Feature animation is a core product of the Walt Disney company. Besides box office take, it contributes to home video sales, ABC and the other cable networks, the theme parks, merchandising, the brand name, etc.
You can't leave it out and have any kind of meaningful discussion about the strategic direction of the company.
Roy was great. He definitely was a significant contributor to the company's success, as Walt himself admitted. The driving force behind the company however, was Walt and the creative process he built. Yes, neither could function as a viable entity without the other, but they were also kept in the proper balance. Roy didn't drive the company's major endeavors, he found a way to make them viable.
That relationship between those two "sides" has changed dramatically. Of course there are still creative people within the company, but they are severely restricted. Not to oversimplify things, but basically, the scale has tipped too far away from the creative side of the business.
Regarding the "real" world... When it comes down to it, I don't think anyone would really argue with bicker on this. His view of the "real world" is shared by a lot of people and businesses. But the idea that its shared by everyone in business, and that there are not other viable alternatives is simply ludicrous. Further, we are not attempting to describe how Disney DOES operate... we all know that. We are talking about how they SHOULD operate, and offering the possibility that they could be far more successful as a result.
The issue of "proof" is another discussion killer. The only proof of ANYTHING is that the decisions made by the company have resulted in a financially viable entity, but one whose stock performance has languished for more than a decade. Not that stock price is the be all end all of discussion, but given that it hasn't been steller to say the least, certainly there should be room to discuss hypotheticals.
By definition, however, a hypothetical cannot be "proven", only supported by evidence, and any business consultant should know that, given that their job is to tell others what they can accomplish "if".
Yup! However, I've found that quite often people aren't disagreeing with me as much as expressing outrage that the system works the way I'm describing.
Maybe not dismissive, but narrow minded. There is no single business model that suits everyone. As I said before, we are all painfully aware that far too many companies follow "the system" simply because its the "safe" play. Again, however, we are talking about what would best suit a single company.
We are fully aware of what Disney is doing, and yeah, we aren't happy about it. Our disagreements with you are a result of our differences in opinion over what Disney SHOULD be doing.
Now, if all you are trying to do is describe what Disney IS doing, then hey, wonderful. No need to continue. We all get it, and have gotten it for quite some time.
). If I were to contribute something in that realm, I'd probably say something like, "I wish they made movies more like xxx." "I wish they would..." versus "They should..." See the difference? Keep in mind, I'm here on the DIS to enjoy myself discussing Disney theme parks and help others enjoy their own Disney theme park vacations -- not to engage in discussions that I have no interest in. By the same token, I wouldn't agree with someone who asserts that folks shouldn't come into a thread that was about theme parks, specifically about a new water attraction in Epcot, and hijack the thread to start a discussion about feature animation. This is a public board, and these threads do tend to drift and there are often multiple discussions that stem from a single original message. That's one of the charms of this place. So please continue discussing feature animation along with our discussion of the theme parks, but please understand that I'll be skipping over those parts, just like I skip over the sports pages in the newspaper.
my old PC.
