Comments on the Comcast Deal

[YoHo]

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

 

[DisneyKidds]

Boy, our high seas friends (Yoho and the Viking) are lucky that a certain frozen head doesn't post around here much any more. A sentiment exactly such as this..............

there is still a market for the........ JB2's in their line up........... families enjoy being able to go to the movies more then once every year or so.

got me in all sorts of trouble with our chilly friend .

 

[YoHo]

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

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


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

 

[YoHo]

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

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Didn't know we were comparing regimes...

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

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

2- Is Scoop involved in the thread?

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

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

 

[raidermatt]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[YoHo]

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


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

 

[YoHo]

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

 

[raidermatt]

Down, Baron, down!

I simply asked a question.

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

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

 

[raidermatt]

You see, folks, my question was intended to point out that not every movie has to be a creative masterpiece to be quality.

Well, crud, then don't lead me on with "have you been reading this thread" comments!

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

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

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

 

[raidermatt]

Because if you had been reading this thread you would have realized that it had nothing to do with other regimes.

Except I had been reading the thread and didn't realize it.... so I guess I'm just a dolt! Either that or your posts do carry some baggage. Or maybe both?

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

I'm with you there.

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

Point taken, Dad.

Disney doesn't have to make LOTR or Lost in Translation. They are best when they are making medium budget family movies.

Hmmm. Well, given the current management, I agree. For whatever reason, they are very inconsistent with larger budget films. (Probably because the larger budget films get more attention from he who shall not be named...)

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

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Well, ain't we lucky.

Now DVC-Landbaron is chirping in.

OH! Scoop! You missed a golden opportunity!! You should have said…

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

Anyway,

You see, folks, my question was intended to point out that not every movie has to be a creative masterpiece to be quality.

THEN WHY DIDN’T YOU JUST SAY THAT!?!?!?!

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

 

[raidermatt]

I'd take it one step further and say that Disney reallyshould limit themself to these type of movies except in the rarest of cases.

I think that's more of a limitation that should be placed due to the capabilities of current management. But of course, current management would never go in that direction...

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

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

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

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

 

[KNWVIKING]

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

 

[DancingBear]

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

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

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

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

 

[crusader]

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

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

Like you I too have other matters.

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

I'm with DancingBear on this one -

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

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

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

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

 

[YoHo]

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

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


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

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

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

 

[YoHo]

Originally posted by crusader


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

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

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

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

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

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BUT THIS ALL MISSES THE POINT!!

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

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

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