DVDizzy Forum

So very true. It's just that I think drf's complaints is towards the Disney Channel, which for a time (basically from the Channel's inception up until like...2001/2002) would actually appeal to all ages but until recently suddenly went tween-centric.

Of course, I'd really like the Vault Disney Channel (as has always been suggested by many) but Disney seems to think that it's not worth putting up the money or paying the residuals. It's easier for them to acknowledge a general group of 1000 Disney Channel watchers than to say that there may possibly be 100 Vault Disney Channel devotees.

Yeah, my complaint is aimed just at the Disney Channel.

And for the love of God, do we really need a "Disney Channel (East Coast)" and "Disney Channel (West Coast)"? I mean, would one really want to suffer for half an hour watching a certain unnamed TV show only to have to watch it again 3-4 hours later? My grandparents' satellite has that East/West scheme with Disney (and also Nickelodeon).... With all of the channels out there now you think they'd make the equivalent of Boomerang that shows all the vintage Disney shows.

I find it really sad that the only way for anyone to actively find vintage Disney movies on TV is through non-Disney channels, and that the only way to actively acquire many of their vintage films is in inferior DVD releases, a great deal of which are in the wrong AR (for R1 at least) and a sizable amount only available as DMC exclusives.

I agree there... and I also hate the concept of Vaulting in general. I don't mind the "limited edition" RELEASES (Independence Day being one of my favorite films of all time, and it's had more DVD releases than probably any other movie I own...) but the thing with other studios is, for the most part, you can get any given movie on DVD at any given time. It might be a crappy 1-disc version or only the über-expensive collector's set, but it's out there. Disney, on the other hand, only releases a film once (and I'll leave my comments on the quality of said releases out of it) and it's never to be seen again for many years... except if you're like me and shop on eBay or Amazon Marketplace. Has anyone tried to get an unopened Beauty and the Beast? That'll cost you $50 upwards... that's just ridiculous for any 2-disc set.

drf wrote:That'll cost you $50 upwards... that's just ridiculous for any 2-disc set.

I once paid $65 for an opened two-disc DVD of Supergirl: Limited Edition. Totally worth it too.

Albert

Escapay wrote:

drf wrote:That'll cost you $50 upwards... that's just ridiculous for any 2-disc set.

I once paid $65 for an opened two-disc DVD of Supergirl: Limited Edition. Totally worth it too.

Albert

Me too Albert...........me toooooooooooooooo

Right. Well, um, I was talking more along the lines of vaulting everything left and right.

BTW, this one? http://www.blockbuster.com/catalog/movieDetails/33815 That's the thing about Blockbuster, nothing's OOP for them... they even have the Limited Issue of 101 Dalmatians... I mean seriously guys come on!

Either way, I hate how Disney puts everything in the Vault. If they think they're gonna get more people buying them, they're wrong... they'll just get more people renting and copying because it's the only option out there... I wonder if they ever plan on Vaulting movies like Pirates of the Caribbean? Or the single-disc versions of the second and third?

Right movie, but the wrong version. What Albert and I are talking about is the 2 disc Limited Edition (It was even numbered). It is currently the only place in the galaxy that has the director's cut. This Never-Before-Seen 138 minutes of Helen Slater oogling is enough to make Selena herself weak in the knees.

That Disney Fella wrote:

drf wrote:BTW, this one? http://www.blockbuster.com/catalog/movieDetails/33815

Right movie, but the wrong version. What Albert and I are talking about is the 2 disc Limited Edition (It was even numbered). It is currently the only place in the galaxy that has the director's cut.

Yeah, Fella's right.

The one Blockbuster is offering is the 2006 DVD from Warner Brothers, which only contains the International Edition (124 minutes) with the commentary from the Anchor Bay version (director Jeannot Szwarc and project consultant Scott Michael Bosco) and a trailer.

The version that Fella and I have is a limited-edition (50,000) two-disc set from Anchor Bay that features the International Edition (124 minutes), the Director's Cut (138 minutes), and a slew of vintage extras:

-Audio Commentary: director Jeannot Szwarc and project consultant Scott Michael Bosco
-The Making of Supergirl: 1984 TV Special
-Storyboard Sequences (6, all set to Jerry Goldsmith's score)
-Trailer Gallery (Teaser Trailer, US Trailer, International Trailer, UK Trailer, German Trailer)
-TV Spots Gallery (3)
-Still Galleries (Posters, Helen Slater, Color stills, B&W stsills)
-Talent Bios (4)
-16-page Booklet

That Disney Fella wrote:This Never-Before-Seen 138 minutes of Helen Slater oogling is enough to make Selena herself weak in the knees.

So true, so true.

Albert

The issue is some people here needs to see that the inviduals running Disney from the inside are managing a buisness!!! For profit!!! The are not focused on the -25-35 non married-living with their parents guy that only have money to buy three dvds in a year and only thinks about the Platinum Release of a 50 years old movie. Although I love those classics movies and I'll buy them, they are making more money with their new target.

reyquila wrote:The issue is some people here needs to see that the inviduals running Disney from the inside are managing a buisness!!! For profit!!! The are not focused on the -25-35 non married-living with their parents guy that only have money to buy three dvds in a year and only thinks about the Platinum Release of a 50 years old movie. Although I love those classics movies and I'll buy them, they are making more money with their new target.

Quilly, you're missing my point. I am perfectly aware that Disney has been, still is, and always will be a business that looks for profit. That will never change, just as it will never change that there will be fans that will buy everything no matter how good or bad it is.

Sure, the "new target" is making them more money than an "old target". But that's because they're NOT MARKETING to the old target. What they need to do if they want to keep profit in the long run is stop alienating away longtime AND prospective customers. And they're putting very little effort in holding on to longtime fans by virtually ignoring them and assuming they'll "settle" for the few slim pickings that are thrown their way (the Treasures, DMC-exclusives, etc.)

Having Disney push for apparently only one target audience (the tween group) and actively marketing that more than anything else in their is not a good business move, especially since they'll pretty much push the target audience aside once they get older.

While there are businesses that (successfully) focus on only one demographic and market to them, Disney has never been (nor should it be) one of them. I hate to pull out the "Walt card", but it's necessary because he had the right idea. Walt never pandered to kids, and he never purposely made a short/film/theme park attraction/etc. that would appeal only to kids. He knew that the best market was the multi-generational one. And the Disney company today is virtually the opposite, focusing more on one generation over another, resulting in quick profits from a younger generation that 10 years from now will be the ignored older generation.

BTW, I'm not in the 25-35 age group, and I've bought 28 Disney/Touchstone/Miramax DVDs since January 2008, so you can't possibly be talking about me.

Albert

reyquilla wrote: The are not focused on the -25-35 non married-living with their parents guy that only have money to buy three dvds in a year and only thinks about the Platinum Release of a 50 years old movie.

Are you trying to say that older fans who prefer the classic stuff fit that stereotype? Or that adults who are single are more poor than married people? If so, then you're waay wrong! What a ridiculous assumption!

I'm mid-thirties, hapilly single (by choice), and I buy about 100 DVDs/CDs a year and could afford more but I simply can't keep up with watching and listening to everything as I buy it and still enjoying old favorites at a pace any faster than that! That's because I spend about 4 weeks a year driving around the US visiting theme parks each year (also checking out the zoos, national parks, and other fun things in the areas I visit. To date I have visited exactly 49 theme parks, approx 30 zoos/aquariums, and approx 15 waterparks). In addition to that I've been spending 6 months a year in Orlando for the past 3 years and have a season pass to every park in central Florida, which I visit regularly when I'm there. So I don't watch a lot of DVDs when I'm there, either. But I obviously DO have the means to buy any DVD I am interested in when it gets released.

If I was the "married with children" type, I certainly would NOT have as much "disposible income", or free time, to focus on my hobbies so much.

Not all single adults are poor and live with their parents. I haven't lived with mine since I started college!

There are LOTS of single people with disposible income that Disney COULD be targeting by appealing more to older fans of the vintage material and collectors. Not to mention that some of the "married people who don't live with their parents" are ALSO collectors and/or fans of the "vintage" stuff and would ALSO buy the classic stuff for themselves and not just buy Hannah Montana for their kids, if Disney would just make it available.

For some reason they only seem interested in releasing things that they feel would shift a gazillion units. But just because classic films would not sell as much as the tween stuff, there is still an audience for it, and could still be profitable, if marketed and distributed properly. There is a business model that will work for more "obscure" stuff - just look at successful indie record labels!

Oh, and I agree with everything Escapay said!

I think that you can't say that Disney just markets to the 'tween crowd. Don't forget about ABC, Touchstone Television, Lifetime, Miramax, etc. Perhaps just the Disney brand name is geared toward that 'tween market, but that was always the plan when Disney started its Touchstone brand. More mature family fair made its way to Touchstone labels, Hollywood Pictures, etc.

However, there is a family unit available in the Disney product lines. Theme Parks aside, the Disney brand tries to offer something for the children that the parents can tolerate. Their goal/direction toward marketing and making money with the Disney label is ONLY pretty much a family unit. Which is where I think Reyquila's comment was trying to go.

PIXAR has been able to experience cross generational succes, but imagine if PIXAR released an R-rated film.....it might confuse an uneducated audience (the same way Disney did with releasing PG films and films with a few 4 letter words). Most people don't go into a PIXAR film expecting any less than squeaky clean.

disneyfella wrote:However, there is a family unit available in the Disney product lines. Theme Parks aside, the Disney brand tries to offer something for the children that the parents can tolerate. Their goal/direction toward marketing and making money with the Disney label is ONLY pretty much a family unit.

Which is precisely one reason why they should NOT abandon Walt's classic films! He made films that would appeal to all age groups, that parents and children could sit down and enjoy together.

On the other hand, much of the stuff they are making now (especially on the Disney channel) is "targeted" to the tween "omg that's so kewl" crowd. But Walt NEVER played his work primarily to one demographic. (see my signature)

disneyfella wrote:

I think that you can't say that Disney just markets to the 'tween crowd. Don't forget about ABC, Touchstone Television, Lifetime, Miramax, etc.

As far as Touchstone, Hollywood, Miramax, etc., even though my age group is the "target maket", the vast majority of those films don't appeal to me. (although I like Roger Rabbit and Nightmare Before Christmas and think Powder is an amazingly poignant and underrated gem with an equally brilliant score) *

I am primarily a fan of the genres of animation as well as of the type of "family-friendly but not targeted just at kids/tweens/teens" live-action films that Walt made so well.

Which is not to say that WD Pictures doesn't release films in that category - Narnia certainly qualifies. But the issue here is that there are some real gems from the Walt era that are being severely devalued and in danger of basically disapearing forever (ie every "vintage" live action film not available on DVD as well as the VAST majority of the anthology series.)

* Besides, I don't consider any of those brands "Disney", other than the fact that they all have the same corporate parent which happens to be called "Disney" (which is, of course, a different debate/discussion) But the corporate parent could also have been called "ABC" with exactly the same brands in place under the same umbrella - including Disney Parks, Disney Pictures, and Disney channel - and then no one would consider ABC and Miramax content "Disney" content. IMO having the same corporate parent does not make "brands" connected aesthetically and artistically - regardless of what name that corporate parent chooses to go by.

Which is precisely one reason why they should NOT abandon Walt's classic films! He made films that would appeal to all age groups, that parents and children could sit down and enjoy together.

On the other hand, much of the stuff they are making now (especially on the Disney channel) is "targeted" to the tween "omg that's so kewl" crowd. But Walt NEVER played his work primarily to one demographic. (see my signature)

Yeah, that's why I love movies like Toy Story. That's my all-time favorite Pixar movie, and most of my friends think I'm weird for it... until they watched it and went "I hadn't seen this since I was 5 but it's actually pretty good!" The Incredibles is another favorite of mine, but that's PG so I don't think it fits this category...

It's a shame that Disney's driving force is "GREED" now.
It used to be "PASSION".

Marky_198 wrote:It's a shame that Disney's driving force is "GREED" now.
It used to be "PASSION".

No, but it used to be a sort of balance between the two.

IMHO the "Disney" brand should be used with delicate care and precision, regardless of business. The "Tween" niche, in general I think, devalues other aspects of the brand from a long-term perspective.