Discussion in 'Archive' started by CPNHOOK15, Jan 24, 2006.
Whew.....just heard this news this morning--AND "........John Lasseter will become chief creative officer of the animation studios and prinicipal creative advisor at Walt Disney Imagineering......" He was a little late getting to California this year, but, yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus......and a Roy Disney and a Stanley Gold. Thanks again to both of you, for using some of the last remaining pixie dust to pave the way for this moment to finally happen--you both truly may have saved Disney.
Questions for everyone. Will Pixar improve DCA? At Epcot, Nemo is coming to Living Seas.Will Pixar remake "Wonders of Life"? Wonder what kind of attractions we will see in the future.
Well for starters....
It couldn't get any worse.......
I always thought that the failure of this deal while Eisner was at the helm was a major impetus of Roy's Save Disney campaign.
For a change, it seems that money is being spent to, at least in part, bolster sagging creativity, not just sagging profits.
Statement by Roy E. Disney:
"Animation has always been the heart and soul of the Walt Disney Company and it is wonderful to see Bob Iger and the company embrace that heritage by bringing the outstanding animation talent of the Pixar team back into the fold. This clearly solidifies the Walt Disney Company's position as the dominant leader in motion picture animation and we applaud and support Bob Iger's vision."
Well I think it could have gotten worse, but it's so bad now, that if it had gotten worse, I wouldn't have said, man I wish it was 2005 still. Does that make any sense? Probably not. Oh well.
But heck, why not? I mean, I am not a huge Pixar fan, but their way of doing things, and the "culture" so to speak is more "Disney" than Disney has been for a long time. I say give em a shot.
I just wish that they would have come in before so much of the Pixar films had been put into the parks, cause you know they would have done the attractions so much better. In fact, I firmly believe that they wouldn't have done half of the Pixar attractions that Disney did. Disney did them to capatalize, whether they fit the theme of hte land or not (most often not). Had Pixar had any say at WDI at the time, they probably would have been creating attractions with totally original stories and characters instead of shoehorning existing stuff into existing themes.
That concludes this portion of "I know what might have been."
I'm curious as to why Bill thinks this is not a good thing.
I'd argue the many, many Academy Awards, the wonderful films, and -- most importantly in my mind -- the addition of Pixar's creative team will make the Disney company a stronger media and entertainment company.
What do you think, Bill?
I won't speak to Bills feelings on the matter, but I would like to point out that our assumptions of what Pixar would like to do are not going to be an easy task. While the things that Eisner and Crew have done, have been remarkably shortsighted, they did generate short term profits. Cutting costs at the parks, while attendance rose, makes it seem to the shareholders that the parks will thrive while the Company saves money- ignoring the fact that the guests who are coming are not experiencing those cuts until they are at the park, thus any adverse reaction impacts future visits (and profits), not immediate ones. So say Pixars people come in and say, I want to build this great attraction, spare no expense. That expense is going to cut into this years profits, no matter how worthwhile an investment it is, how much revenue it will generate over 10 or 20 years, it will cause a dip this year.
What all that poorly explained rhetoric means, is that Pixar will be fighting to change the very nature of what Disney has become and what frankly the rest of the business world is. They succeeded fine on their own, but they were one line of business- they made CGI movies, and they pretty much invented the format, so they had a good lead on everyone else. They didn't have to worry about whether Tourism was up, how to supplement the losses from their failing retail chains, etc... etc... I would love to believe that they can do this, but it's gonna be an uphill climb.
Separate names with a comma.