Mouse to cut back on pix, personnel
Disney set to slash output, staff
By MICHAEL SPEIER
Even as it basks in the box office glory of "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest," Disney is using the opportunity to tighten its belt.
The Mouse House will announce within the next 10 days that it's cutting back on the number of films it makes to around eight per year -- it currently releases around 18 -- and will substantially reduce its workforce. All movies will be Disney-branded, meaning companies like Touchstone could be vastly diminished.
The cutbacks will be far greater than many anticipated, as Walt Disney Studios chairman Dick Cook looks to reinvent the architecture of his studio. Move reflects an effort to improve the studio's return on investment and get infrastructure back into line.
While Disney's having a grand summer with "Pirates" and with Pixar's "Cars," this year has seen some major misfires: "Stick It," "Annapolis," "Stay Alive" and especially "The Wild."
So while the general population wonders how a studio can claim "money problems" after a record-breaking opening -- "Pirates" took in a whopping $135 million in its first weekend, and business is brisk even midweek as it heads into another huge weekend -- the move re-emphasizes the fact that studios are looking to cut costs amid increasing overhead, production budgets and marketing bills.
Disney to cut back on films produced
- crunkcourt
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 388
- Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:48 pm
- Location: Neverland
Disney to cut back on films produced
Hey guys, I just read the following article on Variety.com:
- singerguy04
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2591
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:40 pm
- Location: The Land of Lincoln
- AwallaceUNC
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 9439
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 1:00 am
- Contact:
Hmm... we've known for a while that Disney wanted to cut back their budget for producing movies, but this is surprising. They're going to make 8 Disney movies a year and completely abandon Touchstone, Miramax, and the recently-revived Hollywood? I guess if you're going to only make 8 movies (does this include animation, I wonder?), it makes sense to make them Disney (usually the most profitable), but Touchstone and Miramax are very strong brands so I must say that this surprises me.
-Aaron
It's on the front page of Variety.com, a pretty reliable source.singerguy04 wrote:I'm not sure how i feel about this... can we trust the original source?
-Aaron
• Author of Hocus Pocus in Focus: The Thinking Fan's Guide to Disney's Halloween Classic
and The Thinking Fan's Guide to Walt Disney World: Magic Kingdom (Epcot coming soon)
• Host of Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Pod, the longest-running Disney podcast
• Entertainment Writer & Moderator at DVDizzy.com
• Twitter - @aaronspod
and The Thinking Fan's Guide to Walt Disney World: Magic Kingdom (Epcot coming soon)
• Host of Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Pod, the longest-running Disney podcast
• Entertainment Writer & Moderator at DVDizzy.com
• Twitter - @aaronspod
- Sulley
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 453
- Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 8:41 pm
- Location: Mt. Wannahawkaloogie
Disney-brand only? What does that mean for the more adult films from Miramax, Touchstone, etc.? Will those films just have to go to a different studio? Surely Disney won't distribute films inappropriate for younger crowds under the Disney banner.
What would this wretched world be like without Disney?
- AwallaceUNC
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 9439
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 1:00 am
- Contact:
I imagine that, unless there's something missing from this picture, this means that there simply won't be any adult-targeted films from Buena Vista (or at least not many, since it sounds like there may still be room for a very occasional Touchstone outing). That would essentially mean Miramax, Touchstone, and Hollywood would go to the release-less backburner.Sulley wrote:Disney-brand only? What does that mean for the more adult films from Miramax, Touchstone, etc.? Will those films just have to go to a different studio? Surely Disney won't distribute films inappropriate for younger crowds under the Disney banner.
As for Disney distributing inappropriate films under their name, no, that's not going to happen. However, it's possible if not likely that <i>Pirates</i> has justified a PG-13 Disney feature to Disney execs and that could figure heavily into this decision. That said, Disney isn't going to release anything with the F word (or anything above PG profanity, for that matter), nudity, or more than the mildest innuendo in their films.
It sounds like Disney is simply going to focus on family films going forward, though. As I said before, this is surprising, but maybe it shouldn't be. The family films are by far their biggest cash cows. Miramax, Touchstone, and Hollywood have all had major hits in the past, but have had no such luck in recent years (<i>Sin City</i> is the only exception that immediately comes to mind). Their imported distribution of animated films like <i>The Wild</i> haven't done so well either. By axing all of that, they help to unsaturate the already strained theater market and eliminate the sting of box office disappointments. Now, Disney is still profiting from a lot of these movies, so it might seem like it shouldn't matter, but then we'd need to sit in on their number-crunching sessions. It may very well be that it could be more profitable for them to concentrate solely on their biggest area of success. After all, they don't need new releases to support the DVD market... they've got a whole catalog of titles waiting for corny-named Edition reissues.
-Aaron
• Author of Hocus Pocus in Focus: The Thinking Fan's Guide to Disney's Halloween Classic
and The Thinking Fan's Guide to Walt Disney World: Magic Kingdom (Epcot coming soon)
• Host of Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Pod, the longest-running Disney podcast
• Entertainment Writer & Moderator at DVDizzy.com
• Twitter - @aaronspod
and The Thinking Fan's Guide to Walt Disney World: Magic Kingdom (Epcot coming soon)
• Host of Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Pod, the longest-running Disney podcast
• Entertainment Writer & Moderator at DVDizzy.com
• Twitter - @aaronspod
- AwallaceUNC
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 9439
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 1:00 am
- Contact:
I bet California hospitals are swamped today, think of all the heart attacks this news must have triggered: Tarantino, Bruckheimer, Midler, Allen...
-Aaron
-Aaron
• Author of Hocus Pocus in Focus: The Thinking Fan's Guide to Disney's Halloween Classic
and The Thinking Fan's Guide to Walt Disney World: Magic Kingdom (Epcot coming soon)
• Host of Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Pod, the longest-running Disney podcast
• Entertainment Writer & Moderator at DVDizzy.com
• Twitter - @aaronspod
and The Thinking Fan's Guide to Walt Disney World: Magic Kingdom (Epcot coming soon)
• Host of Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Pod, the longest-running Disney podcast
• Entertainment Writer & Moderator at DVDizzy.com
• Twitter - @aaronspod
-
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 8:57 am
- Location: Grand Rapids, MI
I agree. I've said it before that what nearly killed Walt Disney Pictures (especially for their animation division) was an overkill of features churned out every year. With only eight per year (assumingly one feature animation film, one Pixar film, and six live-action films), Disney can spend more time on the quality of each film. Think of it this way. With less films in production, that means Disney can invest more money into each one, whereas most of their films at the present (and in the past few years) have had tight budgets because the money was being spread too thin. I see this as only an upgrade, not a downgrade.roswellian wrote:wow, eight a year really sort of leaves me breathless. However that does mean the average of quality will go up for each film.
-
- Member
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:53 pm
- Location: West Coast, USA
I like this news! Just think of the positive vs. the negative!
Positive:
- Bigger budgets for the movies that are released, because Disney won't be releasing as many films.
- More family friendly films, which I must admit, I enjoy more than the "adult/teenage" targeted movies.
- With such a drastic change, maybe the new CEO won't be afraid to release Song of the South!!! (OK, wishful thinking, but it could happen!)
Negative:
- Less of the 'corny' movies.
I think it's safe to say the negative out weighs the positive, at least in my own personal opinion.
Positive:
- Bigger budgets for the movies that are released, because Disney won't be releasing as many films.
- More family friendly films, which I must admit, I enjoy more than the "adult/teenage" targeted movies.
- With such a drastic change, maybe the new CEO won't be afraid to release Song of the South!!! (OK, wishful thinking, but it could happen!)
Negative:
- Less of the 'corny' movies.
I think it's safe to say the negative out weighs the positive, at least in my own personal opinion.
If there's anything good that happens in life, it's from Jesus.
-
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3675
- Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 4:45 pm
Well, I don't really think this is good for Disney. Most of Touchstone's films don't really cost a lot, they're sometimes quite good, and sometimes end up being successful.
While I'm generally fine if they progressly released less films every year, 18 to 8 is just too big of a gap and think it's rather unnecessary.
And films they mentioned: "Stick It," "Annapolis," "Stay Alive", were pretty cheap in terms of budget, and they really weren't expected to be big hits, so they weren't big losses for Disney as Variety made it out to be. Also, why do people keep bringing in The Wild into discussion of Disney. It was distributed by Disney, not made by them. You know, when they distribute successful films(i.e. Toy Story, Finding Nemo etc.) Disney is made to look evil because they haven't bought Pixar or strengthen their relationship(of course, this is before they got bought), and when they distribute a flop, Disney get looks like bad guys with the insiders, and don't even mention that it WASN'T MADE BY THEM. It's almost as if entertainment insiders WANT Disney to look bad.
So how do I feel overall, well, thinking Pixar has something to do with this(they've talked about doing this before, so someone correct me if this wasn't Pixar's idea), I think they're thinking about releasing less films because the company releases much more today than they did "back to the days when Walt was alive", and Pixar says they want to run the company like they did when Walt was alive. While I could see their intentions, I just hope Lasseter knows that you simply can't have a company work like Walt ran it in those days, and hope for it to be very successful.
With the exception of bringing back 2D animated shorts in theaters, I've yet to hear a good idea from Pixar when they merged with Disney, this being another idea which wasn't really good.
While I'm generally fine if they progressly released less films every year, 18 to 8 is just too big of a gap and think it's rather unnecessary.
And films they mentioned: "Stick It," "Annapolis," "Stay Alive", were pretty cheap in terms of budget, and they really weren't expected to be big hits, so they weren't big losses for Disney as Variety made it out to be. Also, why do people keep bringing in The Wild into discussion of Disney. It was distributed by Disney, not made by them. You know, when they distribute successful films(i.e. Toy Story, Finding Nemo etc.) Disney is made to look evil because they haven't bought Pixar or strengthen their relationship(of course, this is before they got bought), and when they distribute a flop, Disney get looks like bad guys with the insiders, and don't even mention that it WASN'T MADE BY THEM. It's almost as if entertainment insiders WANT Disney to look bad.

So how do I feel overall, well, thinking Pixar has something to do with this(they've talked about doing this before, so someone correct me if this wasn't Pixar's idea), I think they're thinking about releasing less films because the company releases much more today than they did "back to the days when Walt was alive", and Pixar says they want to run the company like they did when Walt was alive. While I could see their intentions, I just hope Lasseter knows that you simply can't have a company work like Walt ran it in those days, and hope for it to be very successful.
With the exception of bringing back 2D animated shorts in theaters, I've yet to hear a good idea from Pixar when they merged with Disney, this being another idea which wasn't really good.
It is good to get rid of the touchstone label, Nightmare Before Christmas and Roger Rabbit being released under Touchstone was stupid, they should have been Disney releases. Most Touchstone releases I could care less about.
It is bad however for all the people getting laid off, I wish them the best of luck.
It is bad however for all the people getting laid off, I wish them the best of luck.
Wlecome, foolish mortals, to the Haunted Mansion.
I am your host, your ghost host
Is this haunted room actally stretching or is it just your imagination?
Beware of Hitchiking Ghosts
-The Haunted Mansion(DL and MK)
I am your host, your ghost host
Is this haunted room actally stretching or is it just your imagination?
Beware of Hitchiking Ghosts
-The Haunted Mansion(DL and MK)
-
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 1:50 pm
- Location: Norway
Those were either Dimension (the "genre" division of Miramax) or Miramax themselves, and they all did quite well. And <i>Sin City 2</i> is on the way, which will be a co-production between Miramax/Dimension and The Weinstein Company. But anyway, yes, the non-"Disney" branches of Disney have had hits in the past - among them, <i>The Sixth Sense</i>, <i>Pulp Fiction</i>, <i>Signs</i>, <i>Good Will Hunting</i>, <i>The Waterboy</i>, <i>Three Men and a Baby</i>, <i>Sister Act</i>, <i>Who Framed Roger Rabbit</i>, <i>Bringing Down the House</i>, <i>Ransom</i>, <i>Sweet Home Alabama</i>, <i>Armageddon</i> and other Bruckheimer films.Andy wrote:Call me stupid, but arent movies like Scary Movie, Kill Bill and Sin City all under Touchstone/Miramax? Wernt they pretty big at the box office?
I'm not sure how to read the article. On the one hand, it seems to definitively state that there will be just 8 films a year and all of them Disney-branded. At the same time, it merely says that Touchstone and other branches "could be vastly diminished", not that they would be closed. And I agree with what others have already pointed out - films like <i>Annapolis</i>, <i>Stick It</i>, and <i>Stay Alive</i> were not big investments. They were relatively cheap films with non-A-list actors and I assume they'll all break even eventually if they haven't already. If you look at the biggest hits in recent Disney history, they tend to be Pixar films, Bruckheimer films, and franchise films. And if somehow they're not, they eventually <i>do</i> fall into the last class when they are sequalized. I don't think that <i>Pirates</i> grossing $135 M in 72 hours should mean that smaller films just cease to exist. Nor do I think Disney has to explain why a film like <i>Stick It</i> didn't gross more than $27 million.
I think some form of variety is a good thing, and there have been plenty of fine films to come from Disney's other branches over the years. Touchstone and Miramax are going through an uneven and largely unremarkable time right now, at the very moment that recent hits (from <i>Finding Nemo</i> and <i>Curse of the Black Pearl</i> to <i>The Incredibles</i> and <i>National Treasure</i> to <i>Narnia</i> and <i>Dead Man's Chest</i>) happen to all be coming under the Disney banner. More Disney-branded films is a good thing (though 8 a year sounds like what they've already been doing lately), but not everything should be a big-budget $200M-or-bust work.
- disneyfella
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1264
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 1:49 pm
- Location: Small-Town America
- Contact:
I completely agree, Luke. My thought is, will Disney really be like, "Okay we have this finished film, but we've already released our 8 for the year so we'll save this one for next year..."
Seriously, though. I'm sure this was just a comment from someone explaing the more conservative approach from the Disney Studios in the years to come. 8 is probably not a magic number set in stone.
I for one am excited to hear this news. While the diverting comedies of Touchstone and Miramax are fun, they become lost and forgettable in a week.
However, I agree that a company today cannot just make a few films the way Walt used to. I like that the company is heading in the direction of Walt's era, but it should not replicate it in todays saturated market (and I"m not sure they are trying to....just head in that direction you know?).
The true test will be when we see the output from the studio in the next few years. I applaud the move though.
Seriously, though. I'm sure this was just a comment from someone explaing the more conservative approach from the Disney Studios in the years to come. 8 is probably not a magic number set in stone.
I for one am excited to hear this news. While the diverting comedies of Touchstone and Miramax are fun, they become lost and forgettable in a week.
However, I agree that a company today cannot just make a few films the way Walt used to. I like that the company is heading in the direction of Walt's era, but it should not replicate it in todays saturated market (and I"m not sure they are trying to....just head in that direction you know?).
The true test will be when we see the output from the studio in the next few years. I applaud the move though.
"It's Kind Of Fun To Do The Impossible"
- Walt Disney

- Walt Disney

I like this idea. I agree with the others that have said more efforts will be made for these films. I think Disney was stretching themselves too thin. I also think the adult-targeted films should go. I never liked Disney releasing them. I don't think Walt would have appreciated targeting adults. His goal was to target kids age 1 to 99. Or, should I say 101 (as in Dalmatians?
) But really, I think this is a good thing.

"Prove yourself brave, truthful, and unselfish, and someday you will be a real boy."
- disneyfella
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1264
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 1:49 pm
- Location: Small-Town America
- Contact:
I think the original intention for the "adult" branch of the Disney movie distributor was lost. In the beginning, Touchstone wasn't making movies that specifically targeted an adult audience. They were making movies...and in the end if they happened to conflict with the Disney image, then they would distribute it through Touchstone. Splash was the first film released through Touchstone. Originally it was to be released through Walt Disney Pictures. Very early on, though, they realized that this story had material that may not be suitable for everyone (NOTE: this did not mean that they were making a movie for adults, but that some families or kids might be offended).
Very soon, however, the company quickly began making movies for adults and not just making "good" movies that might mar Disney's wholesome image. It is a well known fact now, that the majority of people KNOW that Disney is the studio behind the Touchstone pictures films and the Miramax films.....I wonder if now the public is not naive enough to take the Disney name in front of a PG-13 movie and not see it BECAUSE they think it will be fluffy and full of songs...I doubt it.
Very soon, however, the company quickly began making movies for adults and not just making "good" movies that might mar Disney's wholesome image. It is a well known fact now, that the majority of people KNOW that Disney is the studio behind the Touchstone pictures films and the Miramax films.....I wonder if now the public is not naive enough to take the Disney name in front of a PG-13 movie and not see it BECAUSE they think it will be fluffy and full of songs...I doubt it.

"It's Kind Of Fun To Do The Impossible"
- Walt Disney

- Walt Disney

- crunkcourt
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 388
- Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:48 pm
- Location: Neverland
Yesterday Disney fired 325 staff members including Karen Glass. No one was cut from Walt Disney Feature Animation, Pixar Animation Studios, Miramax Films, Buena Vista Music Group and Buena Vista Theatrical Prods. Here's the full article from Hollywoodreporter.com:
Disney Studios cuts 325 staffers
By Sheigh Crabtree and Borys Kit
Walt Disney Studios pink-slipped about 325 employees Tuesday.
The cuts represent 20% of the Disney work force. Disney alerted staff of pending cuts last week (HR 7/18).
Among the top production execs to leave Disney is Karen Glass, executive vp development and production, Buena Vista Motion Pictures Group. Glass had overseen the studio's remakes "The Shaggy Dog" and "Herbie Fully Loaded."
Employees in Walt Disney Feature Animation, Pixar Animation Studios, Miramax Films, Buena Vista Music Group and Buena Vista Theatrical Prods. were not affected by the layoffs.
The cuts were made discreetly, the affected employees said.
Walt Disney Studios chairman Dick Cook said last week that the studio would downsize its film output to 12-13 pictures per year, with an emphasis on Disney-branded movies.
-
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:34 am
- Location: The Netherlands
Jim Hill has an interesting article on it
http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/ ... /4349.aspx
It would be great is this is indeed in an effort to make 8-10 high quality Disney films instead of 16 lame ones and two great ones.
http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/ ... /4349.aspx
It would be great is this is indeed in an effort to make 8-10 high quality Disney films instead of 16 lame ones and two great ones.