Has Eisner truly lost his mind?

[Another Voice]

"So you see no difference between illegal and bad taste?"

In a perfect world there would be no difference. But then, Martin Sheen would be forced onto welfare...

I've have seen the movie, it's been on the film festival cricuit for a while. It's not good, just a movie so the fashionable people can pat themselves on the back about being such superior people to all those "unthinking Americans". In fact the screenwriter boasts how he knows nothing of the military and laments all the "terror" U.S. troops inflicted on Germany.

Very fashionable politics are always very appealing to stupid people.

This is just another case of Disney demostrating disrepect for their customers. They'd much rather spend the money on trendy correct stuff rather than on something the public wants to see. Eisner doesn't really care much about keeping the business going so he might was well have fun until he can sell the place.

And Mr. Show, I can guarentee you there is more drug trafficing, drug smoking and sex among WDW cast members than there ever was on an U.S. army base in Germany.

Now that's a film Disney to make.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Short Answer: Yes.

Baron - I'm surprised with your answer. See, for one to lose one's mind they must of had one in the first place. I didn't thik you thought ME ever had a mind.

I like pie!

Is that American Pie. Would that be quality crap.......are we even talking films.............am I even on the right site.........

 

[cristen]

Ok, let me try to say this properly. I'm not very smart, but this is how I see it. I am always reading posts about what Disney is realeasing and whether it is ok or not. People argue sure it's ok, that's what the public wants. In this case I am gathering, why not, it's Miramax, they have the right to release what they want.
What I am trying to get at is why does Disney even have to have Miramax? Or Touchstone? Sure they have released good movies, but so did Walt under Disney. Wasn't it Walt's philosophy to create products for the WHOLE family to enjoy? Parents along with their children? So everything he had done was suitable for the whole family. What is so bad about wanting to keep the company like that? Let other companies do what they are good at & keep Disney doing what they were good at. Why when people get angry about Miramax releasing movies that shouldn't be associated with Disney, do people say they are crazy. After all, it's what the public wants now. So is it Disney's job to give it to them? I don't go to the food network looking to find classic movies. But I do look for Disney at Disney. I know, I'm weird like that. Why does Disney have to do it all? What difference does it make if it is good, or politically correct, it's not something that Disney should be putting out. And yes, ME is insane.

 

[crusader]

Quality Crap? Oh no!

WFH - It's not purely political because Disney's backing it. So why can't we talk about it here?

Very fashionable politics are always very appealing to stupid people.

Ok sarcasm aside. Politicians in bed with entertainers breeds stupidity! Hollywood thinking they can manipulate our vote is the real farce! Extreme party loyalty is becoming quite unfashionable these days - why haven't they gotten that message?

Disney again has a problem on their hands - and the media will enjoy relishing in any negative publicity towards an adversary.

 

[rexmundi]

Despite efforts to avoid misunderstanding, I seem to have left the impression with some that I thought Buffalo Soldiers and other controversial material should be squelched, censored, shoved under the rug, and that people should be prevented from producing or viewing such. Actually, Cristen summed up the original point that I guess I was unable to express clearly-- that provocative works, while perhaps worthy endeavors for some, are not the type of fare that the general public is expecting from Disney. My point was that it seems to make no sense from a business standpoint (even given the fact that independent films are released under the Miramax name--everyone knows Miramax = Disney). The negative publicity and inevitable consumer backlash against Disney seems to far outweigh whatever profit Disney might make from a provocative independent film. The original post was not intended to incite a protest or boycott, but was rather intended to elicit comments about the business judgment of Michael Eisner and the folks running Disney. I am a car 2 person who mightbe leaning to car 3. I think the company has lost a sense of its "core mission" and its "core values." Strictly from a business standpoint it is mind-boggling how Disney could embrace Miramax and be contemplating severing the Pixar relationship. That's all I was really trying to say.

 

[mrsR123]

There's soooo much going on here.

No, I haven't seen the movie; there's not much of a festival circuit in Central Illinois. And I won't probably see it in a theatre, ever; I don't shell out ticket money for stuff I can't take my kids too, except for Star Wars. But I would be interested in renting it one day because it is a satire. That, IMHO, is a distinction that should set it apart from the likes of American Pie which was just stupid teen comedy.

Maybe timing is the main problem. If the rights to a supposedly funny satiric novel had been acquired prior to 9/11-- perhaps hours before?-- then it probably seemed like a much better idea. And yet, how long should the company sit holding their investment?

Yes, Miramax and Touchstone release some seemingly Un-Disney-esque films; that's why they're NOT released with the main Disney label. Much as many of us around here like to keep it all family, all nostalgia, all the time, the whole enterprise needs money to keep making the magic that we do appreciate.

So, IMHO, don't go to a movie that you don't approve of; the message of those lost dollars will eventually be heard.

Let the post bashing begin.

 

[EUROPA]

I've got a great idea for Disney..."Gun Running" yeah they can make tons of money off that and its not near as controversial. I mean Disney does need money to keep the magic going...or ABC really.

 

[cristen]

I knew that someone would come up with the, they need to make money excuse. Are you kidding me?! I mean come on, you think they could not keep the the company going if not for Miramax, Touchstone, ABC, or any of that? Disney could be HUGE if they would just focus on one small part of the company, the most important part, I must add. The one they could rely on to actually make the money. And who says they have to be a multi-billion dollar company? I would rather them be a mid-size company and actually do things right, than own a little bit of every market out there and saturate us with the brand. That makes it very UNmagical, no matter how much money they are making.

 

[Peter Pirate]

"Gun running"? Didn't Papa Bush already corner the market on that?

Cristen, nice slam...Baron will be giving you the big "ditto" soon, I'm sure. But your post is pure folly. You wish a company to remain mid-size and focus on content (oh, how great the content would be). The product would be great, the profits great...Just the thing for a big boy to say, "hmmmm, I'd like to buy that." Which is exactly why Disney did what it did. Which is exactly why Disney wasn't gobbled during the dot.com frenzy and which is exactly why, sad though it my seem, it just has to be. Maybe Disney isn't what it used to be...But at least it still is...

 

[rexmundi]

Good point, Peter Pirate. Disney could not have survived as a stand-alone mid-size movie studio/ theme park business. But, there is still the question of whether the Miramax relationship is a profitable one for Disney in the long run. And the question on content remains-- wouldn't it make more sense to produce films of a type with a consistent track record for making money over the years? Look at boxofficemojo.com and see the movies that are in the Top 50 or Top 100 all time. There is only 1 R-rated film in the Top 20 (Matrix Reloaded). Only about 4 or 5 in the Top 50. There is a disproportionate number of G- and PG-rated films in the Top 50. In other words, the movie studios continue to release movies that the public rejects. Michael Medved has written a book on this topic. Look at the list again. Scan it for mention of a Miramax film (only one in the Top 100--Scary Movie). Granted, independent films have small budgets and can more easily recoup their costs, but the fact remains--Disney could make a LOT of money by focuisng its efforts on putting out more Nemos and Lion Kings than by trying to please the coastal cognoscenti with their art-house endeavors. Of course, this is a criticism of the industry as a whole and not just Disney--some other studio spent $150 million on Windtalkers knowing that it would have had to have been the biggest R-rated movie in history to make back the money. Needless to say, it wasn't).

 

[Peter Pirate]

Rex, I don't dispute what you say. I think movies like 'Princess Diaries', 'Spy Kids', etc. are (or should be) the bread and butter. They're great movies and big money makers. But with that being said, I have no problem with the occasional big budget like 'POC' as long as it doesn't get too full of itself like 'Pearl Harbor' obviously did. Which leads me to the Indy's. I don't know the buiness well, but I would hate for Disney to just abandon young film makers and low budget flicks altogether. This just makes us more homoginized, IMO. It's too bad this particular movie will ruffle some feathers but hopefully cooler minds and opinions will prervail. After all, it's a little insignificant movie that virtually no one will see (unless of course there's a big brouhaha or boycott - then a lot of people WILL see it and Disney will make money)..

 

[KNWVIKING]

*** " wouldn't it make more sense to produce films of a type with a consistent track record for making money over the years? " ***

That's been one of the huge debates on this board. When Disney puts out a JB2 type movie,it makes a nice buck but posters declare it's not quality. When they release a TP, the quality is there,(based on reviews posted here), but the movie bombs.

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by Peter Pirate
"Gun running"? Didn't Papa Bush already corner the market on that?

Did Bush just get a job with Disney? Or did Eisner just become president of the US? I'm having trouble seeing the connection.

So what a great idea... go billions in debt...lose focus on your core business over pay for old kids cartoons all to piss off you loyal customers and then break up the company and sell if for chump change later after Esiner has stripped mined the company.

 

[Planogirl]

Film studios make a lot of money off of low budget films that aren't in the top moneymakers' list. They might only make a small amount relatively speaking but it does add up.

Now the question about whether Disney should make these low budget films (or pay for them if another studio actually makes them) is another matter. But the various studios in the Disney empire are there for a reason and Miramax has done quite well in the past if I'm not mistaken.

 

[cristen]

I'm sorry, I think I was misunderstood. I never meant to imply that I want Disney to remain small. Of course I would love them to be successful at everything they did. But I just simply don't believe that they would not be around had it not been for their other ventures. There are plenty of businesses that are successful and that made it through the dot.com fiasco that do not have the clout that Disney has. The point I am trying to make is that they have always been known to be the forerunner of innovative products. Walt was always trying to outdo himself. And most of the time people were amazed at what he was doing. He never had to release Buffalo Soldiers or make deals with Michael Moore to be successful. Or to keep the company going. He focused on what he did best and the public LOVED it. He left everything else for other people to do.

 

[crusader]

Look money aside - don't lose sight of the fact that hollywood utilizes its' resources to promote political propaganda and Disney is an easy pawn in this chess game. There is at least one prominant politician seated on its' BOD who is by far one of the the most influential figures in politics today.

Any film project that can aid to spin will be carefully timed to do so. That is why this film is being released now and that is particulary why Michael Moore's film is sheduled for next Aug.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

crusader...

WFH - It's not purely political because Disney's backing it. So why can't we talk about it here?

The fact that the movie is coming out is news, and might belong here. The "debate" over whether or not its a good idea has degenerated into tossing around "Bush's daddy" comments, and therefore belongs on the Debate Board.

In my opinion, the tone of the original post made it clear that this was "bad for Disney" based on the politics of the topic rather than any creative aspect (Disney is creative Company, remember?) of the product. My experience on the DIS suggests to me that the thread would have been more at home on the Debate Board from the very beginning.

cristen...

I'm not very smart,

I just wanted to mention that I found no evidence in support of this claim in your posts.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Crusader, I absoutely disagree on your belief of the political influence of the Disney Company despite the old gent on the board (how much influence does he have in todays politics?)

As to where this discussion belongs, I agree with you wholeheartedly. It's about a Disney business decision pure and simple, hence the Rumor & News Board. Pretty strightforward stuff really. It's hard to believe that anybody could disagree...But then some folks just see degeneration differently (or have no sense of humor)...Perhaps both...

 

[crusader]

Peter -

I'd concede on the "old gent's" influence if I could convince myself that politicians abandon their career habits and cease to assist their benefactors upon retirement. Unfortunately there is way too much dynamic among the hollywood constituency. This guy is probably one of the most highly respected living Democrats around. One never knows the extent to which a simple phone call could play out.

 

[Peter Pirate]

True, but the Dems are in such disary and with such little clout what's the difference?...I mean we still need balances and counterbalances in this country no matter where they come from, wouldn't you agree? And it seems to me that the 'movie effect' on our society would have to be of much greater breadth than 'Buffalo Soldiers' and Hollywood, while certainly very liberal leaning, is not nearly as liberal as it once was, will still not foresake profits for ideology, IMO...