Christopher Robin replaced??

[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.