Comments on the Comcast Deal

[Another Voice]

As the deal now stands, The Walt Disney Company will cease to exist if the deal goes through. All of the current Disney shares holder will receive a fraction of a share of Comcast stock in exchange for their Disney shares – and all together they will still only own 42% of the newly enlarged Comcast.

Disney will really earn its ® in that it will be a brand name only. There will be no business associated with it. Much like Touchstone is a label fixed to movies made by Disney Studios. A lot of people already believe Eisner accomplished a lot of this when he killed off the "Disney" parts of the company like Feature Animation and Imagineering. Comcast will simply finish off what little remains.

A lot is going to happen now. The Comcast bid was intentionally low in hopes of getting the company cheap. Their tactic is the same one Roy Disney used in 1984 when he orchestrated the take-over with the Bass Brothers and what Roy is trying now – "we can run the company better than the current management, so give us your support". Wall Street like people who promise to makes them lots of money in the future and they will gladly chuck the current management overboard if they are convinced a new crew will do better.

But Wall Street likes people who say "I'll give you lots of money now!" even more. There will likely be other players moving in – either by themselves or with others – that will offer more money up front. No one business, including Comcast, is interested in everything that Disney does so it's possible to find lots of people to each buy a tiny bit rather than one huge company to buy the entire corporation.

There are many potential players out there. There's the Media Monsters like TimeWarner, Viacom and NewsCorp that might want to get even bigger just to support their bloat. There are smaller companies like NBC Universal and Liberty Media that might want to get bigger to avoid being eaten themselves. There are the Ego Kings like Barry Diller (Eisner's boss at Paramount) and Marvin Davis who still fancy themselves as The Mega Media Moguls out to build a personal empire. Then there are the wild cards like Microsoft that might want to try a new angle on the "content & distribution" myth.

Comcast's primary interest is in feeding its cable systems. They want to be like Viacom, News Corp and TimeWarner as a hallowed "owner of both content and distribution". ESPN, ABC, Lifetime, movies etc all being piped around the country on Comcast cables generating ever increasing torrents of profit. No one has ever made that business model work successfully; even Disney's pitiful efforts along this line have been a complete bust. Entertainment only works as a cottage industry. Comcast, like the others, is going to spend billions to learn a painful lesson.

The parks…well Comcast is saying they want to keep them. Funny how the "rumors" are they spent the last couple years trying to get someone to buy them. Even Eisner, according to the "rumors", has more than a few schemes of selling/spinning off/dumping them. Properly run they are a massive cash cow and the sole reason why Disney is the only old Hollywood studio to remain independent into the 21st century. Only idiots think they are a bad business.

So naturally MBA's dreaming of Media Empire think they are a bad business. Plus Eisner has spent the better part of a decade diverting attention away from the flaming wreckage of ABC by blaming sniffles at WDW for all of Disney's woes. Too many people on Wall Street haven't bothered to understand the company and buy the simplistic (and self-serving) explanation. Comcast may have to keep the park simply because they can't find a buyer. The "rumor" was, back when this was going to be a friendly merger all the way around, the parks would be spun off into a separate company.

If Comcast or whoever ends up the winning bidder needs cash to close the deal, there will be a firesale of assets to raise the funds. The parks will be the first on the block because they will raise the most money and are the most easily broken up into bit sized pieces: the resorts to Mr. X, the parks to Mr. Y, the water parks to Mr. Z., etc. Other bits likely to go are Miramax (rumors already sat Harv is calling around to raise money), the cruise line, publishing and motion picture production.

What's really, really, really, funny is the though that Comcast can't sell the parks because they wouldn't want to license the Disney characters. But that's exactly the deal Disney has with the Oriental Land Company (Tokyo Disneyland) and Euro Disney SCA (Disneyland Paris). And, legally, The Walt Disney World Co. licenses the name and all the characters from Disney Enterprises Inc. Even before that, Walt Disney Production has to license the name "Walt Disney" from RETLAW. There is no reason why Comcast would not make a similar deal with a new owner of Walt Disney World.

I have not seen any indication that Roy Disney was "in" on today's announcement, nor have I heard any rumors beyond speculation. That could mean he's keeping a secret very well, or that he's as much taken aback as everyone else. Let phrase this starting with "it would be reasonable to hazard a guess that…" Comcast has seen an opening. With Eisner flat on his back and the company still floundering (I'll get the "smoke and mirrors" quarterly results in another post), they see a chance to pick up Disney for a rock bottom price.

Eisner is no longer in a position to demand billions for his cooperation with the deal – Comcast can walk right over his head and appeal directly to Wall Street. Eisner, through years of dithering and his every expanding greed, let the situation get out of his control. But in the weeks ahead, there is a strong chance that it will also get out of Comcast's control. It is impossible to accurately predict what will happen. But only thing is sure.

Disney is a philosophy now – not a company.

[Maistre Gracey]

Okay, I just wanna know... Is it going to be "Walt Commie World", or Walt Disney World"?

And, would we see the Comcast logo on the entrance signs at the resorts? For example... "Disney's Polynesian Resort by Comcast"?

MG

[roymccoy]

That Disney is in a position to be a hostile take over target falls squarely in Eisner's lap and also Paul Pressler's lap. Disney has been weakened by doing things "on the cheap" (as Roy Disney says) and that cheapness is coming back to bite them now.

Paul Pressler's Tenure at Disney:

Light Magic (failure)
Redo of Tomorrowland (failure)
California Adventure (failure)

and while on his watch:

MGM Studio's (not a blockbuster)
Animal Kingdom (not a blockbuster)
Pop Century (Howard Johnsons on Disney property)

Plus rides like Skyway, Submarines, etc. all go away with no replacements.


Eisner has milked the Disney name for almost all it's worth and now it is about to be purchased, basically for the equivalent of it's scrap value. A strong Disney would have never been in the position of being the object of a hostile takeover.

Roy

[MELSMICE]

It deeply saddens me to think this could happen. I am hoping (probably against all hope) that it doesn't & it's a wake up call for Eisner & all others involved.

[Peter Pirate]

Fairly nice post Voice, but Disney isn't gone yet and you know as well as I that another 'Bass Brothers' working for an independent Disney could be lurking. Further, while there is no proof Roy is a part of this, the things that have been said indicate a 'wait and see' attitude which could literally mean 'wait and see' or could mean 'just wait until you see'...

Should I remind you of what you have told me on many occasions? OK... Michael Eisner is his most dangerous when his back is against the wall. OK, he's never been pushed this hard before but do you believe there are no more tricks up his sleeve? (I'm not saying there is, just asking).

RE: the licensing agreements...They couldn't be quite like OLC or DP exactly since they are licensed to a REAL Walt Disney Company. Where would the value come from if the Company were split into pieces and royalties would be flying left and right, to and fro? There would be no titular head, no frame of reference. Who would be looking out for Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck or Goofy? The fallout would/could be huge and it would only take a mere generation of silence for Mickey to become nothing more than Shrek to the next generations, which would make much of this investment a pretty poor one, IMO.

I don't believe Disney has the value Comcast needs without their (Comcast) trying to keep it (Disney) in tact, but with that said, I still don't think they can do it.

I think this is far from over, but I'm starting to think Roy may win.
pirate:

[crusader]

There are many potential players out there.

NewsCorp is the one to watch out for - provided they can legally hold two networks.

They don't need Disney right now but they'll take it just to prevent a competitive merger.

The timing is not in their favor - so they'll leverage if they have to.

Consider this scenario -

Roy fails to get enough votes so the board stands. Mitchell uses every political pull he has to cause problems for any potential suitor and the dogs back off.

The clock ticks.

Another quarter goes by.

Roy's campaign weakens.

Eisner stays but.................

plans a 5 yr. exit strategy.

[airlarry!]

Should I remind you of what you have told me on many occasions? OK... Michael Eisner is his most dangerous when his back is against the wall. OK, he's never been pushed this hard before but do you believe there are no more tricks up his sleeve? (I'm not saying there is, just asking).

Mr. Pirate, excellent point.

One question though remains. What if Ei$ner has never cared about staying in power, and his only real aim was to get the biggest payday he could find.

He has been on the watch for 20 years now. He is not a creative sort of person like a Walt Disney who would want to stay to supervise creative folks he has nurtured or trained.

What if is only agenda is to get a nice big fat retirement account? What if the only thing that is upsetting him is the price being paid and that Comcast is ignoring him? Then, we might see that 'dangerous' look from Ei$ner but only to fight for a bigger windfall, not for the Disney company itself.

My prediction? Ei$ner is furious, throws a temper tantrum, yells that no "#$@%%#% media company is gonna #$@%@% with my retirement," and fights hard to get the best deal for the biggest shareholder there is with Disney:

Him.

He has talked repeatedly about 'shareholder' value. Don't forget how much of a 'shareholder' he really is.

Oh yeah. And he ends up with Castaway Cay as his own private island and renames it Central Park Cay.

[Peter Pirate]

That's what I was hinting at in another thread, crusader...But how about this scenerio, Roy gets the votes, they are able to hold the dogs off & we sail into the sunset with a new CEO...I'm not sure Mitchell would be so willing to help at this point, but then we don't know just how the pot could be sweetend, but perhaps that ISS recomendation for a no confidence vote will be enough...
pirate:

[crusader]

I'll say this and I'm really surprised to admit it but Eisner was smart to have such a political powerhouse on the board for just this reason.

Roy doesn't appear to me to possess enough brass to handle this aspect of running a media empire - no matter what size it is.

Do you honestly believe Mitchell is just sitting by and allowing filings to be made against his name?

Roy's trying to get back inside the company and I'm afraid he's picked too heavy a target to accomplish that.

You're talking about one of the most highly respected Democratics in recent history, here.

The only option I see him leaning toward is not in the best interest of Disney.

[lodgelady]

Thanks AV--
I do agree with Pirate that any company that wants to buy Disney for Disney would be foolish to cheapen the name and not protect it's assets.
BUT if all Comcast really wants out of the deal is ESPN, they could sell off the rest of Disney to pay for it.

My hope is that Roy and Stan will assemble some backers to buy all "Classic Disney". This might offer some protection for the future too. In order for Disney to be the creative company it should be, it has to be able to take chances without fear that if it isn't a huge money machine that it would be sold off to the highest bidder.

[ErinInCT]

How ironic is this????!!!!????

I have been pretty happy with my Comcast service thus far (from the installer to the cust serv reps, even chose them for my internet provider) but I was unhappy about one thing when I moved into Comcast country...The Disney Channel was NOT part of the basic channels & I had to pay extra to get the plus package. Now instead of 70 channels I don't watch I have 270!!! Well, maybe Disney Channel (uh, I mean Comcast Channel???) will be included with the basic cable if Comcast takes over!

Isn't it ironic, don't ya think?

[Peter Pirate]

Roy doesn't appear to me to have enough brass to handle this aspect of running a media empire
This has always been my opinion of Roy as well...But, there are some interesting rumors floating about that could have Roy & Stans fingerprints...Steve Job's for one. Certainly we know Roy doesn't want to run Disney but I think he wants to keep it independent. Note: Remember "independent" has various connotations to those on these boards.
pirate:

[crusader]

I thought about Jobs. In fact I posted a pretty good link to the problems with his business model.

He is excellent at innovation but gets beaten' to the punch every time.

How is a guy like this going to succeed in Hollywood?

I am a firm believer in a person sticking to what they're excellent at. Jobs is excellent in survival within the tech industry because he keeps rolling out new products to sell. Then the competition swarms in and beats him to the market so he develops something else.

I can't see how this style succeeds within the finance structure and parameters of the media arena? To put him at the helm doesn't give me any confidence the company will grow. The only benefit is the animation merge with Lasseter and that's not enough for me.

[KNWVIKING]

***"What if is only agenda is to get a nice big fat retirement account? What if the only thing that is upsetting him is the price being paid and that Comcast is ignoring him? Then, we might see that 'dangerous' look from Ei$ner but only to fight for a bigger windfall, not for the Disney company itself."***

My personal opinion is that ME isn't looking for just the big payday. His ego won't let him be forced out or go out a loser. He doesn't care what we here on the boards thing of him, he cares what the Forbes & WSJ types think. He's looking for that "ME does it again" headline.

[wtg2000]

Entertainment only works as a cottage industry.Agreed. Pixar is essentially a cottage industry. Lord of the Rings was basically made by Peter Jackson and his friends in their backyard. The "most expensive home movie ever made." Even Pirates was made by Jerry. I fear that Comcast, even the heralded Steven Burke, would not appreciate the nature of creativity.
My hope is that Roy and Stan will assemble some backers to buy all "Classic Disney". All? The problem I see is that Comcast will want the Disney name and the library, as one story put it, everything from Steamboat Willie to Finding Nemo. I think it's hard to separate the parks from that even through a licensing plan. Perhaps they would franchise the parks, but then would they put any effort into R&D?

I wonder what the OLC thinks about this. It will effect them as far as the status of Disney to be able to deliver new attractions to them.

[NandP]

What happens to the Disney Vacation Club and Disney Cruise Line? do they fall under the same umbrella as Disney Corp? Will they be controlled by Commiecast?

I am very uneasy with what has been going on this past month.. Can't we just start over???

[tfc3rid]

As AV said earlier in this post, the potential exists for the Theme Parks and Cruise Line, ertc. to be sold off to raise additional funds for Comcast.

I imagine that might include the DVC unfortunately.

[ZacinIndy]

How could anyone be hard-hearted enough to kill the parks?

[tfc3rid]

Not kill them, spin them off... It is all about making $$ for Comcast.

[wtg2000]

They could sell the parks like a franchise and collect royalties, as Disney does with Tokyo. Thus, they'd retain the rights to the characters, but again, Comcast would need to have a R&D section that developed new attractions.

[FantasticDisFamily]

Ok, let's take a deep breath here. Comcast doesn't have Disney yet! So while speculating on what might happen in implementation is an interesting intellectual exercise we shouldn't panic.

There have been some interesting theories as to the potential strategic purpose behind this raised. And it has already provided fodder for interesting classroom discussion for me and my students!

Carry on folks - I do love having your ideas to build on!

Deb
(a.k.a The Professor)

P.S. I've been away from this section of the boards except for some lurking for quite a while. ;)

[Mr D]

Comcast should partner in with Oriental Land Company and sell the US Disney parks to them, or at the very least make an exchange offer of what OLC pays to Disco for the rights of the Disney name and do the same managment to the US Disney parks. in other words OLC buys the Disney parks but still pays the percentage of profits back to Comcast. Could be likely unless somebody else locally wants the theme parks.

[DisFlan]

We may all have a new take on what "Save Disney" means. Probably a whole lot more than poor 'ole Roy intended. This deal could likely spin way beyond anything he can control in any meaningful way.

BUT- as of this morning, the upshot of DIS stock looks to possibly make the Comcast deal too expensive per share. They might have to throw in real cash. So we can't see this as a done deal, yet.

If Comcast (or anyone else) persists and pays more than they'd like, it's MORE likely that we'd see a sell-off of some components and less near-term investment in what remains.

Whatever happens it'll be a good show.

DisFlan

[tfc3rid]

Right...

It will probably mean a lot more cash will be required t oclose the deal and as AV says on this post, the most likely scenario would be to spin off the parks, resorts, cruise line, etc...

Very sad.

[disneyfan551]

Sorry, but nothing about this is "a good show" to me. I'm really worried that we are going to lose the Disney magic... :(

[tfc3rid]

That which has not been lost already will soon be gone.

[DisneyKidds]

As for DIS stock going up and making the deal too expensive, or Comcast raising cash.....................Comcast has a lot of room to play with and can likely take their offer up quite a bit if need be. Comcast would save $10 billion over the next 5 years just on fees they wouldn't have to pay to carry ESPN on their system if they make this work.

[YoHo]

I'm probably going to have to repost this in another thread, but so what.

crusader and others poo pooing Jobs for this position based on time to market and so forth. What do you understand about Film production and Disney parks that I'm missing?
Finding Nemo didn't make all that money, because Pixar got it out the door first. Granted, When you release a picture during the year will influence that, but it isn't the same as the electronics industry where price and speed to market are the only things that matter.
Quality production and attention to detail are what matter in the entertainment industry. That's why it's a cottage industry. Theme parks are the same. The quality of the parks and the quality of the attractions is what is important. This is what Steve Jobs excels at. Further, whether it is The Woz, or ohn Lassiter, Jobs knows to get good creative and intelligent talent to do what they do best which is the HEART of what Walt Disney did. I think Jobs would be an excellent Hollywood CEO.

[DisFlan]

Originally posted by disneyfan551
Sorry, but nothing about this is "a good show" to me. I'm really worried that we are going to lose the Disney magic... :(

You don't like to see Eisner squirm? ;)

[DisFlan]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
As for DIS stock going up and making the deal too expensive, or Comcast raising cash.....................Comcast has a lot of room to play with and can likely take their offer up quite a bit if need be. Comcast would save $10 billion over the next 5 years just on fees they wouldn't have to pay to carry ESPN on their system if they make this work.

I don't think Comcast would have to raise cash, but they certainly can. A staight stock swap would be easier for them, if it isn't too expensive. It's not like there aren't lots of Eisner enemies who wouldn't want to kick in some bucks on the deal. Eisner has blown up a lot of bridges in his past. (Weinstein, Katzenberg, Jobs etc etc etc....)

And as the months go by, Disney stock may not stay up where it is. Disney's best defense is to keep it high - if they can. Comcast's best and cheapest offense is to get their own stock back up to pre-offer levels.

Look for Comcast to start seriously wooing DIS shareholders and the Board.

[YoHo]

Originally posted by disneyfan551
Sorry, but nothing about this is "a good show" to me. I'm really worried that we are going to lose the Disney magic... :(

There are plenty of here that think the magic has been gone for quite some time. That Comcast won't be any worse then private managment. Quite frankly, might as well enjoy the show.

[tfc3rid]

Jobs would be perfect. He's got what it takes to re-energize this company.

[KNWVIKING]

... but a of right now the is about 10 bil difference in market cap between Dis and Comcast. If Dis stock continues to rise on speculation, at what point is it feasible that Disney takeover Comcast ?

[raidermatt]

Disney's stock is only up in anticipation of a premium being paid by somebody. If they are no longer a target, the stock falls back.

[missydisney]

What are we as consumers to do? We followed Walt's Dream. Believed in the Magic. Eisner has taken that magic and turned it for his own use. How do we get back to Walt's Dream. Surely selling the company would not be the way. New Leadership is called for. Mergers are just another way of large Corporations taking over and losing sight of the original goals. I wish I was a stock holder. I think new leadership could, and should have the chance to save the dreams of so many. This is just my opinion. I love Disney World and have planned for 9 years to move there when my son finishes high school. I wanted to work there and be part of the magic. My oldest wanted to get into animation there. That dream is gone for him. We will still visit as long as we can. But can only pray that this will have a good outcome not be just a good show.

[crusader]

YoHo, my problem with Jobs is this:

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/78/jobs.html

There is a need to be fluid in a company. In Hollywood, production is assembly driven to sustain the industry. Every once in a while creativity becomes a substantial investment but it's volatile and audiences are fickle.

If you look at Pixar, they have the ability to afford the time and money necessary to perfect their work one project at a time, because they aren't burdened by the same financial demands other producers within the industry are - yet. And that's a major YET!!!

They're a 20 year old company with only 5 major releases to show for it. They exhaust their cash funding payroll. Their joint venture relieved them of a great deal of pressure but not anymore and now they have their hand out.

And don't discount Microsoft's beating Apple in the on-demand market. Why would you want Disney tied to a deal with a tech company who can't compete commercially in a worldwide user market? Do you really think Jobs will bow to Gates?

How do you prevent Disney from becoming the proverbial beta in a vhs market under this umbrella?

[KNWVIKING]

***"Disney's stock is only up in anticipation of a premium being paid by somebody. If they are no longer a target, the stock falls back."***

But what Comcast was offering was a share swap at 0.72 (or 0.78 ?) per share, meaning Disney shareholder would own 42% of the entire company. If Disney stock continues to climb, Comcast will have to increase that ratio considerably.

[warpdarkmatter]

i fear that comcast is trying to become a media giant.their focus will be on their cable networks owning more net works will help them monopolize the cable industry a big blow to direct tv and other dish networksthey will now own e! network,a&e,abc networks,espn,all the disney channels and more!!i feel this talk of them revitalizing the parks may just be a p.r. move to avoid a back lash from disney castmembers and the disney lovers plus the shareholders i fear they may start selling off the parks after the deal has been sealed:(

[WebmasterCricket]

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid103/pa294d53d7828f5f3174a1e16c52ff2fa/f9a3ca03.jpg

JC

[YoHo]

Assemply driven production sustains...barely.. media empires. The contention is that the model most companies are using with Hollywood is wrong.

Pixar and Lord of the Rings bare this out.
Originally posted by crusader
YoHo, my problem with Jobs is this:

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/78/jobs.html

There is a need to be fluid in a company. In Hollywood, production is assembly driven to sustain the industry. Every once in a while creativity becomes a substantial investment but it's volatile and audiences are fickle.

If you look at Pixar, they have the ability to afford the time and money necessary to perfect their work one project at a time, because they aren't burdened by the same financial demands other producers within the industry are - yet. And that's a major YET!!!

They're a 20 year old company with only 5 major releases to show for it. They exhaust their cash funding payroll. Their joint venture relieved them of a great deal of pressure but not anymore and now they have their hand out.

And don't discount Microsoft's beating Apple in the on-demand market. Why would you want Disney tied to a deal with a tech company who can't compete commercially in a worldwide user market? Do you really think Jobs will bow to Gates?

How do you prevent Disney from becoming the proverbial beta in a vhs market under this umbrella?

[crusader]

The contention is that the model most companies are using with Hollywood is wrong.

Considering how long Hollywood has survived I wouldn't be so quick to dimiss the model. It's fueled by money, power, greed and manipulation.

Just because the artists/writers don't care for something doesn't make it any general contention. They knew what business they were getting into. What the heck are you talking about?

[raidermatt]

If Disney stock continues to climb, Comcast will have to increase that ratio considerably. Yes, you are right, they will not get Disney for what worked out to be the $26.47 offered.

They knew that when they offered, and the investors knew it as well, which is why the stock immediately jumped beyond that mark, and is staying there (so far).

If it turns into a bidding war, Comcast could get pushed out of the picture. Its just that there won't be a scenario in the near future where Disney could actually acquire them, since the main reason the stocks are moving in opposite directions is the takeover bid.

[YoHo]

Originally posted by crusader
Considering how long Hollywood has survived I wouldn't be so quick to dimiss the model. It's fueled by money, power, greed and manipulation.

Just because the artists/writers don't care for something doesn't make it any general contention. They knew what business they were getting into. What the heck are you talking about?

How long Hollywood has thrived has pretty much zero to do with how the model has done.

The "Model" can pretty much be traced to the late 80's 90's with TWX/SOny/Disney and None of those companies are exatly humming along cleanly, nor do any of them consistantly produce blockbusters without the help of the small production companies.
Disney is traditionally a Production company. That is where there talent lies. Eisner is no Gerald Levine.

[lucky_bunni]

Originally posted by Another Voice
TimeWarner, Viacom and NewsCorp...might want to get even bigger just to support their bloat.

I love the use of "bloat", the perfect word to describe these awful companies (and their CEOs) forming all over America! It gave me a chuckle, thanks AV!

[crusader]

The "Model" can pretty much be traced to the late 80's 90's

No way. You make it sound as if everything Hollywood touched turned to gold in Walt's day and individuals like the Warner Bros, and Metro Goldwyn and Meyer never participated in greed, corruption, and manipulation to make money off hollywood starlets in exploitive cheap productions. Think Jane Mansfield.

Just because the CEO isn't the founder today and Hollywood has moved from the proprietorship it was founded on into a corporate regime doesn't make the game any uglier or the atmosphere worse.

[YoHo]

Dude, I didn't say that everyone was pure as the golden sun and nothing bad happened. Only that the basic buisness plan for how to run a hollywood company has significantly changed and that that model is a bad model.

Jack Warner, Metro Goldwin and Meyer were powered by greed to be sure, but they were small companies making and selling a single type of product. It simply worked better.

[crusader]

Alright I get it.

You think the smaller the company the better it operates. I contend any company can be managed and operated successfully on a divisional level and still consolidate under one portfolio to remain independent.

(there were 4 bros at Warner by the way - and they didn't get along)

So why aren't there any small guns left from the good old days? All we have now are the independents and they're struggling without some serious venture capital.

Because one false move can deliver a fatal blow if you can't make deals in Hollywood. It's not a blacklist. It's a black plague.

Money talks. BS walks.

You can blame it on mergers and acquisitions but diversity is really what keeps companies alive. Mergers are nothing more than cleverly disguised acquisitions where some fool honestly believed they were equally important to the other and lost.

Why can't Disney operate successfully the way its' structured now? It makes sense to me for a media company to retain holdings, particularly a network and have more leverage.

[Another Voice]

"Considering how long Hollywood has survived I wouldn't be so quick to dimiss the model."

Yep –

Paramount Pictures was first eaten by Gulf+Western and now it's in Viacom stomach.
Warner Brothers Studios was first chewed up by Time Life, then by AOL
Columbia Studios has gone from Coca-Cola to Sony.
20th Century Fox fell apart more times than a Joan Rivers face lift before it was consumed by News Corp.
Universal has been owned by companies from three continents.
MGM was bought by an insurance company before being pawned off to an oil tycoon who decided he a Veags casino was a better investment.

Yup – the Hollywood model is working just the same magic for Disney as it worked for all the others.


"Why can't Disney operate successfully the way its' structured now? "

Because they built a massive corporate sturctrue stuffed with money-bleeding, ego drive businesses on the assumption they can turn out a Lion King, a Pirates and a Nemo each year - but are unwilling to put in the effort required to make the kinds of films that will give you that kind of return.

[YoHo]

Originally posted by crusader
[B]Alright I get it.

You think the smaller the company the better it operates.


No, No no no no no no no.

I think that Hollywood runs on a buisnessmodel INCOMPATIBLE with multi-arms. Leverage and synergy and all those buzzwords that give Eisner his jollies DON'T WORK. At least not as a core buisness plan.

Making movies successfully cannot be managed the way running a television company or a publishing company.

It is by its nature a cottage industry very incompatable with other types of buisness.

This is why most of Hollywood isn't producing as much good product as they used to and the good companies that do produce are small affairs that only distribute with the big houses.

[bretsyboo]

I would just like to say that that is one manly parrot.

Furthermore I think everyone of you are wrong about everything you have said, and I am not willing to let you challenge that.

[Lobey]

Two great articles on the BBC Web site this morning:

The end of the Disney fairytale? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3481827.stm)

So where did it all go wrong?

Many analysts would immediately point the finger at Disney's 61-year-old chief executive Michael Eisner, and it has to be said that there is a great deal of evidence against him.

Profile: Michael Eisner (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3482431.stm)

But although, from time to time, Mr Eisner's excuses may have been convincing, it also seems clear that he has made several inexplicable blunders that have cost Disney dear - for example, his much publicised failure to salvage Disney's lucrative distribution deal with the computer animation firm Pixar.

[vernon]

Another interesting comment, from Brian Roberts of Comcast today was that he would plan to repair the relationshiip with Pixar, advertise the themeparks on Comcast's cable services and offer Disney films on the pay per view chanel. Those acts/plans seem to belong more to a company that is looking to spend money (particularly on animation and park) than one that's looking to sell off those assets at the first opportuninty.

Everyone is getting very excited about it "not being Disney" anymore if Comcast goes ahead, but let's not forget that the last Disney working on the board left because he was forced out by Eisner. It's not "Disney" at the moment people, it's a publicly owned company with a board of directors that seem to be yes men to a chairman that is only interested in lining his own pockets. A man that seems to realise his time is limited and wants to screw as much out for himself in as short a time as possible. What Disney needs is a board that's looking at the long term interests of the company.

I have a feeling that Eisner was working/thinking about selling to Comcast (if not, why Philly?) anyway but his price was too rich and Comcast have seen an opportunity to get the company without greasing his palm. I can see where a lot of the merger makes sense in joint interests and that the parks and animation areas can be left as a financially viable separate entities within the general umbrella of the holding company. They can be major contributers to the overall figures so I see no need for them to be sold. If, as seems to be the case, Comcast think they can be greater contributers with some investment and better management we all benefit.

[Galahad]

Originally posted by crusader
YoHo, my problem with Jobs is this:

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/78/jobs.html

There is a need to be fluid in a company. In Hollywood, production is assembly driven to sustain the industry. Every once in a while creativity becomes a substantial investment but it's volatile and audiences are fickle.

If you look at Pixar, they have the ability to afford the time and money necessary to perfect their work one project at a time, because they aren't burdened by the same financial demands other producers within the industry are - yet. And that's a major YET!!!

They're a 20 year old company with only 5 major releases to show for it. They exhaust their cash funding payroll. Their joint venture relieved them of a great deal of pressure but not anymore and now they have their hand out.

And don't discount Microsoft's beating Apple in the on-demand market. Why would you want Disney tied to a deal with a tech company who can't compete commercially in a worldwide user market? Do you really think Jobs will bow to Gates?

How do you prevent Disney from becoming the proverbial beta in a vhs market under this umbrella?

Yeah.....what he/she said.... Jobs creeps me out at least as much as Eisner does......

[crusader]

Correct me if I'm wrong AV but last time I looked Disney did
release a blockbuster motion picture by the name of
"Pirates" just last year in 2003.

I was referring to their holdings by the way - not the management when I posed the corporate structure question.

And yes, you are correct that all the proprietors who founded the hollywood studios have gone the way of the stepford wife. Why? Because power, corruption, greed and manipulation has always been the business model for hollywood and you can't implement it without becoming a faceless souless money pumping machine.

That's what makes your world go round.

See ya at the box office.

[Another Voice]

"Correct me if I'm wrong AV but last time I looked Disney did release a blockbuster motion picture by the name of "Pirates" just last year in 2003."

And the blockbuster for the summer of 2002? - Reign of Fire?

Did the $100 million gamble on Bad Company get the quarterly number up?

And this up coming summer - is Eisner going to confidently tell the shareholders that National Treasures is going to push the company to his promised 30% growth rate. I mean, he did call Pearl Harbor a "sure thing" and look how the stock soared after that smart move.

Can you guarantee a blockbuster big enough and in each and every quarter that's goign to be big enough to pay off an $11 billion corporate debt?

Please, Mr. Crusader, tell us how this business model works!


"Because power, corruption, greed and manipulation has always been the business model for Hollywood and you can't implement it without becoming a faceless soulless money pumping machine."

Yes, that evil gnome Peter Jackson made a billion dollars from his cynical, mass produced The Lord of the Rings ploy that tricked the audience into seeing a passionless, shoddy movie. Everyone knows that John Lassiter doesn't really care about the movies, all he cares about is selling plush of fish.

I mean it must be so obvious to you that Disney/Hollywood crunch them out machine is the only way to go. Ben & J-Lo Gigli is a money-making machine. Everyone around is marveling the numbers that Win a Date With Tad Hamilton is doing. And look at the heights of corporate success that Warner Brothers reached with two Matrix movies this year. Must have taken the sting out of loosing both Daredevil and The Hulk - each a super winner.

Nope, Mr. Crusader, your cynical "it's all about the money, so Disney has a right to make crappy movies" has proved wrong time after time after time. That attitude is an excuse used by talentless people to explain their laziness, and for fanboys to excuse away their devotion when it is not earned.

Disney is in this mess because too few people want to see Disney movies, watch Disney TV stations or go to Disney theme parks. The way out of the problem is for Disney to offer products the public want to buy - rather than products people might be willing to settle for.

That will get them to the box office.

See ya' at Disney's Jersey Girl.

[crusader]

Here we go again.

Expose the reality of the industry and become labelled as an excusor.

Nice.

How much Money did Jackson personally pocket by the way? And what's this I hear about his latest project?

Sure I've said it before, sometimes creativity is granted the bucks.

Now answer a few questions for me: How many movies are playing in theatres right now?

How many movies were released into theatres in 2003?

How much money was spent to produce, market and distribute all releases in your industry in 2003?

Now take the total box office take - and map out where it went by recipient so we can see who really pocketed how much.

Then talk to me about how lengthy production projects which are consumed with creativity is the only true profitable way anybody is making money in your industry.

[lodgelady]

I have a feeling that Eisner was working/thinking about selling to Comcast (if not, why Philly?) anyway but his price was too rich and Comcast have seen an opportunity to get the company without greasing his palm.

I am wondering if that is one of the triggers to Roy and Stan having to leave the board. Maybe Eisner was paving the way for this Comcast deal.....also maybe he had this deal in mind when he decided he could keep playing hardball in negotiations with Pixar?

At any rate, if we here on the Rumors and News board were getting wiffs of this Comcast merger news months ago, I am sure it WAS NOT a surprise to any Disney Co. execs, including Roy.

[hulabird]

Eisner's Last Stand
The Motley Fool - February 13, 2004 10:10

If you are Disney (NYSE: DIS) CEO Michael Eisner, time is not on your side. Two months ago, Roy Disney Jr. and Stanley Gold started flaming your performance as they stepped down from the company's board. Last month, it was Pixar's (Nasdaq: PIXR) Steve Jobs slinging pain as he broke off contract negotiations for what had been a lucrative partnership for Disney. This month, it was Comcast (Nasdaq: CMCSA) arguing that your company's assets would be better milked with fresher hands. Next month? Maybe you should call in sick to what will be a heated annual meeting.

With monthly dissidents like these who needs a calendar?

It's pretty clear now that Eisner's days as the head of Disney are numbered. Don't worry, he's packing a beauty of a golden parachute. The only thing that may hurt on the way out is swallowed pride.

The shame here is that Disney was starting to look pretty good in the near term. Fresh attractions are being constructed at the parks just as the tourism industry is starting to pick up. ABC's ratings are still in the cellar, but the ad market is improving, and General Electric's (NYSE: GE) NBC will have some voids in the fall season. Thanks to the surprising success of Pirates of the Caribbean, the company's brand name in live action flicks got some needed dusting. And, sure, Pixar may be ready to bolt come 2006, but it's still got two more features to release through Disney's distribution channels.

So if the mad rush to trip up Eisner almost feels orchestrated, well, it is. Everyone smells blood and waiting for the clotting process may make the hunt obsolete. Roy and Stanley realize that their voices would grow quieter as Disney's fiscal performance grows louder. Pixar's bargaining chips wouldn't be as heavy in demanding as much as it had, if Disney wasn't perceived as such an in-house lightweight in animation of late. And Comcast? If Disney's fortunes were to improve in the short term, the reasons to sell would diminish as the asking price would spike.

But that doesn't help Eisner now. He's caught in the web. He can't argue that Comcast's offer is insultingly low because his own efforts couldn't get the share price that high. He can't afford to lob shots at someone like Roy who bears the family name of the company he's running. The thorny ripcord is the only way out. Sure. It will hurt. But then the clotting process will have all the time in the world to heal.

Longtime Fool contributor Rick Munarriz owns shares in both Disney and Pixar. He would also like to point out that Pixar's excellence earned it a recommendation in Motley Fool Stock Advisor last year, and that a revitalized Disney may be worthy of that same kind of analytical loving.



While Disney's latest animated feature tanked at the box office over the weekend, can Disney still emerge as the Teacher's Pet? Is SaveDisney.com productive or counterproductive to the future of Disney? All this and more -- in the Disney discussion board. Only on Fool.com.


(Just some info I saw today on my broker's site.)

[one_cat]

Anyone read the article in the la times today?

One day after Comcast Corp. ripped the cord on its unsolicited $51-billion bid for Walt Disney Co., Comcast Chief Executive Brian L. Roberts and top lieutenant Stephen B. Burke flew West to meet with Disney and Comcast investors and deliver a simple message: They'll walk away before they'll overpay.

"What we're not going to do is go crazy to get this," said one person close to the Comcast camp, describing a key point they would make to investors. Roberts and Burke were in Denver on Thursday and were expected to call on money managers in Los Angeles today.

Yet Wall Street continued to bid up Disney shares, driving the price as high as $28.41 on Thursday, the best level since mid-2001. It closed at $28, up 40 cents on the New York Stock Exchange, after soaring $3.52 on Wednesday.

Disney shares now are trading at a 19% premium to the value of Comcast's stock-swap offer — seemingly a sure sign that investors expect Comcast to raise its bid, or to be topped by another buyer.

Some Disney shareholders said the stock was rising for another reason: They said Wall Street was favorably reevaluating the company's assets and the level of earnings they might produce in coming years, with or without a significant restructuring move by Disney management.

The Comcast offer was "a value-awakening event" for Disney, said Robert Olstein, manager of the Olstein Financial Alert stock mutual fund in Purchase, N.Y., which owns about 1 million Disney shares.

Olstein said his analysis of Disney's assets and earnings power gave the company a value of $31 to $32 a share.

The range of $30 to $33 was widely used by other money managers and analysts as well on Wednesday and Thursday.

The Comcast bid, however, valued Disney at $26.47 a share as of Tuesday. The value of the offer — 0.78 share of Comcast for each Disney share — has declined as Comcast's stock has dropped since the bid was made. Comcast slid $2.70 on Wednesday and $1.17 on Thursday, to close at $30.06 on Nasdaq.

At Comcast's stock price Thursday, its offer valued Disney at $23.45 a share. That isn't enough for Olstein, among others.

---

Looks like stockholders are valuing Disney a little higher than comcast expected. At this rate if the deal does happen and comcast sweetens the pot sufficiently, disney shareholders would own comcast not the other way around. With todays market on the dis stock (down 79 cents) it doesn't look like anyone is really taking this seriously anymore.

[KNWVIKING]

Maybe not so stupid after all.

By Damian Reece City Editor
Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
14 February 2004

Disney shareholders are bracing themselves for counter bids to emerge next week for the media empire under siege from a hostile bid from the cable television group Comcast.

One option being talked about on Wall Street, however, is Disney reversing the tables and launching its own counter bid for Comcast.

Were Michael Eisner, the Disney chief executive, to adopt the so-called Pac Man defence - named after the computer game - it would create as big a sensation as Comcast's original bid for Disney. But analysts believe it cannot be ruled out as one of Disney's possible defence strategies.

"It is as likely as any of the other bidders being touted around," said Angela Kohler, a media analyst with Federated Securities Corporation, the US fund management firm. Potential rivals for the Magic Kingdom are expected to spend the long President's Day weekend preparing their own offers to counter Comcast's all-share bid which was unveiled on Wednesday.

Putative bidders mentioned by analysts include Time Warner, Pixar, Viacom, Liberty Media and even Microsoft, although several of these would face stiff regulatory hurdles and would be forced to make material disposals of existing TV interests before being allowed to buy Disney. Disney already owns the ABC television network, a string of cable channels and the ESPN sports network.

Although a Pac Man counter bid for Comcast would probably struggle to find support among Comcast shareholders, Mr Eisner has already referred to the possibility.

Asked by an analyst on Thursday about the company's acquisition strategy, Mr Eisner joked: "Acquisitions? Oh, we're buying Comcast. No, terrible answer. Turn off those cameras."

In answer to questions over whether Disney needed to join a distribution company such as Comcast, Mr Eisner said: "There are great distribution companies, there are great content companies. They can be together. They don't have to be together. We feel we're running a pretty good company as it is."

Comcast's shares continued to fall yesterday, ending down 16 cents at $29.90. Its stock has fallen by 12 per cent in the three days since it unveiled its bid, wiping more than $6bn off the value of its all-share offer. Although Disney shares fell almost 4 per cent yesterday, they have gained 12 per cent since the offer was revealed and are still trading above the offer price. Comcast's proposed takeover deal, including the assumption of almost $12bn debt, was worth $60bn last night.

[Another Voice]

Let's just say that if one believes the whispers about, the Disney-Comcast deal that was being discussed for months and months was always considered a true merger, one that would benefit both companies. The "content and distribution" game can be played both sides of the field.

The question is how could Disney pay for a big merger? They will not issue more stock (and dilute current shareholder's position even more), they already have a Matterhorn of debt and the credit rating of a corner used-car lot, and does anyone believe that Naked Mike can run a cable company well based on Disney's performance? A Disney offer for Comcast would have to include an new CEO, and The Enemy will not allow that.

Expect Disney to make a run at Pixar or Yahoo! or a slightly more digestible company.

P.S. – Mr. Crusader…"Expose the reality of the industry and become labelled as an excusor."

Huh?

Exactly which planet hasn't heard the news that Hollywood is filled with talentless, greedy people? Hate to be the one to burst the bubble, but we all kinda got that already.

As far as I can tell, your basic position is that Disney should embrace and exceed Hollywood in its excess. The Disney should make ever dumber, even cheaper, even more demeaning movies than the norm because anything that make money for Disney is inherently a good thing.

The existing Hollywood studios are collapsing under their own weight and idiocy. Excusing Disney's championing of the that trend is only going to hurry Disney's complete failure. It seems, sir, you too are infected with the "anything for money" disease that is killing Hollywood.

[crusader]

Funny how you didn't answer my questions about Jackson.

No Voice,

My position is: Disney is part of Hollywood and has to play the same game of survivor within that cesspool every other production outfit does.

That means they need to balance the good with the bad and the ugly. That also means they need players who can compete and succeed not just as creative geniuses but as business tycoons.

That's the scale. You always tend to remark on one side and I'm seemingly always replying in the adverse. I don't disagree with your comments about quality so much as I disagree with your lack of reply about the realistic parameters surrounding your industry and how that interrelates to the actual pumping station which feeds the money stream.

You know - That stream where all the Burbank paychecks dwell.

I don't want to see Disney fail because they couldn't harbor a shark to ward off the predators. I want this company to equipt itself with whomever and whatever it takes to prevent extinction. I also want this company to operate all divisions with the best talent in the industry.

That's it.

P.S If the Hollywood studios are collapsing that's because the stream is overpopulated and a dam is about to burst. How do you propose Disney adapt and survive this next round of evolution without key players who can be ruthless if they need to and demonstrate solid leadership.

Not every form of creativity is displayed through art.

[raidermatt]

Maybe not so stupid after all.
Maybe not.

I still think it would be a purely defensive move, and would be ripped apart as not truly being in the shareholders best interest. Disney's stock would likely take a huge hit, losing its bump up due to being a takeover target, then losing some more as an attempted acquirer.

But who really knows what Eisner will try in order to save his bacon, or at least make a bigger deposit into his bank account.

That means they need to balance the good with the bad and the ugly. That also means they need players who can compete and succeed not just as creative geniuses but as business tycoons.

Fine, and they are sorely lacking in the good, and their bad and ugly ain't getting the job done.

[crusader]

Fine, and they are sorely lacking in the good, and their bad and ugly ain't getting the job done.

HA!

But you are exaggerating a bit. All they need is some brass and bullet to protect the good and things will turnaround.

The talent is out there ready for hire. The themeparks are making positive changes and the films of late have been very successful.

Animation and network television are the largest problems which I suspect they are working on.

Eurodisney is next and California Adventure will have to wait with only ToT right now.

It's funny how many individuals out there have taken the headlines as gospel and think Comcast now owns Disney. Most of what I'm hearing usually involves sombody recently dumping Comcast stock. Whoops!

Ah yes! That awesome world of breaking news we should all take a lesson from and learn to appreciate.

[wtg2000]

Irony: the Frontierland fort at DLP is called Fort Comstock!

An email from my brother:

LAZARUS AT LARGE

Comcast cashing in on porn

David Lazarus

If they wanted, Comcast subscribers could have watched "Table Top Sex" on the Spice channel Thursday night. Or they could have caught "**** Mania 6." Or "Barely Legal 39."

Comcast, the nation's largest cable company, is one of the most far- reaching distributors of pornography, offering subscribers a moaning, groaning melange of what's euphemistically called "adult entertainment" -- and profiting handsomely from the deal.

Comcast's multibillion-dollar bid to take over Walt Disney Co., the world's most recognizable family brand, is thus eye-opening in more ways than one.

Critics say the co-opting of Mickey Mouse by a prominent porn purveyor would bestow a new level of legitimacy on an industry that, through the years, has crawled out of the shadows to become an accepted member of the business community.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/13/BUGEN4VSS11.DTL

[YoHo]

Originally posted by crusader
My position is: Disney is part of Hollywood and has to play the same game of survivor within that cesspool every other production outfit does.


And why exactly do they have to play that game? Why can't they make a new game? It's happened before. It will happen again. Why are you stuck in this notion that the current Hollywood game is the only game in town?

[raidermatt]

The talent is out there ready for hire. The themeparks are making positive changes and the films of late have been very successful.
The talent's been out there.

You're looking at short term results, which are always going to vary. Always have.

Animation and network television are the largest problems which I suspect they are working on.
I know they are working on ABC because they told us two years ago they were working on it. Haven't quite worked it out yet, have they?

Of course, they are only working on it because they broke it.

Animation? Yeah, they are working on it... buy closing their successful studio, and losing a relationship with the real talent in the industry.

Ah yes! That awesome world of breaking news we should all take a lesson from and learn to appreciate.
Big picture, my friend.

The point is that the company is vulnerable becuase of mismanagement. Whether Comcast goes through or not doesn't change that.

[DisneyKidds]

The point is that the company is vulnerable becuase of mismanagement. Whether Comcast goes through or not doesn't change that.
Matt, I really hope this is how the Board and the Street read the events.

It would be terrible if Comcast's "failure" to acquire Disney is interpreted by many to mean that Disney wasn't so vulnerable afterall - a conclusion we don't want heading into the Stockholder's meeting. The last thing we need is for Eisner to have ammo and the Board to have a reason to prop him up.

I agree with you that the company is vulnerable and I don't think Disney has been putting in the effort they should be to "work on" the largest problems. While the Comcast thing may not be over, a "failed" attempt by Comcast could lead some to conclude otherwise. even though we know the truth :).

There are just too many directions all this could go in at the moment. Fun to watch though................as long as the investments we have in Disney stock and DVC don't take a hit that is.

[crusader]

Originally posted by raidermatt
The talent's been out there.

You're looking at short term results, which are always going to vary. Always have.



Careful Matt. Analysts will prove Eisner is a genius in terms of long-term shareholder value for this company compared to the industry average. Disney's return has a great enduring track record particularly through the crash. The more you support this position the more favorable the big cheese appears to your viewpoint.

I'm looking at what's going on in real time. You can toss up the short term speech all you want but the bottom line is that any movement in a positive direction is exactly what this company should be doing right now.

What are you saying? They shouldn't have to?

You sound as if division problems are some foreign, unique concept to an organization and don't exist within the vast majority of corporations. That's a crock!

[MELSMICE]

Anyone hear the announcement today that Disney bought the Muppets?

[YoHo]

Originally posted by crusader
Careful Matt. Analysts will prove Eisner is a genius in terms of long-term shareholder value for this company compared to the industry average. Disney's return has a great enduring track record particularly through the crash. The more you support this position the more favorable the big cheese appears to your viewpoint.



But isn't this exactly opposite of what Roy and now IIS are saying. Einser has been piss poor for long term shareholder value for approximatly the last 10 years. Unless you intend to go 20 years back, but then you have Wells and Katzenberg and a million other differences. No, if IIS won't back him, you'll see the pundits back down.

[raidermatt]

Analysts will prove Eisner is a genius in terms of long-term shareholder value for this company compared to the industry average.
Only recently have analysts really gotten on Eisner's case... that didn't stop the stock from floudering for years prior.

If Disney's long term industry performance is the best (not saying that it is), that would explain why so many are investing elsewhere.

What are you saying? They shouldn't have to? No, I'm saying the leopard hasn't changed his spots, so the best move for the company is a change in leadership.

You sound as if division problems are some foreign, unique concept to an organization and don't exist within the vast majority of corporations. That's a crock!
No, they exist elsewhere. Disney just hasn't been able to manage these issues (along with others) to the satisfaction of investors.

There are just too many directions all this could go in at the moment.
I agree.

[GrimGhost]

Interesting poll....

http://money.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/8976.html

[crusader]

But isn't this exactly opposite of what Roy and now IIS are saying.

You have to read between the lines.

The analysts are reporting on the performance in terms of the industry and the S&P:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/compare.asp?Page=InvestmentReturns&Symbol=DIS

Roy is concentrating on the stock price which falls in line with the 10 year history. (click on the 10 year summary)

The real story is in looking at the financials over the past 5 years. This comparison is only the P&L but it does tell us a few things: Look at the increased cost of sales figures in comparison to sales. Yet income remained stable. That's the balance with the cuts.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/statemnt.asp?Symbol=DIS

[Another Voice]

"I disagree with your lack of reply about the realistic parameters surrounding your industry and how that interrelates to the actual pumping station which feeds the money stream."

"How do you propose Disney adapt and survive this next round of evolution without key players who can be ruthless if they need to and demonstrate solid leadership."


People go to see good movies that interest them.

Those are the parameters.

It doesn't matter how ruthless the CEO is at cutting costs, what great leadership is shown in the board room, the financial marvel at creating new derivatives and how finding the country with the most favorable exchange rate.

All the public cares about is what flickers up there on the screen.

The realistic fact surrounding Hollywood is that the Pixars and the Peter Jacksons – the people that actually care about what they make – tend to be more successful than the churn 'em studios. That's why Finding Nemo was a massive hit while a string of movie made by ruthless, business savvy, key players (The Hulk, Matrix Revolutions, Charlie's Angels 2, The Haunted Mansion) all turned into massive financial disasters. Sure there are occasional flukes, but then again sometimes the million dollar slot machine pays off too. The question is do you want to bet the mortgage each month on a lucky pull?

Eisner worries so much about the financials because he knows nothing about making a good movie. It's easier to fret about what you can control rather than what you can't. Buying cable stations to show movies sounds good to business morons – but becomes pointless unless you can show movies that people actually want to see. Eisner focused on where he thought the easy money was; he did not understand (as most of the Major Media Monsters didn't understand) the basic dynamics. The Media Bubble was simply akin to the Internet Bubble – and now cold hard reality is setting in.

Disney needs to focus on high quality products that maximize their chance for returning high returns. Disney released 22 films last year – 2 were a hit (and they actually only made one of them). Don’t you think it'd be much more cost effective to make 10 films a year to get those 2 hits? It's the sharpshooter vs. the shotgun – and the bullets cost $100 million each.

The idea that one has to be big to survive is likewise just a myth. No one is going after Dreamworks. No one is going after Pixar. It's because the key to a successful takeover is that the new team can run the business better than the existing crew. Who is going to put up several billion dollars on the belief they can make better movies than John Lassiter and the rest of the crew at Pixar? And what is Dreamworks with Steven Spielberg?

Yet everyone knows a blindfolded monkey flipping a coin can make better decisions than Naked Mike. And that's why Disney is up on the block.

A Disney that was good at what it did would be invulnerable to take-over.

[crusader]

How do you know Jackson's model doesn't mimic Lucas'?

You know the story: Create a franchise and milk it for all it's worth.

And how do you explain the phenomenal box office success of the Adam Sandler and Mike Myers films along with the Scream and American Pie series? What about Elf? I could go on and on and on to demonstrate how time and time again lower quality cheap scripts are produced and generating major returns.

You're using Dreamworks as a model knowing full well what your position is on Shrek and that Katzenburg failed miserably with Sinbad. That seems contradictory to me.

The public pays for all diversions of entertainment. Some are hits some are solid gold flops because we decide spontaneously based on no calculated rhyme or reason.

All you guys care about is how your job is utilized in the industry. That's fine. I certainly can appreciate that.

But that doesn't support any of this philosophical idealistic drivel touted in a world which doesn't get why we go to the movies in the first place. To be entertained. Plain and simple.

The audience doesn't necessarily respond the way the artist perceives. That's always been the gamble. That's why there's so much thrown into the mix.

The parameters are: pay salaries - support the guild - and keep the cameras rolling - within budget. The rest of it is deal - deal - deal - barter - steal. And hope it pays off.

It's because the key to a successful takeover is that the new team can run the business better than the existing crew.

The key to a successful takeover has nothing to do with new management. It has to do with power.

[crusader]

It doesn't matter how ruthless the CEO is at cutting costs, what great leadership is shown in the board room, the financial marvel at creating new derivatives and how finding the country with the most favorable exchange rate.

Ok stop. You're only focusing on the CEO as financier. When I mention ruthless and strength, I'm talking about the art of the deal.

It is vital to have that level of solid leadership in a CEO in Hollywood.

I asked you how much Jackson's take was on LoTR. From what I've gathered it was a 10% gross on the films. You want to use him as the poster child for what everybody should be doing then let's explore this a bit more.

Jackson spent decades to get here with only the Frighteners making it to the box office and basically losing its' audience. The trilogy demanded 300 mil upfront to produce which was a hugh gamble on a guy with no track record.

So what is Peter doing for his next project? (which you failed to answer in a previous request) - a King Kong remake for Universal. How original. And he's getting paid an obscene, unprecedented contractual amount.

He's also considering making The Hobbit - which is why I correlated Lucas in the first place.

Here's the story.
http://sns.tribune.com/entertainment/movies/wire/chi-0310300134oct30,0,302421.story?coll=sns-ap-movie-headlines

This is your template for Disney to follow? How do you propose they do this without having the best brass in key positions to pull off negotiations which benefit the company in this new wave of screw the studio movie making?

[Another Voice]

Such hatred for Lord of the Rings.

What is your point sir? That only lousy movies make money so Disney is perfectly justified in shovling out dung like George of the Jungle 2? That Disney shouldn't bother with trying to make something people like because you didn't like Lost in Translations? That your rumor about Peter Jackson's share of LOTR upsets up - so Jerry Bruckeheimer's even higher stake in National Treasures and King Arthur is magically more justified?

Yup, Peter Jackson is remaking the original King Kong because it was the first movie that got him hooked on films as a child. It's been a life-long dream of his. And now he can do it. And yes - he made The Frigheteners, but he also made Heavenaly Creatures. But exactly how does this justify Disney's factory production of Bad Company and Reign of Fire?

You are demanding that Disney lower itself to the bottom - yet all the money is made at the top.

Hollywood is a gamble. All entertainment is a gamble. But some people try to err on the better side of the gamble - to trust the audience, to try and strive, to make what is good in hopes it will be popular.

Stuffed suits, like Naked Mike and his supporters, take a greedy and cynical veiw of their audience. They trick and pander. They cater to low tastes and drive down expectations. They fail most of the time, but there are enough quirks to make them fall for the false promise of easy money. They race in an endless spiral downward.

Sorry - I refuse to live in that world.

Mr. Crusader - if your veiw of Disney is Peter Pan 3 - Wendy Gets Some with Adam Sandler as Peter and Mike Meyers as Hook - then kill Disney now and spare the world your foolishness.

P.S. Have you ever made even a five mintue film?

[raidermatt]

The public pays for all diversions of entertainment. Some are hits some are solid gold flops because we decide spontaneously based on no calculated rhyme or reason.
Far too narrow a view... which is a pattern with your perspectives.

Yes, some successes, as well as some failures, are unexplainable.

But in the end, like just about anything else in business, its about odds and probabilities.

Invest significantly in quality, and do it right, and you'll have a better chance of more frequent success. Part of doing it right, of course, includes audience appeal. But it goes much further than just trying to make something easy that people will pay for, and its that piece that you are missing.

[crusader]

Matt,

I'm not disagreeing with you on most of that post. If I seem narrow minded it is merely in balancing the scales. Far too often here, I read comments which support a position not entirely representative of the situation.

I think the investment should be in quality as well as quantity. Disney released 22 films last year which employed more individuals than I care to count. If they scale that back to AV's proposal which falls more in line with the Pixar 1 per year ratio, what does that do to the operations of this company? and......

Doesn't that only mean that another studio gains market share while the Mouse shrinks down to nothing? Because the movies will continue to be released under the current formula we all see at our megaplexes.

It's not a feasible structure to work within such constraints without killing your ability to remain solvent on this level.

[crusader]

AV

I don't hate LoTR. I do believe it was a gamble and Jackson deserves the recognition he has achieved. It was still a very risky endeavor and not the formula we want Disney to solely operate under.

I don't think a lifelong dream of remaking something justifies another King Kong. He is certainly not unique in this category and for that, he gets less of my respect. We'll see how this one plays out but it looks like both players are using each other for money. That falls right in line with what I've been trying to address about your industry.

As far as Disney, hopefully I've clarified why I keep tipping the scales back on balance. I'd love to discuss the attributes of quality with you but it is extremely difficult to be so one-sided with no regard for the need to produce both a high and low end variety of films which keep individuals employed and audiences showing up.

BTW - I can't find one single individual who has anything positive to say about Lost in Translation. The movie is an overhyped overglorified waste of time. Keep throwing bouquets like that at yourselves in Hollywood and we'll keep responding in the adverse with a subconsious blacklist toward risk in entertainment.

[YoHo]

Since when does Hollywood produce Sprokets?
Quantity and Marketshare don't have much relevence in the Film industry. At least not in terms of quantity of films. Sure, the number of butts in the seats is a market share kind of situation, but that is on a per film basis. I don't understand why you think a Film company MUST produce a certain number of movies to remain viable in the industry?

I also don't see the connection to Lucas. Whether or not he's lost his creative genious, he is in effect milking his own personal creations. Jackson did not write Lord of the Rings. Tolkien Enterprises and the Tolkien estate have as much or more interest in this and stand to gain or lose the most. Jackson seems more akin to Spielberg.

I understand what you're attempting to do crusader, I just don't see the relevence of your vision of Hollywood. Putting out 22+ movies a year and employing more people doesn't make you a superior motion picture producer. As a matter of fact, I fail to see how employee count is relevent at all.

[PKS44]

Originally posted by crusader
....but it is extremely difficult to be so one-sided with no regard for the need to produce both a high and low end variety of films which keep individuals employed and audiences showing up.

BTW - I can't find one single individual who has anything positive to say about Lost in Translation. The movie is an overhyped overglorified waste of time. Keep throwing bouquets like that at yourselves in Hollywood and we'll keep responding in the adverse with a subconsious blacklist toward risk in entertainment.

crusader-

First I agree that Lost in Translation was lost on me, too---two boring and bored people being bored about life--an exercise in staring at one's navel, basically--Dull dull and duller--but I do know people--people I like and respect--- who liked the movie--so I will just have to remain clueless as to the popularity of what I considered, as you did, a real waste of time....

Secondly--I cannot disagree more with the idea that one need produce both high and low quality films....I suggest you watch a film called EXECUTIVE SUITE with William Holden --it is on TCM all the time...a bit soapy and melodramtic but the speech at the end where Holden dramatically explains why a company cannot survive for long by trying to produce profits by having both high quality and a lower cost low quality product (in this case furniture)---watch that speech and you will know why your notion is flat out wrong.

[crusader]

YoHo

It's a global market.

Look at 2003 with respect to the players. Size matters.

BVI beat WB which isn't what Voice told us would happen. If they don't produce on this level they will no longer be the contenders they presently are because they will lose market share.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/international/feature_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2066697

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by crusader
BTW - I can't find one single individual who has anything positive to say about Lost in Translation. The movie is an overhyped overglorified waste of time. Keep throwing bouquets like that at yourselves in Hollywood and we'll keep responding in the adverse with a subconsious blacklist toward risk in entertainment. Huh? Leaving your personal aesthetic sense aside (and those of every single individual you've talked to about it---funny, all the single individuals I've talked to about the movie enjoyed it)--the movie's both a huge critical and commercial success. What's the problem?

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by YoHo
Quantity and Marketshare don't have much relevence in the Film industry. At least not in terms of quantity of films. Sure, the number of butts in the seats is a market share kind of situation, but that is on a per film basis. I don't understand why you think a Film company MUST produce a certain number of movies to remain viable in the industry?For one thing, you can't maintain the huge marketing, and distribution infrastructure that you need. AND, since you are in a highly unpredictable and risky industry, you need to spread the risk.

[YoHo]

crusader, Yes the big studios made big money with all sorts of movies overseas many of which suck.

That chart however doens't list profits. Most of those movies struggled to make back production, distribution and marketing costs. I doubt that for instance Dreamworks is doing any worse as a company with it's $300 million since it achieved it with significantly less investment (although I'm sure Sinbad didn't help them)

So Big studios that produce more movies make larger revenue. They make that revenue in the face of significantly higher expensies and lower margins. You've proven nothing.

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by PKS44
Secondly--I cannot disagree more with the idea that one need produce both high and low quality films....I suggest you watch a film called EXECUTIVE SUITE with William Holden --it is on TCM all the time...a bit soapy and melodramtic but the speech at the end where Holden dramatically explains why a company cannot survive for long by trying to produce profits by having both high quality and a lower cost low quality product (in this case furniture)---watch that speech and you will know why your notion is flat out wrong. Well, there's "quality" and then there's "quality." Notwithstanding Bill Holden's business expertise, most people have no problem with Honda and Acura, for example, because a Honda vehicle is still a quality product at its price point, although it's no Acura.

[crusader]

Originally posted by PKS44
I cannot disagree more with the idea that one need produce both high and low quality films....I suggest you watch a film called EXECUTIVE SUITE with William Holden --it is on TCM all the time...a bit soapy and melodramtic but the speech at the end where Holden dramatically explains why a company cannot survive for long by trying to produce profits by having both high quality and a lower cost low quality product (in this case furniture)---watch that speech and you will know why your notion is flat out wrong.

PKS44 - I haven't had the priviledge of viewing that film but I understand what you're suggesting.

My comments have everything to do with the revenue stream flowing through this industry. Look at this chart regarding the number of movies currently released and help me understand how only quality films are paying off? I guess we need to establish what constitutes quality.

http://movies.go.com/boxoffice/

[YoHo]

REvenue isn't everything. We need to see profits. Real profits before we could make the determination that more movies=better.

You have not even provided the fake hollywood numbers. how are we supposed to determine anything? with all this handwaving?

[crusader]

So Big studios that produce more movies make larger revenue. They make that revenue in the face of significantly higher expensies and lower margins. You've proven nothing.

How do you know they're operating at lower margins? (and please don't toss Pixar at me)

You asked me what market share had to do with volume. I showed you the world and the 4 key players in it. If Disney scales back, they fall out of the race.

If you want to talk revenue that's fine - billions of dollars in receipts translated into profits for Disney - so says their latest earnings release. Market share has to do with sales volume and sales volume has to do with products on the market - that includes the film industry.

[YoHo]

I asked no such thing. I stated that volume and market share were not relevent to viability. Do you think Dreamworks isn't a viable company?

I'm out of this argument. You clearly are misunderstanding and/or Misconstruing the entire argument and shockingly, I have better things to do with my time.

[PKS44]

There is quality and there is quality...but when you trade on being the QUALITY company and you put your name on a product it had better measure up or you will lose...you may fool people for a while and get them to buy infereior merchandise just because it has the name quality on it--but eventually you will kill the company--both from without as people learn and stop buying your product at premium prices forcing you to cut prices and margins and from within as workers lose their desire to turn out product when quality is not important anymore....

(see the movie not for Bill Holden's expertise but for the way it is dramatized)

BTW-Honda makes a great product. It is by no means low quality, nor is it particularly low priced. You could just as easily have said Lexus and Toyota ..and been as mistaken about the argument....those are both GREAT products dedicated to providing consistent quality--the more you pay the more extras you get...Disney meanwhile charges the too much and delivers less...also Ford and GM turn out garbage--maybe they also make good stuff but I don't care to ever buy from them to find out. again because my experience with the brand has been sullied for the long term.

[YoHo]

Originally posted by PKS44
...also Ford and GM turn out garbage--maybe they also make good stuff but I don't care to ever buy from them to find out. again because my experience with the brand has been sullied for the long term.

And that illustrates why loing such a reputation is so dangerous, because Ford and sometimes even GM don't make Garbage anymore and haven't for a number of years, but they've permanently lost countless potential consumers, because they let their product quality slide.

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by PKS44
There is quality and there is quality...but when you trade on being the QUALITY company and you put your name on a product it had better measure up or you will lose...I dunno. Disney seemed to do fine putting his name on Flubber, et. al., in addition to Sleeping Beauty. As long as the lower end product is entertaining, even if less than a classic in the making, it doesn't really seem to be a problem.

[YoHo]

Lower end doesn't = Low quality. The expectations and production costs and probably the marketing were significantly less on that product. The actual quality in the product itself is a seperate issue.

[YoHo]

Without knowing more about the production involved I cannot say. And even if I could, we aren't talkin about an Eisner vs. the past or even Eisner vs the industry deal, we're discussing the film industry as a whole. Clunkers get made regardless of intent.


also, I love the Love Bug, quit using it in Strawman arguments ridiculing past Disney Managment.

[raidermatt]

Didn't know we were comparing regimes...

One thing that list illustrates is why Disney was finding it so difficult to get people to see anything Disney that didn't fit that mold.

they fall out of the race.

I don't want to put words in AV's mouth, but I THINK he is suggesting this is a race Disney shouldn't be running in. They would be better off operating as a smaller studio putting out more consistent product.

In general, I agree with that. They don't have to put out more movies than anyone else to be successful. I'm not suggesting they become a boutique operation. However, if between their various "brands" (Touchstone, Miramax, Walt Disney Pics, etc), they can only come up with 15 quality films, then that's not necessarily a bad strategy. They could end up actually making more money.

(note, quality does not mean "artsy", or necessarily even "critically acclaimed")

YoHo is right in that market share in and of itself is not important here. If I remember correctly, Disney was 3rd in the box office race in '02 and it was a horrible year for them due to lower profitability.

The only reason they need to be #1 is because they are putting out more films than anyone else.

[raidermatt]

Have you really been reading this thread?

Yes.

Though I may have missed a few parts... I really haven't seen any "Disney should do it this way because its all they ever did pre-1984, or pre-Eisner, or pre-Frank's death, or whatever".

Even if we could agree that every one of those movies is crap, it doesn't change what Disney should do now.

There's lots of ways to both make and lose money.

[KNWVIKING]

1. Return to Witch Mountain
2. Escape to Witch Mountain
3. The original Herbie
4. The Herbie sequels
5. The Unidentified Flying Oddball
6. The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes
7. Gus
8. The Strongest Man in the World

and similar ones made during the reign of ME don't hurt the Disney brand name IMO because they are simply good,clean,innocent fun movies that mom & dad wouldn't be embarassed to sit down & watch with their children. They're never going to be Oscar contenders, but not every film needs to be.

I followed this thread early on and just picked up again on the last page or two so I'm not certain I know exactly what we're debating, so maybe the point I'm trying to make has no place in the thread. But while Disney should strive for Lion King quality, there is still a market for the Herbies and JB2's in their line up. Maybe if all Disney were trying to do was release one movie every 1-2 year -ala Pixar- then maybe they would have the same track record as Pixar. But families enjoy being able to go to the movies more then once every year or so.

[YoHo]

Viking, you've hit the nail on the head and matt, I think Scoop may be reading a different thread from the rest of us. I think he's reading the vast conspiracy thread in his mind.

[DisneyKidds]

Boy, our high seas friends (Yoho and the Viking) are lucky that a certain frozen head doesn't post around here much any more. A sentiment exactly such as this..............
there is still a market for the........ JB2's in their line up........... families enjoy being able to go to the movies more then once every year or so.
got me in all sorts of trouble with our chilly friend ;).

[YoHo]

#1
I love the Frozen One dearly. Like a brother even, but there's a reason I don't get into car 3. You should dig up our old conversations on the Winnie the Pooh ride.

#2
This is really only about me, because Viking is already on "the List" along with you.


#3
If you don't start posting their again regularly, I'll make you eat my plush.

[YoHo]

Which question?
I answered your initial question. I won't take this thread further off course by responding further. I'm not being paranoid I'm associating current behavior with past behavior and making the assumption that you intend to make some statement vis a vis the decline of Disney in general, not specific to Eisner, but that is not the issue at hand. It doesn't matter if Card and Ron, or Roy, or Even Walt himself played this same hollywood game (they didn't) All we are discussing is whether this is a game that right now in 2004 the Walt Disney Company should be playing.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Didn't know we were comparing regimes...

Matt!! How silly!! You really need to ask yourself two very simple questions and you can avoid this sort of quandary.

1- Are you talking about present day “Disney” quality?

2- Is Scoop involved in the thread?

That’s it. If the talk is about quality and Scoop is involved you can bet your bottom dollar that some examples of poor quality from the past will be discussed. It is inherent in Scoop’s argument. It is a given. You really should know that.

The only way he can defend the present is by tearing down the past!

[raidermatt]

Yeah, what the guy with the parrot on his shoulder said!

;)

Do you believe that any of the following satisfies the level of quality that is being discussed in this part of the thread:

I only saw about 1 1/4 of them. Return to Witch Mountain, when I was 6 or 7, and I don't remember much.

I saw the end of The Strongest Man in the World fairly recently on TV (Kurt Russell, right?). Quality? Eh, maybe, from what I saw.

But you have to remember where I'm coming from on quality... I happen to believe there is quality crap (The Waterboy), and crap crap (The Hot Chick).

[YoHo]

But those movies he listed were for the most part good for what they were. I'd put them up against Lizzie McGuire or Holes or Haunted Mansion and they are far and away better.


Course, that was never the point of this thread so what I would do with them is irrelevent.

[YoHo]

Also, Baron, we were only talking about Disney quality as a microcosm of the entire industry. Within that context, The past is largly irrelevent. So, the Procsecutor really is out of his gourd.

[raidermatt]

Down, Baron, down!

;)

I simply asked a question.
Ok. But then why respond to my "comparing regimes" comment with "Have you really been reading this thread?"

Wouldn't you agree its reasonable to interpret that as an implied admission that's what you were doing (comparing regimes)?

[raidermatt]

You see, folks, my question was intended to point out that not every movie has to be a creative masterpiece to be quality.Well, crud, then don't lead me on with "have you been reading this thread" comments!

Like I said, I haven't seen most of those movies, but I agree with the concept. I did see both Parent Traps and agree (the original and remake... not those sequels). Certainly I'm good with The Princess Diaries, Remember the Titans, The Rookie etc.

Yes, those are quality films. Not the ONLY type of quality films Disney should deal with, but they do qualify and fit perfectly under the Walt Disney Pictures banner.

ADDED IN EDIT: Quote to clarify, since I'm a post behind on my reply!

[raidermatt]

Because if you had been reading this thread you would have realized that it had nothing to do with other regimes. Except I had been reading the thread and didn't realize it.... so I guess I'm just a dolt! Either that or your posts do carry some baggage. Or maybe both?

I was simply pointing out that Disney has never had to make Bruckenheimerized mega-flicks to effectively service its audience. I'm with you there.

Seriously, all joking aside. You all really can send a thread off course by simply jumping to conclusions or making assumptions about any question TheDScoop asks. Point taken, Dad.

Disney doesn't have to make LOTR or Lost in Translation. They are best when they are making medium budget family movies. Hmmm. Well, given the current management, I agree. For whatever reason, they are very inconsistent with larger budget films. (Probably because the larger budget films get more attention from he who shall not be named...)

However, I do think its very possible to do both, given the right creative resources and management. When a movie calls for a larger budget to tell the story, then by all means they should spend it.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Well, ain't we lucky.

Now DVC-Landbaron is chirping in.
OH! Scoop! You missed a golden opportunity!! You should have said…

Well, all we need is Jewell to show up and the car pool will be complete!!

Anyway,
You see, folks, my question was intended to point out that not every movie has to be a creative masterpiece to be quality.
THEN WHY DIDN’T YOU JUST SAY THAT!?!?!?!

It would have been one of the rare times you and I would have been in total agreement!

[raidermatt]

I'd take it one step further and say that Disney reallyshould limit themself to these type of movies except in the rarest of cases.
I think that's more of a limitation that should be placed due to the capabilities of current management. But of course, current management would never go in that direction...

[DVC-Landbaron]

Then again, even those two studios don't make alot of sense for Disney and I don't think Walt would have ever considered buying them.

Those two studios just don't complement the market that Disney has always been in.

Scoop. I’m wondering. You say they should dump Touchstone and that these other two studios don’t fit. Do you think Disney should have an outlet for more adult fare? Or should they stick strictly to “G” rated material?

[KNWVIKING]

.... But did Walt ever get involve with what we'd classify as a big budget film - a Pearl Harbor type budget ? I know he went in hock for Snow White, but I don't know if that budget was Pearl type money.

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by raidermatt
They don't have to put out more movies than anyone else to be successful. I'm not suggesting they become a boutique operation. However, if between their various "brands" (Touchstone, Miramax, Walt Disney Pics, etc), they can only come up with 15 quality films, then that's not necessarily a bad strategy. They could end up actually making more money.

(note, quality does not mean "artsy", or necessarily even "critically acclaimed")Sure. If you know of anyone available who can successfully pick 15 "quality" films year after year, I'm all for it.

Would "50 First Dates" be a "quality film"? Why is "Lizzie McGuire" not as good as "Computer Wore Tennis Shoes"?

[crusader]

I stated that volume and market share were not relevent to viability. Do you think Dreamworks isn't a viable company?

Of course not. You're right. We need more details which I don't have the time to assemble. Let's just leave this profitability issue on the back burner for now unless somebody's got some great info for us to analyze.

Like you I too have other matters.

Now back to this quality issue.............

I'm with DancingBear on this one -

If you know of anyone available who can successfully pick 15 "quality" films year after year, I'm all for it.

The truth is, there's that crap and quality crap issue Matt mentioned. Are we saying Disney shouldn't produce quality crap?

And why stop at 15? What's wrong with 20 or 22 films a year?

Look at the laundry list of pictures currently running. With 52 weeks to release, why shouldn't Disney and all its' affiliates average 2 films a month? That's a real/reasonable production operation for an outfit this size.

[YoHo]

Mainly, because I think Hillary Duff is nothing but a Porn Star in Training, but that's just me.

Anyway.
Scoop, Scoop, my dear Scoop, If that was all you were trying to say, then why didn't you as Landbaron asks SAY IT?
First of all, the Quality of low and midbudget films was a side issue, a tangent off the main issues of this thread, but a valid issue to be brought up, but you must have known that the way you possed it would get you exactly the response you got. If you were really trying to make that point effectivly, you would have simply made the point, not structured it in such a way as to put people on their guard.


As for Did Walt ever get involved in Big Budget films. Yes, he did. Specifically, 20,000 leagues under the Sea and Sleeping Beauty had monsterous budgets.

Now, just t criticize Scoop's thesis for a minute. I don't think the budget and scope of the films they are producing is the core issue. Yes, I think mid to low budget family friendly fair is what Disney can and should do. Pirates is a success not so much, because of it's budget, but becase of the type of movie it is and everything that goes with it.

The core issue is the quality of product, the attention to quality that the entire company is striving with in its films. Miramax and Disney were and are perfectly capable in theory of putting out Lord of the Rings. In practice however, they put the big payoff before the quality and lose sight of what it is that brings people to the movies. Notice I didn't say they put money in general ahead of it. Money drves everything clearly, but the Big payoff is what is currently driving Hollywood. The next Titanic. And that's a stupid way to run a studio and THAT is the issue at hand.

[YoHo]

Originally posted by crusader


The truth is, there's that crap and quality crap issue Matt mentioned. Are we saying Disney shouldn't produce quality crap?

And why stop at 15? What's wrong with 20 or 22 films a year?

Look at the laundry list of pictures currently running. With 52 weeks to release, why shouldn't Disney and all its' affiliates average 2 films a month? That's a real/reasonable production operation for an outfit this size.


I have no problem with producing that many movies a year per se' I have a problem with producing that many big budget films a year.
I have a problem with producing more then 1 or 2 big budget films in a year.

Big budget films need to be nurtured and loed and fawned over the way LotRs was. They need to have the people with talent attached, not the Ogre with delusions of granduer.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Sure. If you know of anyone available who can successfully pick 15 "quality" films year after year, I'm all for it.

Would "50 First Dates" be a "quality film"? Why is "Lizzie McGuire" not as good as "Computer Wore Tennis Shoes"?

You ask an intriguing question. And I think you’ve all taken a wrong turn if you believe that AV, because of the LotR example, is advocating BIG BUDGET films only! AV certainly doesn’t need me to defend his position, but I think we’re all getting a little carried away with a very nebulous topic. It is hard to pin down.

I don’t think that anyone would argue that the fourth of fifth Cinderella sequel would be a ‘quality’ film. But where does that leave us with the new "Lizzie McGuire" cinema extravaganza! Is it ‘quality’? Or is it trash?

Conversely somewhere in this many paged thread someone mentioned (or at least inferred) that Peter Jackson was selling out (to a point) because he was ‘remaking’ King Kong. How does this make sense? Is it because it is a ‘remake’ and that somehow inherently means – TRASH?

This is whole issue becomes even more confusing with the mention of ‘artsy’ films being… well… not very good!

And then Scoop mentions a list of pre-1984 films, that were less than stellar, and makes the very valid point that ‘quality’ can be fuzzy at best!!

BUT THIS ALL MISSES THE POINT!!

Based on Disney’s record they are, AT BEST, hit & miss on quality! And it doesn’t seem to matter how much (or how little) money they throw at the project! And it also seems, given Peter Jackson’s record, that if he decided to do a remake of Spin & Marty, he’d do it in an interesting and provocative way that just reeks of “QUALITY”!!

In the end it doesn’t matter, one whit, if it is a remake, a fantasy, a story about a gym shoe wearing computer, or the biggest budget epic ever made!! If the people making it care about it, there is a chance that it will be of “QUALITY”. But it is only a chance as anyone who has produced something in a group will tell you. It’s hard enough fighting against the inherent bad quality of a group effort. You’re sunk if the only reason you’re in it is for the money!

So Mr. Bear. Where do you draw the line? Is Lizzie and 50 dates “Quality”? Is LotR “Quality”? Do you think King Kong will be “Quality”? And in the end, is the majority of what Ei$ner produces – QUALITY?

[plutospup]

Originally posted by YoHo
Mainly, because I think Hillary Duff is nothing but a Porn Star in Training, but that's just me.


Oh, I just don't want to hear this. Hillary Duff is DD6's favorite! DD6 wants to be just like her. What's a father to do!

[YoHo]

Don't ever rent a porn and do a compare and contrast on clothing and hair then. Also, I'd burn anything the Olsen twins have done since puberty.


I'm also biased, because I'm good firends with an actress who was in the second callback for Lizzy and didn't get chosen, because they wanted a "blond" not a redhead. She hates "Duff." So, take that as you will.

[crusader]

And it also seems, given Peter Jackson’s record, that if he decided to do a remake of Spin & Marty, he’d do it in an interesting and provocative way that just reeks of “QUALITY”!!

The point wasn't that it would be a quality film. The point was that it lacked originality for a guy who made unbelievable inroads in this industry.

The second point was that it appears to be a sell out for money which is exactly how Hollywood works. Jackson's notoriety and fanbase are being sucked dry and taken advantage of and he's using that to cash in on the front end. That's the same game they all play which is why I want the CEO of Disney to be a master at it.

Who really wants to see another King Kong which from all accounts I've read is the same blueprint as the 1933 original?

Here's an old editorial on the script. I'm sure it's being reworked as we speak but the plot and characters are the same. Last word was that Naomi Watts has been cast. Big deal!

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/392/392468p1.html?fromint=1

[Another Voice]

"why shouldn't Disney and all its' affiliates average 2 films a month? "

Because that's called "television" and Disney can't do that well either.

There's nothing wrong with a lot of movies - but Naked Mike refuses to spend the talent or the resources to even attempt to make that number of movies well. It would be better to produce one quality film that has a shot at the box office than two films which are "iffy" at best.

It's simple business - best use of resources. But Disney's not too good at that either.


"Jackson's notoriety and fanbase are being sucked dry..."

Nope - he's very taking the high road. If he was just after money he'd go after "the sure thing" and make a 4th Rings movie. Hell - there's a third Tomb Raider in the works, I'm sure they could have come up with a "new" story for Rings.

And let's not forgot Disney's involvement in the original. From an interview I recently read with Jackson - he was told "why do there have to be four hobbits" and that "one of the hobbits has to die!". Those were orders from the company to Jackson. He resisted and, fortunately, found a much better studio to work with.

And why – Mr. Crusader, have you not bashed Peter Pan 2, George of the Jungle 2, 102 Dalmations 2, Lady and the Tramp 2? I mean – aren't they just as bad as another King Kong?

And what about the new Disney remakes of The Shaggy DA, Return to Witch Mountain, The Love Bug and all the other 1970's movies that you bashed. Why are the originals bad and the remakes good business?

I guess the answer is simple. Some get so blinded by DISNEY® that that no longer care what comes after the brand name. They will forgo anything just to experience the warm embrace of the Brand. The Logo gives them self-image and self-wroth. The Brand frees them from thought, from decision making, from the trouble of having to understand. They listen to the Brand, they love the Brand, the Brand substitutes for life.

Fortunately the public isn't so foolish. Enjoy your Brand Mr. Crusader; I'm off to go watch good movies – not ones with only a logo.

[Another Voice]

"The enemies of all true movie fans are the academy voters!!!!"

Very true. A "good" movie is one that exceeds the audience's expectations. Sometimes I want thrills and I look for a good action film. Sometimes I want something thought provoking and I want a good drama. Sometimes I want to learn and I want a good documentary.

The problem is that people too often associate "like" with "good". Their preference is confused with quality. There are plenty of well made, "good" movies that I hate; plenty of poorly made "bad" movies that I watch over and over.

The academy, film critics and others are immune from the same like=good thinking that befalls everyone else. Pretentiousness is often confused for excellence – just as body count and T&A drive "good movies" for another make segment. And for others "good" is simply defined as the brand logo.

But when you a studio trying to appeal to a vast audience, simply relaying on your name to convince people a film is "good" (especially when you haven't backed it up with good movies in a long time) is courting disaster. The film stands on its own.

[crusader]

Jackson's taking the high road? Then what's all this about wanting in on The Hobbit?

The reason I don't get into the animation debacle debate with you is because I feel you have a legitimate argument. Quit trying to assert brand loyalty and we'll be much better suited at deciphering through the many layers of b:s in our quest for the truth. (in case you haven't noticed, I've respectfully refrained from asserting disgruntled employee in your direction many times, my friend)

As far as the remakes are concerned, there seems to be this trend in place of the sequel. King Kong and The Stepford Wives fall right in line with it.

I think Disney has every right to produce a small variety of remakes from time to time provided they're done on the same level as what I've recently seen. Some of those movies are great entertainment and there's a whole new audience out there.

The problem comes in with overkill. That's a very fine line to walk.

[crusader]

Scoop -

The successful big budget thriller is what makes heads spin and projects roll in.

If somebody's shopping in Hollywood, their first inclination is to head to the most reputable studio which is measured in terms of the boxoffice. The blockbuster develops that level of power.

Disney has an established solid market in family entertainment but isn't the first stop on the list for the big budget film because they haven't demonstrated enough ability to successfully produce at this level.

They've in essence branded themselves right out of a market.

Pirates was theirs to begin with and opens the door a crack. I guess the question is should they continue to invest money in this direction or shouldn't they?

I see no reason why not. The more they succeed the stronger they establish themselves in building a more powerful reputation in the industry.

I don't think Disney's family label can or should diversify to accomplish this though, I think at the very least, they need to utilize Miramax to do it.

[crusader]

While I don't have the specific numbers in front of me, I suspect that--in the end--the one blockbuster still does not bring Disney out of the red from the other bombs.

Sure if we're talking only recently. But you have to look at BVI in order to really measure this company competitively.

For every Bad Company et al. there's Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Armageddon, Die Hard with a Vengeance, The English Patient, Life is Beautiful, and the Sixth Sense.

These pictures don't work within the "disney" label but they are part of this company and somehow in Hollywood there has to be a way to bridge the gap reputably.

The new appointee they eventually place at the helm will be the key in my view. That's one reason I'm against the Jobs/Lasseter idea. We need to steal from the competition.

[KNWVIKING]

I would like to know the final financial outcome of a "bomb". Add up box office, vid rental, premium cable channel fees,vid sales, network tv release and finally cable reruns. It's hard to believe any movie is a "bomb".

[raidermatt]

If you know of anyone available who can successfully pick 15 "quality" films year after year, I'm all for it.

How about somebody who will try, and has a legitimate talent for it? Don't tell me that's too much to ask.

The guys right now aren't trying because that's not their strategy, which is the problem.

That doesn't mean all 15 will be quality hits. But certainly you will succeed more often if you are trying to make 15 quality hits than if you are trying to make 5, and making the rest based on other objectives...

And why stop at 15? What's wrong with 20 or 22 films a year? No reason. Just making an assumption that if they make 22 films now, a more quality-focused strategy would net fewer films.

But maybe with that focus, and the talent to back it up, they could support 20 or 22.

I have not problem with the number itself.


On remakes...

There is NOTHING that inherently makes a remake a bad thing. Same with sequels. Same with ride movies. The problems come when its just done to cash-in and a name/brand/franchise.

I'll judge King Kong when I see it, but I think PJ has earned a pass until then.

[raidermatt]

Scoop, I'm not really countering your points because I can't really say that I think you are wrong. Given the current management, I'm in complete agreement. They should give up on the big budget stuff because they don't do it consistently well.

Two problems with that though:

1- I see zero chance of that happening. Eisner just wouldn't give it up.

2- If they did give it up, it might actually hurt the mid-budget stuff they have been doing better. It certainly looks like one of the reasons they do better in that area is that Eisner and crew are not as directly involved. Without big budget films, they might turn more of their "creative" attention to the smaller films. I don't see that as a good thing.

But at least they would be screwing up movies with a $50 million budget instead of a $100 million.


With a "better" management team however, I still think they can successfully make both types.

[raidermatt]

On the Walt Disney Pictures brand thing...

I didn't like the idea of making PG13 movies under the WDP banner, but as Scoop said, that's now been done, so its a moot point.

I still think, however, that its one of the few studio brands that has some definition around it. Yes, Pirates was PG13, but its still a "Disney" type movie. An adventure film based on a Disney ride. A bit more violent, but only a bit.

So I do think they NEED at least one other brand, like Touchstone, for more adult-targeted films, like romantic comedies for example.

On Miramax and the like... I can definitely go with the idea that these brands are not NEEDED. In a perfect world, yeah, I'd probably skip the R-rated stuff completely and invest in something else. But I do think the movie brands have such loose affiliation that its an area where it doesn't do much harm to Disney's overall "family entertainment" reputation. So if they are done with the Diseny "quality", they can fit in ok.

But I wouldn't argue with ditching them.

[Another Voice]

"For every Bad Company et al. there's Pulp Fiction…"

Pulp Fiction was well before Bad Company (2002).

Actually since Bad Company we've had 25th Hour, Big Trouble, Calendar Girls/I], [I]Cold Creek Manor, Count of Monty Cristo, The Extreme Team, Frank McKlusky, C.I., Hope Springs, Moonlight Mile, The Recruit, Reign of Fire, Shanghai Knights, Sorority Boys, Ultimate X: The Movie, Under the Tuscan Sun, Veronica Guerin from Touchstone and Atlantis, The Country Bears, The Haunted Mansion, Jungle Book 2, Kim Possible, Ladies Night, The Lizzie McGuire Movie, Piglet's Big Movie, Return to Neverland, Treasure Planet and Tuck Everlasting under the Disney brand all in the "flop" category.

In the "so-so to hit" category we have Open Range and Sweet Home Alabama from Touchstone and Brother Bear, Freaky Friday, Holes, Lilo and Stich and The Santa Claus 2 from Disney.

In the "unqualified hit" category you have Signs from Touchstone and Pirates of the Caribbean from Disney.

Not exactly a stellar performance record even by the lowest of measurement. And these don't even list co-productions or distributions (like The Recruit – meaning that's Disney's record on which movies to buy movies isn't any better than deciding which ones to make). Or movies that were supposed to come out – like The Alamo and Hildago that were so bad they had to be returned to the shop for repairs.

In fact, it kind of makes a joke out of "The more they succeed the stronger they establish themselves in building a more powerful reputation in the industry". That's the reason no one takes movies to them – not because of branding issues.

Read the first list again and imagine if all the money, time and talent that went into three of those turkeys were put into just one good film how many success Disney would have had.


"It's hard to believe any movie is a "bomb"."

Simple rule – expenses expand to meet revenues.

Paying even an average "star" $20 million is the norm these days. A good rule of thumb now is that 15% of a film's budgets go to perks (like free vacations, free housing, gifts, etc.) for the primary cast and crew of a film. More and more people get higher and higher cuts of the film (Jerry Bruckheimer is a very rich man). It's easy to spend $100 million just on the advertising push for a film's opening weekend; marketing for the DVD is approaching a good fraction of that too. Wages and overhead fees escalate ever higher.

Almost no studio now expects a film to make money just on its theatrical release because films costs so much these days. Home video – instead of being a nice additional profit – is the only way a movie can make a profit.

For Disney to play anymore in this insane business model is to commit suicide. Mega Media Hollywood is imploding. There's no reason for Disney to add more megatonnage to that fireball (although I do wish Naked Mike would stand a little closer to Ground Zero).

P.S. You're about being a "disgruntled employee". I along with hundreds of other hard working people came to Disney to do great things. Michael Eisner had other ideas and so we had to go. But that doesn't mean we don't work to get the company back to greatness.

[crusader]

Voice

You've really gotta get off this bandwagon or expand your criticism.

Let's look at the coveted WB for 2003:
(courtesy of http://www.movie-source.com/distributor.asp?distributor=Warner%20Brothers


Alex and Emma
Blue Collar Comedy Tour: The Movie
Cradle 2 the Grave
Dreamcatcher
Gothika
Grind
In-Laws, The
Intolerable Cruelty
Kangaroo Jack
Last Samurai, The
Looney Tunes: Back in Action
Love Don't Cost a Thing
Malibu's Most Wanted
Matchstick Men
Matrix Reloaded, The
Matrix Revolutions, The
Mighty Wind, A
Mystic River
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
What a Girl Wants

Or better yet - take a look at that link and feel free to click on every single distributor listed for 2002 and 2003 and tell me again why Disney is the worst production outfit comparatively speaking.

[Another Voice]

Tell me why Disney shouldn't try to be better. Is really screaming "we're not as bad as that guy over there" enough to resuce a $20 billion business? Is magic® now defined as "didn't loose as much money as Matrix Revolutions"?

Just becasue the rest of Hollywood is a mess doesn't mean Disney should throw their business down the toilet too (as you seem to want them). I mean, looking at your Warner Brother list - exactly how does that support your contention that Disney must make those big budget, big time Hollywood flicks?

Seems you've proved my case.

[crusader]

Disney's releases under "disney" were very good last year. That's not an area I feel they need to improve to the degree you seem to imply.

Miramax and Touchstone are right in there with the rest of them. I believe this is the market most adults patronize and it's a crap shoot as we've already stated. I don't see any problem with there being that mix of low/high budget films coming out. We look for the blockbusters every year. We look for the big names and the big allure - like Troy. If it's good it'll take off.

We also look for the slapstick humor and the romantic comedy and the action and the drama etc................. to be available whenever we walk up to the box office.

If you look at that link you'll see how many films were released last year. I lost count at 175. We're arguing over 22 films vs 4. That's ridiculous to me. There's a need to employ thousands in hollywood and if a picture is designed simply to breakeven or come in slightly above the cut that makes absolute sense given the volume.

I'd have to take the time to assign every international return to Disney's films in order to demonstrate how much they seriously raked in at the box office.

If you want to take the time, you can start here: .http://www.worldwideboxoffice.com/

And like you said, that's not even including the real money in DVD's. (which cost 50 cents to manufacture by the way)

Viking's right - it's hard to believe they're really losing money.