Why is Disney trying so hard to dilute its brand?

[GrumpyFan]

Interesting article talking about what some of us have mentioned.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertai...ey-trying-so-hard-to-dilute-its-brand/384852/

A couple excerpts:

Disney's move somehow feels more shocking—it's an admission that it can no longer keep such a tight rein on its brand.

But Disney’s live-action approach is more than easy money—it's a way to expand demographics without having to worry too much about quality.

Not that these live action re-makes are outside of their domain necessarily, but I think it just feels cheap, like a desperate money grab.

 

[erasure fan1]

I will agree 100%. I have no desire to see any of these and I didn't see Alice in wonderland or Maleficent. I guess they needed a different way to cash grab since (for the most part) they stopped making the direct to video animated sequels. Unfortunately, people will go see them no matter if they are good or bad so Disney will keep making them. It's just a shame and very frustrating to see what once was a pioneer in creativity become so complacent and unoriginal.

 

[SnarkyMonkey]

I don't understand where this is coming from. They have always offered a diverse selection of films and it has always included live action. Very few of what they have offered has been epic animated features.

 

[Matt_Black]

I don't understand where this is coming from. They have always offered a diverse selection of films and it has always included live action. Very few of what they have offered has been epic animated features.

Indeed. They did live-action versions of the Jungle Book and 101 Dalmatians 20 years ago, and those didn't dilute anything.

 

[DVCOwner]

Once again, everything Disney is doing today is wrong and if it is not we will find a way to make it that way. Live action films have always been part of Disney Studios. I remember the out cay when Disney leased "The Black Hole". People took there kids to a Disney film and it was not what they expected. If my memory is correct, that flim started Disney releasing films under other names.

 

[GrumpyFan]

Once again, everything Disney is doing today is wrong and if it is not we will find a way to make it that way. Live action films have always been part of Disney Studios.

Seems a bit of an exaggeration. I don't think everybody is saying that "everything Disney is doing today is wrong". But, for right now they seem to be in a cycle of bringing to life a lot of stories that have already been told in some form or another. Mind you, I don't think this is necessarily bad altogether, but it is a sad state of where a lot of Hollywood is at the moment. There are few studios willing to take the risk on a new/unique/untold story, they all seem to be stuck on re-telling or re-spinning old stories, or churning out another sequel.

 

[SnarkyMonkey]

Seems a bit of an exaggeration. I don't think everybody is saying that "everything Disney is doing today is wrong". But, for right now they seem to be in a cycle of bringing to life a lot of stories that have already been told in some form or another. Mind you, I don't think this is necessarily bad altogether, but it is a sad state of where a lot of Hollywood is at the moment. There are few studios willing to take the risk on a new/unique/untold story, they all seem to be stuck on re-telling or re-spinning old stories, or churning out another sequel.

This perspective is hilarious to me. Disney's entire enterprise has been built on telling stories that have already been told. Why start complaining about it now?

If you were to make a list of the stories that they created from scratch, it would be a very short list. They are the masters of adaptation.

And that matters not to me at all. I don't care if a story has been told a hundred times already. If it's a good story and told in an interesting way, go for it.

 

[GrumpyFan]

This perspective is hilarious to me. Disney's entire enterprise has been built on telling stories that have already been told. Why start complaining about it now?

If you were to make a list of the stories that they created from scratch, it would be a very short list. They are the masters of adaptation.

And that matters not to me at all. I don't care if a story has been told a hundred times already. If it's a good story and told in an interesting way, go for it.

Touche'!
I guess what I was trying to say, and just worded it poorly, was that I would rather see them do something they haven't already done (on screen) in some form. For the most part, the story's they've already done, stand well on their own and don't need anything additional, and like the article points out, it has a tendency to dilute them.

 

[Matt_Black]

But, for right now they seem to be in a cycle of bringing to life a lot of stories that have already been told in some form or another.

That's not new. They've done at least 3 "Mickey versus a giant" cartoons, and Treasure Island and A Christmas Carol have both been adapted by Disney at least three times. Remakes are not a new thing in Hollywood. Even back in the Golden Age there was a metric butt-ton of remakes.

 

[mousehockey37]

This perspective is hilarious to me. Disney's entire enterprise has been built on telling stories that have already been told. Why start complaining about it now?

If you were to make a list of the stories that they created from scratch, it would be a very short list. They are the masters of adaptation.

And that matters not to me at all. I don't care if a story has been told a hundred times already. If it's a good story and told in an interesting way, go for it.

I actually like how they did Maleficent. For those who haven't viewed it, I will give nothing away, but it was definitely neat to see the back story and "hit ya in the feels" all at the same time.

If they could actually do more movies like Maleficent, IMO, it might shed a new light on the villains.

 

[SnarkyMonkey]

Touche'!
I guess what I was trying to say, and just worded it poorly, was that I would rather see them do something they haven't already done (on screen) in some form. For the most part, the story's they've already done, stand well on their own and don't need anything additional, and like the article points out, it has a tendency to dilute them.

I hear what you are saying but, again, I really don't think this is a new thing.

 

[erasure fan1]

Disney's entire enterprise has been built on telling stories that have already been told. Why start complaining about it now?

They have always offered a diverse selection of films and it has always included live action.

I get that, but for me it's the fact that they are re-telling stories that they have already done. It's not about live action either. If they decided to re-do 101 Dalmatians in CG, that would bug me as well. I don't need or want a live action Lion king. I just feel that Disney doesn't have to re-hash stuff they have already done. The world has no shortage of stories so Disney shouldn't need to feel like they have to go back to the same well over and over. Maybe it's just me but I just think they can do better than Jungle book for the 3rd time.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I agree with the article. Disney hasn't been great in the live action department in YEARS. Now they've resorted to turning all of their animated films into live action, one of them being Dumbo. Dumbo, really? It's clear they've run out of ideas.

 

[Matt_Black]

I agree with the article. Disney hasn't been great in the live action department in YEARS. Now they've resorted to turning all of their animated films into live action, one of them being Dumbo. Dumbo, really? It's clear they've run out of ideas.

Obviously not counting anything by Marvel Studios, which has been killing it so hard it should be serving multiple life sentences.

 

[SnarkyMonkey]

I get that, but for me it's the fact that they are re-telling stories that they have already done. It's not about live action either. If they decided to re-do 101 Dalmatians in CG, that would bug me as well. I don't need or want a live action Lion king. I just feel that Disney doesn't have to re-hash stuff they have already done. The world has no shortage of stories so Disney shouldn't need to feel like they have to go back to the same well over and over. Maybe it's just me but I just think they can do better than Jungle book for the 3rd time.

But why would these movies just existing bother you? Just don't watch the ones that you don't like. Some people enjoy them. Let them watch and have fun. It's not like there is a shortage of other Disney movies for you to choose from.

 

[216bruce]

It depends- some redo's are great because of the way they are done- Lion King on Broadway is a great example and I'll toss in Maleficent too for it's 'take' on a backstory. That, and it was a just beautiful looking film (apart from creepy fairies). The Pirates films were at first really solid storytelling too.
Some- most of the direct to video animated sequels- are not great at all and deserve criticism artistically. But, it's a for-profit mass entertainment company, so that's what they do; create product to sell in large amounts.
The company still makes original stories that are quite good- Saving Mr. Banks sure was and Tomorrowland looks really pretty unique also. The new animated shorts like Paperman, Get a Horse and Feast are all just GREAT! and original, yeah, even Get a Horse, because of how the story was told and how it used 3-d.
Like what was stated above- if you don't like something (even in principle) don't watch it and, yeah, the Disney company has been the king of adaptation for as long as it's existed. I just tell folks it's "Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame" so don't expect Victor Hugo. The originals still exist for you to enjoy, and please do so. Some of us enjoy both.

 

[erasure fan1]

But why would these movies just existing bother you? Just don't watch the ones that you don't like. Some people enjoy them. Let them watch and have fun. It's not like there is a shortage of other Disney movies for you to choose from.

If you look at my first post, I don't go see them. It's not them existing that bothers me, It's the mindset that Disney has with them. Why so many? Why for a 3rd time on some of them? Maybe I am just being to much of a how it was sorta guy. I just feel that movies like Wreck it Ralph add to Disneys legacy but remaking what are already established classics to make a buck do not.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Obviously not counting anything by Marvel Studios, which has been killing it so hard it should be serving multiple life sentences.

I don't consider the films of outside companies, like Marvel and Touchstone, Disney films. I think you know the films I'm talking about and I'll say it again, Disney hasn't been great in that field in years.

 

[Phicinfan]

I don't consider the films of outside companies, like Marvel and Touchstone, Disney films. I think you know the films I'm talking about and I'll say it again, Disney hasn't been great in that field in years.

so I am confused, are you going back to movies such as Ben Knobs and Mary Poppins, Black Hole?

Three musketeers was I thought a great live action version.

Into the Woods was phenominal, As was Maleficent. Princess Diaries 1 and 2 were very good. 101 Dalmations were pretty good as well. and so on....

 

[Californian Elitist]

so I am confused, are you going back to movies such as Ben Knobs and Mary Poppins, Black Hole?

Three musketeers was I thought a great live action version.

Into the Woods was phenominal, As was Maleficent. Princess Diaries 1 and 2 were very good. 101 Dalmations were pretty good as well. and so on....

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. And I'm not talking about just the good ones. I'm referring to great ones. In my opinion, the last great, phenomenal, fantastic live action film Disney made was Curse of the Black Pearl. I haven't seen Into the Woods yet, so I can't comment on that.

Again, you're welcome to your opinion.