DVDizzy.com

Home | Reviews | Schedule | Cover Art | Search The Site
DVDizzy.com Top Stories:

It is currently Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:06 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2807 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 141  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:50 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:26 pm
Posts: 9228
Location: North Carolina Gender: Male
Heartless wrote:
The medium, at this point, is not the highest priority.
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.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:54 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:46 am
Posts: 3520
Location: Maryland, USA
Heartless wrote:
All I care about is for Disney to continue a streak of good films. The medium, at this point, is not the highest priority. A good story is what really counts right now.


^^This


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 11:03 pm 
Offline
Special Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 5:56 pm
Posts: 296
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.

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.

_________________
Image
"Good and bad are labels created by people. Nature doesn't have such concepts."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 12:31 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:53 pm
Posts: 3328
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).


Ugh! That only proves that Disney is run by the same bunch of people like everyone else; selfish, greedy, corrupted assholes! :(


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 8:09 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:27 pm
Posts: 2387
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.

_________________
"If your life had a face, I would punch it." - Kim Pine, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:25 am 
Offline
Gold Collection
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2003 7:36 pm
Posts: 52
Location: Norway
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?

_________________
Wisedom comes suddenly


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 8:24 pm 
Offline
Limited Edition

Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:07 pm
Posts: 1812
You guys cut Disney some slack! They doing the best they can. And The Princess & the Frog is not a flop, it just become a popular following.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 9:40 pm 
Offline
Special Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 5:56 pm
Posts: 296
Alcazam wrote:
So basically the best way to make money is to make bad decisions?

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:
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.

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.

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:
When did the idea that quality will work against profit surface?

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.

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.

_________________
Image
"Good and bad are labels created by people. Nature doesn't have such concepts."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 9:23 am 
Offline
Gold Collection
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2003 7:36 pm
Posts: 52
Location: Norway
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.


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.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 3:33 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:53 pm
Posts: 3328
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.


And it sucks! Heck, I wouldn't bee too surprised if the head honcho in charge of it all was THIS GUY:

<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! :(


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 3:59 pm 
Offline
Limited Edition

Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:00 pm
Posts: 1088
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.


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.


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.

DisneyJedi wrote:
Don't tell me it doesn't describe Disney's management, because it actually does


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.

_________________
We're not going to Guam, are we?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 12:28 am 
Offline
Limited Edition

Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:07 pm
Posts: 1812
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! :x


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:20 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 4:34 am
Posts: 2632
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! :x


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.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 3:18 pm 
Offline
Limited Edition

Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:07 pm
Posts: 1812
milojthatch wrote:
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! :x


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.

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.
Okay, I'm sorry. You made you're point.


Last edited by TsWade2 on Mon Aug 29, 2011 9:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 6:22 am 
Offline
Gold Collection
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2003 7:36 pm
Posts: 52
Location: Norway
TsWade2 wrote:
By the way, I love your avatar picture.


I know your compliment wasn't directed at me, but I'm just going to ignore that and say thanks anyway

_________________
Wisedom comes suddenly


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 3:29 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 10163
Where the Mouse Lives
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.

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 1:31 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:26 pm
Posts: 9228
Location: North Carolina Gender: Male
I'd love to see Disney finally get around to Rumpilstiltskin with M&C involved (and 2D). It does sound like a good fit for them.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 1:51 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:46 am
Posts: 3520
Location: Maryland, USA
Turns out "Rumpelstiltskin" MIGHT be the movie!

FROM ONE OF THE COMMENTS: (http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... lives.html)

Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 2:12 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 10163
disneyprincess11 wrote:
Turns out "Rumpelstiltskin" MIGHT be the movie!


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.

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).

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 4:14 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 6:19 am
Posts: 2735
Sotiris wrote:
disneyprincess11 wrote:
Turns out "Rumpelstiltskin" MIGHT be the movie!


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.


:( That makes me sad; the quote disneyprincess11 showed got my hopes up, especially due to the description of 'mind blowing'. Stupid trolls.

Alcazam wrote:
TsWade2 wrote:
By the way, I love your avatar picture.
I know your compliment wasn't directed at me, but I'm just going to ignore that and say thanks anyway


Why would you do that? :?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2807 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 141  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 21 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group