-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Staggs resigns
- Thread starter Rider
- Start date
WDW1974
Well-Known Member
Are you suggesting that the Central Party isn't pulling the strings on this? Because they are ...
Mike S
Well-Known Member
I'll wait for YouTube.
TeriofTerror
Well-Known Member
Nah, her dad is great. I, on the other hand, was the prototypical middle child daughter of religious fanatics with a father who hated that I was smart and independent. I took off at eighteen and hit the ground running. It's a wonder I'm still alive!Does she happen to have Daddy issues? Just asking ...
Mike S
Well-Known Member
Shine on you crazy diamond.
the.dreamfinder
Well-Known Member
Yeah, Disney shouldn't be praised for its potential boycott in Georgia over that anti-LGBT Bill. Seeing as they wouldn't do business in the state if not for the generous subsidies, They just rode the coattails of businesses who actually matter to the state like Coca Cola, Turner, NFL and others. Disney only cares about Gay Rights when it suits them; see Star Wars TFA shooting in Abu Dhabi.I like to at least try to think of myself as a decent human being, so when Disney/Marvel was threatening to pull out of Georgia over their anti-LGBT legislation, of course I wanted the tactic to work. But one tiny, horrible part of me was thinking, "You could come back to Cleveland!"
I'm an awful person.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
山高皇帝远
To whom are ascribing the title of 'Central Party'?
WDW1974
Well-Known Member
Not at all.
Pixar has Disney DNA at its core because of John and team he put together. Despite all the bravado, much having to do with the now God-like Jobs character, Pixar was always going to become part of Disney. It just had to be after Eisner was gone much like (recent history lesson for some) the Iranian hostages weren't getting released under President Carter was out of office.
Marvel didn't raise eyebrows beyond people like myself who thought, and still do, that it doesn't fit with the company naturally. It feels off. But just based on sales of CP, it would have made sense. Plus it appealed to boys at a time when Disney was really struggling with males who weren't either parents or gay fanbois. It had a stable of great minds with a plan for churning out films. It was a long way from the company that was bankrupt a decade before. And its characters were already in the people's heads starting with the Toby Maquire Spidey films. And a big correction, but Disney didn't create the MCU. That was on Ike and Kevin and Stan and Co. They had already started that and were successful and had mapped out the entire first phase (likely more on Feige's part, but since I am not 100% sure and am held to that standard here, I won't say more). Sony and Fox and UNI had rights to other characters. And Marvel took care of the rest while letting Paramount distribute. Every Phase I film was already being created before Disney ever entered the picture. They had almost no effect on anything there.
Bottom line: Marvel most assuredly didn't need Disney. But Bob Iger thought Disney needed Marvel (he may have been right).
Lucas? How could anyone not see the value there? As you said, anyone could have put out a mediocre film and make a billion. So, Disney's non-stop marketing machine allowed it to put out a mediocre film and make two billion.
As to Disney's ability to make new fans ... well, today's popularity of WDW shows it really isn't that tough with that marketing machine and social media.
I'm going to see that soon ... just to see my 'pal' play Batman. But based on the money it is making, I'm not sure how one can say it was money spent poorly. A bad film that makes huge money and a great film that makes huge money are equal when it comes to both the bottom line and a Studios plans going forward.
But I also am not typical of comic film fans ... I loved Deadpool ... and GotG ... and very much liked Ant Man and the first Captain America and Iron Man films ... and pretty much disliked everything else (including both Avengers films and the last Captain America, which I could barely sit through). I also thought that the Bryan Singer Superman Returns and all of Nolan's Dark Knight films were better than most Marvel films. Oh, and I hated ... HATED ... Man of Steel.
WDW1974
Well-Known Member
DIS is the largest media and entertainment company in the world and forces its products down the collective throats of more people globally than anyone. So what you are saying is true, but also obvious ...
WDW1974
Well-Known Member
^^That. Disney is getting credit for a lot of success at Marvel that it had little or nothing to do with.
Because success is not a given, even if it (in hindsight) was likely. And just because a product is available, it doesn't mean it is a product that a business has to have. One can easily argue that Disney had the absolute most need for a company like Marvel. Iger was desperate to grow Disney's audience after the company spent years alienating many segments (MEN and BOYS!) of the audience with its over pushing on Princesses and the like. Why do you think Disney wanted Potter? And then made a deal for Avatar?
Sounds like an involuntary separation to me. But I can see them asking him to stay on through Shanghai's opening, just to prevent the boys on Wall Street having a minor stroke and ease any jitters over in China. If he cleared his office over the weekend, that would be telling. Especially if Disney security was present, which I'm going to assume is SOP - it is in the organization I retired from.
Sadly, so true. As much as I was anticipating the movie, I cannot now even contemplate going to see it. When it was announced that Ben was going to play Batman, I thought "wait, didn't they learn from Daredevil?" Guess not.
So those of us who grew up on and love Superman will be content with Christopher Reeves, not that that's a bad thing.....
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
Not me I will have been out of the house for hours already to meet with customers
Yeah, I read that today. The Iceland PM resigned, but the government has refused to do so.
Interesting..... Wonder what this will do to that park in China. @WDW1974, any thoughts?
He needs to stay where he is, for now.
the.dreamfinder
Well-Known Member
I don't think any of the issues I have with the character are his fault and his solo film will probably be good. Henry Cavill's performance, regardless of the fundamental destruction of the character, is terrible.
Yeah, he wasn't that great in Man of Steel, either. But he sure filled out that costume well....
Quinnmac000
Well-Known Member
Henry Cavill hasn't been good in any movie...He is just a really attractive man who people like to look at but he can't lead a movie at all. From Man from U.N.C.L.E, The Immortals or Man of Steel.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
Isn't that what we're discussing though? The question is whether Iger made a good move that benefited Disney. Personally, I would say certainly yes and it is something that is a positive as a CEO. And it wasn't a "no brainer" like Pixar and Lucasfilm that any CEO would have done, so I think at least there should be some credit for having the foresight to make the deal.
I would agree that Marvel would have done just fine without Disney, as they had a creative vision and solid plan though at the time producing their own movies was thought to be quite risky. However, being under Disney has probably allowed them to take greater risks and also provided more outlets for revenue generation (got to think that Disney's expertise has significantly boosted consumer product sales over what it would have been as if Marvel were still independent).
That's the thing -- the box office for BvS: DoJ is huge, but as you well know it's profits that companies care about. The production costs for BvS were high ($250M, which some hinted was under reported it was worse) and experts have suggested that it needs to make over $800M to break even. Due to poor reviews and word of mouth, the films box office performance has plummeted after the huge opening and it looks like it will limp it's way to maybe $900M at best. So, it's not going to make a huge profit at the box office (though of course there's old revenue like merchandise and DVD sales to come).
That said, if it was just an isolated tentpole, no problem. It was expensive, makes a small profit and everyone moves on to the next film. But this isn't an ordinary tentpole for Warner Bros -- this is a pivotal film in their upcoming film slate for years. They needed this film to be more than just a slightly profitable film and, more importantly, they needed it to be well received. Because they wanted it to provide momentum to all the upcoming DC films. The poor reviews and plummeting box office portends that consumers may be skeptical of DC films in the future, which means it can hurt their revenue for years to come.
If you hated Man of Steel, you are unlikely to enjoy Dawn of Justice. Same directer, same glum tone, plenty of unnecessary deaths.