Disney/Pixar In General

Whats makeing me wary about Pletz is how everyone at disney is acting about his attempts to get on the bored. Which is pretty much dislike and attempet to keep him out, even George Lucas and Michael Eisner are publicly putting there weight behinde Bob. Also Eisner compared Pletz to ' 70's Corporate raiders.' Along with many other heads of entertaiment corporations expressing similer supporet to Iger and wariness of Pletz.

There also the company he works with he might not personaly like Isaac Perlmutter but it doesn't mean he doesn't agree with him no matter what the profit or people say.

Finally I get the idea that from his talks over the years that he might be looking higher then a seat at the table (I heard it was 3 not 2, but of coures things could have change.)

Maybe we are overreacting, maybe if he is elected nothing will happen, but the reactions, his supporters and recently his interviews are just rising too many flags to not feel comfortable about what is transpiring.

Edited by SAwatching on Mar 27th 2024 at 7:24:32 PM

I know that dog whistle is a metaphor. My answer was also not meant to be literal.

I don't think the writers strike made that big of a difference. I don't think I have ever seen an actor promote a movie and then gone to see it. Also, when the actors could promote it, their promotion had limited appeal.

The Marvels suffered from the general bad reputation of the MCU, but also had major continuity and world building problems and the next film after it still hasn't come out. So it isn't really part of something bigger.

Wonderwoman was a success and well liked, but 1984 wasn't. Maybe the Marvels was poorly made, or maybe it just wasn't the type of Superhero movie people wanted. It has singing, which wasn't popular when Spiderman did it.

As far as Peltz, the media is making a big deal of it. If he gets a seat, he will be difficult for Iger, because he isn't a yes man. Not that his ideas are all good.

Disney is fighting this, and all those people know each other personally. There is a lot of money involved. That doesn't mean much.

Edited by ry4n on Mar 27th 2024 at 10:36:11 AM

The most obvious evidence that it did it that several AAA movies came out in that same timespace and they all had the exact same problem The Marvels did.

The Marvels didn't fail in a vacuum. It was part of a whole swath of films that were all poorly impacted by the strike and the affect it had on marketing.

"Using actors to promote films" includes making new advertisements and marketing in general. They couldn't adequately market the film.

That doesn't matter. If the claim is that female led movies don't do well, the first movie being a success already disproves that.

1984 can't have failed because it was a female led movie, because the first film was already a female led movie and it didn't have that problem, which means the actual issues that failed 1984 had to have been something else. Logic and all that. Same with The Marvels, given that it's the sequel to an extremely successful film.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Mar 27th 2024 at 11:06:19 AM

Question: Do we have a thread about Disneyland?

Edited by Starlink64 on Mar 27th 2024 at 2:49:57 PM

I don't think so. It's a difficult thing to thread for, since we don't really have a section for that sort of thing (I guess it would go in the Live Performance tab? But that doesn't 100% make sense either).

People mostly just talk about the theme parks here on this thread.

I would put it on Yack Fest. I have a thread for a Universal park over there.

Edited by BigBadShadow25 on Mar 27th 2024 at 2:55:11 PM

Disney is going to settle with Florida over the dissolution of Reedy Creek, letting the state board nullify prior agreements made by the old board while Disney drops their federal civil lawsuit against Florida.

I wouldn’t be surprised if dealing with Peltz was more of a concern long term than trying to deal with Desantis stupidity.

Well at least this means in the long run Desantis is going to have to dump millions into making sure Disney is clean, which had always come out of Disneys pocket before.

Saw "Meet The Robinsons" for the first time.

I like how the first half of the film is a very abstract comedy, and the second is like a more cerebral science fiction film, with some some comedy.

This really feels like one of those films where you can get a different experience when watching a 2nd time, similar to ''The Sixth Sense".

I'm glad he didn't go through with finding out his mom.

Speaking of cg movies, it's weird Disney didn't try to make a Wreck It Ralph themed land or ride. They only just reopened Disney Quest.

Barring a bigger ride, sticking a Wreck-It-Ralph themed Arcade to some corner of Disneyland seems like a no-brainer.

People will expect the licensed characters to go with the ride,which is probably they've not done a wreck it ralph ride

Apropos of nothing, I just realized that the first season of The Santa Clauses kinda mirrors what happened with Chapek and Iger.

@ Ookamikun-

Even though she's in the shadows, I thought she looked like Elastigirl.

If

Female led movies have a mixed record. Some do well and others don't. No one here has claimed that female led films can't be successful.

I think the difference between female led movies that succeed have mostly to do with their content and you think that they mostly have to do with their marketing.

If female led action movies suffer from marketing, it is because the marketing is misaimed.

I said nothing of the sort.

What I said was that The Marvels, specifically, failed because of marketing issues. Because several movies released during that time period, in general, failed because of their marketing issues, due to a major event that happened in the industry at that time.

Therein lies one of the problems with your take. You’re trying to cherry pick one situation, and go “okay, so that’s the way it is with every female led movie ever” for no apparent justifiable reason.

You’re describing all movies that exist. All movies have have a mixed records. For all movies, some do well, and some don’t. The things that cause female led movies to fail are the exact same things that cause male led movies to fail.

Thats another issue with your take. You’re trying to force a separation regarding female movies, specifically, that doesn’t actually exist.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Mar 28th 2024 at 11:58:01 AM

The Marvels also failed because it had a narratively weak villain (a fault it shares with many other Marvel movies, but those also have other traits to make up for it), because it came after a string of other Marvel projects that steadily went down from the level of connection they used to have with audiences, and because it hinged on too much previous material that by now has hints of continuity burnout for general audiences.

Frankly? I am a bit tired of 'Disney didn't promote this' or 'the actors didn't go on tours telling people to watch the film' as the default given excuse when a movie fails, which is also a bit of a general double standard as it's not used so much for other studios.

It sometimes feels like the reasoning is 'audiences will watch anything by droves as long as it has the brand and they are told to!' when by now we should know better and it's DISNEY, they have the biggest promotional machine in the business but sometimes people want to downplay it.

Edited by TomWithoutJerry on Mar 28th 2024 at 2:51:46 AM

Especially since, more and more now, they won't watch anything just as long as it has the right brand...

Marketing is important. Exposure is money.

The truth is, most people don't just go see movies because they happen to exist. People have to be exposed to media before they will have the drive to consume it - a lack of proper marketing can and will tank a movie that otherwise would've had legs. Just look at what happened to Ruby Gillman. Even so, it's something that you're only starting to hear about recently, in part because studios have started playing fast and loose with their marketing on the assumption that their films will put butts in seats without putting the legwork into it, but also especially because of the strike.

It's certainly not something that only gets mentioned for Disney: you mostly hear about it regarding the movies (plural, from multiple studios) that came out right after the strike last year, specifically because that did tangibly affect the sales of many moves during that time period and it was a bit of a surprise the effect to which it happened. Several films people assumed would do perfectly well regardless ended up struggling, and you didn't start seeing that fade until a few months afterwards.

That soudns like a word of mouth problem, which wouldn't have affected it's opening sales.

The immediately preceding film was one of the most successful movies Marvel had in the last few years.

As I said before, I'm not saying that marketing is the only thing that had an affect on the movie's success (that would be stupid). It did have awful word of mouth, specifically because of plotting and character problems.

But it was also dead out the gate, in a way nobody expected given nature of the project - which means something prevented people from coming to see the movie in the first place. And the fact of the matter is that general audiences wouldn't not go to see The Marvel's just because, like, Ant-Man didn't do well - that's not really the kind of thing general audiences do.

But if the film is underexposed? That's a problem. That's something that can and will drastically limit the amount of interest the film has in the general audience has in the film before the film's actual landing. And like I keep saying, it happened to everyone during that time period, not Disney.

So I can't agree with dismissing that affect just because talking about that affect is becoming ubiquitous. It's becoming ubiquitous specifically because people are starting to notice it.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Mar 28th 2024 at 5:56:16 AM

Guardians was the exception to a recent trend and you know it.

Edited by TomWithoutJerry on Mar 28th 2024 at 6:03:17 AM

Or the trend doesn't actually exist to the degree people claim it does, and has mostly been cultivated by clickbait to create a false crisis for profit, as clickbaiters are liable to do.

The truth is that genres and film franchises don't really die, because the general public isn't actually invested in franchises to the point where they'll say "X previous film in the franchise isn't good, so I'm going to swear off the rest of it."

Marvel's had terrible films before. Or, heck, look at DC. Constant failures dotted with great successes, because regular people don't really have the same intense judgment that more hardcore fans do.

In order for an actual, real downturn to happen, the public zeitgeist has to seriously change such that a franchise or genre ceases to relate to the public at all. And that doesn't just happen. You're talking, like, westerns ceasing to relate to modern urban audiences. Not something as minor as "the last couple superhero films that came out weren't that great."

Edited by KnownUnknown on Mar 28th 2024 at 6:05:10 AM

Movies with weak publicity can and do succeed regardless as long as they are good and the word of it spreads, which is generally something that does not rely on the companies themselves saying that. Inversely, a company can repeat their movie is great until the cows come home, but if the movie doesn't click all of that publicity will be for naught.

The Morbius effect proves that companies trying to capitalize on 'fame' achieved through mouth to mouth and weaponizing it as a money making strategy won't work if they misread the room.

Edited by TomWithoutJerry on Mar 28th 2024 at 6:08:02 AM

Sure. At no point did I ever say a movie can't succeed without publicity.

What I said was that a lack of publicity can tank a movie that wouldn't have otherwise.

Both of these things are true. Because actually selling a film is a complex affair. Though in general, it's largely accepted that for a film to succeed when underexposed (or badly exposed) it has to have very good word of mouth.

Compare Ruby Gillman, which I mentioned before, to, say, Elemental, for instance.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Mar 28th 2024 at 6:08:37 AM

No, they dont "Know that".

Marvel's had terrible films before.

The MCU, until Phase 4, had been consistently successful, though. For the purposes of the MCU, the failures of David Hasseholff's Nick Fury and X-Men Origins and such don't count, if anything even the DCEU failures are more harmful to the Marvel brand, because they run at the same time as the MCU and poison the collective well of current superhero movie watching.

The truth is that genres and film franchises don't really die

They can stay dormant for decades, that's a technicism that still doesn't help the movies released during periods where those genres are on a downhill.

Edited by TomWithoutJerry on Mar 28th 2024 at 6:11:09 AM