Disney – Page 5 – The Animation Anomaly

Week Links 16-2013

Make Art, Not Law

Nina Paley has posted an interview she did recently where she discusses how she came to be a free culture advocate and why the concept plays an important role in our lives. She also touches on how some of the issues she faced while making her feature film Sita Sings the Blues forced her to make tough decisions.

Animation Sketchbooks

Parka Blogs has a review of an intriguing book that offers an insight into something that isn’t normally on display for all to see; namely animator’s sketchbooks. The list of contributors is long and features many noted artists and at 320 pages is quite a substantial tome.

Fran Krause's page via Parka Blogs — Fran Krause’s page via Parka Blogs

Why For does Disney think that “No Nudes is Good News”

Jim Hill delves into the delightful history behind the practice of slipping cels into animated films that would, well, not be considered appropriate. A must-read.

Tweets of the Week!

[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/fredseibert/status/325627451575246849″]

[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/aalong64/status/326082947696427009″]

[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/jwtierney/status/327182347474722816″]

Week Links 16-2013 Read More »

Week Links 11-2013

Week Links / Charles Kenny

Lots of links this week!

When Jobs In The Animation Industry Disappear…

Chris Oatley is constantly beating the drum of optimism and in his latest post, he breaks down the latest developments for all levels in his trademark soft-spoken manner laced with his genuine concern for others. If you haven’t already read Chris’ post, now is the time to read it, ponder it and act on the lessons contained within.

How TV has Replaced Animated Films as Disney’s Biggest Brand Ambassador

If you had to guess who sells more family saloons (sedans) in Europe between BMW and Nissan, you’d probably guess the latter right? Well as it turns out, a BMW 3-series is actually more ‘exclusive’ than the ‘mainstream’ Nissan Primera was during the last year of that model’s life.

The same is ocurring over at Disney right now. Feature films used to be the main engine of the Disney empire. They drive toys, TV series, even Broadway musicals. All that has changed however.

The Variety piece outlines how television is now the primary driver behind most Disney products. Phineas and Ferb are the ones being noted as cleaning up shop but plenty of other Disney Channel properties lend a helping hand.

All this means that features, for 80s years the recognised pinnacle of animated entertainment, are being shunted into second place in executive’s minds. You should read the article to gain an understanding of how things will progress within that company for the next couple of years.

Fantasia Program Recap

Via: Michael Sporn's Splog — Via: Michael Sporn’s Splog

Michael Sporn has uploaded some beautiful scans of the booklet that was handed out at the premiere of Fantasia. In addition to the gorgeous design, the booklet features the credits that are not included in the film itself.

Why We Bother

Josh Selig over at the Kidscreen blog has a great wee post where he ponders the question about why those involved in animation put up with it in spite of a litany of obstacles.

Fans Gone Wild: The Brave Little Toaster

Fans and fandom are a favourite topic of this blog so it is with some amusement to learn of the extents of some fan’s devotions. From the FLIP blog comes this piece about a fan (namely Ian Knau) who figured out the design to the compactor from The Brave Little Toaster and even made detailed plans. If only every animated film had such devoted fans!

Tweets of the Week

[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/VertMB/status/314470154572550145″]

[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/SandraDRivas/status/314504824559386624″]

David OReilly proves yet again that he knows his fans:

[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/davidoreilly/status/314826242824216577″]

Week Links 11-2013 Read More »

Oh My Disney: When Fandom Goes Corporate

3 Comments / Business Models / Charles Kenny

Oh My Disney screenshot

Sprung up over the past month is a new website that deals with everything Disney, and in ways that are familiar to many fans out there. GIFs, top 10 lists of things, and other silly posts that appeal to the funnier side of Disney characters and films (for example, Damsels Not In Distress). However, for all the joviality, there is something that appears slightly off about Oh My Disney, which is not surprising since it’s the corporation itself that’s calling the shots.

The Indicators

If you visit the site, everything appears innocently enough:

Oh My Disney Lion King ad screenshot1

Sure the Disney Company makes no attempt to hide the corporate signage, but it doesn’t display them as prominently as you might expect them to either.

The posts themselves look appealing, even enticing with such titles as:

and

Disney Sneeze GIFs: The Best Thing You’ll See Today

But what’s this, right at the top?

Fantasy Bachelorette: The Lion King Edition

O…K… Maybe a contributor is a bit of a fan of that godawful show?

Nope:

With another round of The Bachelor coming to a close today (at 8|7c on ABC), we found ourselves asking the question on everyone’s mind: Who would win if all The Lion King men were pitted against one another on The Bachelorette?

Hmmm, that’s an all-too-subtle-yet-painfully-obvious “hint” that the show is on ABC tonight isn’t it? How many fan sites do you know crow about other properties within the Disney empire in such a blatant display of corporate synergy? Well, uh, none. (No, the ‘advertisement’ flags don’t count, they’re so ubiquitous on the web these days, they blend into the background.)

A bit further down the page we get the marketing schtick for the latest Oz movie that [oh so conveniently] just hit cinemas here in the US.

These blatant promotional posts are not slammed down users’ throats, but they are dispersed just enough to make them appear to be of similar thread than the less serious ones.

The Problems With The Oh My Disney Model

It would be all to easy to point out and discuss the rash of commercial posts on the site, but that would be the obvious (and therefore, easy) choice. No, what Oh My Disney represents is a company attempting to subvert the very fan culture and trust that sustains it.

You see, fans and fandom help support studios, but more often than not, they reside outside of the studios control. Sure, there is some communication (one-way most of the time) but if a studio tries to pull the rope, fandoms can react in the most unpredictable ways (just look at how many ‘reboots’ have been needed over the years.)

With Oh My Disney, the company is attempting to, not so much manufacture, but certainly to control how fans interact with the company and its content. It is trying to not only dictate which content is appropriate, but it is also attempting to dictate how fans react with it.

Just look at the Lion King post, who the heck isn’t going to click on that? Everyone likes the Lion King (except me). The same goes for all the other ‘original’ posts that give fans a few golden nuggets of joy.

The problem is that OMD remains a corporate entity, and thus, it also retains the one-way communication. You can share posts wherever you want, but if you disagree, you won’t be able to air your dissatisfaction on Disney’s website.

Ultimately, Oh My Disney subverts fandom because it strives to prove that the company itself can do it better. That they can create better, funnier posts and that they can sneak in some advertising while they’re at it. That’s a betrayal of fan’s trust, who have already been doing so for years without any help and still remaining loyal to the company.

How are they expected to feel when they learn that not only is Disney muscling in on their turf, they’re trying to sell to them as well? You know the answer as well as I do. At the end of the day, it’s dishonest, but then what else are we to expect from Disney these days.

The Alternatives

These should be pretty obvious, but just about everywhere not connected to the Disney Company. They’ll even be real fans, just like you on the other side of the computer screen doing it for the love, not a marketing employee doing it for the money.

Is Oh My Disney a corporate wolf in sheep’s clothing? Let us know with a comment!

Oh My Disney: When Fandom Goes Corporate Read More »

Contrasting Disney Merchandise: Right and Wrong

Business Models, Disney / Charles Kenny

Merchandise is one of the recurring themes here on the Animation Anomaly for the simple reason that it plays such a large role in making the technique profitable for so many people. (You can get away without it, but that’s a topic for another day.) The Walt Disney Company has a long and fruitful history of merchandise stretching all the way back to the early days of Mickey Mouse. Things have changed over the years though, and while the youth remains an ever important part of the Disney merchandise empire, the company has become ever more adroit at exploiting market segments that you’d never thought possible. Here’s a look at two competing lines of Disney merchandise that illustrate just how disparate the company can be.

The Wrong Way – Walt Disney Signature Pens

Let’s be honest, these aren’t quite as tacky as the ‘vintage’ office furniture that was bandied about a few years ago or even the line of wedding dresses the company offers, but it isn’t far off. Yes, that’s right, you can be the proud owner of a Disney pen! These however, are no ordinary pens that you can buy at any Wal-Mart. Nope, these are something else entirely. These, are the Walt Disney Signature [geddit?] collection. Behold!

The Sleeping Beauty

The Fantasia

And The Executive

The collection is being offered by noted manufacturer Monteverde. They’re a respected company and they make many fine products, but why, for the sake of all that is sane, would they offer products like these?

Who are these targeted at? What purpose do they serve? And what do they do for the Disney brand and the animation on which they are based? Well, the simple answers are that they are aimed at people with more money than sense (we’ll get to the details in a bit), they serve no purpose other than to endow the Disney brand with a sense of false caché, of vintage style that it never really had in the first place and that they don’t do anything for the films on which they are based.

The proof? The pen’s average cost is in and around the $300 mark, topping out at almost $2,300 for a three-piece limited-edition collection. That’s not to say they aren’t good pens, they are, but the price premium over the regular pens on which they are best makes them a laughable purchase.

These are pens that are designed to appeal to folks who think that they are buying into a genuine image (of Walt or otherwise) that doesn’t really exist. It’s deceptive and of course, the films (and Walt Disney himself) don’t benefit in any way at all. One could argue that such merchandise actually debases all three because pens have next to nothing to do with any of them. A tenuous connection could be made to Walt himself if you could prove that he actually used the same pen.

That is not the case, however, and these lines come off as Disney simply looking for the easy buck. They are exploiting fans rather than engaging in genuine business with them.

So now that you’ve seen the crappy Disney merchandise, let’s look at a much better effort.

The Right Way – Mickey Mouse Moleskine Notebooks

Although only a special edition, the Mickey Mouse Moleskine notebook represents a much better Disney merchandise strategy. Setting aside the fact the cost factor (they’re certainly a lot less than the pens that could be used to write in them), there are far more concrete reasons for Disney to market these.

First of all, the product they are based on is a perfect match. Moleskine notebooks are something that no budding artist, writer or erstwhile creative would be seen without. The company has made a tidy business out of its products’ artistic history and even ensures that every notebook comes with a history of the same. Plenty of artists’ blogs are replete with scans from their journal and notebook pages.

Right, so the base product has merit, what about the Disney side of things? Well, it’s Mickey Mouse (everyone loves Mickey), but perhaps most importantly, it isn’t just his face slapped on the cover, instead it’s what Disney includes on the inside: instructions on how to draw Mickey.

Now they aren’t very comprehensive instructions but that’s not up for debate here. The point is that unlike the pens, these Moleskine books are aimed at people who might actually have an interest in something relevant to Disney; namely drawing/sketching/illustration, you name it. It might even be possible that such notebooks might draw people in who might not otherwise have thought of themselves as artists. That is a far-fetched notion, but it’s not entirely impossible either. Can you really see the pens encouraging people to start writing?

In other words, these notebooks are much more relevant to Disney fans. They are appealing, and although they are a premium product, that is something that most fans will be willing to pay for. Unlike the premium of the pens, which is massive, the premium for the notebooks is minimal, but the extra value that fans see is enormous.

Conclusion

So if you’re in any doubt (and I hope that you are not), ask yourself the question: Which product would you buy if cost was irrelevant? Would you really want a pen that has little connections to what its based on, or would you rather have something that at least makes a serious attempt to be true to its origins?

I know which one I would choose. Submit your answer with a comment below!

Contrasting Disney Merchandise: Right and Wrong Read More »

Those Frozen Posters and the Curse of The Modern Blockbuster

Analysis / Charles Kenny

A few weeks back, some images escaped onto the internet purporting to be for the next film in the Disney cannon, Frozen. They were quickly disavowed but the company nonetheless made an effort to rescind the impossible from the public’s mind. Here are said Frozen posters for informative purposes:

Disney_Frozen Poster A

Disney_Frozen Poster B

Disney_Frozen Poster C

The entire saga raised a number of questions but the true answers to them are rather straightforward.

Why Were They Disavowed?

The posters were disavowed for the simple reason that they are unofficial. While the posters do exhibit traits previously linked to the film (such as the title design), as a whole, they are not officially sanctioned by the Disney company. The studio is therefore obliged to distance itself from them, but there’s is more to it than that.

Poster trademarks is something that’s been talked about here on the blog before, and with these posters, there is very high possibility for confusion among the public. This is especially so given that the posters feature two characters that could easily be thought to be from the film. Trademark law requires holders to defend or face losing them. In that respect, Disney cannot simply let them slide because it could underpin future litigation.

Why Were They Even Released Then?

That, we don’t know. Cine 1 is based in Argentina, and we can only speculate wildly how they a) got the poster designs at all and b) would post them for any reason besides attracting publicity for themselves. Either way, it’s a fishy background to the entire affair but does not dilute the fact that it got a lot of people talking about the film.

So Where Does The Curse of the Blockbuster Come Into All This?

Where the curse of the blockbuster comes into this is that Disney were also duty bound to stifle the public’s interest in the film at this point in time. Why? Quite simply, they’re not finished selling the current one yet.

Yes, Wreck-It-Ralph comes out on DVD in March and as successful as that film was, it doesn’t do the Walt Disney Company much good to start flogging the new one before they’re done with the old one.

The curse of the modern blockbuster is that it makes money in precisely defined, extremely short periods of time. They have a few weeks at the box office before being pushed out on home media a few months later. The former brings in some money, but the real dough is (and has been for many years) in the latter. Disney simply cannot, through sheer necessity, ignore this period.

As a result, it will continue to devote any and all resources to Wreck-It-Ralph in the coming weeks. A distraction such as the posters above represents a significant problem with that strategy. It thrusts into the minds of the public who are constantly demanding new things and serve as a shocking reminder that yes, Wreck-It-Ralph is a done and dusted film while Frozen is so new and sparkly, we haven’t even seen any animation yet.

This bodes poorly for Disney, so they swing into crisis mode and attempt to stop it while they can. That’s not a bad thing, but it does reinforce the fact that studios like to dictate the publicity for their films despite the fact that the internet is an unwieldy beast that eats such control for breakfast, lunch and dinner. In the case of Frozen, the internet is clearly very hungry

The Alternative?

Back in December, we were given a single, concept sketch in an official capacity but then, nothing. Why do it then if there was nothing to follow? Disney may have been better off waiting until after Christmas before beginning to periodically (and predictably) releasing stuff. Independent animator Elliot Cowan is doing precisely that on his twitter feed; posting artwork from his feature film on a regular basis as he completes it. Disney could have handled this better; here’s hoping it’s a once-off event.
Just when should a studio start releasing artwork? Let us know with a comment!

Those Frozen Posters and the Curse of The Modern Blockbuster Read More »

Treasure Planet And the Failure To Advance Creatively

4 Comments / Analysis / Charles Kenny

Last weekend I decided to watch the film Treasure Planet. I hadn’t seen it before being, well, outside the target audience when it was released back in 2002. I started on Saturday evening and, well, had to give up after just under an hour. I made sure to finish it the following morning, but I couldn’t help but notice that the film proves what can happen when you rest on your creative laurels.

The Film’s Faults

As far as I was concerned, Treasure Planet is caught between a rock and a hard place. It came well after the storied Disney Renaissance of the late 80s and early 90s and was also made 7 years after Toy Story brought the storytelling bar to a whole new level of sophistication.

The Visuals

The visuals are stunning, but it was far too obvious that CG was in use everywhere, even where it wasn’t necessary. OK, I get it, you can use CG in a traditionally animated film, but the use was gratuitous in far too many circumstances and does nothing to advance the plot or improve the viewing experience. This is the film’s more egregious error; eye candy for the sake of eye candy. Yes, Beauty and the Beast did the same with the ballroom scene, but at least that had never been done before. By 2002, Disney films had a legacy of being visually stunning but always within the reason that it added to the viewing experience. In the case of Treasure Planet, having a CG prop fall of the table does not add to the viewing experience. In other words, CG was nothing new and couldn’t be relied upon to sustain an audience’s attention on its own. Miyazaki does it right; CG so subtle, you never notice it.

The Story

The plot of the film is nothing remarkable save for the fact that it places ~~Jules Verne’s~~ Robert Louis Stevenson’s Treasure Island in space. As mentioned above though, Pixar had already exhibited a knack for creating superb stories from elemental parts and proved that a complicated and outwardly sophisticated story isn’t necessary to make a great film. Treasure Planet follows in the footsteps of previous Disney films, but by 2002, audiences were being wowed by a different style of story emanating from Emeryville that has persisted ever since.

The Songs

Let’s just say that Disney’s hit songs were missing from their films long before Treasure Planet was released.

The Characters

This, at least for me, was the most disappointing aspect to Treasure Planet. TV Tropes identifies Treasure Planet as the film where Disney reacted to shifting market forces. Giving the characters a darker subtext (read: a dysfunctional family) was their way of becoming more identifiable with audiences. In addition to that, the remainder of the cast while complex in their own way, are never given a chance to shine; instead being slaves to a plot that dictates their roles. Case in point is Captain Amelia, who undoubtedly a strong female character (albeit with a very stiff upper lip), is nonetheless rendered useless in the latter part of the film. In a similar vein are Morph and B.E.N. who serve no purpose except as catalysts for the plot. All in all, the characters in Treasure Planet offer nothing exceptional outside of the film.

External Factors

The Competition

First and foremost, it has to be noted that by 2002, the feature animation landscape had changed, and by changed, I mean moved on. Pixar hadn’t so much shifted the goalposts as they had moved to another field entirely. Their storytelling combined with the CGI animation had won over audiences before Treasure Planet’s debut.

In a similar manner, DreamWorks’ Shrek gave audiences the send-up of Disney films that they never knew they needed. Suddenly animated films could be full-blown comedies rather than serious dramas.

Both these shifts leave Treasure Planet looking somewhat dated and belonging to another time, which undoubtedly it does.

Conclusion

Treasure Planet is far from a terrible film. Plenty of talented individuals worked on it for a long time and it is always disheartening to see an animated film fail to find success. However, the film proves in more ways than one that if you fail to progress creatively, someone else will rise up and overtake you.

Pixar has been quite successful are constantly upping their game, but even they are in danger of falling into tried and trusted routines (read: sequels) and stand to lose should someone else catch them unawares.

Treasure Planet should serve as a warning that even with everything going for it, a film that presumes success can, and most likely will, fail.

Treasure Planet And the Failure To Advance Creatively Read More »

Getting it Wrong With the Wreck-It-Ralph Digital Copy

6 Comments / Business Models / Charles Kenny

So Disney has announced that in an unprecedented move for the studio, the digital copy for a first-time release for home viewers will be available as a digital download prior to the release on physical media. While that, in theory, sounds good, here’s a look at why this development with the Wreck-It-Ralph digital copy is, quite simply, flawed.

First Though, What They’ve Got Right

Hollywood studios as a group have had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that consumers like to watch their content at home. They disliked the video recorder until the realised it could make them more money than theatrical releases and they always tended to have a suspicious view of television until, again, they realised it would help them rake it in. (The fact that the various television divisions of studio’s parent companies help prop up the film studios is a topic for another time.)

Now it would seem that the internet is next on their agenda. Having seen what happened to the music industry in the wake of Napster, Hollywood studios are keen to avoid the more blatant actions that hastened the record companies’ downfall. In that vein, they’ve been much more open to the idea of allowing viewers to legally download or stream content.

Both Amazon and Netflix (among others) have offered suitable outlets for a number of years (the former favouring purchases while the latter favouring all-you-can-eat streaming.) The studios have also made their own inroads into the industry with features being an integral part of Hulu and by forming a consortium (minus Disney) to design and manage their UltraViolet streaming service.

All the services above offer similar content although Netflix is known to lag on the new releases.

So What Have They Got Wrong?

By the looks of things, the studios have done decently well for themselves, right? Weeeeell, the truth isn’t quite as straight forward. Yes, the partnerships with Amazon and Netflix have certainly worked, but only for older content as mentioned above. New content is hamstrung by the various broadcast deals the studios have with networks. While that will soon change (with DreamWorks in 2014 and Disney in 2016), it’s still a bit of a ways off from today. Also factoring into the equation is the fact that there have been problems with Amazon blocking access to content for reasons that would not be immediately apparent to the consumer.

In conjunction with Amazon and Netflix, the studio’s Ultra Violet service has been plagued with problems of the technical kind that have hindered consumer’s ability to easily watch their content.

And Ralph Figures Into All of This Where?

Where the Wreck-It-Ralph digital copy features in all of this is the very fact that it is simply the latest chapter in the ongoing saga that is Hollywood’s relationship with the internet. Now that should be a cause for celebration; being a sign that even Disney is willing to admit that consumers want to stream and download content as soon as its first released.

However, as most of you will know, Ralph has been available in plenty of places online since its cinematic days so those who the digital release is likely targeting have probably already been able to see it in their own homes.

Adding insult to injury is the fact that the digital copy is for only the film itself. For all the extra features and commentaries, the discs will still be a necessary purchase. So why the heck would you cough up for the digital copy if you have to cough up again to get the extras? I wouldn’t and I’d bet you wouldn’t either. Sticking out a few more weeks doesn’t seem to bad when you’ll save maybe $20.

Which leads us to the last issue: the cost. The Reddit discussion for today’s news very much centered on how much this digital download will cost. Disney hasn’t released any details but an educated guess puts it at around $15.

The discs have been announced as starting at $31.99 for every version under the sun with all the extras included, plus the digital download as well.

So why, in the name of all that is sane and just, would you pay half the price of the physical pack when you’re getting waaaaay less than half the value? The quick and dirty answer is that you wouldn’t. You simply hold your breathe for a few more weeks and be a much happier consumer. In any case, we all know those recommended retail prices are overblown anyway, so expect Amazon to have a decent discount that further erodes the difference.

How To Get It Right With The Wreck-It-Ralph Digital Copy

How could Disney get it right? Well for one, they could have had the digital copy available now (January 2013). They could do a better job of strong-arming the cinema chains into narrowing the release window between theatrical and home media releases. And they could offer the extras with the download rather than just the film itself.

Are Disney misguided with this announcement? How would you better handle it? Leave a comment below!

Getting it Wrong With the Wreck-It-Ralph Digital Copy Read More »

Donald Duck Orange Juice???

Animation, Disney / Charles Kenny

I spotted these in a supermarket this morning. I’ve never seen or heard of it before, but apparently Donald Duck Orange Juice been around for a long time.

Surely a throwback to a simpler time in licensed marketing seeing as Disney’s current faces include the princesses, major characters from whichever film is the latest release and the child actors in their kidcoms.

All the same, it’s good to see that Donald Duck still has some kind of resonance with today’s kids.

Donald Duck Orange Juice??? Read More »

The Real Problem With Release Windows

2 Comments / Animation / Charles Kenny

No, not Windows releases (sorry, as a Linux user I couldn’t resist), release windows. You know, those rules that studios impose that stipulate that a film has to come out in the cinema first, then on DVD a few months later, then on pay per view a few months after that and then lastly on regular TV? Yes, it’s the fact of life we all love to hate. Well, William Jardine over at A113Animation has had enough, of foreign release windows that is:

By this I don’t mean cases where the film comes out a few days later here in the UK than it does in America (as with DreamWorks’ upcoming Rise of the Guardians), nor do I, really, mean a delay of a month or less – although these cases seem a little pointless – what I’m referring to are the several month long, extended delays between the original US theatrical release, and whenever it eventually winds up elsewhere. With the best will in the world, the excitement and anticipation doesn’t quite hold over for four months.

Growing up in Ireland, I was well used to the delays we often were forced to endure until films made the trip across the Atlantic. That, however, was in the olden days; when films were only available on 35mm and VHS tapes from either side were not compatible (a technical glitch caused by the differing TV broadcast standards, not DRM or regional codes).

Today, things are quite different. For one, a lot of US cinemas use digital projection so no more 35mm stock to ship or even splice! Secondly, the global nature of the internet means that instant gratification is not only demanded, it is often necessary.

Take a look at the screenshot below, yes it is the good ol’ Pirate Bay (yo ho ho) and as you can clearly see, I have not only the option to download Wreck-It Ralph, I have options!

This is where the crux of the problem is. the way various licenses and rights work (it’s on a per country basis), they all have to be cleared in advance of a film being shown. That’s not to say that Britain has a slow process, just that movie studios have to copyright and clear everything they do. It’s partly out of necessity and partly out of stubbornness (a discussion for another time). All this is especially egregious when there is no need to redub the language tracks however.

Where William’s (quite excellent letter) strays is that he appeals to the studio’s sense of pride and the fact that it will be to the audience’s benefit (hahaha). As we all know, that’s worked, er, not so well in the past. Studios listen to money. William says that film franchises are “not just money-making machines”, except that that is exactly what you are. If you take away the money-making aspect, the films also disappear.

What the screenshot above represents isn’t so much people denying Disney revenue, it’s proof that Disney is denying itself revenue. If I’m in the UK, why wait the four months for the film to come out? The winter is cold and the nights are long. A quick download later and I’m watching the latest film.

The same goes for the DVD releases, I can safely say that I am much more likely to buy a DVD right after seeing a film in the cinema than months later (and thank goodness too, otherwise I would have a copy of The Last Samurai in my collection).

All of this makes even less sense when, as William points out, DreamWorks will have Rise of the Guardians playing within a matter of days. Disney has done similar releases too, so why the delay for Ralph? Perhaps it would be to the studio’s advantage to always have films ready to go in multiple markets at the same time. Sure, it may cost more, but isn’t that better than seeing people try to view it through other means; especially those that you don’t control or extract revenue from?

The Real Problem With Release Windows Read More »

Piecing Together the Animation Studio Puzzle

Animation / Charles Kenny

Via: Rotten Tomatoes

After a week of weddings, ‘Superstorm’ Sandy and general life upheaval, this blog is finally getting back to normal. In the course of my absence, Disney released Wreck-It-Ralph, a film about a video game character who’s fed up being the bad guy. The reviews have been quite glowing and it currently occupies the top spot at the box office (although that doesn’t mean everything). However, I am in no rush to see the film and in the course of trying to figure out why, it was that I began to look at the bigger picture, and tried ever so hard to fit Wreck-It-Ralph into it.

In any business, there is a goal, or multiple goals that companies and individuals aim for. They can be both long and short-term in nature but success is derived only by constantly progressing towards and eventually achieving them. In the case of an animated studio, the goals are multiple: create great content, make money, expand the business, and so forth.

But what if your business is already quite successful? What if you’ve already accomplished an awful lot, what do you do then? This appears to be Disney’s current dilemma. Walt, as everyone knows, was a fantastically driven guy. He was constantly thinking of ways to grow and improve his business but he did it through ways that are often sidelined today in favour of the quickie solution.

Without getting into too much detail, Walt rarely (if ever) grew the company through acquisition, preferring innovation instead. Compare that to today’s Disney Company, which just recently bought Lucasfilm, and previously bought Marvel Entertainment and Pixar. How do these acquisitions grow the business as opposed to bolting-on profits?

Thinking of Wreck-It-Ralph, where does it fit into the bigger puzzle? Where is the Disney Company actually going? It’s getting bigger, sure, but bigger doesn’t necessarily mean better and the ultimate goal (short of being the largest media company in the world) is startlingly unclear.

Compare that to DreamWorks. It’s a far smaller company and is heavily centred around its animation studio, but at least it seems to be going in a clear direction. Jeffrey Katzenberg is slowly but surely steering the studio away from being a strictly entertainment company and is instead attempting to meld both entertainment and technology; a strategy that is quite apt given the current ‘digital’ shifts in the industry.

For a company as large as Disney, it’s hard to zero in on the feature films as the engine of the empire, but they do play a critical part in driving the rest of the business (TV shows, merchandise, parks, etc.) and every single one should at least nudge the company towards its goals. However, with Ralph, it’s becoming increasingly hard (at least for me) to see what those goals are and how the film helps move the company towards them.

When Walt was alive, The Disney Company had some lofty ambitions and goals that it has sadly lost since then; becoming much more content to gun for short term successes, quarterly gains for the investors and betting on historically successful properties. The sad thing is that people who only look at the road in front of the car fail to see the curve that’s rapidly approaching; the same is true for companies.

Piecing Together the Animation Studio Puzzle Read More »

What else could Disney have done with 4 Billion dollars?

Disney / Charles Kenny

By Dave Callan via The Guardian

OK, so by now we all know that Disney is coughing up just over $4 Billion for Lucasfilm with the entire amount (half in cash, half in Disney stock) going entirely to Mr. Lucas himself who wisely maintained ownership of the entire company. Much analysis has been done by this point with plenty of people falling on both sides of the “is it a good thing?” line. However, what isn’t being asked is what else could Disney have done with 4 Billion dollars? This post proposes a few ideas.

1. Release a LOT of films (or TV shows for that matter)

Four Billion dollars. That’s $4,000,000,000.00 or a heck of a lot of money. The most expensive film in the world cost not even a quarter of that and the vast majority cost only a fraction of that amount. When Disney bought Pixar a few years ago, the point was raised that for the $11 Billion they paid for that studio, they could have released a ton of films instead, with the theory going that however good Pixar was, Disney could have easily caught up with better products.

The same holds true now. Although studio accounting is notoriously murky, even a film like Toy Story 3 or Tangled, both rumoured to have cost in and around $300-350 million each, could have been made 11 times over what Disney just paid Lucas; all in the hope that the Star Wars franshise will pay dividends. The real question is, will it pay ones larger than releasing 11 films would? I’m going to say no.

Eleven chances at getting it right can be worth far more than that, especially given the potential for the films to live on after the original. Even if you had, say, three duds in there, that still leaves 8 potential Lion Kings, right? How much dough has that film brought in over the years? Oh sure, Star Wars does too, and likely will for some time to come, but that is just one idea/concept. If you go in a different direction each time, you discover many brilliant ideas you can build upon.

2. Expand the parks even further

Disney is the master of the theme park but even the company’s Imagineers have limits. Investing in the existing parks (or even a new one, say in South America) would go even further to bringing in the dough, but more importantly, the customers. Just think, an entire continent could be waiting to discover Walt’s dream. Would $4 Billion get a project started? It surely would, even in this day and age. You wouldn’t even have to create new content! The existing stuff that’s already paid for will do just fine (with some regional adjustments of course).

4. Give everybody in the company a raise.

I’m deadly serious. With about 156,000 employees, $4 Billion would be enough to give everyone a bonus of nearly $26,000. Heck even just the cash they’re paying out could give everyone $13K in their back pocket. How do you think that would affect morale and productivity within the company? How about instead of a cash raise, they use the money to give perks to valued employees, maybe a day off for employee of the month or an extra week for employee of the year. Or give everyone a paid lunch break?

These are just a few of the ideas that employees could be rewarded and would all enhance their working lives. Do you think happier employees are more productive? You’d be right if you said yes, just look at DreamWorks; a studio that’s considered one of the best companies to work for in the entire country.

5. Make a Serious Effort to Transition the business model.

OK, a bit left of field with this one, but imagine the kind of experimentation that Disney could do with $4 Billion. Right now everyone and their cat is trying to figure out how to make internet/online content work and while some people are making progress, it’ll really take a big investment from an established company to truly crack the nut. Disney wouldn’t even have to spend the $4 Billion or maybe even half that to figure it out.

The studio has the content, it has people willing to pay for it, and it has the resources and brains to make something work. All it has to do is stump up the finance to get something great together. And before you say it, no, I’m not talking about Key Chest; I’m talking about a Hulu-like variant that will give consumers what they want. The money would cover the losses that would be likely during the initial phases of the project.

Just think, if Disney could get a decent platform together that is popular with customers, it could license it, share it and get everyone on board. It’s exactly how Microsoft steamrolled Apple. The latter wanted to control everything, the former was happy just to control that key that made it all work; and they made sure that they did. Disney could do the same, and make money in a similar manner by charging studios access to the audience.

Conclusion

The fact of the matter is, someone, somewhere within the Disney machine ran the numbers and algorithms and determined that Lucasfilm was good value for money. That’s really it at the end of the day. People will proclaim that it was a perfect merger that fits both brands, but at the end of the day, Disney is banking on Star Wars continuing to mint money for decades to come. Whether that will be the case is yet to be seen. What is known, is that will $4 Billion spent, Disney (and its shareholders) will be praying that it does, because spending that kind of money in one go is an awful lot like going all in at the poker table.

What else could Disney have done with 4 Billion dollars? Read More »