The Disney Juggernaut

Ryan Farnes

Ryan Farnes

Well-known member
I happened upon this article, and even though nothing was completely new to me, it was still amazing to see just how prolific Disney has become at producing several films a year, with a breathless pace to continue into the years ahead.

It's both surprising and not surprising to see how much they're up to, and what exactly they're producing. When you scroll through, I count only 2 original stories. Moana and Coco, animated films from Disney and Pixar respectively. Everything else is a sequel, prequel or reboot of an existing story or film. In major film production where the risks and costs are so high though, it's tough to argue against such a proven lucrative model that seems to be worth its weight in gold with the Marvel and Star Wars franchises and then fairy tale reboots like Cinderella.

http://www.businessinsider.com/disney-movie-schedule-2016-to-2019-2016-4
 
I'd just like to know who thought it was a good idea to let Tim Burton apply his stridently identical application of Creep, Depp, and Helena Bonham Carter to Disney fare.

Having kids and seeing several of their newest films, it seems the Disney has somewhat forgotten the meaning of the word "whimsical." Even Zootopia was kind of heavy and violent. [all IMHO]
 
It's the entertainment business. That's what you got to remember. Now, all studios are businesses, but they are also full of people who truly are interested in the "art" aspect of it - they do want to make something that has meaning and resonance beyond the dollars and cents on the bottom line. You can't have a sustainable business that makes no money, but it's sad when that's the only thing it's about: money. At that point you may as well be selling hamburgers or pork bellies - and many people are in it for more than that. From the look of it, Disney has tilted far toward the model it's only about the money. When virtually all you do are sequels, prequels and reboots with nary an original idea anywhere, you truly are only about the money. And for me, that's not worthy of much respect - as a result, I pretty much ignore Disney fare and try not to give them my money. With other studios, they try to make at least a few films that are a bit less focused on the bottom line and aspire to more than the dollar sign: in Scorsese's words, "one for them, one for me" - well, if he tried making movies for Disney, there'd never be a "one for me". And we'd all be the poorer for it. When that's all you do, you impoverish the film culture, you exploit the culture without giving anything back and enriching it with new paradigms. They're a leach and a parasite. Which is why I hold Disney in very low regard. But, that's only IMHO, and YMMV, to each his own.
 
What's more interesting is how Disney was kind of low-rent 30 years ago, with its characters and films appearing in all kinds of other studios' works. They were not the juggernaut they are now.
 
And what is also interesting is how back in the day - when I worked at a talent agency - Disney was the worst studio as far as both projects and pay... directors never wanted to work for Disney projects because the money was poor and the projects abysmal or very narrow type of subpar family fare. Disney took pride in paying little compared to other studios - Katzenberg was notorious in this respect, and the result was that talented people stayed away in droves from that studio. Katzenberg really handicapped them in that respect, and although he resented the fact that Eisner didn't pick him as successor, I think that was the right decision, as he was bad for business. Not that Disney has done much better in that respect afterwards either. I mean, I'm not even talking about R rated stuff - just original ideas. Instead it's all about leveraging properties and exploiting brand names, run by bean counters who can sharpen a pencil but not much else. Although, admittedly, they're generating cash these days. Just a waste. I wouldn't cry if they went away, no great loss, IMHO. I guess there is that segment of the market, but one would hope for a less cynical provider to fill that niche.
 
Ryan, McBob, David and OldCorpse,
+1111
Well said, great thread.
Even when I was a little kid, Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck were super cool. Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck were worthless. Hated them and their cartoons.
 
OldCorpse said:
It's the entertainment business. That's what you got to remember. Now, all studios are businesses, but they are also full of people who truly are interested in the "art" aspect of it - they do want to make something that has meaning and resonance beyond the dollars and cents on the bottom line. You can't have a sustainable business that makes no money, but it's sad when that's the only thing it's about: money. At that point you may as well be selling hamburgers or pork bellies - and many people are in it for more than that. From the look of it, Disney has tilted far toward the model it's only about the money. When virtually all you do are sequels, prequels and reboots with nary an original idea anywhere, you truly are only about the money. And for me, that's not worthy of much respect - as a result, I pretty much ignore Disney fare and try not to give them my money. With other studios, they try to make at least a few films that are a bit less focused on the bottom line and aspire to more than the dollar sign: in Scorsese's words, "one for them, one for me" - well, if he tried making movies for Disney, there'd never be a "one for me". And we'd all be the poorer for it. When that's all you do, you impoverish the film culture, you exploit the culture without giving anything back and enriching it with new paradigms. They're a leach and a parasite. Which is why I hold Disney in very low regard. But, that's only IMHO, and YMMV, to each his own.
Click to expand...

It's that way with all of their properties, now. It's sad and infuriating at the same time to see what has happened and the attitude and priority($$$) that is now in place at a once great place that is part of the Disney family. I've wished several times that they would sell this specific entity off to a company(if one even existed that could afford it this side of a government or middle eastern prince) that's priority is making a consistently QUALITY product, not just figuring out how squeeze every penny out of it to cover the loses of other divisions. Or spin it off so that it's autonomous and independent like it was before they bought it.
 
Its all iger. Dude is an absolute genius with his finger on he pulse of the world. Acquiring marvel was a god tier level move for Disney. Picking off a rival studio which could have been the top independent studio all while absorbing their overly massive content collection, loyal fan base, and future fan boys of all ages???

Savage
 
I love first class content, and they're excelling at that, even if its existing properties. I've very excited for Rogue One.

I've heard industry criticism of a lack of original concepts and that was what stood out to me the most. Almost every single film is from existing stories, even if each will be an amazing and excessively polished interpretation told anew. No small feat to accomplish what they're doing and doing it so well. I remember seeing Frozen's success and was kind of pleased that Disney (not Pixar, but Disney) animation was "back." I grew up through their renaissance with Mermaid, Beauty/Beast, Alladin, Lion King, etc...and they ought to be making great stuff like that again. Then their films from the 60s and 70s seemed lots of fun. Then the lull - so hopefully they'll keep making good stuff, but some more original concepts would be cool.
 
Ryan Farnes said:
I love first class content, and they're excelling at that, even if its existing properties. I've very excited for Rogue One.

I've heard industry criticism of a lack of original concepts and that was what stood out to me the most. Almost every single film is from existing stories, even if each will be an amazing and excessively polished interpretation told anew. No small feat to accomplish what they're doing and doing it so well. I remember seeing Frozen's success and was kind of pleased that Disney (not Pixar, but Disney) animation was "back." I grew up through their renaissance with Mermaid, Beauty/Beast, Alladin, Lion King, etc...and they ought to be making great stuff like that again. Then their films from the 60s and 70s seemed lots of fun. Then the lull - so hopefully they'll keep making good stuff, but some more original concepts would be cool.
Click to expand...

When I think of Disney and innovation, I tend to think in terms of technology. A significant, dominant, almost exclusive, source of the stories that they adapt... adapt over again... are from other sources. I use the term 'disneyfy' to indicate how the studio has taken say Grimm/Perault stories and mangled them to fit modern conservative, for children (mostly) audiences. But one can also read how concerned the author of the Mary Poppins series was about a Disney adaptation... On the other hand... I actually prefer "Parent Trap"(1961 (forget the remake...)) over Erich Kästners "Das doppelte Lottchen"(1949)...

However in the production of projects, using technology they produced some marvels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top