What should the new CEO concentrate on fixing first ?

[Plus4206]

For better or worse, ME's Disney is making money right now and looks to continue doing so for the next couple years at least. With ABC expected to be in the black next year it appears all Disney divisions are carrying their own weight. But of course that doesn't mean there isn't major work to do for the next CEO.

IMO, feature animation & the state of the US parks are what need the most help. If the new guy were to open the vault and decide to infuse one or the other with the proper amount of cash, which do you think should be fixed first ? Or do you feel money needs to be spent in another area all together ?

 

[Peter Pirate]

Feature animation for sure. It's a travesty to let other companies flourish in what should still be a Disney dominated market. This doesn't mean I totally disapprove of the policy which calls for low budget, direct to video sequels as cash cows because as the the Corporate entity they are these avenues need to be milked to their fullest although I know many here disagree.

This doesn't mean they shouldn't step up creatively with feature animation though. They need to find a way to regain the glory and maximize both profit and reputation wise by making top grade, future 'classic' feature animated films. With L&S and BB we know it can still be done they just need to reach further and not settle for good when it could be great (as in Brother Bears case). They need to say good isn't good enough, let's make a great movie. Further, I believe this process should be driven by Walt's mantra of quality not commercialism. Someone will be looking to see that these films will be commercial, to be sure (and rightly so) but I think the main drive on the project needs to be the imagination guy...

As for the Parks, while some of us may think more needs to be done or a different direction taken, it seems to me they have already changed paths and it is working. The Parks and Resorts are very busy and I won't waste my time worring about a Matterhorn in Epcot. I don't think it will happen but even if it does it won't happen quickly.

 

[Plus4206]

In a selfish kind of way I'd like to see money pumped back into the parks, but only because I'm more a park person then a FA person. My DS's are grown & gone and DW and I see very few movies ( haven't seen Incredibles yet). We do however spend three or more weeks in WDW every year so you can understand my position. The last couple years have been encouraging though with recent and up coming attractions.

However, even though I'd get more enjoyment out of WDW upgrades, I can see how getting FA back on track is the bigger issue. FA in the long term will feed the parks. Children are the future of DL and WDW and FA will ensure that future.

Now the question is HOW. Can it be as simple as Disney going out and hiring back the best talent - at virtually any price ? Will a new CEO be able to mend fences with the people who apparently will no longer work with ME ? It almost seems as if fixing FA is just one hit movie away. Could it be that easy ?

 

[Peter Pirate]

I've always felt in artistic endeavors the truly innovative and really great stuff comes from the young guns, the new talent hungry and eager to prove themselves. So really I think it could be as easy as that. A bigger issue is probably getting the right imaginative upper management...You know the right buffer between bean counters and creativity.

 

[grinningghost]

Feature animation - without question. Disney needs to get back to what they do best. Animated films, preferably a good old fashioned princess fairytale of some sort - are what many people are craving.

And please new CEO, let's have a delicious musical score with that new feature - there's another area that's been sorely lacking lately.

 

[SnackyStacky]

Feature animation for sure. It's a travesty to let other companies flourish in what should still be a Disney dominated market. This doesn't mean I totally disapprove of the policy which calls for low budget, direct to video sequels as cash cows because as the the Corporate entity they are these avenues need to be milked to their fullest although I know many here disagree.

WOW.

Brand cheapening aside, can you honestly say that those sequels haven't HURT Disney?

THOSE were the first product, to my knowledge, that were outsourced. Disney saw that they could make a VERY fast buck by cheaply producing these things.

I don't know if it was directly related to the demise of feature animation, but it really seems to me just a little TOO coincidental that they outsourced themselves for Return to Neverland, and Jungle Book 2, and shortly thereafter, feature animation closed.

Wow. I can usually see your point on things. Doesn't mean I always agree with it, but I at least see it. But I can't believe that you think those awful sequels did ANYTHING positive for Disney. And I don't count making money as a positive thing. It is if it's an aside of wonderful creativity. But as a creative driving force, it ain't a positive thing. In fact, it's one of the worst things in that sense.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Well Dan I DO see making money as a positive thing and actually quite necessary. Further, I don't think it can be simply 'not counted' as it IS what shareholders expect the BOD and management to do.

Further, I don't see the cheap (but lucrative) videos to be much of anything at all (reread that please...I personally don't believe they add or detract from what "Disney" stands for to most people) and truly I don't think they would be an issue had Disney never surrendered the mantle of best FA to Pixar (the real issue). I don't believe you, or anyone else, would be crying about Disney's direct to video fare if Disney had actually made the likes of Monsters, Nemo, Incredibles, etc. in house. It would all just be part of the package.

Also, why'd you pick the one area we're in disagreement to cite (without citing any agreement?). I'll bet you actually agree with the rest of my post. Just curious?

 

[Plus4206]

I don't have a problem with Disney milking cash from direct to vid squeels.IMO it's those huge profit margins that allow them to take risks in other areas.

Are they of the highest quality - of course not, but neither are the Saturday morning cartoons that kids are watching. They reach a target audience that isn't concerned about the politics of Disney. They are fun flicks for kids, movies a parent won't mind if they get watched over and over -as they will - because regardless of the high brow opinion of those movies here - they are harmless entertainment.

 

[SnackyStacky]

Well Dan I DO see making money as a positive thing and actually quite necessary. Further, I don't think it can be simply 'not counted' as it IS what shareholders expect the BOD and management to do.

SO - making a fast buck and losing it even FASTER is what the shareholders want?

In order to MAKE money, you have to INVEST money. We're talking about movies here, but for lack of a better example - may I switch to theme parks? Look at Stitch's Great Escape. They thought they could *make* fast money by throwing relatively little money into a ride by using a character that has well proven its worth. But it backfired, and people hate it.

So NOW, they have to spend MORE money to make the ride more palatable. Meanwhile, word of mouth is spreading, and it's not doing ANYTHING to boost theme park attendance.

I see those sequels as the same principle. They pay relatively little money to an outside agency that does NOT have the same background and skill that the crew did. Crew, might I add, that they once had on staff but have now fired.

Further, I don't see the cheap (but lucrative) videos to be much of anything at all (reread that please...I personally don't believe they add or detract from what "Disney" stands for to most people) and truly I don't think they would be an issue had Disney never surrendered the mantle of best FA to Pixar (the real issue).

See above. If you keep releasing second rate animation, don't blame people for not wanting to come. Which is exactly what Eisner did. He blamed the audience by throwing the lame excuse that "traditional animation is dead". Well, it is if you keep giving a second rate product.

So now, people have this image that Disney animation has gone downhill. And if you keep gypping your public, they're going to learn. And they're NOT going to come back.

He has effectively cheapened his brand.

I don't believe you, or anyone else, would be crying about Disney's direct to video fare if Disney had actually made the likes of Monsters, Nemo, Incredibles, etc. in house. It would all just be part of the package.

If I understand that correctly - if Monsters Inc or Nemo had been released by Disney as sequels, but were the exact same product I wouldn't have a problem with it?

You're absolutely right! If my paraphrasing of your sentiment was what you meant then I totally agree! But they didn't invest the kind of time, money, and talent (all VERY expensive commodities - but look at the returns) into their sequels. They didn't invest anything.

Also, why'd you pick the one area we're in disagreement to cite (without citing any agreement?). I'll bet you actually agree with the rest of my post. Just curious?

HUH?!

I can't agree with your whole post because it's very contrary. In one paragraph:

This doesn't mean I totally disapprove of the policy which calls for low budget, direct to video sequels as cash cows because as the the Corporate entity they are these avenues need to be milked to their fullest although I know many here disagree.

and then in another:

They need to find a way to regain the glory and maximize both profit and reputation wise by making top grade, future 'classic' feature animated films.

How can you step up your feature animation if you're diverting funds that should be spent on feature animation to make cheap sequels? It doesn't make sense. I don't believe the two can peacefully coexist. Because the sequels detract from the main product. And I shouldn't say sequels - because Pixar proved that a sequel CAN work. But you have to put the same care into it that you do an original work.

Eisner does not treat his artists as artists. He treats them as factory workers. And that's a sure fire way to get a less than stellar product.

So I agree Feature Animation needs to be revived and invested in, but I can't see where there's room for both cheap sequels and good quality movies.

I don't agree with you on the parks front either. Soarin'? Maybe it's a great ride! In fact, I'm sure it is. But it's a copy. Mission:Space? I wasn't personally overwhelmed, and I think the fact that Test Track has longer lines is testament that I'm not the only one who feels that way.

I hold out hope for Everest. But other than that, I've been methodically underwhelmed by the product they've put out.

So nope. Don't really agree with you on the other points either. Like I said before though. I can see where you're coming from with everything BUT your stance on the direct to video sequels. I just don't agree with any of it.

 

[crusader]

Did DTV productions cause the demise of hand-drawn motion pictures?

Hard to agree given the Shrek 2 success.

I think the consumer already understands the quality in a DTV. I have some old VHS's known as the "sing-a-long" series which were pretty darn cheap to own and pretty darn cheap to produce. Recent additions include Return of Jafar and Cinderalla II. These purchases have not in any way influenced my perception of what a feature film from Disney should be in terms of investment.

I don't consider it cheapening the entire Disney label or "brand" of entertainment products. I consider the DTV's to be one or two grades above the cartoon for home entertainment. It is simply one brand of one product line within the Disney empire.

 

[SnackyStacky]

Did DTV productions cause the demise of hand-drawn motion pictures?

Hard to agree given the Shrek 2 success.

I don't see what Shrek 2 has to do with Direct to Video sequels.

It wasn't a direct to video sequel.

Nor was it even Disney.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Even Walt put out classic epics AND low cost compromises (to fill the coffers). I don't believe you think current Disney couldn't or shouldn't do the same.

 

[crusader]

Shrek 2 tells me the audience is willing to pay handsomely for lower quality animated crap at the box office provided it is done absent the traditional hand-drawn method. Story seems to have taken a backseat to popularity - at least for now.

My point was that it really isn't the DTV sequel or any other low quality video production out there that caused this popularity decline in hand-drawn animation. It's a new dimensional art form drawing the audiences today.

(nice post btw)

 

[Peter Pirate]

OK Snacky, so we disagree (again).

I do see your points, I'm sorry you can't see mine.

You don't believe crap and classic can coexist, fair enough. I do (simple as that) ... Which means my post did not contain contradictions to what I believe.

Disney can regain the lead in feature animation by taking chances and producing higher budget, first quality works. IMO, it would be a good thing to have the profitable lower case offerings continue to help offset any failures. Plus4206 told us exactly who these lower quality offerings are geared to and as I stated, they have always been made by Disney. The problem is that lately Disney is more known for these productions (because there have been a lot of them) than any all time classic (because they haven't made any). That they haven't made any classics lately (aside from L&S, which has been awhile) is the real problem, again, IMO.

As for our Parks assesment. I again understand your view. BUT, it doesn't change the fact that the Parks & Resorts are packed and with the 50th upon us will remain so for quite some time. We may see the need for Park changes (in our humble opinions) but Disney is going to be looking at it from a different perspective, I guarantee you and it's hard to argue when the profits keep rollin' in, isn't it?

 

[DancingBear]

How can you step up your feature animation if you're diverting funds that should be spent on feature animation to make cheap sequels? It doesn't make sense.

It's not a zero-sum game. If the cheap sequels make money, you are not diverting any funds from feature animation; in fact, you have more funds which you can choose to spend on FA. There is no reason that these cannot co-exist, just like Emil and the Detectives co-existed with Mary Poppins.

 

[Chuck S]

Now that tourism seems to be rebounding, I 'd like to see a few new attractions added to both Studios and AK, maybe at least a start to "Beastly Kingdom", a new backlot tram tour (since the current one only consists of Catastrophe Canyon) and maybe filming a few Disney Channel shows in the soundstages to highlight that was originally designed as a working studio.

Then rehab the rides at MK, like CoP, Timekeeper, and put something where 20K lagoon used to be.

Then concentrate on maintaining ABC with creativity so it remains a popular network.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Chuck, I don't think anyone here will disagree to that...But, it ain't going to happen. The resorts and parks are jam packed. The additions they're providing are sufficiently fitting the bill and I just don't think we'll be seeing a wholesale change in park philosophy anytime soon.

 

[SnackyStacky]

OK Snacky, so we disagree (again).

I do see your points, I'm sorry you can't see mine.

Methinks I smell a bit of a martyr. There was only one point of yours I couldn't see. I disagreed with them all, but only one point I couldn't see, and I said as much.

To quote myself:

So nope. Don't really agree with you on the other points either. Like I said before though. I can see where you're coming from with everything BUT your stance on the direct to video sequels. I just don't agree with any of it.

My point was that it really isn't the DTV sequel or any other low quality video production out there that caused this popularity decline in hand-drawn animation. It's a new dimensional art form drawing the audiences today.

I never said that Direct to Videos caused the popularity decline. There is no popularity decline. I said they cheapened the brand and diverted funds, and artist time.

I will admit that the Direct to Videos are WILDLY successful. Britney Spears is wildly successful. That doesn't mean that her music contains the same artistic merit as classical works.

But from a bottom line point of view, why bother wasting large amounts of money on a good, quality animation movie when you can put in half as much time, and money and get a huge immediate return?

I will also concede that their problems are much deeper rooted than budgets. Treasure Planet tanked, but it had a huge budget. I believe another part of the problem is that the creativity is just stagnant, and it needs to be shaken up.

Even Walt put out classic epics AND low cost compromises (to fill the coffers). I don't believe you think current Disney couldn't or shouldn't do the same.

There's a difference between low cost, and flat out crap.

Dumbo and Pinocchio were both done at a low budget to make money for bigger projects. But they were given the same care that the BIG budget pieces were. And this is no more evident than in the fact that we did NOT get Snow White II and Bambi II to fill the gap. We got NEW works with new story, and new characters. And lo - from those low budget films came two classics with enduring characters.

Can we say the same for Scamp from Lady and the Tramp II? Or what about Experiment 625, or 108 for that matter?

As for our Parks assesment. I again understand your view. BUT, it doesn't change the fact that the Parks & Resorts are packed and with the 50th upon us will remain so for quite some time. We may see the need for Park changes (in our humble opinions) but Disney is going to be looking at it from a different perspective, I guarantee you and it's hard to argue when the profits keep rollin' in, isn't it?

No, it's not hard to argue. It's very easy to argue. BECAUSE of the fact that Disney is happy to sit on their duff because they've rolled out a huge marketing machine to celebrate "50 years of Disney parks" without putting a whole lot of substance behind it, I'm concerned. And I don't understand how you can NOT be concerned about it. (And please don't give me the line that I'm calling your being a Disney fan into question - I'm not. I just don't understand) Plain and simple, the fact that management sees that they can leave things pretty much the way they are and still make a good buck leaves me concerned. And I don't, quite frankly, see how in one breath you can talk about how it needs change (I'm assuming you feel it needs change since you said in "our" opinion) and then in another breath say that the bottom line says its okay to leave it as is.

 

[Plus4206]

Dumbo - even though low budget - was still a theatrical release unlike today low budget DTVs. Maybe if Walt had the luxury of turning out highly profitable DTV's, Dumbo never would have made it to the big screen.

To change gears a little bit, I agree with Peter that I don't believe mega spending is going to happen in the parks anytime soon. Disney will rely on its latest investments as well as the 50th b/day to keep the parks jammin. But what about something a little less spectacular: Adding staff to the parks. Bathrooms like the days of old. No water bottles laying in the bushes for days at Splash Mountain. More sweepers and less Bradley Suck-o-matics. All the counter service & plush shops open. More street performers.

How 'bout Mickey head butter and an extra chicken finger ???

 

[Peter Pirate]

Methinks I smell a bit of a martyr.

Nope, not me. I really wish we could be more civil though. Further, I apologize for misunderstanding your first post (with regard to misunderstanding my posts). I reread your post and you were clear and I simply misread it. My fault.

There's a difference between low cost, and flat out crap.

Not to the bottom line. Besides Walt was appalled at some of the "crap" that went out with his name on it. It's all in the books.

It's very easy to argue.

Not and make sense at the same time. As another thread points out, it's all about money in this case. It doesn't matter that we think they (management) is taking the wrong road when their profits tell them they aren't.

And I don't, quite frankly, see how in one breath you can talk about how it needs change ... and then in another breath say that the bottom line says it's okay to leave it as it is.

Well, again, my personal opinion isn't what's going to make the change. I'd love to see MGM get at least two new shows. I think AK needs more animal attractions, Epcot shouldn't leave WoL Pavillion shuttered and the MK should have done something positive with the 20,000 leagues area. These are my opinions. But the opinion of Disney and of the BOD and shareholders is that things are booming as it is. The current strategy is filling the joint up and the bottom line says there is no reason to change. Even if I don't agree with it, I do understand where it comes from and although I do personally wish things were different I understand that we're more likely to get more status quo. We Disneyphiles can even prove why they're wrong, but it'll only matter to us.

(And please don't give me that line about me calling your being a Disney fan into question).

I wouldn't dream of it unless you actually do it (which was the case the last time I said it).

Plus, my friend there's really no reason to bring up that silly Mickey butter thing, is there?