DVDizzy Forum

The latest from Eisner & Co... Disney plans to invest less in the movie-making branch of Walt Disney Company, and especially move away from live-action films. They wish to focus more on new ideas, including Disney-brand film adaptations (a la POTC), an increased focus on future technology, and new small-scale, weekend-type amusement parks. Eisner remains "pretty sure," though, that Disney will continue to actually make their own films, rather than just distribute other people's.

Read the entire article here: http://au.news.yahoo.com/040625/11/pmxr.html

Let me just voice a resounding "WTF" to this, and add to that a few emoticons:

Get him gone now.

-Aaron

Well, it's hardly a surprise is it when people gloat over how big a bomb The Alamo and Around the World in 80 Days are...

Actually I don't think this is a bad thing as such. Movie budgets are way over the top these days ($120-$140m to actually make Van Helsing, and then another $20-35m on promoting it). Big money movies do not mean big box office success. A company can be just as successful making a number of medium sized movies, or co-produced movies as they can making a lesser number of high budget films. Especially if the high budget films flop. Around the World in 80 Days was budgeted at $110m or so wasn't it?

In this day of multi-media, it's hard, very hard for a mid-level film to loose money after overseas sales, home video and tv sales are calculated into the picture. So making a series of mid-level films means all will turn a profit. If one makes it big, it will make a sensational profit.

Miracle cost $16m to make I think I read somewhere. It's made over $64m at the box office (a 200% profit) plus add on to that home video, pay-per-view and network TV sales. How much of that profit is going to be lost due to The Alamo or Around the World in 80 Days?

How much profit to you actually think Van Helsing will eventually make for Universal? It won't be a 200% profit from the theatrical release alone, I can tell you that now.

If he is simply talking about making more mid-budget films, then I actually approve 100% his statement. I think this is what the article is basically saying. More selective on the "big" movies they make, and a higher focus on the mid-level pictures.

I wish more of the other "big" studios would actually scale back on the production budgets, and hopefully as a result make smaller, but more involving films. The way things are at the moment, Hollywood is on a one way track to self-destruction in a few years time.

But I agree, focusing on Disney branded film adaptations is totally lame. I read this as more films like "The Lizzie McGuire Movie", which fits the lower production cost and Disney brand specifications.

I am with netty. Don't see this as a big problem. Especially with Around the World in 80 Days challenging Cutthroat Island as the biggest money loser of all time.

I would love to see Disney invest far less in movies and far more in its parks, especially in Orlando.

Just my $.02.

My biggest beef isn't with scaling back on film budgets, it's the rest of the stuff: scaling back on live-action films, the use of "pretty sure" being attached to Disney's film history, and perhaps the biggest travesty of all: the development of weekend amusement parks. Carnivals are beneath Disney.

-Aaron

awallaceunc wrote:...and perhaps the biggest travesty of all: the development of weekend amusement parks. Carnivals are beneath Disney.

-Aaron

Well, again that depends. Wouldn't it be good if Disney had a few travelling parks, so more people could actually experience Disney for themselves?

I must admit, I didn't think of this when I read the news, but again it sounds like it may be a good idea. I thought it meant building permament smaller fixed parks, which would be closed weekdays. Which, of course, would be a bad idea.

Spend more money on Disneyland especially Tomorrowland.

awallaceunc wrote:My biggest beef isn't with scaling back on film budgets, it's the rest of the stuff: scaling back on live-action films, the use of "pretty sure" being attached to Disney's film history, and perhaps the biggest travesty of all: the development of weekend amusement parks. Carnivals are beneath Disney.

-Aaron

Pessimistic Kram Nebuer says: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!? Carnivals and weekend amusement parks? That's sounds scary! You have it right MMPal and SOM, invest in the big parks they have now. Fix them before creating new ones! Well mostly Disneyland needs the most help. And what about those plans for the Villain's Park in WDW? Why not build that!?

Optimistic Kram Nebuer says: I hope this means more Disney Quests would be springing up around the country . There was supposed to be one in Philly, which is only 20 minutes away from me! But plans got cancelled. Is the one in Chicago still up and running?

Kram Nebuer just plainly says: Poor Disney. Why are they cutting back on what they started their business with? Well sort of. Anyhow, Walt Disney hated carnivalish amusement parks, which is the reason why he built Disneyland. He did have that circus carnival thing in Disneyland once and it was a failure (Wait, was Walt still alive when this happened? I recall reading he would never put a Ferris Wheel in Disneyland and there was one during the Circus Fantasy event). Anyhow, I hope that these weekend parks don't happen b/c I can't imagine a Disney traveling carnival run by high-looking young adults, no offense to anyone in the business. But also a Disney Six Flags-type park would be interesting w/ a lot of outdoor rides and midway games and roller coasters! OoOo, I hope this is what Eisner means ! Okay getting carried away. I"m going to stop typing now.

Okay I lied...2099net has a point. It would be better for a traveling amusement park for those who cannot fly to Anaheim, Orlando, Paris, Tokyo, or Hong Kong. Like imagine giant trucks with Mickey on the side greeting the children of Africa? That'd be fun!

awallaceunc wrote:My biggest beef isn't with scaling back on film budgets, it's the rest of the stuff: scaling back on live-action films, the use of "pretty sure" being attached to Disney's film history, and perhaps the biggest travesty of all: the development of weekend amusement parks. Carnivals are beneath Disney.

-Aaron

Carnavals are beneath Disney? I dont think so perhaps you should visit California Adventure which is essentially a carnaval

Like imagine giant trucks with Mickey on the side greeting the children of Africa? That'd be fun!

You know what else would be fun - if they had enough food to eat and if a huge proportion of the population did not have aids. I got news for you - the great majority of Africa could not afford a one day admission even if they saved for a year.[/quote]

Netty pretty much summed up my feelings on the matter. There was no need for something like ATWI80D to cost upwards of $100 Mill.

However, I must say, if they had staked a May release date for it, it would've done better. Releasing it amidst Shrek 2, Harry Potter, and Garfield was a bad move. I think it could've scored at least $60 Mill. with a better release date. Same goes for The Alamo, Home on the Range, and The Ladykillers.

Wow...I didn't even realize that Around the World in 80 Days was out yet. I agree that the 'weekend amusement park' idea is not good, not good at all. Spend the money on the theme parks that exist currently. I can sort of see the thinking in making these weekend park things, but it sort of will take the magic away from WDW and DL.

The biggest losing movie ever actually changed hands last year - Pluto Nash took a 96M hit, so it looks like Around the World in 80 Days which currently stands at 99M will not get the record. I would imagine its good for another 3 million.

I hope Eisner can also concentrate on making better DVDs of the old films, and let Song of the South and So Dear To My Heart see the light of day!

disneychris04 Wrote

I hope Eisner can also concentrate on making better DVDs of the old films, and let Song of the South and So Dear To My Heart see the light of day!

I agree when will Song of the South and So Dear To My Heart ever going to be on DVD. Come on people let's get them ASAP!!!
I seen So Dear To My Hear very, very sweet film but I have never seen Song of the South when will it be release on DVD or at least showed on television.

Heck, I could've told them that Around the World would tank, especially with Jackie Chan in its cast. Expect another bomb with that documentary coming out later this summer. (Or did it already come and go?)

They should focus on producing one extravagant feature animation film every two years. This, in turn, would inspire merchandise, park attractions, etc. The most recent stream of feature animation was (1) too frequent and (2) too squeezed for cash to produce a truly top-notch feature. They should re-invest in theatrical animated shorts, thereby revitalizing their core brand of characters (Mickey, etc.). Personally, I'd love to see Disney produce three to four high-quality, theatrical animated shorts per year. They will not make their money back at the box office, but they should make their money back as a bi-annual DVD (I think a lot of people would pay $15 for the latest seven or eight Disney shorts) and as new programming for the Sunday show on Disney. Plus I think it'd do a lot to connect the current Disney image with the image of Disney in its golden age. I believe the only other feature animation studio to regular produce animated shorts at the moment is Pixar. It'd be a class move.

Mainly for that last reason, I expect Eisner never to try it.

Eisner must be STOPPED! Everything he does is runs Disney further into the ground! First he stops production on 2D films, now he turns away from major feature films, especially Live Action films, which are always in demand, and starts to focus on Disney-Branded movies! That is totally ludicrous! Every other major studio has had at least one or more major blockbusters this year, and Disney has not even had one! The other studio's just know how to make good films. I wonder why? Oh yeah, they don't have the idiot that is Eisner running their studio! Plain and simple, he needs to GO! When will the board wake up and see the facts!

Joshua Clinard wrote:Eisner must be STOPPED!

Bush/Cheney must be stopped...

It looks like, once again, every one is overracting to this news, which based on the initial report, seems to be based on a few odd sentances made in a speech by Eisner.

No official, in depth comment has (as far as I can see) been made.

Logically, looking at Disney's (the Disney brand that is alone) live action films for the past few years, very few of the live action films have been high-budget - I can only really think of PotC. Can anyone else think of any? So cutting back on 'big' Disney live-action films and being more selective over choosing which to lavish a big budget on isn't really going to have much of an effect at all is it?

So, most likely Eisner was talking about Touchstone and Hollywood Pictures movies, and not Walt Disney movies. Looking at the Touchstone movies from the past five years, it's clear that the most expensive films have not necessarily been providing the highest returns: The Alamo, Pearl Harbor, or Reign of Fire. I don't think King Arthur looks set to burn up Box Office receipts either.

Then look at some of the Touchstone films that have performed well: Bringing Down The House, Open Range, Shanghi Noon/Knights and Sweet Home Alabama.

Of course there's exceptions - The Ladykillers, for example, didn't live up to expectations, but being a mid-budget film, damage was minimalised. It even looks set to earn a profit when international box office takings are taken into account. Not every low to mid-level movie performed well, and not every high-level movie performed badly - Signs for example did well. Based on Eisner's "more selective" comment, Signs would be a movie they would still fund and make now, based on the past success of M. Night Shyamalan's movies. But failures on mid-level films firstly don't impact on the balance sheet as much and secondly can normally turn a profit when additional revenue streams, such as home video, are included.

See Under A Tuscan Sun was labeled a flop at the box office, but considering it's $18m budget, it was a bigger success then most films as it took $48m at the US Box Office! Not every film has to be big, or set the box office on fire to be a success!

While Signs my have made a decent box office total, percentage wise (ie return for investment) Bringing Down The House did more, for half the risk (plus it was almost guarenteed to break even or post a profit due to the lower budget). Now I'm not saying Disney/Touchstone should abandon expensive, live action films, and neither is Eisner. He's just saying they need to be more selective in choosing which ones to make.

But all Eisner is saying about the movie industry is common sense. Now you people are knocking the guy for talking common sense, for something that doesn't really affect Disney branded films at all. What do you want from the guy? If only all Studios could talk such common sense.

Not every films needs expensive digital effects forced on the viewer every 30 seconds to be a good movie!

"We found there is no direct correlation between spending more and making more in terms of our returns," Chief Operating Officer Bob Iger said.

Exactly!

Figures from IMDB.COM (of course all Box Office figures are a guide only, and US only, you can't do a international box office as most countries are missing from their figures)

The Alamo ($95m budget, $22m US Box Office (to date))
Pearl Harbor ($135m budget, $198m US Box Office)
Reign of Fire ($95m budget, $43m US Box Office)
Bringing Down The House ($35m budget, $132m US Box Office)
Open Range ($26m budget, $58m US Box Office)
Shanghi Noon ($55m budget, $57m US Box Office)
Shanghi Knights ($50m budget, $60m US Box Office)
Sweet Home Alabama ($38m budget, $127 US Box Office)
The Ladykillers ($35m budget, $39m US Box Office (to date))
Under A Tuscan Sun ($18m budget, $43m US Box Office)
Signs ($72m budget, $228m US Box Office)

2099net wrote:Not every films needs expensive digital effects forced on the viewer every 30 seconds to be a good movie!

Yes, I agree. The most important things are the plot and the acting. Those are the things that make a good film. Digital effects are just for decoration, to enhance the film, to make it beautiful. But it can never replace the story and the actors.