DVDizzy Forum

Alamo really didn't do that bad it came in thirs in the box office, it would have come in second if not for Passion and Easter weekend and it got 3 1/2 stars out of 4 from Roger Ebert.

Ludwig Von Drake wrote:Alamo really didn't do that bad it came in thirs in the box office, it would have come in second if not for Passion and Easter weekend and it got 3 1/2 stars out of 4 from Roger Ebert.

Actually it came in fourth, behind The Passion of the Christ, Hellboy, and Johnson Family Vacation.

Anyways my whole opinion on the matter is that while Eisner's not solely responsible for hardly any movies that come out of Disney, if he's going to take credit for some of them (POTC, Nemo), then he needs to take credit for all of them.

I guess I got mixed up. Also in a company with so many division the president can't be blamed for everything.

2099net wrote:But Rebel, are you saying another company would handle the films better?

No. My point was simply that weak box office returns is not good for Disney and if Disney does not do well then that is bad for Eisner.

2099net wrote:You can't blame Eisner for the failures of these films.

I did not blame Eisner. What I was saying was that whether or not it is his fault, if the Disney company does poorly then it will be bad for Eisner. When the box office was exceptional last year, Eisner was quick to take credit and say how great Disney was doing under his leadership. Now with a low box office, his leadership will be called into question.

Stockholders want revenues to go up and not down. It would be naive for anyone to expect Disney top repeat last year's record box office, but it does not look like it will even be close. Right or wrong, Eisner will be held accountable if the stock price goes down.

Well, here's the BBC two pence on the subject:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainmen ... 621859.stm

Hey, watch it BBC, I like Showgirls!

2099net wrote:Well, here's the BBC two pence on the subject:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainmen ... 621859.stm

OUCH!

Yeah lets hope that Einser misteriously dissapears quite soon ! Down WIth Evil Eisner Up With Grand Roy !

karlsen wrote:No, you are not entirely correct here. Disney is one movie company and Touchstone is an entire other. They make diffrent movies and are not the same.

But they are bouth owned by The Walt Disney Company, thats true. But that does not make a Touchstone movie a Disney movie.

It sounds weired that your friend has problems with getting the info, I guess I am just to spoiled with the great system that we have here in Norway. But he should not blame Disney for what Touchstone is doing to him. You must remember that they are a company by them selves, and the fact that their stock is owned by someone else does not change that.

Are you sure about all this? Because I believe that Touchstone and Disney are about as close as you can get - I remember Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen was going to be Touchstone, but was changed over to Disney, and Mr. 3000, while on the Disney site, is a Touchstone release. Unlike Miramax(and Dimensions), which runs basically as their own company, Disney and Touchstone are run by the same people.

Regardless of whether Eisner is responsible for a failure, it will still be viewed by the public and shareholders as his failure. After all, he heads the company and the buck has to stop somewhere.

-Aaron

Disney stops all live action films.

Having already abandoned traditional hand drawn animation due to the failures of the films 'Atlantis: The Lost Empire', 'Treasure Planet' and 'Home on the Range', Disney has likewise announced the closedown of live action films after the poor response to 'The Alamo'.

"It's quite clear that the public is no longer interested in films made with live action actors." A company spokesman explained. "There's been a glut of live action films released to theatres lately, and the growing trend for live action direct to video films has only cheapened the medium in the eyes of the public."

While many agree with this statement, others point to the fact that Disney themselves are responsible for the declining status of live action films. Said one employee who wishes to remain anonymous, "Disney have brought this whole crisis on themselves. They even set up a whole new studio called Touchstone. That brand released nothing but live action films apart from one animated film 'The Nightmare Before Christmas'. But that was stop motion animation, so it was almost live action anyway. Well, it was photographs of real objects, so I class it as live action. Plus Disney themselves made and released a Lizzy McGuire film – to theatres as well no less. How can anyone by expected to want see further live action films after seeing that cheap monstrosity?"

Disney reports positive reactions to screen tests of their CGI Hilary Duff. "Many viewers commented it looked more realistic than the real Hilary Duff." The Disney spokesman beamed. "They particularly liked how our CGI Hilary didn't look as 'plastically' as the real Hilary, and how the computer generated lighting and shadows looked almost right, but were subtlety wrong. In addition our CGI Hilary Duff can remain sixteen for ever, and appeal to our core audience of pre-teenage girls in new and exciting films for generations to come. All this goes to show that CGI is the future of big screen entertainment, and totally justifies our decision."

Disney are expected to make minor changes to their Hilary Duff model to create a CGI Lindsay Lohann with minimal time and expense.