He gets it: Iger says Disney's troubles came from putting messaging over storytelling

[Steve Guttag]

Disney was rolling a bit before the 90s. I'd say that The Black Cauldron was their wake-up call (an expensive disaster). With Touchstone Pictures you could have a range of non-Disney-esq content like Ruthless People (1986) they also had Hollywood Pictures (for more thrifty movies...it didn't last too long) and "Silver Screen Partners" as a production company. All of this to keep the squeaky clean image of Walt Disney Pictures as their family friendly/animated division. So, they could release a decent kid movie Oliver and Company (1988). They also partnered up for the mega hit Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988) on their Touchstone badge. Their animation division really took off on The Little Mermaid (1989) where you got smash hit in both the movie as well as the soundtrack. It was also on the heels of the previous movies showing that they could be consistently good (and getting better). Pretty Woman (1990) continued on their Touchstone Badge (and we're up to Silver Screen Partners IV already...my guess is that they wanted limited investment partners not ones that stuck around for all content...I remember my dad having the opportunity to invest in Silver Screen Partners II.

[Scott Jentsch]

Regardless of Iger's motivations or intentions for saying what he did, movies are simply telling a story using tools at your disposal to make a movie. Not all movies have to have a message, but not all movies have to be devoid of one. That's the danger of looking at things at the extremes.

Movies have failed when they prioritized special effects over having a good story. Movies have failed when the message they are trying to convey isn't delivered with a good story. Even a movie with a good story can be impeded by factors completely out of the movie's control (bad marketing, poor timing, cast/crew scandal, etc.). To think that a kissing scene or a single character is going to ruin a movie is going a little far, don't you think? Some people are going to get all uptight, but not at the scale required to sink its prospects in the box office.

Disney made a lot of money on the Marvel universe, but it couldn't last forever. Nothing ever does. Now that it appears to have run its course, what's next? Sometimes, adversity creates opportunity. I look forward to seeing where they go from here.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Don't forget, Disney was on the brink in the in the late 80s. For the previous 20 years they released such live action classics as Herbie Ride Again, The Million Dollar Duck, The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes, etc. They still had the every few years animated hit, but movie-wise, they were pretty much bleeding to death until 1990. Finally, Micheal Eisner said screw it, set up a new Disney sub-label, and released an R rated movie that made a bunch of money --Pretty Woman. A Hooker with a Heart of Gold movie saved Disney and they learned they had to produce just like all of the other studios. So let's not get hung up on all of the family fare. Most of that was total crap.

I'd say they hit their absolute lows in the mid 80s. When they got Eisner in, they mostly thrived on the revival of the animation studio. The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King, Pocahontas... those were all pretty defining movies for that era and they made a ton of money. I'd say that the second half of the 90s ushered in a new downward spiral for Disney. The sudden death of Frank Wells combined with the financial woes of the (then) massively over-built EuroDisneyland Resort (one of Eisner's pet projects) caused Eisner to go into "contingency mode", where everything now had to be done on the cheap. It ushered in the era of direct-to-video sequels like The Lion King 2, mediocre and outright awful theme parks like the initial MGM Studios Park in Florida, Disney's California Adventure, Hong Kong Disneyland and the outright idiotic 2nd gate (rather 1.5th gate) at Paris: Disney's Hollywood Studios. In a quasi parallel universe, Pixar started their initial home-run in 1995 with the release of their first feature-length computer-animated movie: Toy Story. Pixar lead a mostly independent life and ended up being Disney's saving grace back in 2006, when Steve Jobs managed to sell Pixar to Disney, but for that, Eisner had to leave. This all happened under the then new CEO Bob Iger, but in hindsight, it was clear that it wasn't Bob's guidance who made the new Disney revival after 2006 possible, he was simply surrounded by the right people and was there at the right time. Much of the credits for the continuing creative output of Disney ever since 2006 probably goes to John Lasseter. Although I never really agreed with his trend of making an integrated franchise out of everything, at least he kept the output at a reasonable level of quality and quantity. It's really only after his departure that things have gone south.

In hindsight, I don't think that the Disney acquisition of Marvel and Lucasfilm brought any of those studios any good. Marvel had their cinematic universe carved out for them, they only needed cash to operate. It all went great, up until the original story was eventually played out and the corporate greed at Disney took over the planning stages. George Lucas never really needed the cash, he was just looking for continuity. Disney bought the IP at a premium and now had to earn back their investment by milking it and they did... they started the pumps and milked most of their IP cows dry by the time the third Star Wars movie under their command hit the screen.

To add insult to injury, the acquisition of Fox by Disney only brought the utter destruction of a once prolific studio. All their resources were put into producing lowest common denominator fodder for Disney+, it's so pathetic, they even failed to add vast areas of the enormous back-catalog of that studio to their Disney+ offering.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

So let's not get hung up on all of the family fare. Most of that was total crap.

Theater owners sure would disagree with you. The old feature length animated movies were not only works of art, but they sold billions upon billions of tickets at box offices over the years, not to mention concessions. Same when they were re-released for an entire new generation every seven years. Sadly, that re-release schedule was trashed by Eisner and none of those movies have played since 1993. Walt always considered them money in the bank.

[Bobby Henderson]

Bob Iger's excuse of movies gone "woke" is a red herring. It's bullshit.

First of all, popular entertainment (movies, music, etc) has been "woke" since at least the 1960's. Movies with messages have been around since before I was even born. It's not anything new. The only thing that might be different today is the analytics software the bean counters are using to determine the ingredients of their latest sequels, re-makes, re-boots, etc. The analytics routines are no longer tailored exclusively to a white, Christian, male perspective. Of course another good question is why are they doing any of this analytics shit in the first place? Why not just let a screenwriter or director do their own thing?

BTW, I'm beyond sick and tired of hearing people (white people mostly) trying to weaponize the term "woke." When Black people invented the term it was not exactly meant as being a positive thing. The term was applied to not-black people putting on a show at being aware of Black life perspectives when they were very much likely to be full of shit. When I hear white people using "woke" it's usually as part of some gripe related to how they don't have as much "freedom" anymore to be a hateful bigot.

The movie business is struggling mostly because Hollywood has de-valued their product.

We've seen way the hell too many sequels, re-boots, re-makes, etc. Even anything that isn't a re-make or doesn't have a number in the title has usually been pushed through the Save the Cat clip art template bible of screenwriting. I swear it is a very rare event for me to watch a movie that doesn't telegraph the hell out of itself. So much of what Hollywood puts out is just bland chewing gum for the eyeballs. 20+ years ago I was buying a lot of movies on DVD so I could watch them again and again. When I see a new movie today I don't feel like watching ever again, much less buying a disc of it. I can't remember the last time I bought a movie on Blu-ray. Whatever it was the movie was probably made a long time ago. I don't see myself buying another Blu-ray until maybe The Abyss or True Lies comes out next March. Those are old movies.

The bigger problem is that damned theatrical release window, or what little is left of it. I've heard people bitch about movie ticket prices or concessions prices since I was a kid. Some would "tough it out" and wait for however long it took for the video rental to come out so they could stick it to the "greedy theater operators." That wasn't easy in the 1980's or 1990's. Skipping the theatrical release is stupidly easy today. And there's little if any quality penalty to the image or audio. We're not watching movies at home on little square TV sets anymore. The current state of the economy is probably accelerating this trend. Lots of ordinary, working class people are struggling financially. Credit card debt is at new record highs. So more and more people are looking at ways to save money. Watching movies at home versus going to a cinema is one little way to do that.

I watched Godzilla: Minus One this weekend at our local IMAX-branded theater. I don't think more than 10% of the seats were filled. This movie was pretty heavily advertised online and even on TV. It was actually a pretty entertaining movie too. I tried talking my girlfriend into seeing the show with me, but she had something else to do. She said she would just watch it when it appeared on Netflix or something in the next couple or so weeks.

Customers are visiting cinemas less and less because Hollywood has made it very easy to do.

[Martin McCaffery]

As I said, Most. Many of the full length animation were art (I think the jury is still out on The Rescuers Down Under). But there would only be new ones every 1-4 years. So yes, they shuffled the re-releases with the live action films for extra bucks. So many of the live action features are unbearable garbage and best forgotten. Disney, of course, could "re-release" the live stuff on their TV show. They also had the theatre market cornered on children's films up until the success of the VCR made it possible for families to stay home and plop the kid in front of a kiddie pic.
It's business, and Disney needs to adapt like everyone else. Nostalgia for the good old days (whenever they were) will only get them so far (and faux nostalgia has gotten them really far).

[Marcel Birgelen]

Bob Iger's excuse of movies gone "woke" is a red herring. It's bullshit.

First of all, popular entertainment (movies, music, etc) has been "woke" since at least the 1960's. Movies with messages have been around since before I was even born. It's not anything new. The only thing that might be different today is the analytics software the bean counters are using to determine the ingredients of their latest sequels, re-makes, re-boots, etc. The analytics routines are no longer tailored exclusively to a white, Christian, male perspective. Of course another good question is why are they doing any of this analytics shit in the first place? Why not just let a screenwriter or director do their own thing?

The problem isn't the messaging itself. Stories have had deeper meanings as long as time can tell. The problem is that the message is just fake corporate pandering. The underlying problem is that some elements within the company have taken an otherwise good initiative of "increasing inclusivity" and have weaponized this program to such extend that it achieved exactly the opposite, sometimes even to the extend that there now is a form of "positive discrimination" and uber-activism, mosty just to pretend to be on the moral high ground. Once decisions about hiring, casting and storylines are decided upon some "inclusivity checklist" rather than on their other qualitative merits, you'll end up in the situation Disney now has parked themselves in. Maybe that's part of the reason why nobody is showing up for their movies anymore? Why nobody gives a damn about their shows on Disney+ anymore? Because their problems now go beyond just the theatrical releases, nobody watches their junk on Disney+ either...

In the end, Disney panders for everyone. When Xi doesn't like what he's seeing, Disney will make a very special version especially for him... Combine this with the "Save the Cat"-templated formulaic franchise lock-in and you have the perfect setup for a big heap of pander-shite nobody wants to watch anymore, because everything that could've made it interresting has been cut out of it.

BTW, I'm beyond sick and tired of hearing people (white people mostly) trying to weaponize the term "woke." When Black people invented the term it was not exactly meant as being a positive thing. The term was applied to not-black people putting on a show at being aware of Black life perspectives when they were very much likely to be full of shit.

To me, the term "woke" exactly matches your description: Putting on a show without actually giving a shit about the real issues. If I call Disney "woke" then I mean exactly that... They're putting on a bad show, while in the end it's just pandering and a sense of fake corporate, moral superiority, while there is nothing of real substance behind it. This doesn't help anybody, quite to contrary, I consider this kind of disingenuous virtue signalling as rather toxic for the mission of getting rid of discrimination.

Customers are visiting cinemas less and less because Hollywood has made it very easy to do.

I'd go so far to say they're making it diffucult to visit the local theater... Before COVID hit, you could find me visiting at least 50 theaters a year, all around the globe... right now, it's often actually hard to justify a visit, as most theaters simply aren't showing movies I want to see, because Hollywood stopped making them...

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Keep it up guys! Brad will ban everyone for being political...

[Marcel Birgelen]

Keep it up guys! Brad will ban everyone for being political...

I don't see anything inherently political in all of this to be honest... Then again, those days the way I eat my spaghetti can be made into a political football...

[Bobby Henderson]

"Woke" in the context of making (and selling) movies is more about marketing than politics. The targeted groups the studios are attempting to "include" can end up feeling patronized, as if someone is trying to con them into buying something (and they are). Then we have the other part of America reacting to that "inclusivity" in their own ways, showing bigotry is still alive and well in this country.

I thought it was funny as hell how some people were completely losing their shit over the idea of a black storm trooper in that Force Awakens Star Wars sequel. Yet the "boss" of the storm troopers (Darth Vader) had a black guy's voice.

[Frank Cox]

https://www.engadget.com/pixars-disn...4.html?src=rss

Pixar's Disney+ pandemic movies are hitting theaters after all

You can catch Soul, Turning Red and Luca in cinemas in early 2024.

Amid COVID-prompted lockdowns, many major movies skipped US theaters entirely and went straight to streaming services. Those included the Pixar films Soul, Luca and Turning Red, all of which debuted on Disney+. In 2024, though, you'll get the chance to see those animated films on the big screen. Soul will get a theatrical release on January 12, Turning Red will hit cinemas on February 9 and Luca will emerge on a silver screen near you on March 22.

Given that these movies have been around for as long as three years, it's unlikely that they'll set the box office charts alight. But the theatrical releases mean you'll have a chance to enjoy these films as originally intended.

They could also help pad out Disney's bottom line a bit during a rough spell for the company. Among other issues, Disney is slated to release just one Marvel movie next year, Deadpool 3. In addition, the three Pixar films will act as a lead up to the studio's next film and perhaps help get very young viewers accustomed to going to the movies. Inside Out 2 will arrive in theaters on June 14.

[Marcel Birgelen]

I thought it was funny as hell how some people were completely losing their shit over the idea of a black storm trooper in that Force Awakens Star Wars sequel. Yet the "boss" of the storm troopers (Darth Vader) had a black guy's voice.

You know, I wouldn't give a shit about that, but my problem with exactly this, is that Disney didn't give a shit about story either... Somewhere back in Episode 2 they told us that Storm Troopers were all the clone of Django Fett. Django Fett wasn't played by a white guy, but he wasn't black either... So, either "The New Republic's" cloning process is rather dodgy or Disney didn't give a shit about consistency...

For me, it was primarily the latter what killed the Disney sequels... the lack of giving a shit about a halfway consistent story arc, without plotholes that could successfully fill up a super-massive black hole, is exactly what killed Disney's Star Wars for me, much more than the "putting a chick in it and making her gay" thing...

[Bobby Henderson]

Soul will get a theatrical release on January 12, Turning Red will hit cinemas on February 9 and Luca will emerge on a silver screen near you on March 22.

Those release dates are pretty telling. January is traditionally a pretty dead time at the box office. Studios push out a lot of their crappy, throw-away product that month. They usually wait til Valentines Day to release anything good. Late March into April can be a pretty dead time as well (along with August).

You know, I wouldn't give a shit about that, but my problem with exactly this, is that Disney didn't give a shit about story either... Somewhere back in Episode 2 they told us that Storm Troopers were all the clone of Django Fett. Django Fett wasn't played by a white guy, but he wasn't black either... So, either "The New Republic's" cloning process is rather dodgy or Disney didn't give a shit about consistency...

I have a hard time considering Episode I-II-III a legit part of Star Wars canon. The storm troopers in the original 1977-83 trilogy didn't have voices that sounded like they were tribal guys from New Zealand. Their voices sounded very white and American. The notion all storm troopers were clones was a revision in that second trilogy. That goes along with some of the painfully silly shit, like the miti-chlorine crap or whatever to explain away someone having powers to control The Force in very nerdy fashion. Ugh. No one cares! Why can't the Force be mysterious and NOT explained!? Fuck. All the special edition changes made to the original trilogy somehow become even more distracting and annoying each time I see them playing on cable TV. If Return of the Jedi is playing on TV, I have to hit the mute button when Darth Vader throws the Emperor over the railing. That "nooo" addition is like fingernails on a chalkboard.

JJ Abrams didn't do Star Wars many favors either. I have problems with what he did to both Star Wars and Star Trek. But I think most of the damage to the Star Wars "industry" had already been done 20+ years ago before Disney and Abrams got their hands on it. I used to love the whole Star Wars thing 30+ years ago. Now I'm over it.

[Mike Blakesley]

the Pixar films Soul, Luca and Turning Red, all of which debuted on Disney+. In 2024, though, you'll get the chance to see those animated films on the big screen. Soul will get a theatrical release on January 12, Turning Red will hit cinemas on February 9 and Luca will emerge on a silver screen near you on March 22.

It makes me wonder if they'll get a real wide release, or will they go limited? And if they go wide, will they do the usual stupidity of requiring two weeks? If they allow one week dates, we might be a player for one or two of those. Or they could have added "Encanto" to the mix and made it two double features. (I know, Encanto is not a Pixar movie.)

Part of me thinks this is Disney trying to get back in good with the Pixar animators, who probably still have their britches in a wad over their movies not getting theatrical releases. This basically removes the Covid stain from the Pixar record and replaces it with an asterisk.

[Marcel Birgelen]

People could also see it as a desperate money-grab from Disney and I can't imagine it making any waves. To me it seems like a limited release, I can't imagine they'll be selling two weeks to the big guys. None of those movies are particular "must-see-on-the-big-screen" kind-of movies either. Most people that want to see those movies probably have seen them by now and those movies are way too recent to trigger any sense of nostalgia. And when it triggers nostalgia, then it's probably back to that time when we all were running around with a mask in front of our face...

I have a hard time considering Episode I-II-III a legit part of Star Wars canon. The storm troopers in the original 1977-83 trilogy didn't have voices that sounded like they were tribal guys from New Zealand. Their voices sounded very white and American. The notion all storm troopers were clones was a revision in that second trilogy.

You know, we're essentially debating a fairy tale in space here, but let's not forget what kind of impact especially those first movies had on Western pop culture and especially the movie industry.

I'll grant them an easy exit here. Someone's accent isn't determined by their genetics, but rather by the environment someone grows up in. On Kamino (the planet with the cloning facility), they seem to speak perfect American English.

I've never been a big fan of the prequel trilogy. There's a lot to blame on George Lucas, but I guess, in hindsight, George Lucas tasked himself with an impossible task to begin with. How do you make a compelling trilogy about something of which everybody already knows the eventual outcome, especially if you need to stretch the story over three long movies? How are you going to even match the reception of the initial movies, which by many were considered to be among the most infuential movies ever made?

I think Lucas' main problem with the prequel trilogy is most likely that there were too little people around him that dared to challenge him, compared to the first iteration, where the studio could make all the demands they wanted. Often this ends up as a bad thing, but with the original Star Wars movie, this may actually have helped it. Lucas may be good at world building, but the way he deals with inter-human or rather "inter-species" interaction is very sterile and uncanny. This works perfectly for a movie like THX 1138, but not so well for a dramatic space opera or rather space fairy tale. We all know that the original Star Wars movie had its dialog revised, was heavily re-edited and he didn't even direct the two sequels that followed himself.

When Disney took over and indicated that they would probably depart from any material George Lucas had provided, I actually was somewhat excited about the idea. Would they dare to ditch the prequel trilogy and start over? Would Jar Jar finally be retconned (if you talk about a potentially racist character ) out of Star Wars history? Alas, they decided to ditch the "extended universe", but kept the prequel movies as part of canon. In that canon, all star troopers should be a clone of Django Fett and if they're not anymore, then you should at least give the audience SOME hints on what has happened since "the clone wars" (which also are considered to be canon).

That goes along with some of the painfully silly shit, like the miti-chlorine crap or whatever to explain away someone having powers to control The Force in very nerdy fashion. Ugh. No one cares! Why can't the Force be mysterious and NOT explained!?

They should've licenced the term "midi-chlorians" to food supplement producers as the stuff sounds like something you could find in your yoghurt... "Get your daily dose of midi-chlorians now! Awaken THE FORCE in you..."

Fuck. All the special edition changes made to the original trilogy somehow become even more distracting and annoying each time I see them playing on cable TV. If Return of the Jedi is playing on TV, I have to hit the mute button when Darth Vader throws the Emperor over the railing. That "nooo" addition is like fingernails on a chalkboard.

Use the Force Luke, the solution is out there...

Imagine how much money they could make by simply re-releasing the ORIGINAL, unaltered versions back in theaters and by subsequently releasing them on Blu-Ray in an overpriced collectors edition... and somebody else did already all the hard work for them...

Now I'm over it.

That's the main problem with the entire brand. Most people are "over it", even though you could draw different conclusions from my ranting above, that even includes me... After decades of both ego-tripping and pandering around with the franchise, it disconnected first from the public and then even from most of the fanbase.