Is Disney Doomed?

[Eidolon]

Disney are their own worst enemies. Their absurd businesses practices of swallowing up properties and running them into the ground, along with being customer unfriendly with their approach to (not) releasing or licensing things out, aren't exactly popular.

[PhysicalMediaMaestro]

Originally Posted by Eidolon

Disney are their own worst enemies.

That's why I fear Disney is doomed. They can't come up with original ideas, so they feel obligated to gobble up other people's ideas just to stay afloat.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by PhysicalMediaMaestro

They can't come up with original ideas

I take it you're referring to Walt's penchant for making movies based on old fairy tales, right?

[PhysicalMediaMaestro]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

I take it you're referring to Walt's penchant for making movies based on old fairy tales, right?

I'm fully aware that most movies made by Walt Disney the man were based off of previously published literature. That's not what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is the difference between Disney in the 1990s and Disney now. Disney made several original screenplays starting in the 1990s, screenplays animated by Pixar. But now Pixar has become as risk-averse as most of Hollywood is now, and is now addicted to sequels for the most part.

[PhysicalMediaMaestro]

Originally Posted by EvaDK

If the topic revolved around whether Disney is creatively doomed, that may have been worth debating, pros and cons.

I guess I should have asked if Disney was creatively doomed. I fear Disney is creatively doomed. They're addicted to sequels and remakes because they are afraid to try anything new.

[MikeK84]

They’ve been “doomed” for 30+ years now in my opinion. Pretty much died off after the first “Toy Story.” Any post 1950s Disney is questionable as well.

[Jennifer Lawrence Fan]

Originally Posted by PhysicalMediaMaestro

I guess I should have asked if Disney was creatively doomed. I fear Disney is creatively doomed. They're addicted to sequels and remakes because they are afraid to try anything new.

You say that the weekend they released Elio. A brand new original movie not a sequel or remake. But whatever fits your agenda I suppose

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by PhysicalMediaMaestro

But now Pixar has become as risk-averse as most of Hollywood is now, and is now addicted to sequels for the most part.

Onward, Soul, Luca, Turning Red, Elemental, Elio.

The problem is that audiences haven't shown up for the original films the way they do for the sequels.

And that is why we can look forward to Toy Story 10 being announced soon.

[defwarrior4000]

Originally Posted by moreorless

Leaving aside the moaning of men suffering from incurable culture war brain rot I think really a lot of Disney's success was based on buying out younger studios which had more creative vitality to them.

Both Pixar and Marvel weren't bogged down by uncreative exec politics and Disney mostly just took a hands off approach with them and let them carry on doing what was sucessful and already making money. Lucasfilm I think didnt go as well because their wasn't that same creative drive there and Starwars struggled more as a result.

Disney hasn't really had that injection of fresh blood, a new hungry studio with a formula for success in the last decade. They bought Fox but thats not really given that an established formula for success. Pixar and Marvel are gradually diminishing, Starwars may have been damaged as a larger blockbuster draw by the sequels, the live action Disney remakes also getting played out...

Disney at the moment is running into similar issues to what they had in the 70's and 80's. Disney had hits from time to time, but a fair amount of films that didn't do particularly well. Do you hear anyone talk about Trenchcoat, Million Dollar Duck, or Condorman? They had other avenues with video and The Disney Channel that helped soften the blow. Disney+ is pretty much their modern Disney Channel and video rolled into one.

[PhysicalMediaMaestro]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

The problem is that audiences haven't shown up for the original films the way they do for the sequels.

That's mainly because of poor writing. Even if a movie isn't a remake or a sequel or a prequel, it can be called an original film, but it may not be original enough. The storyline of "Turning Red", for example, was basically a clone of "The Incredible Hulk".

[AKORIS]

this thread should be changed to "is Disney losing a few bucks?"

[PhysicalMediaMaestro]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

I literally just lol’d when I read this

I mean, yes their animated stuff was pretty good in the 90s - but about 90% of all their live-action stuff was beyond abysmal.

The joke if you were a reviewer back in the 90s was that there was no worse punishment than being assigned to the latest live-action Disney. Almost all of that stuff stank to high heaven.

People remember Disney as an animated movie studio more than a live-action movie studio. There are people who believe Disney should stick to animation at all times and at all costs, even though animated movies are a lot more expensive and time-consuming to make than live-action movies. Did you know that a traditionally animated 2D Disney animated movie could take around 4 years to make? Some took longer. "Sleeping Beauty", for example, took 10 years to make, and it lost money.

So Disney is being smart by not putting all their eggs in one basket.

Not all their live-action productions are flops. I watched "Bill Nye The Science Guy" every weekday afternoon on PBS while it was on, and I often saw several episodes multiple times, recording several of them on a single VHS tape. Several people claim they learned more from "Bill Nye The Science Guy" than they did from their science teachers. "Remember the Titans" was formulaic, but also inspiring and exhilarating, and has a rousing score by Trevor Rabin. "The Princess Diaries" made me fall in love with Anne Hathaway, and she remains my favorite actress to this day.

[spanky87]

Such a vanilla ass thread.

[BluBonnet]

The real takeaway here is that humanity is doomed

[Deadend45]

If only. If we are lucky Fox will be sold off and we would get Fox UHDs aplenty and not that Mastered For Streaming crap.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by PhysicalMediaMaestro

[Show spoiler]People remember Disney as an animated movie studio more than a live-action movie studio. There are people who believe Disney should stick to animation at all times and at all costs, even though animated movies are a lot more expensive and time-consuming to make than live-action movies. Did you know that a traditionally animated 2D Disney animated movie could take around 4 years to make? Some took longer. "Sleeping Beauty", for example, took 10 years to make, and it lost money.

So Disney is being smart by not putting all their eggs in one basket.

Not all their live-action productions are flops. I watched "Bill Nye The Science Guy" every weekday afternoon on PBS while it was on, and I often saw several episodes multiple times, recording several of them on a single VHS tape. Several people claim they learned more from "Bill Nye The Science Guy" than they did from their science teachers. "Remember the Titans" was formulaic, but also inspiring and exhilarating, and has a rousing score by Trevor Rabin. "The Princess Diaries" made me fall in love with Anne Hathaway, and she remains my favorite actress to this day.

[Prohibida]

Disney's Fox has been doing well, ironically.

[PhysicalMediaMaestro]

Originally Posted by Prohibida

Disney's Fox has been doing well, ironically.

Then buying Fox is one of Disney's smarter moves.

[Eidolon]

Originally Posted by PhysicalMediaMaestro

Then buying Fox is one of Disney's smarter moves.

They'll run 20th Century Studios into the ground soon enough.

[atver]

You can only wonder just how long the Board of Directors will let Bob Iger go on before they give him the boot. But they won't, they'll let Disney go down the toilet before they abandon DEI and Woke stupidity.