Comments on the Comcast Deal

[plutospup]

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

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

 

[YoHo]

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


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

 

[crusader]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Another Voice]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Another Voice]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[crusader]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[crusader]

Scoop -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[crusader]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[KNWVIKING]

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

 

[raidermatt]

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

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

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

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

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

No reason. Just making an assumption that if they make 22 films now, a more quality-focused strategy would net fewer films.

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

I have not problem with the number itself.


On remakes...

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

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

 

[raidermatt]

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

Two problems with that though:

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

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

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


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

 

[raidermatt]

On the Walt Disney Pictures brand thing...

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

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

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

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

But I wouldn't argue with ditching them.

 

[Another Voice]

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

Pulp Fiction was well before Bad Company (2002).

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Simple rule – expenses expand to meet revenues.

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

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

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

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

 

[crusader]

Voice

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

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


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

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

 

[Another Voice]

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

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

Seems you've proved my case.

 

[crusader]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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