The Spirit Takes the Fifth ...

[Sped2424]

Anything is possible, but I don't think so.

This isn't a Star Wars themed timeshare.

Isn't that super sad lol The only projects that seem to steam forward like that are the ones that directly generate cash.

 

[WDW1974]

I still require help clarifying this issue. I understand Disney's stance and how it is two-faced to have a gambling liscening deal with a subsidiary, and to be indirectly profiting from a company whom they've purchased. I get that deals being renewed 2 years into purchasing Marvel means they maybe were actually trying to profit from the deal. So:

A) It was a hypocritical on their behalf to market "Disney is family friendly and against gambling" (and yes we all agree they have much to benefit by keeping the casino's out). So I understand how some people are upset or ambivalent towards the deal (because it wasn't "Disney" per say).

Now...

B) Disney has been caught with their hands in the cookie-jar (assuming the BOD was maliciously renewing the liscening deals). However, Iger is dismantling the deals to up-hold their mantra.

So apart from maybe requiring a News Story to identify the hypocrisy, why are we upset with Iger that he is ditching the gambling like everyone wanted in the first place? It seems like people got what they wanted, is this not a good thing?

Unless...

C) People really want Disney to not by hypocritical and just embrace gambling across the board?

Or

D) The liscening deal is really just fodder to justify that Marvel really doesn't fit into Disney. (Fair enough, but that ship sailed a while back and a few slot machines isn't going to really sway my opinion. It was a smart business decision that compliments Disney well.)


I just want to know why people seem to be upset even though the situation has completely changed to what people wanted a few months ago, and why this is being made into a scandal beyond "ha ha Disney got caught and now they are course correcting".

Also what is the actual dollar figure this deal brings in for Marvel? It's not like they are running Marvel casino's all over the world. I feel like we are talking about a few thousand slot machines here, which seriously can't be generating that much revenue? Does the Marvel president seriously care, really?

My opinion remains that A really wasn't a major issue, but good that B has happened and they continue their schtick of being anti-gambling, but why are people still upset over this?

I feel like there is some sort of agenda that I don't quite grasp. I'm just curious what it is so I can form my opinion accordingly.

Brian, I'll try to answer as I see things. But you may just not get it. No knock on you. Somethings you either get or you don't, sorta like when friends or co-workers will ask me why I am going to WDW and call it a ''children's park' or an 'amusement park' and I can spend two hours trying to get them to see what I see, when it just will not work.

So ..taking your above points:

A.) that is quite accurate ;
B.) Disney was 'caught' as you put it, but the BoD had nothing to do with making Marvel gaming deals and it IS a very good thing that Disney says it plans on getting out of the business. Now, we just have to wait years to see if they are telling the truth;
C.) Some people might. I'd suggest those people don't have a clue as to why gambling isn't compatible with Disney's family friendly BRAND;
D.) I think that is true to some extent. Marvel fits the Universal brand much better than it fits Disney's. But, yes, that boat has sailed.

I don't think anyone would call this a scandal (that might be a celebrity Imagineer caught with an underage friend doing meth while looking at Star Wars models). That word, much like conspiracy, get thrown into posts to discredit information. My OP was just that, news from inside Marvel that you won't get anywhere else (unless people start talking). I have opinions based on what I was told, but the info is apart from that.

Now, if you want to question my information and try and discredit it or me, that's your call. But Ike isn't happy with Bob now. And my guess, and it's just that, is that Marvel makes a blank load of $$$ on its gaming enterprises or else they wouldn't care about getting out of it and they wouldn't have continued to make deals well after being bought by the anti-gaming WDC.

 

[WDW1974]

Iger said late 2015 on last week's call, but does anyone seriously think the company who spends 3 years to build a kiddie coaster will deliver SDL in 2015?

Construction moves much faster in China, still they didn't even lay the first vertical beam until a week or two ago.

But he sure is desperate to get his name on a dedication plaque for a park in China. I am sure it has nothing to do with the fact Eisner laid the foundation and he and his leadership team almost blew this deal countless times.

 

[englanddg]

Some people don't like hypocrisy in Big Business, others don't care. People can make their own decisions on this issue as they see fit. I don't like hypocrisy myself.

One word. Touchstone.

Disney has been hypocritical for a long time, if you take their "family values" statement as fact.

They are a media and entertainment company. Or at least that's what they've devolved into.

I don't think anyone outside of the general Disney nerd gives two flips if they have related IPs that are licensed for gambling, and I think pulling it is a silly idea.

It's the same sort of mental midgets who went along with the half arsed concept that Joe Camel was making smoking more attractive to kids, but watch Family Guy with their kids every Sunday like clockwork.

 

[WDW1974]

Not to take you too far off topic... but... speaking of China: The Jimmy Kimmel thing is turning into a bit of problem for the company...

Yes, it has. All because of some dumb thing said by a very young child.

Wonder what Disney would do to Jimmy if Beijing said fire him or we are stopping work on SDL.

 

[lazyboy97o]

One word. Touchstone.

Disney has been hypocritical for a long time, if you take their "family values" statement as fact.

They are a media and entertainment company. Or at least that's what they've devolved into.

I don't think anyone outside of the general Disney nerd gives two flips if they have related IPs that are licensed for gambling, and I think pulling it is a silly idea.

It's the same sort of mental midgets who went along with the half arsed concept that Joe Camel was making smoking more attractive to kids, but watch Family Guy with their kids every Sunday like clockwork.

Somehow Touchstone, Miramax, Hollywood Pictures, Icon Comics and Max Comics are completely different.

 

[WDW1974]

One word. Touchstone.

Disney has been hypocritical for a long time, if you take their "family values" statement as fact.

They are a media and entertainment company. Or at least that's what they've devolved into.

I don't think anyone outside of the general Disney nerd gives two flips if they have related IPs that are licensed for gambling, and I think pulling it is a silly idea.

It's the same sort of mental midgets who went along with the half arsed concept that Joe Camel was making smoking more attractive to kids, but watch Family Guy with their kids every Sunday like clockwork.

This was debated on the other thread. Touchstone was created to put out more adult fare in cinemas, but the correct comparison would be if Touchstone made hard core films, not PG-13 or even R fare. And Touchstone doesn't much make films and hasn't, largely, since Eisner's days. It releases DreamWorks fare like Lincoln.

And I would venture that far more people who aren't Disney 'nerds' care about it than Disney nerds because it affects far more people.

Are you also suggesting that Joe Camel wasn't used to get kids interested in smoking?

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Somehow Touchstone, Miramax, Hollywood Pictures, Icon Comics and Max Comics are completely different.

Spirit, is it true that Disney still owns the Miramax IP but just sold the BRAND and the distribution rights?

 

[WDW1974]

Spirit, is it true that Disney still owns the Miramax IP but just sold the BRAND and the distribution rights?

I believe they may retain rights to some of it, but I am not sure and would have to check.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Yes, it has. All because of some dumb thing said by a very young child.

Wonder what Disney would do to Jimmy if Beijing said fire him or we are stopping work on SDL.

Speaking of Jimmy, I think Disney should be worried none of the kids from Modern Family remembered Pluto when they had to name famous cartoon dogs. They have done a very poor job introducing the fab five to kids in the past and over time these characters won't matter to future generations.

 

[WDW1974]

Speaking of Jimmy, I think Disney should be worried none of the kids from Modern Family remembered Pluto when they had to name famous cartoon dogs. They have done a very poor job introducing the fab five to kids in the past and over time these characters won't matter to future generations.

So funny as I was thinking the same thing. No Pluto, not even a Goofy guess.

and those kids and looking so grown up, I recall meeting a few of them right at the start of season two and they were all so wide-eyed. Especially Nolan who is basically a boy genius.

 

[The Visionary Soul]

That's the problem with kids these days.

 

[englanddg]

This was debated on the other thread. Touchstone was created to put out more adult fare in cinemas, but the correct comparison would be Touchstone made hard core films, not PG-13 or even R fare. And Touchstone doesn't make films and hasn't, largely, since Eisner's days. It releases DreamWorks fare like Lincoln.

And I would venture that far more people who aren't Disney 'nerds' care about it then Disney nerds because it affects far more people.

Are you also suggesting that Joe Camel wasn't used to get kids interested in smoking?

I'll start with the last suggestion. No. Joe Camel wasn't used to get kids interested in smoking. That is just a ludicrous concept. He certainly wasn't the first cartoon character (or mascot) to smoke, but he was one of the last. And, his ads didn't run rampant in comic books or Mad Magazine or the like, nor were they to be found during Saturday Morning cartoons. Were the allegation true, that he was a targeting mechanism instead of a marketing one...they'd be found in something aside from adult fare.

Had they been targeted to kids, you'd think they would have targeted advertising slots for kids. However, if I, as a kid, happened to be watching Moonlighting with my parents (getting to stay up past my bedtime, so cool!) and see a Joe Camel commercial, what more likely popped in my mind was "he's a funny Camel", not "Wow, I really want a cig right now, I'm niccing!"

It's one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard. But, it succeeded, with even less validity than the "Taco Bell dog is a racist representation" accusation.

Same stupid people, creating an issue for their own self-relevance, where no issue exists.

So, yes, I do assert he was not created, nor was he ever used, to encourage youthful smoking. The Tobacco industry didn't need a cartoon character to do that. Other media and general society had that covered already.

He was a patsy. RIP Joe Camel.

So, moving up your post...

Do a simple man on the street. Ask 10 people at work tomorrow (who are not and do not care about Disney) what they think of Marvel characters being on gambling products. I bet 10 out of 10 don't give a crud. And 7 out of 10 look at you like you just asked them why a pen drops to the ground when it's pushed off a table. My point is, most people truly DON'T care. It's not like Disney was caught running an illegal ring.

It's legal gambling for a franchise they purchased.

And, how it ties to Joe Camel...does having Iron Man on a slot machine increase overall sales? Not really. Those who will gamble will gamble, but they are more likely to play YOUR machine if they feel a connection to it. It's like people who say "Wow, that's my song!" when something comes on the radio. "I played the Iron Man machine, cause he's my favorite, so I knew I'd be lucky." It is just an excuse of choice, and even the person saying it, deep down, knows it.

It means nothing. Gambling addiction is not enabled by the use of "popular characters"...it's enabled by the opportunity to win something combined with an obsessive personality and probably depression. To suggest it's anything more than that is worthless deflection that undermines the actual issue.

I, personally, don't like to gamble, but I wanted to add that Casinos, generally, are among the safest and cleanest places (for the volume and clientele they attract) I've ever seen. Far better than a sports bar, for example.

Moving further up your post...Touchstone. My point was that Disney hasn't stuck with the "family values" mantra for a while, using partial ownership and spinoff companies to release things that they are not willing to slap Walt's infamous signature upon.

And those were THEIR ideas...acquiring an IP is something even more complex, as they inherit the business model from said IP, and then have to integrate it. And, while that may sometimes mean some neat things (Marvel in the parks, for example), it also means some bad things (a shift in creative control and marketing strategy).

If you think I have an underlying point, I really don't. I'm just conversing. <grin>

 

[PhotoDave219]

One word. Touchstone.

Disney has been hypocritical for a long time, if you take their "family values" statement as fact.

They are a media and entertainment company. Or at least that's what they've devolved into.

I don't think anyone outside of the general Disney nerd gives two flips if they have related IPs that are licensed for gambling, and I think pulling it is a silly idea.

It's the same sort of mental midgets who went along with the half arsed concept that Joe Camel was making smoking more attractive to kids, but watch Family Guy with their kids every Sunday like clockwork.

You forget Miramax and Quentin Tarantino.

 

[Bolna]

But the difference between Touchstone and gambling is that Disney never lobbied aggressively for everyone to stop producing films that were not pure family films.

 

[englanddg]

But the difference between Touchstone and gambling is that Disney never lobbied aggressively for everyone to stop producing films that were not pure family films.

True. But, conflating Disney's protectionalism of their Florida Theme Park market with an overall global franchise after they purchase an IP who wasn't as concerned with that, and chose to honor the contracts in force, isn't evidence of hypocrisy.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Here's something to discuss. Let's say we lived in an alternate universe where Miramax is fully owned by Disney and still releasing movies. What if Miramax released "Blue is the Warmest Color" or "12 Years a Slave"?

 

[lazyboy97o]

But the difference between Touchstone and gambling is that Disney never lobbied aggressively for everyone to stop producing films that were not pure family films.

Even then, here has been this relatively consistent notion that Disney could have shut this all down when the acquisition was finalized. We all know that is simply not true because we have read an actual Marvel licensing contract that Disney cannot dissolve.

 

[englanddg]

I'll note, there is no gambling on the DCL line, and to many consumers that is a turn off (I personally know many people who say they won't do DCL because there is no gambling,for example).

Disney has decided that they won't include it as a perk since it's still seen as a marketing advantage publicly at this point in time, and rather they focus on service and experience. People who don't care for gambling, or cast aspersions upon what gambling means (rowdy people, drunks, low lifes), will spend through the nose to go on a DCL cruise. And those who wish to gamble, well, are not part of the business model (at this point).

However, talking numbers, at some point I suspect DCL will cave. I hope they don't, but I suspect eventually they will once the next generation of Harvard (or other schools) educated asshats takes control.

At some point, as DCL grows, they will look at their competition, and say...well, we can do just this one thing to allow some gambling...to attract part of their business. And then eventually they'll go full out and allow it.

Spirit knows what he is talking about when he says red vs blue seas. Right now, DCL is sitting in a Blue Sea market, so they do what they wish. That will change, as investors will still demand higher returns, etc.

Eventually, they'll join the Red Sea that is the cruise market as they become less of a footnote, and more of a competitor...and, I suspect management will react predictably.

They let booze into Magic Kingdom (not something that was a big deal to me personally, but it was a major change of a decades old policy). I don't expect the current management gives two flips anymore...sorry...

As we used to say at CEC...Profit is King.

 

[SirLink]

The same reason why you don't have kids sections at the MGM Grand, Ventian or the Aria.

Some people have issues with booze being sold at Disney parks. Some argued that Pleasure Island shouldn't have existed until Disney shut it down. Gambling is an adult enterprise that often goes hand in hand with other adult vices.

Disney runs family resorts. Gambling doesn't fit.

Actually Disney would probably do great with the whole family friendly Vegas Casino Resort. Disney has to get out of this mindset of 50s values, and use modern family values such as Parents who like to gamble. Now all you need to do is lower your drinking age.