Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
K.
I agree that Disney hasn’t been coming up with good stories lately. I’m not blaming token characters on that.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
'Strange World' Disney's 2022 Animated Film
- Thread starter NateD1226
- Start date
CaptainAmerica
Well-Known Member
If an architect has four months to design a house and they spend three months on internal meetings about what shade of yellow paint to use in the guest bedroom, are you going to be surprised if the house has structural problems?
It's not the yellow walls' fault that the house has structural problems, but I think it's perfectly legitimate to ask questions about the architect's use of time and resources.
We're not saying "stop painting walls yellow." We're saying "stop obsessing over wall color and get the big things right first."
Heppenheimer
Well-Known Member
I don't think one thing necessarily causes the other, but it could suggest they have the wrong priorities. And if it doesn't feel organic to the plot, or completely out of place for the time and locale of the story, it comes across as awkward and pandering.
I'm not saying this is the case for Strange World, because I haven't seen it yet. But for the live action Pinocchio, that was set in a very specific time and place that certainly did not share the ethnic make-up of the contemporary US? It just came across as forced. But of course, this would not have mattered if the story was good, but it really stands out in a bad movie.
GimpYancIent
Well-Known Member
What? You think it should go to D+ sooner?
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
I don’t see the obsession you’ve mentioned here.
CaptainAmerica
Well-Known Member
It should have been either direct to D+ in the first place or had a longer theatrical-exclusive run, followed by a "dark" period, followed by a PVOD period, followed by a Disney+ release maybe 6 months total after the theatrical debut.
They need to start retraining people that skipping theatrical releases will have consequences, at least in terms of time. Right now, people can say "lol why bother, it'll be free on Disney+ in a month" and they're right.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
I’ve only seen the last scene in Pinocchio. I was not pleased at all.
This is all subjective anyway. What could feel like pandering to one could feel genuine to another. I don’t think Disney is hyper-focusing on token characters and putting all their energy into token character development. I just see a lack of good writers.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
I’m convinced Strange World was made for D+.
Heppenheimer
Well-Known Member
Then they REALLY messed up with the budget.
CaptainAmerica
Well-Known Member
Is even one person going to sign up (or stay signed up) for Disney+ based on the inclusion of Strange World?
Phroobar
Well-Known Member
An architect has no involvement in interior design. That is what the interior designer does. Also an architect draws out the plans with an engineer to make sure there are no structural problems. It is builder that decides whether to follow the blue prints exactly or not.
It's not a good analogy but I get what you are trying to say.
CaptainAmerica
Well-Known Member
Every architecture firm I've ever encountered provides turnkey solutions. Maybe the firm employs people with degrees other than architecture but you still refer to the whole team as "my architect."
_caleb
Well-Known Member
Yes, yes they did.
As they did with She-Hulk, WandaVision (reported $25M/episode) and many other direct-to-consumer content.
CaptainAmerica
Well-Known Member
Expensive content is fine if it draws subs (Mando).
_caleb
Well-Known Member
I think a lot of people make streaming platform subscription decisions based on the number of new movies and series (up to a point, and then, as Netflix has shown, it’s just a bunch of trash to wade through).
They spent way too much for it, but I think it was developed while Disney was in a mode that said: “spend all we want to build up D+- we don’t have to think about profitability until 2024!”
Now that Iger is back (and investors are nervous), those days are over.
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
Yes, Disney has lost the majority of its creative chops. I think we all can agree on that .
_caleb
Well-Known Member
I agree. But I don’t think Disney (or anyone, really) knows quite why The Mandalorian has been so well received (see The Book of Boba Fett for evidence of this).
Seems to me they’re still trying to sort out the formula.
CaptainAmerica
Well-Known Member
That's true of General Entertainment content, but Kids content doesn't work that way. Most Netflix subscribers are going to watch the latest season of Stranger Things and then immediately start looking for the next show to watch. A kid will watch The Lion King and then rewatch The Lion King two dozen times over the next few months. The kids' library keeps the kids, while General Entertainment has to keep chasing audiences with new stuff. The only GE content that has Disney levels of rewatchability is The Office, but Peacock doesn't have anything that draws new subs in the first place.
Except Iger is the one who came up with "spend all we want to build up D+- we don’t have to think about profitability until 2024!" in the first place so it's all a bit silly that he's the one everyone views as the great savior of the thing.
Heppenheimer
Well-Known Member
Mickey Mouse Clubhouse and Puppy Dog Pals are almost on a continuous loop at my house for this exact reason. Wifey and I were hopeful that the newer Mickey Mouse Funhouse would enter the rotation, but it holds no interest for my kids (it looks like something Chapek would order to sell more toys).
Because I'll never get around to actually having the time to watch Andor or season 2 of The Mandalorian, this is really why we still have Disney+. The kids can watch (and get distracted by) the same shows endlessly.
CaptainAmerica
Well-Known Member
Spidey and His Amazing Friends and Bluey in mine, with the occasional appearance by Mira, Royal Detective.