Another gloom and doom hit piece for Disney

Jeff's avatar

These come up now and then, and often don't say anything real, but this one amused me...

It amused me because they want to use hard-core fans and dudes who run enthusiast web sites as a barometer for success. That's pretty silly. The theme parks have launched a lot of amazing stuff under Iger, and the cruise line business keeps getting bigger. They have acquired a ton of great content (Marvel, Lucasfilm), but they also finally got their non-Pixar movie mojo back with Frozen (and arguably Tangled, which is underrated). Predicting doom and gloom seems pretty silly to me.

Jeff - Editor - - My Blog - Phrazy

I've heard of burying the lede, but I couldn't find the lede in that article. I read it before you posted it and wondered, what the hell is the point?

It wasn't Doom and Gloom over Iger retiring (though Skaggs is a bit more of a bean counter than I prefer, he'll do fine). Somehow it was doom and gloom about them owning Marvel and (perhaps) Lucasfilm.

Still shaking my head, and happy with my DIS stock.

Last edited by CreditWh0re,
matt.'s avatar

This article is some seriously incomprehensible word salad.

Agreed about Tangled. Super underrated. Overall a better film than Frozen. Neither can approach the best of Pixar, but then again, current Pixar can't really approach the best of Pixar either. Super excited for Inside Out, though. Should be crazy good.

Jeff's avatar

Nah, Frozen was better (did you notice the Rapunzel cameo?), and maybe their best musical ever. I have a hard time finding any faults with that movie, and having a 4-year-old, I've seen it a lot. And if Gonch refuses to watch it, you know it must be good.

Jeff - Editor - - My Blog - Phrazy

matt.'s avatar

"Maybe their best musical ever" indicates to me that we are coming at appreciating Disney films from very very very different directions and that is A-ok.

It is undeniably a pop-culture juggernaut, though, and our national obsession with it doesn't seem to be slowing down anytime soon. I'd use Frozen as a counter-example to the article's point, but I'm still not really sure what any of its points are.

still trying to wrap my head around that article:

Marvel, at the top of the movie money making game, with what will arguably be the biggest money maker of 2015, and a slate of movies (sequels, spin-offs, brand extensions, whatever) planned out until the the end of the decade.

Bought Lucasfilm so now they have the entire Star wars cash engine. From all reports these movies should be infinitely better than episodes 1-3, and as much as those sucked, they still made insane amounts of money. Natural tie in with the parks via lands, mini-lands, etc (finally!) Merchandise heaven.

Also secured the rights to future Indiana Jones movies,

Frozen, whether you like it or not, is insanely popular with little girls. Little girls who have parents willing to shell out big bucks for licensed products and a trip to the parks to meet Anna and Elsa. It's not rife with pop culture references that might make it dated before it's time. It's classic (little "c") Disney storytelling and money making (in perpetuity). Not a damn thing wrong with it from a Company perspective.

Not sure where the doom and gloom is coming from. Can Disney keep growth at insane rates, maybe not, but that's hardly gloom. For an article that started to whine about Iger's (perhaps flawed) legacy, it failed to make any points.

People always forget that the parks were loaded with licensees and sponsors from Day 1, that Disney bought what he didn't create, (Pooh, Poppins, etc) so not sure what has changed.

If you want to talk Doom and Gloom, then let's talk MyMagic+ coming to the DLR. :)

Last edited by CreditWh0re,
matt.'s avatar

CreditWh0re said:

If you want to talk Doom and Gloom, then let's talk MyMagic+ coming to the DLR. :)

Boo, you Wh0re.

Jeff's avatar

I think there are people (pin-trading uber nerds) who believe the classic stuff is all that matters, and that anything new isn't that, and/or it can't be considered quality "art." That's why I give Frozen a lot of credit, because I really think it has artistic value in terms of its music, writing and visual design. Not everything that's massively popular (like most pop music) is automatically crap.

Jeff - Editor - - My Blog - Phrazy

Lord Gonchar's avatar

Jeff said:

And if Gonch refuses to watch it, you know it must be good.

If I typed a list of Disney movies that I've never seen, everyone would think I was lying.

matt.'s avatar

I have a few friends who basically haven't seen any movies, ever. They are weirdos but I love them all the same.

well, in defense of Disney re: Strange Magic, that was one of the details of the Lucasfilm purchase. Disney (pre-Lucas) had nothing really to do with that, other than an obligation to release it. They did the minimum they had to do to release it per the contract, then it will get thrown on the ash heap of history.

Last edited by CreditWh0re,
Jrrullo's avatar

By the trailer's perspective, Strange Magic kind of looks like a copy of Epic. But since Lucas made it, I guess I'll give it a try.

However, like Matt said i'm really excited for Inside Out. Pixar got really creative making it. Can't wait until I see it.

When life gives you oranges, don't expect lemonade.

LostKause's avatar

I'm SKIPPING Strange Magic because Lucas made it. HAHA! Those last three Star Wars movies were very disappointing.

kpjb's avatar

I've never even heard of Strange Magic.


Jeff's avatar

Here's another one that implies that something clearly profitable can't be good art:

Jeff - Editor - - My Blog - Phrazy

Speaking of Lucas and Disney: apparently ol' George's ideas for the Episodes 7-9 weren't used by Disney much at all.

I can't be alone in thinking that's a really good thing.

Tekwardo's avatar

George is an Ok storyteller. He's a terrible director and producer.

Website | Flickr | Instagram | YouTube | Twitter | Facebook

Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2023, POP World Media, LLC