Comments on the Comcast Deal

[crusader]

AV

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

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

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

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

 

[YoHo]

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

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

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

 

[PKS44]

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

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

crusader-

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

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

 

[crusader]

YoHo

It's a global market.

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

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

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

 

[DancingBear]

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

Huh? Leaving your personal aesthetic sense aside (and those of every single individual you've talked to about it---funny, all the single individuals I've talked to about the movie enjoyed it)--the movie's both a huge critical and commercial success. What's the problem?

 

[DancingBear]

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

For one thing, you can't maintain the huge marketing, and distribution infrastructure that you need. AND, since you are in a highly unpredictable and risky industry, you need to spread the risk.

 

[YoHo]

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

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

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

 

[DancingBear]

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

Well, there's "quality" and then there's "quality." Notwithstanding Bill Holden's business expertise, most people have no problem with Honda and Acura, for example, because a Honda vehicle is still a quality product at its price point, although it's no Acura.

 

[crusader]

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

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

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

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

 

[YoHo]

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

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

 

[crusader]

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

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

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

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

 

[YoHo]

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

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

 

[PKS44]

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

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

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

 

[YoHo]

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

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

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by PKS44
There is quality and there is quality...but when you trade on being the QUALITY company and you put your name on a product it had better measure up or you will lose...

I dunno. Disney seemed to do fine putting his name on Flubber, et. al., in addition to Sleeping Beauty. As long as the lower end product is entertaining, even if less than a classic in the making, it doesn't really seem to be a problem.

 

[YoHo]

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

 

[YoHo]

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


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

 

[raidermatt]

Didn't know we were comparing regimes...

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

they fall out of the race.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[raidermatt]

Have you really been reading this thread?

Yes.

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

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

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

 

[KNWVIKING]

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

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

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