. Putting the Disney logo on The Lone Ranger creates confusion for everyone. It misleads parents into thinking this is ‘safe’ for young children, when it is extremely violent and inappropriate. It turns away the mature and adolescent crowd, who are either too confused by the branding to know what to make of it, or simply shrug it of as an uncool baby movie by virtue of seeing Disney’s name. How many times does this formula have to fail before Disney gets with the program? Okay, hungry for more money, Diseny decided it needed to break out of its ‘princess’ stereotype by appealing to older children, especially boys. That was obvious enough from the Marvel acquisition. But these violent, mature boy movies they have been making recently are so off-brand. Not only do they lose money, but they kill goodwill. If Disney wants to appeal to older kids, then stick with things in the High School Musical-type universe. Develop or buy a different brand with no links to Diseny, and use that to sell gore and violence to the older boys. Don;t co-mingle Disney’s sacred brand name with this stuff. Seriously. Branding 101 folks."

I'm not sure whether to agree or disagree with this.

On the one hand, I agree that Disney owes it to their target market to ensure that their branded films are family friendly, however I've also been of the mind that they're veering too often to the super-safe (read: boring) side in their movies. If you compare the recent offerings of Disney vs. Walt's movies, they were often darker than they are now.There's nothing edgy about their films anymore IMO.

I haven't seen The Lone Ranger, but I doubt the success or failure of the movie is going to come down to whether there's too much violence. There's almost assuredly going to be more outrage if there was more "adult content", since that's the kind of society we have it seems like.

 

[El Grupo]

Iger has presided over what they've referred to as "brand simplification" companywide. It's either Disney, Marvel, ABC or ESPN. No Hyperion, Buena Vista, etc. Touchstone is reserved exclusively for DreamWorks pictures that WDC distributes (live action only such as The Help, DWA films are distributed by Fox).

I have to wonder if Disney may start taking a different approach with Horn at the helm of the studios. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Touchstone name again attached to movies produced by WDS. Or another studio name created (or acquired).

Further, I could see Disney changing course and expanding their movie output under this new or revived name.