Christopher Robin replaced??

[True North]

Seems to be a lot of stories about the new Winnie the Pooh tv show. I guess they are replacing Christopher Robin with a tom-boy girl, and will have more "active" adventures.

Seems like they could have a lot of people mad with this one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4512770.stm (http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds27124.html)

[bicker]

There was a thread a few days ago, where a lot of people got very upset about it.

I think it is a great idea. I gave the example in another thread of West Side Story, Jerome Robbins' retelling of William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. There are many other examples where retellings that have substantial differences to the original, but effectively capture the original.

[airlarry!]

I love this idea. I don't think the company should stop there.

What about modernizing some of the other Disney character friendships? For instance, get rid of Pluto, and get Mickey a hamster as a pet instead. Something like "Hammy the Happy Hamster?" There are enough dogs in the Disney pantheon, where are the hamsters?

Think about the success Disney has had with buying the rights to Pooh. Maybe they should buy the Wallace & Grommit series, too. But again, too many dogs. Wait a minute. Get rid of Gromit, and add a Nutria, instead. I can definitively state that the Nutria population in the world of animation is seriously underrepresented. "Wallace & Newtie" is another great idea. Yes there is a substantial difference, but it still captures the same spirit.

[bicker]

Actually, I love for them to consider doing this for Song of the South.

[Another Voice]

I can't think of a better follow-up project to The Muppets' Wizard of Oz.

I'm sure it will be just as successful.

[cristen]

where are the hamsters

Dancing on yoho's computer.

[raidermatt]

Good start, Larry. You're on the right track, but you're still not putting forth the extra effort.

Let me help out...



Tell me, why a mouse?

[airlarry!]

Ding! Winner!

[airlarry!]

Kidding and sarcasm aside, does anyone really think this is a good idea?

I can understand taking an old story, and freshening it up with new details. Heck, I'm one of those suckers that bought into Ron'n'John's idea to retell Treasure Island in space (until I watched the movie that is).

But Pooh and Christopher Robin?

There's just no need to change the story. Spend the money, sweat, and guts to create something new. Don't demonstrate to the world that you've run out of good ideas.

This reeks of "Ariel made money so let's do a sequel maybe she has a daughter you're brilliant no you are how much of a bonus will we get" type of ideas.

[SurfingGirl]

Winnie and Christopher have been friends for so long I think its a bad idea to split them up

[I Am Clark Kent]

Disney....The Brain Drain Continues.

Let's face it everyone....the establishment is just running out of ideas.

Pooh and the dieziens of the Hundred Acre Wood, have had more recycling over the last 25 years than I or anyone else could care to remember.

In fact the only reason they keep this franchise going is the fact that it makes more green for them in the long run. Over the last few years they've had more theatrical releases, more air time, and its clear that the establishment is just spining its wheels, milking old ideas for all their worth.

In fact, if any of you have ever read the actual books based on these characters. Pooh and the rest of them, are just toys, scattered about Christopher Robin's room.

They only come to life within Christopher Robin's imagination. Only replacing him with another human, defeats the entire purpose of the story. In fact Disney has broken the author's intent of the story, so many times its mind boggling!
The whole point of toy story 2 was that it was bitter sweet, and we can't all keep playing with them in Andy's room as if it is the timeless hundred acre wood going on forever. It defeats the point and makes the drama of the earlier movie meaningless.

At the end of "Many Adventures" where Christopher Robin discusses going to school, he has this problem he is explaining to Pooh and the gang.

Christopher Robin was growing up, and wasn't going to "visit" with his pre-school imaginary friends as much, as he would now be getting real friends at school, and, it was implied would eventually stop visiting them altogether.

That's what the author's intent was.

That childhood is the shortest period of our lives. The stuff we used to play with, the dreams we used to dream, all eventually fall by the wayside. Pooh included.

We only live that way for a short time.

And instead of ending it on that note, they've continued to drag pooh back out Christopher's Imagination. I just can't see it working out with another human being, no matter how much they try to re-create what is simply
un-re-creatable!

On that, how much time have they spent trying to re-invigorate Mickey Mouse for the 21st century?

[bicker]

Yup, I think this is a GOOD idea. I know many people fear change, but as I mentioned earlier, retellings are an excellent way to breathe new life into a story. The fact is that the gender of Christopher Robin has no bearing on the story, and so can be changed without any concern about negative impact on the story.

[minnie61650]

Seems to be a lot of stories about the new Winnie the Pooh tv show. I guess they are replacing Christopher Robin with a tom-boy girl, and will have more "active" adventures.

Seems like they could have a lot of people mad with this one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4512770.stm (http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds27124.html)

I think the REAL reason Disney is replacing Christopher Robin is I heard Disney was being challenged by the family of the author as to who really had the rights
to the pooh stories. Legal battles are very expensive and perhaps this was an out of court settlement so Disney is playing it up as an update.

[airlarry!]

Yup, I think this is a GOOD idea. I know many people fear change, but as I mentioned earlier, retellings are an excellent way to breathe new life into a story. The fact is that the gender of Christopher Robin has no bearing on the story, and so can be changed without any concern about negative impact on the story.

Change for the better is a sign of creative leadership. Change for the sake of change is evidence of creative bankruptcy.

I don't know enough about the project to say what this change will be, but the negative impact you are missing is not with the story, its with the negative use of resources better utilized in creating new stories with new characters with new genders in them. But thinking up new ideas is hard.

I can understand why the company would make this mistake. It is a common error to assume change for change's sake is for the better or has no negative impact by the business suits rather than the creative class, and according to sources like Stewart, Disney appears to be management heavy.

The business suits at Disney will tinker with the marketing of Pooh over and over thinking they are helping to create new fervor for the character and increasing the market share and sales blah blah blah...while over at Pixar (which began as you know partly as a Disney funded project with ex-Disney employees) they are working on the next new set of characters that will have a whole new milieu to work in. The next generation of Pooh characters, in other words.

We got raised eyebrows even in-house at first...The in-house artists questioned this move? Shocker! Two different ways of doing things. One creates. One shuffles. Need I say more?

[bicker]

Change for the better is a sign of creative leadership. Change for the sake of change is evidence of creative bankruptcy. True, but that's not the case here. We haven't seen the end-product, so IMHO all we can say is that it is a good idea, for the reasons I mentioned earlier and based on the examples I've given earlier, and we'll just have to wait for the implementation to determine whether the idea was executed with merit or not. Even at that time, it wouldn't be the idea that would be good or bad, but simply the execution.

That is unless someone is willing to take up the banner and rail against West Side Story, The Wiz, The Mists of Avalon, Pretty Woman, etc.

I don't know enough about the project to say what this change will be, but the negative impact you are missing is not with the story, its with the negative use of resources better utilized in creating new stories with new characters with new genders in them.Sorry, but I see this as either evidence of a pre-conceived bias against, or simple naiveté. Pursuing use of an existing asset is not negative-by-nature. Good business requires both new development and development based on existing assets. To treat any existing asset as a sacred cow, that cannot be developed further in the interest of the enterprise, is simply bad management. The specific use itself can, of course, be scrutinized, but again, I haven't seen anyone pick up the banner and make the point as to why Pooh's stories, themselves, demand that the child in the stories must be a boy -- what it is about a change in gender that totally destroys the original magic of the stories.

But thinking up new ideas is hard.There is no question that Disney is heavily relying on Pixar for this, these days. It makes sense:

In the old days, Disney kept his creative talent under his oppressive thumb. The studio system was in full-force, and it was even more effective within the realm of animation as it was in the realm of live-action.

Now, the situation is 180° different: Jonas Ridderstrale and Kjell Nordström write, "Talent makes capital dance." Big business retains its advantage at implementation and distribution, and probably always will. However, the best environment for creative talent is in charge of their own destiny, in small think tanks. This is the case in every industry, and the exceptions are notable rather than common.

In the industry I work in now, the visionaries are either executives of large companies, executives of small companies, or private entrepreneurs. They don't take jobs where they're some underling of an underling of an underling, in some massive hierarchy. They want autonomy -- control not only over their own destiny but also over what creative interests they pursue. These folks deliver such significant returns on their creative talent that they can insist on that autonomy, on that control. Furthermore, it appears very clear that many of the most creative people are more creative with that autonomy than without it.

I can understand why the company would make this mistake.All I can say is that assuming it is a mistake makes it more difficult to objectively evaluate the decision.

while over at Pixar (which began as you know partly as a Disney funded project with ex-Disney employees) For the reasons I mentioned above.

[airlarry!]

No, no, no. You missed it.

Replacing Christopher Robin with Kristy Robin is not the same as the examples cited above.

Until that concept is understood, it will be hard to discuss the mistakes business types can make in making change for changes sake.

I'll try again.

As an example, "The Wiz" involved an update to the music and a change in the ethnicity of the main characters. But Dorothy's character does not depend on the color of her skin. She's Dorothy either way. But changing Dorothy to Dexter in the same story is absurd and unnecessary and distorts the artist's original vision.

It can be done, of course, but is that the best use of an artist's efforts? To retell The Wizard of Oz with a boy instead of a girl?

I am all for taking a fresh look at old ideas to see if they can be better utilized. But the public, in general, responds to quality, not change for change's sake. It is funny how, years and years after they were created, the stories from Tolkien and Lewis light up the movie screen and rake in millions from a new generation of fans....without changing Gandalf to Gandalfinetti, the White Witch...or Frodo to Freida, Samwise's wife and faithful ringbearer.

Even at that time, it wouldn't be the idea that would be good or bad, but simply the execution....<snip>Sorry, but I see this as either evidence of a pre-conceived bias against, or simple naiveté. I have a sincere question. Can you give me an example of what would be a bad idea, other than the obvious examples of using the characters in an immoral manner? Is there anything (other than that) sacred about the Pooh characters that should make them resistant to wholesale change? And do you understand the consequences of taking your argument to the logical extreme?

(P.S.: And isn't "oppressive" a poor choice of word to use to describe the leadership of an animation unit that had no rival for thirty-five years?)

[bicker]

But Dorothy's character does not depend on the color of her skin. Just like the Christopher Robin character does not depend on gender. Carrying the example further, in West Side Story, the Juliet character went from simply a member of another powerful family, to a character who was of a minority ethnicity. The conflict, itself, was enriched by adding in the racial aspect of it. In Pretty Woman, the Ella character became a prostitute instead of an abused child. In Ella Enchanted, the oppression isn't being forced to be a servant just to her own family, but to everyone, imposed by magic.

It can be done, of course, but is that the best use of an artist's efforts? To retell The Wizard of Oz with a boy instead of a girl? Very likely.

But the public, in general, responds to quality, not change for change's sake.Since you haven't seen the end-product, you don't know it won't be a quality story or production. If the end-product is poor, then that's the fault of the implementation, not the idea.

It is funny how, years and years after they were created, the stories from Tolkien and Lewis light up the movie screen and rake in millions from a new generation of fans....without changing Gandalf to Gandalfinetti, the White Witch...or Frodo to Freida, Samwise's wife and faithful ringbearer.Yet, the Tolkien books have been reimagined in print very effectively and very successfully. The fact, though, that there are examples of the original being remade doesn't mean that derivations aren't excellent as well. The Romeo and Juliet story has reached the big screen again since the West Side Story retelling, and by all accounts the retelling was better than the more traditional telling.

I have a sincere question. Can you give me an example of what would be a bad idea, other than the obvious examples of using the characters in an immoral manner?By definition, no. There is no advantage to making things into sacred cows. There is no advantage to closing doors to possibilities.

There are no bad ideas, only good ideas that fail because of a lack of or in resources applied to the idea. There are no bad ideas, only wrong ideas for that moment. There are no bad ideas, only bad implementations. There are no bad ideas, only lesser priorities. There are no bad ideas, only ideas in the wrong place or at the wrong time. There are no bad ideas, only lost opportunities.

And do you understand the consequences of taking your argument to the logical extreme?There is no "logical" extreme except that which you mentioned earlier, i.e., introducing immoral themes. However, as you likely realized, raising that prospect would be reductio ad absurdum.

(P.S.: And isn't "oppressive" a poor choice of word to use to describe the leadership of an animation unit that had no rival for thirty-five years?)Why do you think the two would be mutually-exclusive? One refers to how the manager satisfied the objectives, the other refers to how the manager treated his employees. Read the histories. Walt Disney wasn't someone I would want to have worked for.

[DVCconvert]

I heard Pooh and Chris will be replaced by two new characters named;
Ratface & Dummkoft.


:rolleyes:

[Another Voice]

Just like the Christopher Robin character does not depend on gender.
And that goes to the heart of the matter. This change in the stories isn't an attempt to make the stories better, different, more interesting or to expand their meaning.

It's just a blatant exercise in crass marketing.

You can see the PowerPoint presentation between the lines of Disney's announcements – "we want to sell more stuff to girls, we must get more girls in our top tier franchises". While this is going to be a wonderful commercial for a whole new line of "Kristy 'n Winnie 2geth'r 4ev'r" Toys, the movies themselves are going to be awful.

Disney's taken a line of stories that have sparked the imagination of two generations and turned them into another line of "Barbie and her Magical Dream House" DVDs.


P.S.
In the old days, Disney kept his creative talent under his oppressive thumb.
You really don't understand how things ran. It's rather amusing, albeit a bit sad, and explains a lot.

[bicker]

Or perhaps I do understand how things ran, and you simply disagree. :idea:

[All Aboard]

Bicker, I am struggling a bit with your analogies. West Side Story, Kiss me Kate, etc. were retellings of the same story in different settings in different times. Not just swapping out of a single character to inject new life into the group. It kind of sounds like jumping the shark. The Brady kids got a little dull, so bring in Cousin Oliver.

[Planogirl]

Oh my, I was thinking in a similar manner as Another Voice. It occurred to me when I read about this pointless (IMO) change that Disney wanted another PRINCESS! Even if it's a tomboyish type (see Mulan), the character could be added to the endless supply of PRINCESSES.

Woohoo, Princess meals at the Crystal Palace! I can see it now.

Sigh... :(

[bicker]

Bicker, I am struggling a bit with your analogies. West Side Story, Kiss me Kate, etc. were retellings of the same story in different settings in different times. Not just swapping out of a single character to inject new life into the group. Pretty Woman swapped out a teenaged girl and swapped in a prostitute. West Side Story swapped out a family and swapped in a race. Star Wars swapped Richelieu out and inserted Darth Vader ("more machine than man"). Practically all the characters were changed in War of the Worlds (despite giving the same novel author credit on-screen!) Ebbie made Scrooge a woman. Mickey's Christmas Carol made Scrooge a mouse. In Neverland, Tinkerbell is an alcoholic drug addict

Retellings take many forms.

[DancingBear]

Of course we haven't seen the new show, but it certainly seems that this approach is a departure from the entire original concept of the Pooh stories, that the Pooh characters are "really" Christopher Robin's stuffed animals, and that all of the stories are products of Christopher's active imagination, with its charming limitations of experience, vocabulary, etc., that ultimately reveal enduring truths about childhood, growing up, etc.

[raidermatt]

There are no bad ideas, only good ideas that fail because of a lack of or in resources applied to the idea. There are no bad ideas, only wrong ideas for that moment. There are no bad ideas, only bad implementations. There are no bad ideas, only lesser priorities. There are no bad ideas, only ideas in the wrong place or at the wrong time. There are no bad ideas, only lost opportunities.

Semantics, semantics, semantics.

Ok, so no bad ideas.

Including the idea that resources would be better spent elsewhere.

Including the idea that letting the marketing department drive creation is a suboptimal way to generate content.

Including the idea that a big corporation is not required to treat creative talent like "underlings", but does it by choice, and therefore could choose to treat them as valued members of a creative team that has tremendous resources at its disposal.

Or perhaps I do understand how things ran, and you simply disagree.

Certainly Walt's management style, in the context in which you are referring, would likely not have worked today. However, neither would the styles of the vast majority of managers from the 1920's to 1960's.

Management styles, like many things, are greatly influenced by the times. To assume that somebody born 50 or 100 or even 200 years later would have the same idea of what is acceptable behavior in business or social environments is absurd.

Whether you would have wanted to work for Walt is irrelevant. The question is did the creative talent of the day want to work for Walt? Of course not all did, as would be the case with anyone. But many did.

Retellings take many forms.

Yes, they do, and there are quite a few failures to go along with the successes you listed. Its notable, however, as All Aboard says, that more than a simple character swap was done in those successes.

There were more changes to Cinderella than making her a prostitute, more to West Side Story than changing the race, etc.

Your examples are the equivalent of revamping the ENTIRE Winnie the Pooh story to reflect that of a little girl's imagination. Yes, the possibilities are interesting. But leaving the other characters essentially intact and simple changing the gender of CR is nothing even remotely resembling the changes of which you are speaking.

They didn't make Mickey's Christmas Carol by only changing one character to a mouse. (btw, not that it matters in this discussion, but Scrooge was a duck. Cratchit was a mouse.)

[DisneyKidds]

Of course we haven't seen the new show, but it certainly seems that this approach is a departure from the entire original concept of the Pooh stories, that the Pooh characters are "really" Christopher Robin's stuffed animals, and that all of the stories are products of Christopher's active imagination, with its charming limitations of experience, vocabulary, etc., that ultimately reveal enduring truths about childhood, growing up, etc.
This is what I see as being at the core of the issue. Without Christopher Robin there is no Pooh, or Tigger, or Piglet, or, or, or........

Perhaps they should approach it in Alice in Wonderland type fashion. Christopher takes a little taste of a strange mushroom and, voila, he is in his own stories......but with a gender bending twist. I can see it now.....Disney having Christopher explore his feminine side.....perhaps he has an alternative lifestyle in him just waiting to get out. There may be more Baptist protests, but at least gay Days could become "official".

Or it could be like a wierd Terminator meets Matrix kind of twist in the Hundred Acre Wood. Christopher Robin brought Pooh and his pals to life, but in a strange and bizarre way Pooh, Tigger, et. al have taken over and THEY are the ones creating the characters they interact with. If they really exist......if Christopher Robin ever really existed.........And then Vader Pooh realizes that if Christopher Robin unplugs from Pooh's Playful Matrix all that he has worked for in creating Chrissy Robin (we won't even explore what evil motivations he has for that) will be lost, so of course he has to send a cybernetic sentinel Heffalump back in time to take out Christopher Robin before Pooh's new world order is destroyed, or the mushrooms effects wear off, whichever comes first.

At least there will be wonderful new material to add to the WDW version of Fantasmic, as Christopher Robin's imagination splinters and he creates new and multiple personalities in his head. I can't wait to see how Mickey's thwarts that one.

In all seriousness, there is no way they will be able to sell this as anything related to the classic, nor should they attempt to do that. Christopher Robin having an imaginary girlfreind in his imagination along with his other endearing friends? Too wierd, and too much of a departure from the literature which served as the basis for the franchise. Then again, if Disney ever wanted to get into the adult business, just think of the material thay could come up with as Christopher, Chrissy, and Eeyore get it on.

This will simply be a direct to video sequel of the classic. New stories, different tales, but in the end done in a shallow and disappointing fashion that leaves nobody interested and serves only as an attempt to exploit the original to it's own detriment. I suspect it will be a miserable failure and I don't like it. Further reason to be disappointed in the Walt Disney Company, that this should be the best they should come up with.

Oh, and there is such a thing as a bad idea. One such thing would be to argue with the concept that there are no bad ideas. That is a waste of time waiting to happen. Now I'm just gonna go blindfold myself and walk across 34th St at rush hour........unless of course you all think that might be a bad idea, lest another Miracle on 34th Street doesn't happen to allow me to survive that one...........

[bicker]

The issue is whether personal preference has any place in the determination of the utilization of a business asset. The answer is "no." Where is the proof that a company the size of Disney is better off subjudgating its marketing to the whims of its creative talent? How many entertainment conglomerates, the size of Disney, operate as you would have Disney operate?

Its notable, however, as All Aboard says, that more than a simple character swap was done in those successes.So I guess we're still at the point where we will have to wait to see the implementation to see if the implementation is good or not. That's what I was saying from the start!

[All Aboard]

How many entertainment conglomerates, the size of Disney, operate as you would have Disney operate?

I think you've captured the essence of why there are two sides to this discussion. If Disney has become like any other entertainment conglomerate, then it has lost what once made it special.

If squeezing every nickel out of a character or story with complete disregard for quality has become the "best practice" way of operating, then no one can argue that the company's core beliefs have been abandoned.

Rocky was a great movie. The ones that followed were awful, but some of them made money. The Cinderella sequels, Little Mermaid sequels, Lion King sequels paled in comparison to the powerful creativeness of the original. But, perhaps they turned a profit. Aparently, that's what entertainment conglomerates do. But, that's not what Disney used to do.

There's a reason why there aren't discussion boards with tens of thousands of members for companies that have been little more than entertainment conglomerates. Few people have built an emotional attachment.

[Aintdisablast]

Making cheap sequels is not a creation of the latest version of Disney we all bash about today. How many Herbie movies were there ?

[raidermatt]

There's a reason why there aren't discussion boards with tens of thousands of members for companies that have been little more than entertainment conglomerates. Few people have built an emotional attachment.

Exactly. And before we get into emotions vs. business, let's go to the next logical step, which is the emotional attachment AA speaks of translated into one of the most powerful brand names in the world.

We've been through this before with the same participants. Nobody is accusing Disney of striking out on its own with its current way of operating. They are marching in line with everybody else.

The point is, that's not what made the Disney name mean what it does instead of what any other studio name means. That's not what created the value that the Disney name has.

Again, as AA said, there's a reason we are here talking about Disney instead of Warner Bros.

This is not a call for Disney to revert in every way shape and form to the way it did business 50 years ago. Its simply a continued call, and yes, a futile one it would seem, for the company to remember the core concepts that made it so successful for so long.

[bicker]

I think you've captured the essence of why there are two sides to this discussion. If Disney has become like any other entertainment conglomerate, then it has lost what once made it special.A small Disney Company would likely not have the financial wearwithall to survive the inevitable takeover attempts. The ownership of Mickey Mouse by a large conglomerate was an foregone conclusion.

So I can only interpret the objection to that as an objection to the nature of capitalism today. I can respect such objection, but cannot agree with them in the slightest.

There's a reason why there aren't discussion boards with tens of thousands of members for companies that have been little more than entertainment conglomerates. Few people have built an emotional attachment.You're mistaken. There are discussion boards for both Volkswagen and Honda that are each far more popular than the DIS, and Honda is operated as a capitalist enterprise, with the famed Japanese efficiency. A discussion board for just one of Microsoft's products, the Xbox, is more popular than the DIS as well, and I can tell you from second-hand experience just how Bill Gates lives the principles of today's capitalist ethic.

People build emotional attachments for a variety of reasons, not just nostalgia.

[bicker]

The point is, that's not what made the Disney name mean what it does instead of what any other studio name means. That's not what created the value that the Disney name has.No question -- and that isn't the way other hallmark brands built their reputations in decades past. It is, however, the way those companies -- at least the ones that want to survive -- will operated now, if they wish to thrive. The world has moved on. We've wrought a different crucible for companies to compete within. The old ways actually make a company ripe for take-over by the companies who know how to compete in today's economy. Wallace Industries won the first Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Aware, seemingly on the strength of its customer service alone. Less than two years later it was bankrupt and ceased operations. Malden Mills, the "Polartec" people, had a mill burn down several years ago. The CEO decided to be a "nice guy" and continue to pay his loyal employees, even though he had no place for them to work, while he was rebuilding. Just the kind of thing you'd expect for a company that cares about people more than capitalism would do. That decision cost Malden Mills $20M, and that CEO was replaced by a group of creditors who took over the company. The "nice guy" finished last.

[DancingBear]

Bicker, as you have pointed out repeatedly, anecdotes are not evidence. You've claimed before that we live in a Wal-Mart world, and that consumers have shown they're not willing to pay for quality or service. And yet there's a Starbucks on every corner.

And, once again, you attempt to define the differences as "Bicker, the capitalist realist" vs. "You all, the emotional nostalgics."

Sorry, that just doesn't hold up. Why don't you try to address the business argument rather than dismissing it?

The argument, simply, I believe, is this:

--Walt and Roy Disney built the value of the Disney brand by doing extraordinary things.

--Eisner exploited the Disney brand to substantially grow the company.

--If the exploitation continues, without the effort to do some extraordinary things, then the Disney brand will lose its value.

That's not nostalgia, that's smart brand management. It's not about the old ways vs. the new ways (and didn't the dot.com bust prove that was a canard anyway?), but realizing that the source of Disney's value is not in Princess Tea Sets, but in Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, and Sleeping Beauty.

[All Aboard]

Those boards are for street racing enthusiasts. People who buy a Honda product (often used on the secondary market) and spend lots of dollars with companies other than Honda to modify it.

[bicker]

You've claimed before that we live in a Wal-Mart world, and that consumers have shown they're not willing to pay for quality or service. And yet there's a Starbucks on every corner.If you consider Starbucks to be a paragon of quality service, then that's saying something right-there. While Starbucks is, unquestionably, a good place to work, and that shines through in the customer experience, it isn't The Ritz. Furthermore, Starbucks is unquestionably an exception, rather than a rule. Around these parts, Dunkin' Donuts is king, and I've never encountered a more consistently surly set of counter-folk.

Why don't you try to address the business argument rather than dismissing it? The argument, simply, I believe, is this: --Walt and Roy Disney built the value of the Disney brand by doing extraordinary things. --Eisner exploited the Disney brand to substantially grow the company. --If the exploitation continues, without the effort to do some extraordinary things, then the Disney brand will lose its value.The main problem with your "business argument" is that it assumes facts not-in-evidence, such as the implied assertion that the so-called "exploitation" is or will be excessive. That's a subjective opinion, which is unsupported by the facts. It's a Straw Man until backed up by evidence that doesn't require a passion of Disney to appreciate (unless you want to fall back on "emotional nostalgia").

Another problem is that your "business argument" doesn't indicate what the business implications are of the assertions made. If you're saying that all that will lead to you, personally, being less happy, then it isn't my place to ever question that! I, myself, expressed my personal opinion about how much I liked the idea, and expect my personal feelings to be considered as valid as anyone else's. Consequently, I'll show your personal feelings about how much you'll like the idea as much consideration as I expect to receive. The only argument that I personally found worthwhile discussing critically was the one I thought I saw regarding whether this was a good business decision or not.

That's not nostalgia, that's smart brand management.Smart brand management requires acknowledgement of both short-term and long-term priorities, as well as factual basis on which to make quantitative decisions regarding the short-term and long-term financial impact of different decisions.

It's not about the old ways vs. the new ways (and didn't the dot.com bust prove that was a canard anyway?)Tell that to amazon.com. The dot.com bust proved that only the strong and lucky win in today's marketplace. If you think amazon.com won based on its customer service, then you haven't been reading the Community Board recently, and you weren't a customer of bn.com, back when the battle between the two was first waged. bn.com was much better with regard to customer service -- still is IMHO -- but amazon.com won. Why? Marketing. That's why.

[All Aboard]

Amazon is a reseller of other people's content. They create nothing. Price, inventory and convenience. That's their battle.

[bicker]

Who's to say what Disney's "battle" should be, other than its owners?

Regardless, you've still not provided a list of the entertainment conglomerates that so successfully beat Disney by employing your preferred methods. I think that's essential, as a means of comparison, before pursuing the discussion further. Please provide the evidence you have that your preferred approaches would better serve the stated objectives of the corporation.

[All Aboard]

Who's to say what Disney's "battle" should be, other than its owners?

If I recall, Disney's owners spoke out pretty loudly against the direction the company was being taken and how it was fighting that battle.

[DancingBear]

If you consider Starbucks to be a paragon of quality service, then that's saying something right-there. While Starbucks is, unquestionably, a good place to work, and that shines through in the customer experience, it isn't The Ritz. Furthermore, Starbucks is unquestionably an exception, rather than a rule. Around these parts, Dunkin' Donuts is king, and I've never encountered a more consistently surly set of counter-folk.

What I consider Starbucks to be is an extremely successful company that has convinced a lot of customers to pay premium prices for a cup of coffee. Again, you asserted in the past that the Wal-Mart model is the only paradigm for success in today's business world.

The main problem with your "business argument" is that it assumes facts not-in-evidence, such as the implied assertion that the so-called "exploitation" is or will be excessive. That's a subjective opinion, which is unsupported by the facts. It's a Straw Man until backed up by evidence that doesn't require a passion of Disney to appreciate (unless you want to fall back on "emotional nostalgia").First of all, I didn't intent "exploitation" to be perjorative in itself. Walt and Roy engaged in merchandising and synergistic marketing. And clearly the brand was under-exploited in the years leading up to the Eisner/Wells era.

Second, your "passion of Disney" and "emotional nostalgia" comments are Straw Men themselves. I'm not talking about the rabid passion of the posters on these boards, but the elements of the Disney brand identity itself.

Finally, guess what! Your "implied assertion that the so-called 'exploitation'" is not or will not be excessive is a "subjective opinion, which is unsupported by the facts" also. But there are a lot of brand marketing experts out there that spend a lot of time worrying about how you protect the value of a brand.

Another problem is that your "business argument" doesn't indicate what the business implications are of the assertions made. If you're saying that all that will lead to you, personally, being less happy, then it isn't my place to ever question that! I, myself, expressed my personal opinion about how much I liked the idea, and expect my personal feelings to be considered as valid as anyone else's. Consequently, I'll show your personal feelings about how much you'll like the idea as much consideration as I expect to receive. The only argument that I personally found worthwhile discussing critically was the one I thought I saw regarding whether this was a good business decision or not.Kindly point out where you got the impression that I thought the issue was whether I would be more or less happy. Rather, I thought I certainly did "indicate what the business implications are of the assertions made" when I said:

--If the exploitation continues, without the effort to do some extraordinary things, then the Disney brand will lose its value.

Smart brand management requires acknowledgement of both short-term and long-term priorities, as well as factual basis on which to make quantitative decisions regarding the short-term and long-term financial impact of different decisions.Uhhhh, yeah. Thanks for stating another truism.

Tell that to amazon.com. The dot.com bust proved that only the strong and lucky win in today's marketplace. If you think amazon.com won based on its customer service, then you haven't been reading the Community Board recently, and you weren't a customer of bn.com, back when the battle between the two was first waged. bn.com was much better with regard to customer service -- still is IMHO -- but amazon.com won. Why? Marketing. That's why.Uhhhh, okay. But, gee, I thought that only the strong and lucky won in yesterday's marketplace also. The point was that there really are no new core business realities. Amazon.com is just doing now what the Sears catalog did a hundred years ago, just with different technology.

[DancingBear]

Regardless, you've still not provided a list of the entertainment conglomerates that so successfully beat Disney by employing your preferred methods. I think that's essential, as a means of comparison, before pursuing the discussion further. Please provide the evidence you have that your preferred approaches would better serve the stated objectives of the corporation.Please provide the evidence you have that your preferred approach has best served the stated objectives of the corporation.

Would it work for you if we listed the entertainment conglomerates that have performed poorly by employing YOUR preferred methods?

Please, let's once again get off the "show me your data" kick.

[Another Voice]

A small Disney Company would likely not have the financial wearwithall [sic] to survive the inevitable takeover attempts. The ownership of Mickey Mouse by a large conglomerate was an foregone conclusion.
Once again – history proves the exact opposite.

Throughout the 1960s through the 1980s Hollywood was in turmoil. Each and every studio went bankrupt, was purchased, was sold and then repurchased or just plain disappeared time after time. MGM – bankrupt. RKO – vanished. 20th Century Fox – bankrupt. Columbia – sold to Coka Cola. Universal – more owners than Liz Taylor’s had husbands.

Only Disney remained independent.

It was because they were unique. It was because they did things better than anyone else could. No one wanted to buy Disney because it was thought no one could run it better – until Roy E. Disney showed up. But that was a personal and emotional problem – not a business one.

The secret of the entertainment industry is that if you make something the public wants to see they will beat down the doors to the theater or theme park to throw their money at you. However, if you can’t excite the public’s interest, then it’s going to be a long cold winter.

“Business” is only for people who can’t make good movies and good shows. Hollywood is filled with them, the people who want to make lots of money. The public knows the difference. The public can tell a grab for their wallets, like Aeon Flux, or an attempt to make a good movie that will please and inspire the audience, like The Chornicles of Narina.

Those that preach “brand management”, “quantitative analyze” and blame today’s “tough” business climate do so because they are incapable of understanding and running Disney’s core activity. It’s the excuse of the people to untalented or lazy to create good movies, to build places people want to see, and the make products people want to buy.

It’s always been easier to swindle people out of money instead of earning it. Kritsy and Winnie is nothing but a con job.

[Another Voice]

Please provide the evidence you have that your preferred approaches would better serve the stated objectives of the corporation.

P.It sure seems that Pixar hasn’t done to badly for themselves turning out great products while being small and independent.

Yet all the Big Time, Properly Run, Major Media Companies – from Viacom/Sony, Newscorp/Fox, GE/Universal, Sony/Columbia, AOL/Warner Brothers – saw their box office revenue plummet all year long.

All the evidence points to the fact that large media companies are flat out failures – despite all the hype of the business consultants. The newest trend is to rip apart the media companies.

Viacom has already split. There’s mounting pressure to pull apart Time Warner. Questions surround Sony’s continued ownership of Columbia.

If anything – you sir need to provide evidence where Big Media has succeeded.

[DisneyKidds]

Well, AV covered most of what I was thinking, but I would like to explore this further with Bicker.
Eisner exploited the Disney brand to substantially grow the company.
Your response to this was that there was insufficient evidence that the "exploitation" was excessive. Excessive? Who said anything about excessive? That may be a valid question to get to later, but before you get there you have to take a step back.

The implication of the above statement isn't that the extent to which Eisner exploited the brand was and is excessive, but rather that that has been Eisner's primary driver for growth in the company.

That is a huge problem.

Eisner hasn't added to the Disney brand that Walt, et. al worked so hard to grow. Yes, he exploited that brand and, while I agree it needed a little exploiting, I believe he took it too far. You see, he didn't just exploit that brand, he redefined it over time.

What did Disney represent when Walt, et. al, grew that incredible brand and it's immense loyalty? Does it represent anything resembling that now?

You will likely just say it shouldn't, or couldn't, but that would just be your own version of Straw Man.

[DrTomorrow]

[...]“Business” is only for people who can’t make good movies and good shows. Hollywood is filled with them, the people who want to make lots of money. The public knows the difference. The public can tell a grab for their wallets, like Aeon Flux, or an attempt to make a good movie that will please and inspire the audience, like The Chornicles[sic] of Narina[sic].[...] Hmmmm. Then where does the 'pleasing and oh-so-inspirational' "The Hulk" at over $132M fit in? :confused3

Keep fighting the good fight, bicker. One thing popped into my head as I was reading a few of the responses: it seems to me that that fact that DisneyCo started off as a company who's survival depended on the Cult of Personality and then had to deal with that individual's death might be a factor in this discussion. Surely, there are many 'pixie-dusters' on the DIS who would love to hear that Walt's been thawed out and cloned. (I'm also certain that there are many 'tinfoil-hatters' on the DIS who believe that it's already been done :rotfl2: ) Just my $.02.

IMHO - YMMV

[YoHo]

Wait, are you trying to suggest that the Hulk was some sort of commercial success?

Are you nuts?

[bicker]

If I recall, Disney's owners spoke out pretty loudly against the direction the company was being taken and how it was fighting that battle.By approving Eisner's hand-picked successor? I'm not sure I follow your logic, there.

What I consider Starbucks to be is an extremely successful company that has convinced a lot of customers to pay premium prices for a cup of coffee. Again, you asserted in the past that the Wal-Mart model is the only paradigm for success in today's business world.I didn't object to the attribution of that statement to me earlier, but I'll do so now. I never made such a reference, nor would I ever. While the vast majority of people do purchase things on price alone, without regard to the quality of service, I've always highlighted examples of niche markets served by small suppliers of quality service.

there are a lot of brand marketing experts out there that spend a lot of time worrying about how you protect the value of a brand.You've hit on something there: Professionals with experience doing the job they've been hired to do have a much better track recording making the right decisions than amateurs like us. People get bent out of shape when that gets brought up, but you hit the nail on the head.

Second, your "passion of Disney" and "emotional nostalgia" comments are Straw Men themselves.Not at all. I used the terms in conditional, saying very clearly that your arguments regarding whether decisions are the best business decisions have no merit if they're based on feelings instead of facts.

Your "implied assertion that the so-called 'exploitation'" is not or will not be excessive is a "subjective opinion, which is unsupported by the facts" also.Again, you saw a statement where what I wrote was a conditional.

Kindly point out where you got the impression that I thought the issue was whether I would be more or less happy.I didn't say you did. I said, "If you're saying that all that will lead to you, personally, being less happy, then it isn't my place to ever question that!"

Rather, I thought I certainly did "indicate what the business implications are of the assertions made" when I said: "If the exploitation continues, without the effort to do some extraordinary things, then the Disney brand will lose its value."No. That assertion of business implications is not valid if the premise of the sentence isn't supported.

Please provide the evidence you have that your preferred approach has best served the stated objectives of the corporation.I haven't outlined a preferred approach. I've merely endorsed the approach of the professional experts that run the company today, and objected to assertions by folks in this thread that they know better than those professionals. No offense intended.

Please, let's once again get off the "show me your data" kick.That's a cop-out. It illegitimately gives license to put one's personal preference over what is truly correct.

It’s always been easier to swindle people out of money instead of earning it. That's just another cop-out, labeling decisions that one doesn't like as "swindling" and decisions one does like as "earning".

It sure seems that Pixar hasn’t done to badly for themselves turning out great products while being small and independent. Pixar isn't a large, multi-national entertainment conglomerate. If Disney was to be a Pixar, then Walt should have never gone public.

All the evidence points to the fact that large media companies are flat out failures – despite all the hype of the business consultants. The newest trend is to rip apart the media companies. Now you're getting somewhere. So you're agreeing that the issue isn't that Disney is making the wrong decisions for a large, multi-national entertainment conglomerate -- they're actually making the correct decisions for a large, multi-national entertainment conglomerate, but you're suggesting that they'd be "better off" as a small, creative think tank. I'll need to better understand the standards you're apply in your analysis but I bet, depending on how you define what's "good", I would agree with you. However, such personal definitions of "good" don't apply here, unless you can define how this will result in a better financial result for the thousands of current Disney stockholders. You can't just wish ownership interest away. (Incidently, if you're suggesting that Disney should be sold off in little pieces, you could perhaps convince me you're correct. I invite you to pursue that line of reasoning, if that's what you suggesting. If, on the other hand, you're simply saying that "it would be better if Disney was small," then don't bother. Again, you can't just wish ownership interest away.)

Who said anything about excessive?Assertions were made that the decisions made weren't best for the company. If you weren't saying that, then I'm sorry I misunderstood those assertions.

The implication of the above statement isn't that the extent to which Eisner exploited the brand was and is excessive, but rather that that has been Eisner's primary driver for growth in the company.Which is, of course, a ludicrous assertion, given Eisner's penchant for growing the company by acquisition. Besides, if you listen to so of what AV said, growth is bad, right, especially since Disney is already a huge company?

Eisner hasn't added to the Disney brand that Walt, et. al worked so hard to grow. Incorrect. Eisner has added to the Disney's assets. ABC is probably the most notable example. You perhaps have a specific vision of what is good and what is not, but that doesn't apply. Personal preferences aren't relevant. That's what I've been trying to tell you.

[DisneyKidds]

Yes, all that is relevant is what Disney did, because they are the experts who get paid to do whatever it is they did for a living, so it must have been correct.

Isn't that how if goes?

[raidermatt]

While the vast majority of people do purchase things on price alone, without regard to the quality of service...

Incorrect. Price is often the most important factor, but quality of service is rarely completely disregarded.

I didn't say you did. I said, "If you're saying that all that will lead to you, personally, being less happy, then it isn't my place to ever question that!"
So why say it? If not meant to imply anything regarding the poster's motives, it adds nothing to the discussion.

No. That assertion of business implications is not valid if the premise of the sentence isn't supported.
Its supported. You simply choose to dismiss it based on the source.

I haven't outlined a preferred approach. I've merely endorsed the approach of the professional experts that run the company today, and objected to assertions by folks in this thread that they know better than those professionals. No offense intended.
Why do you object to criticisms of a failed approach?

Basically, your entire arguement amounts to "If those that run the company do it, I endorse it."

Which is fine, but if that's the limit of your ability and/or desire to analyze the situation critically, why participate?

People get bent out of shape when that gets brought up, but you hit the nail on the head.
Define "bent out of shape". I see people disagreeing with you, and people who feel strongly about their opinions, but I'm pretty sure that isn't the definition of "bent out of shape". Unless of course this statement was meant literally, and not directed at anyone in this discussion. In which case, the question again becomes, why say it?

That's a cop-out. It illegitimately gives license to put one's personal preference over what is truly correct.

It can be. But in this case, the data that is available points to a failed business philosophy. The data you provide is that more often than not, professionals running companies make better decisions than those who aren't running the company.

When speaking in generic terms, the second data point is very valid. However, when specific data indicates that the professionals are not making the best decisions, perhaps a "follow the leader" approach is not the best approach.

Assertions were made that the decisions made weren't best for the company. If you weren't saying that, then I'm sorry I misunderstood those assertions.

The assertion is that some were not.

Which is, of course, a ludicrous assertion, given Eisner's penchant for growing the company by acquisition. Besides, if you listen to so of what AV said, growth is bad, right, especially since Disney is already a huge company?

Eisner tried to grow the company in a variety of ways. Captializing on the value of the brand is one of them, as he and other company leaders have stated.

And if you listen to AV, you'll hear that he never said "growth is bad."

His assertion is that the large media company model is "bad". Certainly there are ways to grow an entertainment company without growing into what we know today as a media conglomerate.

I'm going to assume you missed that distinction, and weren't intentionally twisting his words.

Incorrect. Eisner has added to the Disney's assets. ABC is probably the most notable example. You perhaps have a specific vision of what is good and what is not, but that doesn't apply. Personal preferences aren't relevant. That's what I've been trying to tell you.

Adding assets does not equal adding to the brand, in the context in which Kidds brought it up.

[Another Voice]

Professionals with experience doing the job they've been hired to do have a much better track recording making the right decisions than amateurs like us. People get bent out of shape when that gets brought up
Funny - the movie business employees thousands of well paid business executives that are experts in thier fields - yet this year we've had The Island, Kindgom of Heaven, Alexander, Sleath and other movies that have each lost about $100 million. What does that say about track records.

Besides - shouldn't we be getting the results from all those "monkey picks the stock" challenges any day now? Frankly, "business expert" just means any dip wearing a tie.


That's just another cop-out, labeling decisions that one doesn't like as "swindling" and decisions one does like as "earning".
What – you think they made Cinderella 3 because it was a timeless story that would touch the lives of millions of children – or because they thought they could get a bunch on trick a bunch of lazy parents into thinking “it’s Disney, the kids will like it”. That’s a swindle.


Pixar isn't a large, multi-national entertainment conglomerate. If Disney was to be a Pixar, then Walt should have never gone public.
Yes, Pixar makes good movies that people line up for hours to see. Disney has to con the public into buying cheap DVD’s to pay off the tab for this month’s executive retreat in Aspen. That’s why Pixar – a public company – is swimming in cash while Disney has to charge you nine bucks for parking.


Incidentally, if you're suggesting that Disney should be sold off in little pieces, you could perhaps convince me you're correct.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. Movie making – by its very nature – is not a “corporate” business. The risks are too high, the returns always questionable, and the keys for success are all about the ability to tell a story, not fine tune the balance sheet. Every “real” business that ever touched Hollywood has been burned; yesterday’s idea about really big “corporate” movie companies is crashing down as I write this.

It’s time to use a business model that works.

Disney has burdened its storytelling core – animation, movies, theme parks – with the requirements for a giant corporation. The up one minute, down the next world of movies is incompatible with the steady quarterly growth requirements of Wall Street. The stockholders were sold something – 20% annual growth – that no media company could possible deliver. But the attempt to do so has skewed the economics of the core to the point where they no longer as rational business. The margin demands on WDW force it to do things that are detrimental to running a resort; the revenue demands from animation grew to such an absurd level the entire division imploded.

What I’d like to see is Disney to return to its core – to tell stories. And to do it better than anyone else.

A company is only in trouble if someone else thinks they can do a better job. That’s why no one is making a run at Pixar – none of their stockholders think someone else to do better. Disney, back on top of its game, would be “protected” just like it was all through out the era when every other studio floundered.

[DancingBear]

I didn't object to the attribution of that statement to me earlier, but I'll do so now. I never made such a reference, nor would I ever. While the vast majority of people do purchase things on price alone, without regard to the quality of service, I've always highlighted examples of niche markets served by small suppliers of quality service.Then why did you say:

Customers like to complain more, criticize more, but they aren't willing to put their money where their mouths are. These days, the market often rewards those suppliers who find a way to repackage something with a lower level of service, so they can charge a lower price.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=955951&page=5&pp=15&highlight=nordstrom

You've hit on something there: Professionals with experience doing the job they've been hired to do have a much better track recording making the right decisions than amateurs like us. People get bent out of shape when that gets brought up, but you hit the nail on the head.And many professionals with experience doing the job they've been hired to do have made boneheaded decisions.

Not at all. I used the terms in conditional, saying very clearly that your arguments regarding whether decisions are the best business decisions have no merit if they're based on feelings instead of facts.But (1) you had no reason to believe they were based only on feelings, and (2) you acknowledged no other alternative, so that you dismissed my argument without actually addressing it.

Again, you saw a statement where what I wrote was a conditional.I saw an "implied assertion" the same as you saw in my statements.

I didn't say you did. I said, "If you're saying that all that will lead to you, personally, being less happy, then it isn't my place to ever question that!"Again, you used this statement to dismiss my argument without addressing it. This, in fact, was a true Straw Man, as I never said in any way that the issue was about what would make me subjectively happy.

No. That assertion of business implications is not valid if the premise of the sentence isn't supported.You didn't address the validity of the assertion, you claimed there was no assertion of business implications in my argument.

Surely you do not disagree at all with the premises that (1) Walt and Roy built the brand by doing extraordinary things, and (2) Eisner exploited the brand (which, again, is not a bad thing in itself)?

And surely you do not disagree that the value of a brand can be lost if the components of its value are diminished?

I haven't outlined a preferred approach. I've merely endorsed the approach of the professional experts that run the company today, and objected to assertions by folks in this thread that they know better than those professionals. No offense intended.You made a living as a consultant. Presumably you did so by going into companies and telling the professionals that ran them that they could improve what they were doing. Do you not see the conflict here? Talk about a cop-out.

That's a cop-out. It illegitimately gives license to put one's personal preference over what is truly correct.No, it's a simple acknowledgment that neither of us has the data (or the time, access and resources to compile it), so let's move on. The lack of data itself doesn't make your assertions "truly correct", nor does it make others' assertions merely "one's personal preference." This board is not filled with pixie-dusters, it includes lots of folks with just as much credentials as you to discuss these issues.

And besides, every disastrous business decision made these days is supported by a boatload of data.

Which is, of course, a ludicrous assertion, given Eisner's penchant for growing the company by acquisition.While it's true that Eisner grew the company by acquisition, the Company's ability to make those acquisitions (which have largely been a drain on earnings) came from the exploitation of the Disney assets that were largely there in 1994, plus the string of early animation successes.

Incorrect. Eisner has added to the Disney's assets. ABC is probably the most notable example.Incorrect. Adding to Disney's assets is not the same as adding value to the Disney brand.

[airlarry!]

M. Bicker:

Using ABC (and Fox Family if you thought about typing it too) as an example of adding to Disney's assets? Foo.

According to everything I've read, the purchase of Fox Family has been an unmitigated disaster, and ABC has actually lost money for the company since its purchase (and if ESPN wasn't around to keep the rest of the Cap Cities purchase afloat, who knows where the company would be today?)

I'd have to say that the evidence in this case shows that growth by acquisition under Ei$ner has been less than stellar, to put it mildly.

Maybe I could paint a picture for you that would help you understand why this decision to change Christopher Robin to Courtney Robin is a bad one.

Disney doesn't grind coffee beans. It doesn't sell syrup flavor to bottlers. The core of the company is the creation of entertainment offerings that appeal to the public, and entices them not only to (a) watch the movie, (b) buy the consumables, (c) visit the parks, and (d) buy the records and dvds, but also to pass on their love of the stories that emanate from the company to their children, the next generation of fans.

Does anyone dream about being a Dunkin' Donuts taster? Does any kid daydream about inventing the next coca-cola flavor? Doubt it, but many, many, many, many, many kids dream of being an imagineer or songwriter or animator or storyteller, and many of those dreams involve images they saw on Saturday afternoon matinees at the local multiplex with Mom, Dad, and Sis.

Courtney Robin might sell X amount of princess clothes, but its a waste of corporate resources to spend Y$ on Courtney Robin instead of Z$ on fixing Chicken Little and Sweating Bullets. (Or in the case of the Mad Cow Movie, ditching the whole thing).

Read DisneyWar. Then see how impressed you are with Disney's professional management. I swear, its amazing anything ever gets done in the corporate culture with that level of meanspirited incompentence that passes for executive talent. Its should be a disgrace that shareholders have to endure profitteering executives focused on short-term price gains (evidenced by this infatuation with sequels and Robinnetting Pooh) instead of seeding the next generation of imagineers, storytellers, and animators to keep the pipeline flowing.

Don't worry. Pixar, a publicly traded company, will show Disney how its done. All with blood, sweat, talent, and guts.

[bicker]

Have you all gotten that out of your system? :rolleyes:

Wrapping this up:

The decison was just announced.

It hasn't succeeded or failed yet.

And that's the problem with the criticisms: It's the hubris of evaluating them from the standpoint of how much one likes the idea instead of based on how well it was executed. Basically, the entire opposing argument is that making Christopher Robin female is bad because you few posters don't like it. Sorry: wrong.

I'll let y'all get the last word. :wave2:

[crusader]

That’s exactly what I’m saying. Movie making – by its very nature – is not a “corporate” business. The risks are too high, the returns always questionable, and the keys for success are all about the ability to tell a story, not fine tune the balance sheet.

Not true. Just follow Samuel Goldwyn and Louis Mayer.

It’s time to use a business model that works.

Of course it is. Because as we all know, the phenomenal ability of the Walt Disney Co. to remain an independent production studio for the past 85 yrs. fails to constitute a business model that works.

And somehow, a 20 yr old animation company with no film library and zero assets beyond cash whom over the past two decades collaborated every motion picture ever produced with Walt Disney Pictures and still needs the assistance of a major corporation to distribute their product proves that.

[DancingBear]

Hey, we finally got the (predictable) dismissive message and waving smiley!!

Apparently Bicker has reading comprehension issues, if all he's managed to get out of this discussion is that we just don't like the idea. Of course, I didn't get anything out of his posts other than "you're just being emotional, trust Disney management."

And what is this thing about how there's no such thing as a bad idea, just bad execution?

Ken Lay to Andy Fastow, "This fancy accounting thing sounds like a bad idea to me, but go ahead and just make sure you execute it well."

I suppose Bicker regularly sends these types of dismissive messages to the countless think tanks, academics, business writers and, yes, CONSULTANTS who are out there writing about "bad ideas."

[DancingBear]

Not true. Just follow Samuel Goldwyn and Louis Mayer.What, they didn't tell good stories?

And somehow, a 20 yr old animation company with no film library and zero assets beyond cash whom over the past two decades collaborated every motion picture ever produced with Walt Disney Pictures and still needs the assistance of a major corporation to distribute their product proves that.Not owning your own distribution channel means your business model is a failure? Wow, that will be news to a lot of manufacturers. I guess Disney's model is a failure because they don't own a chain of movie theaters, or cable companies.

[crusader]

Not owning your own distribution channel means your business model is a failure?

Not even remotely close to my post.

But that's par for the course.

Here's a question. Would Disney be considered a success if it lost the rights to ALL of its' art produced over the past 20 yrs?

[DancingBear]

Not even remotely close to my post.

But that's par for the course.

Here's a question. Would Disney be considered a success if it lost the rights to ALL of its' art produced over the past 20 yrs?Certainly agreed (and I'm previously on the record on this) that Pixar's inherent value is limited at the moment. I was responding to the line in your post about "still needs the assistance of a major corporation...." Wasn't that referring to Pixar's "need" for a distributor?

[Another Voice]

Not true. Just follow Samuel Goldwyn and Louis Mayer.
Thank you absolutely proving my point. MGM did great when it made good movies. But when the successors opened up casinos and airlines…well, MGM is nothing but an accounting notation for Sony now.

Because as we all know, the phenomenal ability of the Walt Disney Co. to remain an independent production studio for the past 85 yrs. fails to constitute a business model that works..
Yes, Walt Disney Productions did very well for itself. Except they don’t exist. Today we have The Walt Disney Company which is about 2/3 CapCities and about 1/3 Walt Disney Productions. And right now, ABC, Fox Family and GO.com are devouring what little remains of the real Disney company.

Here's a question. Would Disney be considered a success if it lost the rights to ALL of its' art produced over the past 20 yrs?
Oh – you mean how Walt lost all the rights ALL of his work like Oswald and the Alice Comedies? Seems he figured out a way around that one.

And Pixar still has rights to its properties. The situation they’re in is no worse than Disney is because it’s sold off the rights to Pirates of the Caribbean to Jerry Bruckheimer and even Narnia is controlled by Walden.

The assets are the films themselves. Distribution means nothing - it's the ability to buy TV ad time and to get theater owners to book your film.

And to Mr. Bicker – Hollywood business is based on deciding if something is worthwhile before its made. Disney is about to pour tens of millions of dollars into making a TV series long. It’s going to be a long, long time for the first dollar in revenue shows up. The decision about “will people like this or not” can’t wait.

[crusader]

Thank you absolutely proving my point. MGM did great when it made good movies.

Careful Voice. Follow the men - not the machine.

The Walt Disney Company which is about 2/3 CapCities and about 1/3 Walt Disney Productions.

True. But acquiring an entire media network and television division did not dilute the scope of Walt Disney Productions. This isn't a situation where you have the same pie being divided in a different fashion.

Oh – you mean how Walt lost all the rights ALL of his work like Oswald and the Alice Comedies? Seems he figured out a way around that one.

Keep going. How long did it take him?

The situation they’re in is no worse than Disney is because it’s sold off the rights to Pirates of the Caribbean to Jerry Bruckheimer and even Narnia is controlled by Walden.

It's much worse. Pixar clearly demonstrates the ability to make great animated works of art. But that's where it ends. Yes, there's an intangible value associated with their name and that is a direct result of the quality of their product. But they made a critical mistake.

By not being willing to do what Walt did - which includes not being willing to take on the risk - they imprisoned themselves just long enough for two decades to pass and the competition to beat them.

[raidermatt]

The decison was just announced.

It hasn't succeeded or failed yet.

True, but surely you don't think the only contstructive use of open debate is to evaluate decisions after they have run their course?

Basically, the entire opposing argument is that making Christopher Robin female is bad because you few posters don't like it. Sorry: wrong.

And if that's the only terms in which you are willing to view the situation, the only argument in favor of it is that people you trust are for it.

Blind faith in anyone, and particularly in those in a position of power, is rarely a wise course.

I'll let y'all get the last word. :wave2:

Oh, we know you'll be back. The topic may change... :wave2:

[raidermatt]

Careful Voice. Follow the men - not the machine.
Given that, I'm not sure I understand the applicability to the Walt Disney Company.

True. But acquiring an entire media network and television division did not dilute the scope of Walt Disney Productions. This isn't a situation where you have the same pie being divided in a different fashion.
But the point is that the various businesses need to be run differently, and that unrealistic demands have been placed on the various businesses at different times in an effort to combine them into one steady growth curve.

By not being willing to do what Walt did - which includes not being willing to take on the risk - they imprisoned themselves just long enough for two decades to pass and the competition to beat them.
Granted, they made a debateable choice, but you're overstating their plight. Nobody has "beaten" them. Yes, their choice has left them in a place where they are having to negotiate for what they might have already had if they had taken a different path, but beaten? Particularly beaten as a result of their choice? No.

No assets other than cash? Again, that overstates the problem. They do have other assets, in addition to plenty of cash to finance their work for some time if needed. But beyond that, let's be real. Their position as the top animation studio in the industry is going to get them a very sweet distribution deal on their future films, and possibly even get them more rights to their past work.

They have what distributors, and in particular Disney, needs and my guess is they will be in a much more secure place once the next deal is done.

But that's not really the point of the comparison. You're pointing out possible issues with the early stages of the Pixar business model, much of which has to do with how they chose to establish themselves. That's not really applicable to Disney at this point.

[Bstanley]

It's much worse. Pixar clearly demonstrates the ability to make great animated works of art. But that's where it ends.

No, they have also demonstrated the ability to make and manage money. Pixar has more than $1B in the bank, $0 debt, and their single biggest expense is paying Uncle Sam...at the rate they spend money they could operate just as they are now for the next 20 years without ever releasing another successful movie.

Now - let's see by a show of hands - Who thinks PIXAR will make another successful film? Who thinks PIXAR will be able to strike a more favorable distribution deal with their next partner? Who think PIXAR will have MORE cash a year from now?

Good storytellers supported by a minimal corporate structure appear to beat good storytellers limited by an overruling corporate structure any day.

[airlarry!]

I'm curious to know who M. Crusader thinks 'beat' Pixar? I keep thinking more and more that AV is right--the deal Lassiter has with Pixar almost ensures that people are afraid to take them over, because it ain't that easy to have five hit movies in a row.

I was thinking also that if you take out the sequels, no one--I mean no one--has had the incredible run that Pixar has had with its offerings.

While Disney is concentrating on the next cheaply produced overseas rehashing of the same story just with a different gender, Pixar is doing it the Disney way--putting young animators to work on shorts created by up and coming story tellers, pushing the envelope in technology, and devoting years to creating new stories and new characters, all resulting in blockbuster hits.

But you know what? I don't care about the money. Its the fact that I'd rather sit through the Incredibles over and over...but Madagascar was forgettable the very first time it played that proves M. Bicker is incorrect here. Just look at what M. Bird went through to get the Incredibles made...do you think that there will be such harddriven work and sweat and arguments and successes to produce A Day With Kristy Robinette?


By not being willing to do what Walt did - which includes not being willing to take on the risk - they imprisoned themselves just long enough for two decades to pass and the competition to beat them.

[Bstanley]

Until Stevie J. decides to take the money and run nobody is going to take over PIXAR.

[DrTomorrow]

Wait, are you trying to suggest that the Hulk was some sort of commercial success?

Are you nuts? Goodness no. That's my point. Something that was neither inspirational nor great still raked in over $100,000,000. Not sure that the viewing public can be considered discriminating....

[YoHo]

In that case, I'd reply that $100 million doesn't mean skwat now adays.

[crusader]

No, they have also demonstrated the ability to make and manage money. Pixar has more than $1B in the bank, $0 debt, and their single biggest expense is paying Uncle Sam...at the rate they spend money they could operate just as they are now for the next 20 years without ever releasing another successful movie.

Yes. They prove they have what it takes to make money. However, they're ripe for a takeover, because they don't have anything beyond that. DreamWorks sold for a reason. Spielberg's been ten steps ahead of Jobs and has gained a strong competitive advantage over their market. He made all the right moves and has been winning ever since the announcement Pixar made a few years ago regarding the Disney deal.

btw.........considering it takes at least 150m to produce a Pixar flick, I think your 20 yr formula is a bit weighted. I only see a decade of survival with 1 bil.

I'm curious to know who M. Crusader thinks 'beat' Pixar?

Let's see -

Who's two movies made the equivalent of Pixar's past three movies?

Who's last movie made 100 mil more it's opening weekend than Pixar's best movie to date?

Who's latest movie managed to rake in more money than it's predecessor while it's competition's made less?

and finally,

Who built an enormous franchise with it's characters?

cha ching! cha ching! cha ching!

And the winner is????????????????

(hmmm............you think it had to do with the music?)

Why? Because despite how many may feel about their preferred choice in an animation company over here, it's an undeniable fact that more people lined up to see a DreamWorks production. That means, the general public has an entirely different preference.

[DancingBear]

Huh?

--Spielberg wasn't running Dreamworks Animation.

--Dreamworks Animation wasn't sold, Dreamworks SKG was.

--Jobs controls Pixar, so it ain't ripe for takeover.

--If being ripe for takeover is a bad thing, why is Dreamworks SKG being sold evidence of a good thing?

--Dreamworks Animation has a market cap of $2.6 billion.

--Pixar has a market cap of $6.5 billion.

--Pixar has a market cap of $6.5 billion.

--Pixar has a market cap of $6.5 billion.

Sorry, I just find that last figure astounding.

[DancingBear]

btw.........considering it takes at least 150m to produce a Pixar flick, I think your 20 yr formula is a bit weighted. I only see a decade of survival with 1 bil.But Pixar also continues to receive income from sales of its DVDs and merchandising. And it almost has Cars in the can, largely at Disney expense.

[YoHo]

Yeah, Dreamworks Animation is a seperate Company form Dreamworks SKG and Spielberg has nothing to do with it. It's all Katzenberg and they weren't a part of the Sale.

And given the disappointing numbers in Shrek 2 DVD sales and the fact that every other movie they've made besides those 2 has been a clunker, I think your premise is not just faulty but laughably incorrect.

[crusader]

Spielberg wasn't running Dreamworks Animation.

Who said he was? (not that it makes his involvement any less material)

You completely missed the inference.

(Six degrees of seperation, my friend)

here -

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/12/business/12dreamworks.html?ex=1137042000&en=5a05b30c87c6a11e&ei=5095&partner=REPRISE&excamp=reprise_engine=google_kw=DreamWorks_merger_ ag=B_Studio_Deal_Played_Like_a_Drama_cn=121205 .

[crusader]

It's all Katzenberg and they weren't a part of the Sale.

Really -

read my link above and then help me understand how the Katz and/or the Animation company isn't tied to this deal.

And given the disappointing numbers in Shrek 2 DVD sales

What source are you using? (I mean, did you even bother to check this out?)

Shrek 2's dvd sales est at 360 mil. That's 20% higher than Nemo's.

I find that hardly laughable.

[raidermatt]

Really - read my link above and then help me understand how the Katz and/or the Animation company isn't tied to this deal.


There's a tie, but it does nothing to support your contention that Dreamworks is "beating" Pixar.

What source are you using? (I mean, did you even bother to check this out?)

Shrek 2's dvd sales est at 360 mil. That's 20% higher than Nemo's.


Dreamworks stock fell when they announced DVD sales of Shrek were falling 5 million short of forecasts. You're right though, they weren't laughing about it. So, yes, they were disappointing and the source is Dreamworks.

It is all relative though.

Who's latest movie managed to rake in more money than it's predecessor while it's competition's made less?
DW's next to last movie was Shark Tale, which made $160 million. Pixar's next to last was Finding Nemo, which made $339 million. Despite the relative improvement and drop off you reference, Pixar's latest effort still outgrossed DW's by nearly $70 million.

Not exactly compelling evidence for your arguement.

Who's two movies made the equivalent of Pixar's past three movies?
Not Dreamworks. Even their two highest, which are not their two most recent, do not out gross Pixar's past three.

Pixar's last two, Incredibles and Nemo, outgross DW's last two, Madagascar and Shark Tale.

Interestingly, globally, Shrek and Shrek 2 didn't even outgross Pixar's last 2 movies.

Who's last movie made 100 mil more it's opening weekend than Pixar's best movie to date?
DW's last movie was Madagascar. Before I actually bother to look up the numbers, do you want to rephrase?

Who built an enormous franchise with it's characters?

That's awfully subjective. Given the final page on Pixar's ownership of its prior creations is not yet written, it's probably not wise to write off the Toy Story franchise, which clearly you must be doing.

[YoHo]

Cursader, you do some research.


DreamWorks Has a "Nightmare Day"
12 July 2005 (StudioBriefing)
DreamWorks' decision to spin off its animation division last October is not turning out the way the company had expected. On Monday, shares in the company fell 13.2 percent after it lowered its earnings estimates and acknowledged that it had been hit with six class action lawsuits alleging that it had inflated earnings projections, spiking a surge in the value of the company's stock, and later engaged in insider trading before it lowered its projections. "It was a nightmare day for DreamWorks," New York Daily News business writer Phyllis Furman commented in her column today (Tuesday). DreamWorks has maintained that the original projections, based primarily on its expectations for the hit movie Shrek 2, seemed sound when they were issued and were based on initial sales of the DVDs. It said it had no idea why demand for DVDs suddenly vanished resulting in millions of returns. Shares in the company, which were trading at a high of $42.60 last December have fallen to $22.80 at midmorning trading today (Tuesday). Analysts have observed that retailers are now no longer willing to stock DVD releases after their first few weeks on the shelves when sales slow. DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg said during a conference call on Monday: "There is a tremendous amount of product in the marketplace. It's obviously much more crowded than it has been before. We don't know if this is a short-term issue or if some larger shift is going on."

[Bstanley]

Yes. They prove they have what it takes to make money. However, they're ripe for a takeover, because they don't have anything beyond that.
And that day will certainly come as a BIG surprise to Stevie J who owns 50.5% of the stock.

DreamWorks sold for a reason. Spielberg's been ten steps ahead of Jobs and has gained a strong competitive advantage over their market.
Are you actually serious with this? The only competitive advantage Dreamworks had was knowing how to con Paul Allen out of money...

btw.........considering it takes at least 150m to produce a Pixar flick, I think your 20 yr formula is a bit weighted. I only see a decade of survival with 1 bil.
Well I suppose if Disney refused to continue to pay Pixar their 50% of the sales of things like plush and DVDs that might be true - but the Big ME is gone so I expect Disney to act financially responsibly these days.

Now - as to the rest of your post - I have to admit, I don't know. I do know it WASN'T Dreamworks Animation. According to the August 5th 'Studio Briefing' worldwide sales of Finding Nemo (40M) outpaced Shrek 2 - contrary to what Dreamworks Animation claimed - which might be why Dreamworks Animation is being investigated by the SEC and have had to 'restate' Shrek 2 sales at less than 35 million units - and many of those ended up in the $2.88 bin at WalMart because Dreamworks Animation refused to accept them back - a move I am sure has endeared them to the Walton family (info from the May 31st 'Studio Briefing') and will make it easier to get shelf space in the future.

And the winner is????????????????
Show of hands? The street is certainly showing who they think the winner is.

[DancingBear]

Give it up Crusader. You said Spielberg was the one running circles around Jobs. How was he doing that if Spielberg isn't even running DA?

Jobs' 50.5% interest in Pixar is worth $650 million more than the entire market cap of DA. So how exactly has DA "gained a strong competitive advantage over their market"?

Edited to add:

Pixar is trading at $54.95, near its 52-week high of $58.23.

DA is trading at $25, much closer to its 52-week low of $22.45 (and far down from its 52-week high of $41.32).

Doesn't anybody on the internet ever just admit they were wrong?

[YoHo]

Doesn't anybody on the internet ever just admit they were wrong?

If you admit you're wrong, you lose.

I'm not sure what you lose. I'm not sure how you win, but nobody wants to be a loser.

[All Aboard]

Oy, the numbers bouncing around. Crusader, are you referring to Shrek and Shrek 2 as "Dreamworks last two movies"? ren't you forgetting a couple? Here's the comparison of the last 4 for each (inflation adjusted):

Shrek 2 450
Madagascar 193
Shark Tale 161
Shrek 297
Dreamworks Average 275

The Incredibles 269
Finding Nemo 362
Monsters, Inc. 284
Toy Story 2 286
Pixar Average 300

[crusader]

I never said "last two". I asked who's two movies beat Pixar's last three?

and yes, I was referring to the Shrek series.

But keeping in the spirit of what you're averaging - Take a good hard look.

275 for mediocre vs 300 for the best.

That's the true nature of this beast.

Give it up Crusader. You said Spielberg was the one running circles around Jobs. How was he doing that if Spielberg isn't even running DA?

Seriously? OK I'll bite.

Let me see if I understand you. By spinning off a subsidiary to position it to go public and cashing out when it does, but leaving one of the principals on to remain as CEO.........meanwhile all four principals still retaining their equity interests in the parent put that on the market for sale (so they can legally get paid twice) - somehow equates to true, distinct independence in the world of business?

Speilberg was always in the drivers seat and DA was always in play for a distribution deal.

He beat Jobs to the table, cut his distribution deal and removed a big player from the game for Pixar.

And that day will certainly come as a BIG surprise to Stevie J who owns 50.5% of the stock

He'll sell before then.

[DancingBear]

But keeping in the spirit of what you're averaging - Take a good hard look.

275 for mediocre vs 300 for the best.

That's the true nature of this beast.Some people never give up. AllAboard was being generous to you by only counting forward from Shrek, thereby omitting:

Road to El Dorado: $51 million
Prince of Egypt: $101 million

Let me see if I understand you. By spinning off a subsidiary to position it to go public and cashing out when it does, but leaving one of the principals on to remain as CEO.........meanwhile all four principals still retaining their equity interests in the parent put that on the market for sale (so they can legally get paid twice) - somehow equates to true, distinct independence in the world of business?

Speilberg was always in the drivers seat and DA was always in play for a distribution deal.

He beat Jobs to the table, cut his distribution deal and removed a big player from the game for Pixar.Wrong on so many levels. Nobody's getting paid twice. They went public with some assets and then sold other assets. Jobs isn't competing in the live action game, so it's hardly relevant to Pixar, anyway. (Or should we throw in Jobs' Apple holdings?)

Spielberg's not a businessman, he's a director. Geffen's the brains behind the operation.

Jobs bought into Pixar for, what, $10 million? And now his stake is worth $3.25 billion? He took his company public and not only remained as CEO but still owns over half of the company.

So Dreamworks took Paramount off the table as a distributor (and thereby freed up Universal) for Pixar films. So what?

[YoHo]

WE need a smilie eating Popcorn to signify sitting back and watching the action.

Also, according to All Aboard's numbers, Nemo outperformed Shrek by a significant amount.

[YoHo]

Also, let's not forget spirit at 73 million.


Toy Story at 192 million and
A Bug's life at 162.


Hmmmmm.

[Bstanley]

Geffen's the brains behind the operation.
That's generous. But I guess since he's walking around with way, WAY more dead presidents than I am he should get some kudos.

so they can legally get paid twice
So far the only people that have made money on Dreamworks/Dreamworks Animation are the ones that didn't have any skin in the game (Geffen and Spielberg), Paul Allen put $625M into Dreamworks more than 10 years ago - he just recouped a whopping $245M from Paramount. But wait you say - doesn't he own a big hairy piece of Dreamworks Animation, well yes he does...but according to the AP Business Wire the return of all those Shrek 2 DVDs from Wal-Mart put a halt to his hopes of enough money for a new yacht:

Difficulties at DreamWorks Animation over income shortfalls caused its stock price to falter and forced it to cancel plans for a secondary offering that would have raised the money to repay Allen. AP Business Wire Dec. 11

[raidermatt]

I asked who's two movies beat Pixar's last three?

and yes, I was referring to the Shrek series.


Your point is about the success of the studio, not one singular franchise. Besides, Shrek and Shrek 2 don't beat Pixar's last three, inflation adjusted or no.

And again, globally, they don't beat Pixar's last TWO.

275 for mediocre vs 300 for the best.
Your arbitrary lines ignore the fact that Dreamworks has not been able to even reach $200 million with a non-Shrek movie. If 275 is mediocre, every non-Shrek movie they've made is somewhere between dung and mud, including their last 2. This despite following the ultra-successful Shrek 2.


Who cares if they get paid twice, except them and their heirs? We're talking about business models and which COMPANY is the industry leader, not who can best manipulate the system for their own personal gain. (Even though your numbers fall short in that area as well...)

[crusader]

Matt,

Mediocre was used in reference to quality, not the number size. I consider a DreamWorks picture lacking. Yet, after 20 yrs, their top films now average almost equally at the box office in comparison with the best producer out there. That's a big continual problem in Hollywood.

Also, according to All Aboard's numbers, Nemo outperformed Shrek by a significant amount. Yes it did. But Shrek built a remarkable franchise which gives them the ability to outperform Nemo in the long run. Pixar hasn't managed to do that since their first picture.

We're talking about business models and which COMPANY is the industry leader, not who can best manipulate the system for their own personal gain.

You can talk business models 'til the cows come home and throw out all kinds of numbers and power point presentations and formulas to defend a company's worth - all very impressive of course to a market analyst.

I'm talking about the art of the deal - the game. You know, the business PLAN!!! and yes, it is loaded with schemes, manipulations, and powerplays all crafted to milk the system. That's how the real Hollywood operates.

(follow the man..............not the machine)

Theories and hypotheticals are great to toss around, but practice is far far more relevant.

DreamWorks cashed out when the timing was perfect. Jobs can hold on all he wants. If Cars doesn't produce then what? Care to guess what happens to all your valuable numbers? Dip Dip Dip

Clock's ticking. They need a deal.

btw - last time I checked something was only worth what someone was willing to pay for it. You can value it any way you want - that's a wall street tactic complete with a healthy graveyard for all of us to visit and reflect upon.

They went public with some assets and then sold other assets. Well that's a mighty big 'sum'.

[brunoflipper]

http://www.ociw.edu/~birk/IMAGES/ANIMATED2/hamster3_ani.gif

[DancingBear]

btw - last time I checked something was only worth what someone was willing to pay for it.Uh, yeah. That's why the fact that Pixar's market cap matters.

[WallStreet10]

Uh, yeah. That's why the fact that Pixar's market cap matters.

Don't get too excited about Market Cap and share price.

EPS & P/E are more important.

Also look at tangible assets that are held - real brick & mortar assets.

[SnackyStacky]

There was a thread a few days ago, where a lot of people got very upset about it.

I think it is a great idea. I gave the example in another thread of West Side Story, Jerome Robbins' retelling of William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. There are many other examples where retellings that have substantial differences to the original, but effectively capture the original.

While I don't have an opinion one way or the other - this seems like a pretty flawed analogy.

Retelling the story is one thing - but this is more along the lines of changing Juliet into a man - thereby REALLY changing the premise.

They're altering the characters within the story itself - not re-telling the story in a new way.

[DancingBear]

Don't get too excited about Market Cap and share price.

EPS & P/E are more important.

Also look at tangible assets that are held - real brick & mortar assets.I've said before I think anyone would be crazy to pay the price for Pixar. Lasseter's the only one under contract, and they don't control the valuable characters they've created.

But DA doesn't have any brick and mortar assets either. And we were talking about the relative values between DA and Pixar.

And if we're only talking about "real brick & mortar assets," then what did Paramount pay $1.6 billion for in acquiring Dreamworks SKG?

As Crusader says, the value is what someone's willing to pay. And again, that's why market cap matters--folks are out there right now paying more for a piece of Pixar than they are for a piece of DA.

P:E doesn't mean anything in this context. You may argue that Pixar's 37.33 P:E is too high for you (and its EPS of 1.44 is too low) and makes it something you wouldn't want to invest in, but that just means your valuation is less than the market's.

[WallStreet10]

I've said before I think anyone would be crazy to pay the price for Pixar. Lasseter's the only one under contract, and they don't control the valuable characters they've created.

But DA doesn't have any brick and mortar assets either. And we were talking about the relative values between DA and Pixar.

And if we're only talking about "real brick & mortar assets," then what did Paramount pay $1.6 billion for in acquiring Dreamworks SKG?

As Crusader says, the value is what someone's willing to pay. And again, that's why market cap matters--folks are out there right now paying more for a piece of Pixar than they are for a piece of DA.

P:E doesn't mean anything in this context. You may argue that Pixar's 37.33 P:E is too high for you (and its EPS of 1.44 is too low) and makes it something you wouldn't want to invest in, but that just means your valuation is less than the market's.


I agree with all above. It just boths me when share price is put on a pedistal when it suits the needs of the debate. Is Pixar kicking Disney's butt with FA - absolutely. But when $55.00 worth of Pix gets me $1.44 and the same Dis investment earns $2.70, where should my money be.

[Another Voice]

But when $55.00 worth of Pix gets me $1.44 and the same Dis investment earns $2.70, where should my money be.
There are whispers about Hollywood that Iger is getting ready to tell you the answer.

[YoHo]

Because I'm bored, here are the world wide numbers not adjusted for inflation according to boxofficemojo.com

Toy Story
$361,958,736

Toy Story 2
$485,015,179

A Bug's Life
$363,398,565

Monster's Inc
$525,366,597

Finding Nemo
$864,625,978

The Incredibles
$631,436,092

Avg:
$538,633,525




Prince of Egypt
$218,613,188

Road to El Dorado
$76,432,727

Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron
$122,563,539

Shrek
$484,409,218

Shrek 2
$920,665,658

Shark Tale
$363,530,196

Madagascar
$525,659,004

Avg
$387,410,504

[raidermatt]

But when $55.00 worth of Pix gets me $1.44 and the same Dis investment earns $2.70, where should my money be.
With a name like "WallStreet10 "I'm sure you know there are other factors to consider in evaluating an investment.

Crusader's one point that does hold up is that Pixar is more exposed at this point because they don't have a deal. If Cars were to flop before a sale or distribution deal is made, it would most certainly damage their leverage.

Yes, Pixar is far more expensive than Dreamworks, but that's because investors understand the very points that many have been making here. Dreamworks is still essentially a one trick pony. They've got one franchise, and a few nicely profitable films. And even that one franchise is a franchise essentially based on pop culture references, not endearing and enduring characters. Let's face it, we aren't talking a James Bond, or even Lion King type of franchise at this point.

Pixar has proven they can succeed at the highest levels without relying on a single franchise. In short, they are the better bet to succeed going forward. Hence, the premium in their stock price. They will command a higher purchase price or better distribution deal because of that fact.

Sure, as admitted, they have some exposure if something isn't done before Cars, but as we all know, great reward does not come without some risk. Pixar's track record indicates that in this case, the potential reward is well worth the risk.

[WallStreet10]

Pixar's greatest asset right now is its cash reserve.

But it also has some glaring weakness'.

It's made seven movies that it doesn't own the rights too.

It's revenue stream from merchandise is solely dependant on what Disney markets and sells.

John Lassiter - while a tremendous asset to any company he works for - cannot be calculated into a companies tangible value. JL could walk away. JL could suddenly die. You don't spend billions banking on the returns one man could potentially produce. Millions - Yes. Billions - No.

Dreamworks on the otherhand own their own library and Shrek will be a profitable franchise for many, many years.

[YoHo]

Pixar's greatest asset right now is its cash reserve.

But it also has some glaring weakness'.

It's made seven movies that it doesn't own the rights too.

It's revenue stream from merchandise is solely dependant on what Disney markets and sells.

John Lassiter - while a tremendous asset to any company he works for - cannot be calculated into a companies tangible value. JL could walk away. JL could suddenly die. You don't spend billions banking on the returns one man could potentially produce. Millions - Yes. Billions - No.

Dreamworks on the otherhand own their own library and Shrek will be a profitable franchise for many, many years.


Wait, since when can one claim that a franchise that generates lawsuits and massive attempts to return product will be profitable for years? That doesn't add up.

[raidermatt]

The level of Shrek's future profitability is debateable, but since that's closer to 100% conjecture than even we like to get into, I'll leave it at that.

Yes, the cash and Lasseter are the primary tangible assets. Yes, Lasseter could walk, but not without some kind of concssions being made. The point has been made that Disney would be crazy (or plain stupid) to pay full price for Pixar if Lasseter isn't coming along, but that apparently his contract does not give him an out in a change of control.

Which makes everything negotiable, of course.

Disney would also be getting the right to keep all of the revenue it now has to pay to Pixar, and they would no longer worry about producing sequels, ie creating "franchises". We'd have sequels coming out of every hole imaginable.

If Disney either feels that they would be buying a company that is a good bet to produce quality content (which it desparately needs) in the future, or that the true value of Pixar is in the brand name and the talent is interchangeable (as some have suggested), then they can easily make a case for making the move.

We also have to consider the alternatives:

1- A new distribution deal that will almost certainly result in Disney relinquishing some of the rights associated with those current assets, as well as Disney taking a smaller cut of future profits.

2- Pixar makes its deal with somebody else, either a purchase or a distribution deal, or it goes it alone. The point being, Disney is left to scramble for the kind of content it needs.

The drawbacks from these alternatives demand a purchase attempt at least be considered, assuming that Jobs is open to the idea.

[Aintdisablast]

I am not familiar enough with JL's rift with Disney but I find it hard to believe a person could hate "the company". There must be an element within the company that JL hates. If that element was Eisner, the fact that Eisner appears to be totally gone from Disney may soften any resistance to a Pixar buyout by Disney.

Is there more to the JL vs Disney story then just Eisner ?

[raidermatt]

I don't know the details personally either. But its been suggested that while the rift isn't with "the company" it does apply to what the company does, and what its about.

In other words, he may not have anything personal against Iger, but its still essentially the same operation. An operation that views making movies in the same way it did under Eisner, so it still might not be something he wants to go anywhere near.

That, and he probably has the clout to secure the resources to strike out on his own, which he probably views as a more personally satisfying option.

[YoHo]

The only way I see him working for Disney is if he:
A: has the desire to "Fix" Disney for some reason. Some attachment to Walt and the company AND
B: He knows he'll get the control needed to do that fixing. I don't see B happening at all.

[raidermatt]

I should add, though, that if he can be convinced to stay if there is a purchase, all that really does is give Disney more reason to try to make the deal.

Yes, he could get hit with a bus, but that's probably a reasonable risk to take.

[airlarry!]

There must be an element

An interesting choice of words....

[Aintdisablast]

An interesting choice of words....

? Explain.

[Aintdisablast]

An interesting choice of words....

Oh !!!! You were refering to The Element.

[airlarry!]

You're good.

You're reeeeeally good.

[YoHo]

AH HA!
It's Forestal. He was good, very good.


Quick, we need to get to Marakesh. It's the only place Scoop could sell the idol.

[Grumpy_Disney_Dad]

Ok after reading all the previous post, and now easing my headache with a dole whip, my only question is ......Will Stitch's Great Escape be replaced by Christopher Robbin's Escape from 100 Acre Woods? :rotfl2:

[wilki32]

Just a thought.
Now not having the 'miles' that some of the posters on here have but one thing has crossed my mind. Now I believe reading this thread that no details have been released about the content of the show, so could it be that Christopher has grown up and has passed all his stuffed toys to his daughter and she is now living the same imagination. If I remember, a film called Drop Dead Fred, same thing happened at the end. On that note please don't shoot me down, I thought the film stank but my 11 year old daughter thinks it's hilarious!
Sometimes money is not the sign of success we expect, weren't some of the 'classics' slammed by critics but later became what they now are, 'classics'

[DisneySIM]

I don't like the idea of Christopher Robin being replaced. It's a tradition - we know its Christopher Robin and Pooh. I heard a funny outlook on it on the radio. They said that to make it truly Politically Correct, Christopher Robin would be replaced by a girl, Kanga would be a single mother in a bedsit, Owl would recieve Meals on Wheels and Pigglet would finally come out as gay.

[Lord Fantasius]

Now that the idealogues are done bantering about their theories of the rise and fall of communism, capitalism, miniskirts, whatever...glad to see we're headed back to the question at hand.

Anyways, it may be hard to decide whether the replacement will be a good thing for Disney, or whatever the effect will be on Disney's finances, fame, fortunes, future, or flunkies, I'm assuming they aren't going to just replace Christopher outright. As it has been said, it is Christopher Robin's imaginery world. To transfer it to another child would be difficult, but not impossible. Though it would be impossible to not change the vision of the 100 Hundred Acre Woods slightly if we were to change the child.

But then again, how important is Christopher Robin to the stories? Even though his character is the "central" character, he is not the active character...he mainly acts as a "Deus ex Machina." My fear, then, is that when they bring in the girl, she will become more controlling of the story plotline than just a "helper" to the stories. My daughter is 2 1/2 and I can tell you she couldn't care less whether there is a Christopher Robin, a Chrissy Robin, or any Robin in the story, as long as there is Pooh, Eeyore, Piglet, and the rest of the animals. Even though we can argue about whether Christopher Robin, a boy, is necessary for the story, will the intended audience really care? You have to admit, Christopher Robin is a little "light" in dominant male characteristics, so I imagine Chrissy will probably be more tom-boyish than Christopher ever was.

I guess as long as they don't teach her to throw tantrums everytime she doesn't get her way, or other non-acceptable social behaviours, whose to say a girl can't have an imagination? Unless they're doing it just for political-correctness, then no.

-R

[Another Voice]

Even though we can argue about whether Christopher Robin, a boy, is necessary for the story, will the intended audience really care? You have to admit, Christopher Robin is a little "light" in dominant male characteristics, so I imagine Chrissy will probably be more tom-boyish than Christopher ever was.

No one would complain about replacing a main character in the stories if it was being done to make the stories better or more meaningful. But this move seems like nothing but a marketing move aimed at selling lots of dress-up dolls and plush. Somehow I think the stories are going to come in second to all the other new "friends" Winnie is going to make (and I'm sure each new friend will be Happy Meal friendly).

Marketing departments seldom make good movies or TV shows. It's just such a waste to see Winnie the Pooh degraded into nothing but a 30 minute toy commerical.


P.S. So, you're lumping in Christopher Robin in with Spongebob and the Purple Teletubby?

[Lord Fantasius]

No one would complain about replacing a main character in the stories if it was being done to make the stories better or more meaningful. But this move seems like nothing but a marketing move aimed at selling lots of dress-up dolls and plush. Somehow I think the stories are going to come in second to all the other new "friends" Winnie is going to make (and I'm sure each new friend will be Happy Meal friendly).

Marketing departments seldom make good movies or TV shows. It's just such a waste to see Winnie the Pooh degraded into nothing but a 30 minute toy commerical.


P.S. So, you're lumping in Christopher Robin in with Spongebob and the Purple Teletubby?
Almost have to agree with you here, AV. I am afraid it merely is a marketing "ploy;" however, I was just hoping beyond hope that maybe somebody at Disney, Inc., had a conscience, I guess it was the Christmas Spirit that came over me for a brief moment. Unfortunately, Winnie-the-Pooh was turned into a 30-minute toy commercial and stuffed-animal/figurine sales machine many years ago.

Not quite a fair comparison...Spongebob and the Teletubby are just plain weird (IMHO)! Except for his name, Christopher's activities, e.g., picnicking, walking in the woods, reading, watching clouds, flying kites, etc., are pretty well gender neutral. When someone like Disney, Inc., says "We're going to bring in a tom-boy," what I hear is, "We're not selling enough Christopher Robin dolls so let's bring in a dirt-bike-riding, talk-back-at-authority, stuffed-animal-kicking, market-segment-researched concept of what an overpriced executive thinks a kid wants and their parents will buy."

Honestly, my daughter doesn't need another "reality" role-model to demonstrate how to behave badly even at her age, she notices enough of that everywhere she goes or whatever she watches on TV (what little she does watch)! Parents are getting really sensitive about pretty much everything these days, so it just might backfire on Disney, Inc., if they think they are going to try to get one past a diligent parent.

-R

[airlarry!]

I'm assuming they aren't going to just replace Christopher outright.
The assumption may be faulty, and is the real reason we've been debating the topic. The promotional stills make it appear as if she will replace Robin.

That brings up another philosophical issue. If the Hundred Acres Wood is based upon one child's imagination, by definition when you bring in another separate person, will not the wood change?

Logically, of course, it would. Characters would change, come, and go as this new imagination re-renders the world.

Why do this? Why not visit with the talent you have at the studio and see if there are any ideas in there that could be used for a new world with new characters? Why not look for other beloved children's books (Cricket in New York perhaps?) for characters for a new series?

Everything about this project shows it is business consultant/marketing department driven, instead of driven by artistic and story concerns.

[Lord Fantasius]

The assumption may be faulty, and is the real reason we've been debating the topic. The promotional stills make it appear as if she will replace Robin.

That brings up another philosophical issue. If the Hundred Acres Wood is based upon one child's imagination, by definition when you bring in another separate person, will not the wood change?

Logically, of course, it would. Characters would change, come, and go as this new imagination re-renders the world.

Why do this? Why not visit with the talent you have at the studio and see if there are any ideas in there that could be used for a new world with new characters? Why not look for other beloved children's books (Cricket in New York perhaps?) for characters for a new series?

Everything about this project shows it is business consultant/marketing department driven, instead of driven by artistic and story concerns.
Hi, Airlarry,

...understood the debate just didn't get in at the beginning so was tedious after a few pages; oh well, guess that's what a public board is for.

Again, I guess I should have said, "hoping" instead of assuming. Still trying to convince myself there is somebody left at Disney, Inc., that understands continuity and cohesiveness. Yes, it would be just wrong to drop her into the woods and say "Here she is..."

On the flipside, I don't mind children having shared imaginary worlds - what else would siblings have to play in when stuck in a house on a rainy day? Just how it's brought in, and then, yes, the new child would be bringing in new animals, etc. It definitely doesn't sound like a "retelling" since that would require some imagination on the part of the storyteller, just a substitution.

It will be interesting to see how they market the two different series - "Classic" vs. "Modern." Will they stop selling the "original" Christopher Robin suffed animals and stories, market them to different segments, or keep them both running and see which one sells?

-R

[Peter Pirate]

Profit grab is always the main point just as it was with Walt. No one sets out to make an unprofitable change, nor do they produce this form of art without at least some thought being placed on will others like it.

The female character will be more relevent in the current scheme of things as girls flock to Disney as fans of princesses and heroines. Boys lag way behind (remember Treasure Planet?). This may not a good enough reason for many of you but time doesn't stand still and the Company must simply see more avenues for growth both profitability and creatively with this twist.
pirate:

[psiprez]

I think it could work great if the whole thing is done as a continuation of the story, not a reworking of it. Pick up where Pooh and the other toys have been sitting dusty for a while, only to be rediscovered by a younger child. Perhaps Christopher's child/grandchild, which would bring it to present day.

However - *something* tells me that they are only looking for an excuse to come out with another abysmal DVD to turn into another abysmal cartoon series, etc and all integrity will be lost...

[coby421]

I think it could work great if the whole thing is done as a continuation of the story, not a reworking of it. Pick up where Pooh and the other toys have been sitting dusty for a while, only to be rediscovered by a younger child. Perhaps Christopher's child/grandchild, which would bring it to present day.

However - *something* tells me that they are only looking for an excuse to come out with another abysmal DVD to turn into another abysmal cartoon series, etc and all integrity will be lost...


I have to agree, if they choose to continue the story and not just cut Christopher Robin out it might, might be okay. If they just try to start over with a Christine Robin and Pooh, it's just not right. A story that's been sucessful for decades torn apart because a girl should get a shot at Pooh. I just think the whole ideas sad.

"Christopher Robin?," whispered Pooh.
"Yes, Pooh Bear?"
"I'll never not remember you ... ever."

[DawnaJean]

When was the last time your child said "Christopher Robin"? The focus is on Pooh et al and as the one poster mentioned that Christopher Robin told Pooh he had to leave the 100 acre wood....what would be so wrong to continue the story with...say as one other poster mentioned...Christopher's daughter, to whom Christopher tells his stories. It may make the stories more interesting to the little ones, and it is in keeping with the original spirit. I agree that it is all about marketing/sales but I don't think the idea itself is bad.....we have to wait to see how it is carried out to really tell.

Dawna

[DCSMickeyMan]

Yay!!

All the off topic-ness was starting to make my brain hurt :(

but we're back on topic again!!

[Juliet25]

I'm very interested in seeing how this plays out. Currently, Winnie the Pooh is my 2.5 y.o. DD's obsession. She can name all the major players...expect Christopher Robin. I know from watching the pre-show documentaries before the main feature on one of her tapes that CR was a boy whose Dad made up stories for him based on his stuffed animals, but that's hardly relevant to my DD. Frankly, I see no reason to replace CR since it's not really about him. I've never even seen a CR doll. As long as the central characters remain the same, I don't think there's much that will change.

But FWIW, when I heard the announcement on the news I did let out a disgusted "What?!?!?" :eek:

[Sillyprincess]

Well unfourtanetly I do not watch the show now but when I did i loved Christopher Robin he was cool but replacing him could ruin the whole T.V show


With the tom-boy girl then they adventures will not be as active why couldn't they keep both Chris and the new chracter instead of a replacemeant replacing him may bring the ratings down. My cousin has a poster of Chris on her wall if he was replaced she would get so mad!


I do not like this idea that disney has come up to replace a disney chracter they are all so orignal and if one leaves then another one leaves one leads to another then soon we will have no more orignal chracters.

~Silly

[raidermatt]

The female character will be more relevent in the current scheme of things as girls flock to Disney as fans of princesses and heroines. Boys lag way behind (remember Treasure Planet?). This may not a good enough reason for many of you but time doesn't stand still and the Company must simply see more avenues for growth both profitability and creatively with this twist.


What'd ya do, Pete, swipe a PowerPoint handout?

[lorli]

I am a huge Pooh fan and vote to leave Christopher Robin as is. Of course not that my vote truly counts but I wanted my say. Don't tamper with the classics.

[Just_Me_06]

I dont see how or why the would ! Wasnt he the reason the author (aka starter) Started the story?!

[Becky_Boop]

This makes me sick! :furious: Christopher Robin is a Disney classic! What if they replaced Mickey with a cat, or Minnie with a poodle, just to try something new? A part of the Disney magic is that everything is really nostalgic and familiar. Grrr...

[wilki32]

Things change, I used to be a boy with an imagination now its my daughters turn and then her children, then theirs and so on!

[rantnnravin]

i think that what's being forgotten here is that Pooh isn't merely a "Disney character" he is a Classic Literary Character. Disney simply recognized a good thing in A.A. Milne's body of work (good story, likeable characters) and were smart enough to buy the rights.
the problem isn't with the character of Christopher Robin, it's with marketing department which is too inept to pursue a "lagging" demographic.

geez i'm afraid to see what would happen if Disney owned TLoTR, would they make Frodo a female just because it's easier to sell to girls?

[raidermatt]

...the problem isn't with the character of Christopher Robin, it's with marketing department which is too inept to pursue a "lagging" demographic.

To be more specific, the problem is that, in this case, marketing is driving creation. After all, we'd expect ideas like this to come from a marketing department. That's their job. But I think the process works best when you let great storytellers tell a great story, then you let great marketers market it.

[pawsitivemom]

To be more specific, the problem is that, in this case, marketing is driving creation. After all, we'd expect ideas like this to come from a marketing department. That's their job. But I think the process works best when you let great storytellers tell a great story, then you let great marketers market it.

I agree..... They need to "Build" a market....not only cater to what is already there.

I think Disney has gone way too *girl* crazy.....They have so much to apeal to girls that boys now look at Disney and think "it's girly". THAT is a big part of the reason my ODS didin't want to go on a WDW trip!

I don't think that replacing Christopher Robin is a "bad" idea...But...Does it HAVE to be with a GIRL!? I mean, come on, can't an active, imaginative BOY be marketed!?....Or is Disney only intrested in apealing to girls now?

Imagineers....imagine things for our boys....Marketers....Make a market for it....Make boys BELIEVE they want and need this MALE character!

Afterall....Wasn't Disney BUILT on Male Characters? :smickey: :goofy: pluto:

(Ok...I"m done ranting now!)