We know that's not the priority for Disney. Story counts as little as medium from their point of view. Money is the focus, which is why they'd rather pursue CG films.Heartless wrote:The medium, at this point, is not the highest priority.
Moana
- Disney's Divinity
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 15773
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:26 am
- Gender: Male
Listening to most often lately:
Ariana Grande ~ "we can't be friends (wait for your love)"
Ariana Grande ~ "imperfect for you"
Kacey Musgraves ~ "The Architect"
- disneyprincess11
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4363
- Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:46 am
- Location: Maryland, USA
While I do agree with you, I only meant a personal priority. Obviously Disney has put money above all other factors, particularly when it comes to the films. And that doesn't bother me in all honesty. I know its been stated a billion times already, but a company is a company.. THEIR number one priority is to make money. The main thing I'M concerned about is just getting a good film with a nice story and characters (which Disney is still capable of despite the fact they are in it to make money). I'd love a hand-drawn film just as much as you would, I have such a preference for hand-drawn... but above all else, the story itself is what counts most for me.Disney's Divinity wrote:We know that's not the priority for Disney. Story counts as little as medium from their point of view. Money is the focus, which is why they'd rather pursue CG films.
"Good and bad are labels created by people. Nature doesn't have such concepts."
- DisneyJedi
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3633
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:53 pm
Ugh! That only proves that Disney is run by the same bunch of people like everyone else; selfish, greedy, corrupted assholes!Heartless wrote:...THEIR number one priority is to make money. The main thing I'M concerned about is just getting a good film with a nice story and characters (which Disney is still capable of despite the fact they are in it to make money).
So, if you want to run a successful company, that ultimately makes you a selfish, greedy, corrupted asshole. That's good to know. Walt Disney was probably one, too, then.
"There are two wolves and they are always fighting. One is darkness and despair. The other is light and hope. Which wolf wins? Whichever one you feed." - Casey Newton, Tomorrowland
So basically the best way to make money is to make bad decisions?
What makes people decide that a movie it worth watching? The studios keep cancelling projects because they think it's too controversial or not cool or trendy enough.
To a certain degree I think a movie's success is based on the studio's own confidence. If the distributors believe it's a good movie AND can make money they will back it with a big marketing budget. In part they are responsible for what movies will succeed an what movies won't.
A good, strong project will be able to make money. The marketing can even persuade people to think it's cool.
When did the idea that quality will work against profit surface?
What makes people decide that a movie it worth watching? The studios keep cancelling projects because they think it's too controversial or not cool or trendy enough.
To a certain degree I think a movie's success is based on the studio's own confidence. If the distributors believe it's a good movie AND can make money they will back it with a big marketing budget. In part they are responsible for what movies will succeed an what movies won't.
A good, strong project will be able to make money. The marketing can even persuade people to think it's cool.
When did the idea that quality will work against profit surface?
Wisedom comes suddenly
To you, perhaps, they are bad decisions. As long as Disney is making money they have made good decisions (atleast in their eyes). If they are making money, that means people are paying to see the films.. if they are paying to see the films, it means there is interest in the material which is the point of any entertainment company's products.Alcazam wrote:So basically the best way to make money is to make bad decisions?
Alcazam wrote:What makes people decide that a movie it worth watching? The studios keep cancelling projects because they think it's too controversial or not cool or trendy enough.
Those may be viable reasons in some cases, but the main reason any project is cancelled is because the studios don't feel the film would make money... whether that means it would be too costly, or people would not have interest (whether its a "trendy" idea or not). The point obviously is everything revolves around making a profit within any company. If the product is making money, that means the public is interested and entertained.
To a certain degree, perhaps. I would definitely agree that if they are confident it will make money, they will back it up with a great marketing campaign and etc. However, I don't see how the need for distributors to think the film is good in order for it to contribute to its success. Whether a movie is good or not (which, of course, is subjective) doesn't necessarily reflect upon the profit it turns.Alcazam wrote:To a certain degree I think a movie's success is based on the studio's own confidence. If the distributors believe it's a good movie AND can make money they will back it with a big marketing budget. In part they are responsible for what movies will succeed an what movies won't.
Quality should definitely work towards profit. But just because there's a quality film out doesn't mean it will inevitably make a profit. If the distributors are confident it will make money, they will put more money into advertisements and etc. It all depends on how the general public is foreseen to take to the film.Alcazam wrote:When did the idea that quality will work against profit surface?
Anyway, the point is Disney is focused on money. That's their main priority like I said earlier. However, if they believe a film will make money, that means they believe the film will be generally liked or hold enough interest by their target audience. The fact that people don't like recognizing this fact is just dumb.
"Good and bad are labels created by people. Nature doesn't have such concepts."
Well, I guess it would be useful to make a distinction between The Walt Disney Company and the animation studios. The problem occurs when these are in a conflict.Heartless wrote: Anyway, the point is Disney is focused on money. That's their main priority like I said earlier. However, if they believe a film will make money, that means they believe the film will be generally liked or hold enough interest by their target audience. The fact that people don't like recognizing this fact is just dumb.
I guess the difference between the company today and the company in the beginning is that today the main motivation is money. If you think 'what can we do to make money' rather to do 'how can we find a good idea', the creativity is really compromised from the get-go.
Walt Disney's initial motivation was definitely not just to make money. If that had been the case, Snow White or Fantasia would probably never have seen the light of day. Of course they needed to earn money in the process to keep going, but that was not the initial motivation. The idea of a feature-length animated movie was as unlikely a business idea as any one, so the main motivation is got to have been an artistic rather than financial one.
And that's the whole point. There are several strategies for making money. Blaming traditional animation for the move to CGI rather than a lack of creativity and solid storytelling will make money. Instead of adressing the real problem, the studio can just change the appearance - or medium or packaging, if you will - instead of changing the content.
Disney refused to let hand-drawn animation evolve, instead treating it as a genre rather than a medium unto itself capable of producing as many genres as live-action.
The problem is that the 'how can we make money' motivation is not always a short cut to profit. Worst case scenario is a bad movie that won''t make any profit. If put some money aside to secure the artistic integrety of a project, at least you have a chance to make a good movie.
The audiences take what they can get - they choose the best alternative. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be better alternatives.
Ultimately, the difference between the present and the past history of Disney, is that it used to be lead by artists, and now it's being lead by buisnessmen.
Wisedom comes suddenly
- DisneyJedi
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3633
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:53 pm
And it sucks! Heck, I wouldn't bee too surprised if the head honcho in charge of it all was THIS GUY:Alcazam wrote:Ultimately, the difference between the present and the past history of Disney, is that it used to be lead by artists, and now it's being lead by buisnessmen.
<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JoYWdHe4tQ4?rel=0" frameborder="0"></iframe>
Don't tell me it doesn't describe Disney's management, because it actually does!
-
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1088
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:00 am
Alcazam wrote:If you think 'what can we do to make money' rather to do 'how can we find a good idea', the creativity is really compromised from the get-go.
I would agree that both are true but to be fair, they are true of the entire film industry, not just Disney. Personally I would love to see some more original films be released by all of the major studios rather than the endless stream of sequels, prequels and remakes but they make the most money in today's market. Walt was very lucky to have Roy to take care of the financial side of the company, which allowed him to focus on his creative ideas and ventures.Alcazam wrote:Ultimately, the difference between the present and the past history of Disney, is that it used to be lead by artists, and now it's being lead by buisnessmen.
It probably does but like I said, it also describes the management of every other major film studio. Making as much money as they can enables Disney to build a new resort in Shanghai and Hawaii and buy other studios like Pixar to form parternships that will in turn ensure that Disney continues to make money long into the future. Do I like the company's preoccupation with making money over the focus on quality and creativity of Walt's day? No. But that preoccupation with money is a problem that is affecting the output of the entire film industry.DisneyJedi wrote:Don't tell me it doesn't describe Disney's management, because it actually does
We're not going to Guam, are we?
- milojthatch
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2646
- Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:34 am
Supportive of what? Whatever they put out every time, even if its crap? You know what? Not just talking about Disney here, but that does seem like the big business plain these days, huh? "You the customer will buy whatever we the corporation tell you to buy becuase we made it." You know what? That mentality is never, never worth being supportive of.TsWade2 wrote:Man, you people are so negative. They're not trying to greedy. They're trying to create a story for their movies to get profit. And obviously, you people are not very supportive. SNAP!
Customers made Disney and every other big business out there, despite the fact that they seem to have forgot that little detail. If film audiences didn't fall in love with Mickey Mouse and Snow White back in the day, there would be no Disney. The fans are what turned the company into what it is. Regardless of whatever fancy CEOs and Board of Directors is in change of any company, if the customers are not satisfied, then said company needs to either satisfy them or they deserve to be run out of business for not listing to their consumer base. Again, we drive their business. We pay them for a service and if that service sucks then why should we pay them a dime?
There is nothing wrong with making a profit. However, where ethics comes in is how someone or someones makes said profit. It is also where the laws of the Wall Street jungle come in. Pay good attention to a number of major brand names that have just faded away in the business world. And a number of them that may yet die off soonish. I just read about a month ago in a business article how Sony Pictures may fold before 2012 is up. Point being is that even Hollywood Studios are not invincible.
It is not being negative to point out a company's flaws, especially if you are a fan of said company and expect/ want it to do better. Disney has over the decade created a certain brand name based on high quality ingredients. But, you can't just live up to that standard for a while and they stop and expect everyone to still buy your stuff becuase you were so awesome a decade ago. If you are a company, especially one as major as Disney, you have to keep being on your toes at all times. Disney needs to listen to their fans, and they suck at that. Even they can't keep doing that forever before it comes back to hurt them.
____________________________________________________________
All the adversity I've had in my life, all my troubles and obstacles, have strengthened me... You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you.
-Walt Disney
All the adversity I've had in my life, all my troubles and obstacles, have strengthened me... You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you.
-Walt Disney
Okay, I'm sorry. You made you're point.milojthatch wrote:Supportive of what? Whatever they put out every time, even if its crap? You know what? Not just talking about Disney here, but that does seem like the big business plain these days, huh? "You the customer will buy whatever we the corporation tell you to buy becuase we made it." You know what? That mentality is never, never worth being supportive of.TsWade2 wrote:Man, you people are so negative. They're not trying to greedy. They're trying to create a story for their movies to get profit. And obviously, you people are not very supportive. SNAP!
Customers made Disney and every other big business out there, despite the fact that they seem to have forgot that little detail. If film audiences didn't fall in love with Mickey Mouse and Snow White back in the day, there would be no Disney. The fans are what turned the company into what it is. Regardless of whatever fancy CEOs and Board of Directors is in change of any company, if the customers are not satisfied, then said company needs to either satisfy them or they deserve to be run out of business for not listing to their consumer base. Again, we drive their business. We pay them for a service and if that service sucks then why should we pay them a dime?
There is nothing wrong with making a profit. However, where ethics comes in is how someone or someones makes said profit. It is also where the laws of the Wall Street jungle come in. Pay good attention to a number of major brand names that have just faded away in the business world. And a number of them that may yet die off soonish. I just read about a month ago in a business article how Sony Pictures may fold before 2012 is up. Point being is that even Hollywood Studios are not invincible.
It is not being negative to point out a company's flaws, especially if you are a fan of said company and expect/ want it to do better. Disney has over the decade created a certain brand name based on high quality ingredients. But, you can't just live up to that standard for a while and they stop and expect everyone to still buy your stuff becuase you were so awesome a decade ago. If you are a company, especially one as major as Disney, you have to keep being on your toes at all times. Disney needs to listen to their fans, and they suck at that. Even they can't keep doing that forever before it comes back to hurt them.
Last edited by TsWade2 on Mon Aug 29, 2011 7:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Sotiris
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 19913
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:06 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Fantasyland
Where the Mouse Lives
http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... lives.html
http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... lives.html
Steve Hulett wrote:Ron and John have made several pitches. I keep seeing people here mention Rumpelstiltskin, but I haven't seen any artwork, so I have no idea. (Maybe I haven't been looking. Maybe I'm thick. Probably both.)
I have seen artwork for another picture they're developing that hasn't been greenlit for production, nor announced, so I ain't going to talk about it here.
- Disney's Divinity
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 15773
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:26 am
- Gender: Male
- disneyprincess11
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4363
- Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:46 am
- Location: Maryland, USA
Turns out "Rumpelstiltskin" MIGHT be the movie!
FROM ONE OF THE COMMENTS: (http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... lives.html)
FROM ONE OF THE COMMENTS: (http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... lives.html)
The movie Steve is probably referring to is Ron & John's next one, "Rumpelstiltskin." The artwork on the 3rd floor is, frankly, mindblowing. Disney is back, in a big way.
Saw some tests Eric Goldberg did earlier this week. Holy crap.
Announced this week that Roy Conli ("Tangled") will be the producer. This one's shaping up good.
- Sotiris
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 19913
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:06 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Fantasyland
I don't think so. I believe that those are just trolls. You can tell because they said that Eric Goldberg is doing animation tests when in fact the movie is still at its pitching/storyboard phase. Besides, Steve Hulett debunked that rumour saying that he has seen artwork from their film and it's not Rumpelstiltskin.disneyprincess11 wrote:Turns out "Rumpelstiltskin" MIGHT be the movie!
I don't think Disney would go for a Rumpelstiltskin movie when DreamWorks recently featured him as the main character in "Shrek: Forever After" (and especially since that film failed to meet industry expectations at the box office).
- Dr Frankenollie
- In The Vaults
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am
That makes me sad; the quote disneyprincess11 showed got my hopes up, especially due to the description of 'mind blowing'. Stupid trolls.Sotiris wrote:I don't think so. I believe that those are just trolls. You can tell because they said that Eric Goldberg is doing animation tests when in fact the movie is still at its pitching/storyboard phase. Besides, Steve Hulett debunked that rumour saying that he has seen artwork from their film and it's not Rumpelstiltskin.disneyprincess11 wrote:Turns out "Rumpelstiltskin" MIGHT be the movie!
Why would you do that?Alcazam wrote:I know your compliment wasn't directed at me, but I'm just going to ignore that and say thanks anywayTsWade2 wrote:By the way, I love your avatar picture.