Another Voice
Charter Member of The Element
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2000
- Messages
- 3,191
I never said they Disney should have put limits on Q.T. He has ever right to make whatever movie he wanted to - even Kill Bill.
But Disney has a right - and an obligation - to decide what movies they want to make and distribute.
It comes down to a simple point - does "Disney" mean anything, or is it simply a brand sticker that gets slapped on product. Does the company itself have a guiding principle about how it makes money, or just "greed is good"? What does it say about the products being released when you have to hide behind phony names? It's already been shown that pandering is not as profitable as producing good products so the entire "we have to do it" line of thought is completely wrong (it's only easier to make a bad movie, not more lucrative)
There is an important question here. It goes back to one of the posts I read while I was trying to catch up. Basically I remember it as saying that the poster knew the cheap direct-to-DVD films were bad, but his daughter was too young ot know the difference and it's a good thing because now she spends all her allowance on princess stuff.
Is that what all this comes down to - brainless consumerism?
Sadly, I see a lot of evidence for it. I mean that's what the "anything for money" argument is basically saying. It doesn't matter what wares Disney hocks. Disney is nothing but a luxury brand and a purchased statues symbol. Or to Mr. Crusader's point - buying a label is easier than earning recognition. That's the core of brand loyalty: esteem without effort.
Disney was best when it made things. But making things are hard. It's much easier to buy products from others, to divorce oneself from responsibility and effort, and to try steal some of the fame for yourself.
Easy, cheap, pointless and shallow.
I show Disney movies to my son because they represent excellent story telling that has a purpose and a point. I do not want my child to toss coins mindlessly into a corporate collection plate. I want them to do more that sit and stare at a screen while their mind empties. I want him to have a good and happy life, not simply be a wallet to be sucked dry.
So I guess this ends with the statement that I wrote originally. The world is too vast and the life is too short to wallow in the mediocre.
But Disney has a right - and an obligation - to decide what movies they want to make and distribute.
It comes down to a simple point - does "Disney" mean anything, or is it simply a brand sticker that gets slapped on product. Does the company itself have a guiding principle about how it makes money, or just "greed is good"? What does it say about the products being released when you have to hide behind phony names? It's already been shown that pandering is not as profitable as producing good products so the entire "we have to do it" line of thought is completely wrong (it's only easier to make a bad movie, not more lucrative)
There is an important question here. It goes back to one of the posts I read while I was trying to catch up. Basically I remember it as saying that the poster knew the cheap direct-to-DVD films were bad, but his daughter was too young ot know the difference and it's a good thing because now she spends all her allowance on princess stuff.
Is that what all this comes down to - brainless consumerism?
Sadly, I see a lot of evidence for it. I mean that's what the "anything for money" argument is basically saying. It doesn't matter what wares Disney hocks. Disney is nothing but a luxury brand and a purchased statues symbol. Or to Mr. Crusader's point - buying a label is easier than earning recognition. That's the core of brand loyalty: esteem without effort.
Disney was best when it made things. But making things are hard. It's much easier to buy products from others, to divorce oneself from responsibility and effort, and to try steal some of the fame for yourself.
Easy, cheap, pointless and shallow.
I show Disney movies to my son because they represent excellent story telling that has a purpose and a point. I do not want my child to toss coins mindlessly into a corporate collection plate. I want them to do more that sit and stare at a screen while their mind empties. I want him to have a good and happy life, not simply be a wallet to be sucked dry.
So I guess this ends with the statement that I wrote originally. The world is too vast and the life is too short to wallow in the mediocre.
.
