If you have any knowledge of Hollywood history, you would understand that what Feige accomplished is unprecedented and breathtaking. No other Hollywood studio has been able to come close, and they’ve all tried. Marvels stumbles came when Feige stepped back, and that has been rectified.
Trying to give the directors equal credit to Feige reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how Marvel works. It is a producer-driven franchise. The directors have been chosen for their unobtrusiveness, malleability, and willingness to work within Feige’s system. That’s why so many are new directors and very few (only Gunn and Raimi excepted) have anything like a distinctive directorial voice.
Feige’s nemesis is Perlmutter. I’d love to here a defense of his creative track record.
We may have to agree to disagree on Marvel. You’re really trying to argue that individual directorial styles aren’t evident in the films? Is Branagh’s Thor is the same thing as Whedon’s Ultron? Is the Russo’s Winter Soldier the same as Waititi’s Ragnarok? Is Coogler’s Black Panther the same as Reed’s Ant Man? The often unpredictable style of the filmmakers was part of the fun of the MCU. The press who argue all the MCU films are the same are usually people who don’t like the MCU.
Feige likes to mythologize about how he has the next decade of movies all lined up with their stories. That is hogwash. We know serious planning for Avenger’s Infinity War and Endgame didn’t start until Civil War was in production. They didn’t know where they wanted to take the movies.
He was the nerd keeping track of continuity, while serious filmmakers were responsible for actually telling a good story.
Perlmutter, to his credit, actually did launch the MCU. He was willing to invest in some of my favorite movies. I don’t know everything about his style or leadership, though there is a lot of hearsay and insinuation. I’m not saying he’s a creative, but he never oversaw a bomb like the Marvels. And even Disney internally now acknowledges that many of Perlmutter’s critiques were correct in regards to the bloated spending on Marvel films.
I don’t need a history of Hollywood mergers and acquisitions- I’m very familiar. Disney is not a Coca-Cola style conglomerate. It is a vertically integrated entertainment company in which one division feeds another and the overall organization allows for the efficient exploitation of IPs at every level. No one is worried about losing divisions for sentimental reasons. The justifiable fear is that components will be sold off for short term gain despite the fact that it hurts the company’s long term ability to fully profit off successful content.
The idea that Peltz wants to streamline operations to increase creativity is utterly laughable. Nothing in his history indicates any such desire. He wants to dramatically limit creativity by restricting output to an even more tightly controlled group of IPs very narrowly defined - to minimize risk. The idea that he wants to open up creative pathways is pure fan projection. Peltz is not a blank slate.
No one can articulate how news reporters reporting from the front lines in a war torn country is the same thing as making UP or Inside Out. The synergy between ABC/ESPN and Disney’s movie and parks businesses are nonexistent. Ejecting them would be great for Disney.
And it doesn’t matter if the renewed focus comes from a financial motive. Either way the streamlined business will function better.
He said this in boilerplate PR designed to appeal to fans, just like the cloying pictures of Peltz in the parks. It was an utterly transparent lie. His more detailed proposals make clear he wants to dramatically limit any spending in the parks. Again, Peltz has a history, and nothing in it indicates any actual belief in the parks.
The man was on CNBC when he made these comments. Why would he lie on a business channel about his intention for the business? Disney fans love getting their daily CNBC in! You also seem to believe that business interest is fundamentally opposed to the health of theme parks. Disney Parks have never been a charity. Building expansions to the parks will help ensure longterm profitability.
There's been a strong business case to invest in Disney's parks business for years. I didn't find anything in Peltz's supplementary document calling for a reduction in CapEx. What he did ask for was specifics on how the $60 Billion is going to be spent.
It strikes me as naive to believe that Disney could not severely limit or cancel this expansion if they were motivated to do so.
It strikes me as naive that Disney would break a beneficial contract with Anaheim.
Searchlight just won a major Oscar. It’s the division producing the kind of unique, adventurous, non-IP content posters on these boards (many in this thread) claim to want. Eliminating it would be a huge blow to Disney creatively.
I can wait for Disney to leverage “Poor Things” in the parks! I bet there’s also opportunity to leverage it with retailers. Pretty soon kids will be buying “Poor Things” lunchboxes! It’s the next big original IP for families!
Disney crafted creative and original stories before Searchlight was acquired a few years ago. They can do so after.
