Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Soullessness of the Current Disney

Collapse

Get Away Today

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • PragmaticIdealist
    replied
    Here are the other brand-affinity graphs associated with Disney+:

    Leave a comment:


  • Eagleman
    replied
    Big problem with CEO IGER he good at the business/financial aspect,
    But lost sight of Disney philosophy- Company became many brands market
    -It now ALL about Wall Street !
    IMO -He is way over pay .

    Leave a comment:


  • HiddenMickey87
    replied
    Yeah, I used go to Las Vegas a lot during my childhood years which was the 90's! The Disneyland-like era of Las Vegas with well themed hotels and casinos at the time. Plus the free attractions and shows to attract families. I visited Las Vegas a lot at the time from 1994 to 2003. I miss those good old times as a child and I still remember those memories well. I even went with my late grandma in 2001! Me, my mom, and my grandma stayed at Tropicana Las Vegas.

    For a huge example: Treasure Island at the Mirage (1993 - 2003). It was heavily themed to be a 18th century Pirate Caribbean village with a romantic tropical island vibe as a sister resort to the Mirage. That's why the subtitle was 'At the Mirage.' The free show was 'The Battle of Buccaneer Bay.' It was a free cool stuntman pyrotechnic show involving the pirate ship, 'Hispaniola' vs. a British Frigate 'HMS Britannia.' A 10 minute free swashbuckling show of epic proportions. Bob Gurr himself designed the sinking British ship! It was very Disney-like with it's backstory and theming. Basically Pirates of the Caribbean blown up and expanded upon should it become a huge property without the movie tie-in or Jack Sparrow. Steve Wynn at the time was inspired from the book of the same name by Robert Louis Stevenson and Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean. Steve Wynn considered himself 'The Walt Disney of Vegas when Treasure Island was in development and construction at the time.


    It was one of my most favorite hotel and casinos at the time before the hotel dethemed and became ugly. Now it is called 'TI.' Tipsy Island, no longer Treasure Island anymore. But they still use the Treasure Island name for their hotel which is dumb. The horrid 'Sirens of TI' replaced the well done Buccaneer Bay for a rather unwatchable and poor show in October 2003. Those higher ups at the time were un-creative and made the most dumbest business decision at the time. Since Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean movies were getting popular starting in 2003 and if Treasure Island at the Mirage remained the same and preserve their theme and free show, then they would huge amounts of money from families...

    The Mirage is similarly the same, but some parts got de-themed. Making it lose some of its touch.

    Monte Carlo Hotel and Casino got rebranded and became a rather boring and bland ugly hotel that looks like a hospital rather than a themed hotel and casino based on a city...I'll never visit the Park MGM, it replaced a already decent hotel and casino. It looks ugly with it's colors like hospital green and feces brown. It used to be cheaper and made for budget clients, the theme wasn't very heavy. But it was simple and elegant with its French Riveria theme at the time with the beautiful lighting, statues, and fountains. A cheaper version of Bellagio without the fountains. I used to stay in Monte Carlo a lot as a kid at the time. I sure miss the mid 90's of the Vegas Strip.

    Oh well, the Las Vegas Strip used to be fun and unique. Now becoming more sterile, bland, boring, and uncreative. Some hotels kept their theme, but most got rebranded and dethemed into a boring looking bland hotel and casino that looks similar to each other. The Strip is becoming more like a city then a unique place to visit. Las Vegas has rather become soulless and creativity bankrupt.
    All excellent points.

    When these hotels lose their theming and try to be hip (aka be exactly like every other place), they lose their soul as well. The masses love the sterile garbage, whether it's the 20th Marvel / superhero movie, horror remake, hotel, or what have you..

    Leave a comment:


  • PragmaticIdealist
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • PragmaticIdealist
    replied
    Disney+ has the potential to be either the savior or the destroyer.

    Even many of the dumbest people at Disney now seem to understand that Disney+ has to be strong with all four quadrants in order to be a viable streaming service that can lead The Walt Disney Company to future growth and to a better distribution model for Disney's video content than that, which exists currently.

    Returning the "Walt Disney" trademark to something to which people of all demographic segments hold strong affinity requires not only making things that appeal to everyone but also communicating this universal appeal. Disney has to fight the image problems that it, itself, created, and Disney has to rebrand its library content that has contributed to said problems. For example, I have long argued Disney needs several brand extensions that will help preserve the correct and proper meaning of the Disney name.

    "Mouseketeer" and "Mousketeer Club," for instance, could be used to identify anything Disney-related that has appeal limited to children, pre-adolescents, and/or adolescents. Disney+ could make the brand one of the "tiles" in a "carrousel" at the top of the user interface, and Disney+ could even offer broader options at the landing page (e.g., "Mousketeer Alumni," "Junior Mouseketeers," "Mouseketeer Features," "Mouseketeer Series," etc.).

    Most of the acquired brands actually should be "Disneyfied," at that point, in that they should be integrated with this trademark that strongly appeals to everyone and that is, once again, synonymous with creativity and imagination.

    "Star Wars" was perfectly integrated into Disneyland in 1986, and the main reason the Star Tours attraction worked so well is because the once-upon-a-time-in-a-faraway-place story held a timelessness that was consistent with that of The Magic Kingdom. Now, Disney, though, treats "Disney" and "Star Wars" as separate brands, for some reason, even though that one story is about to consume a vast chunk of Walt Disney's Disneyland. The "20th Century Fox" title cards should be removed, and "Walt Disney Pictures" should replace them. Moreover, the "Walt Disney Pictures" name should be reserved exclusively for stories and shows with timeless settings that are consistent with Disneyland: "Fantasia," "Pirates of the Caribbean," "Pinocchio," "20,000 Leagues under the Sea," "Star Wars," "Beauty and the Beast," etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • LangenFox
    replied
    Originally posted by HiddenMickey87 View Post
    I hate it when companies sell out, whether it's Disney or the local mom-and-pop shop that sells to new owners who totally disregard the former beloved ways of the prior.
    See it all the time with hotels. Remember how distinct the hotels in Reno and Vegas were before they all got bought up by one of three major companies. Now aside from exteriors they're largely the same, down to the website layout. Bland! Same with airlines too.
    Yeah, I used go to Las Vegas a lot during my childhood years which was the 90's! The Disneyland-like era of Las Vegas with well themed hotels and casinos at the time. Plus the free attractions and shows to attract families. I visited Las Vegas a lot at the time from 1994 to 2003. I miss those good old times as a child and I still remember those memories well. I even went with my late grandma in 2001! Me, my mom, and my grandma stayed at Tropicana Las Vegas.

    For a huge example: Treasure Island at the Mirage (1993 - 2003). It was heavily themed as a 18th century Pirate Caribbean village with a romantic tropical island vibe as a sister resort to the Mirage. That's why the subtitle was 'At the Mirage.' The free show was 'The Battle of Buccaneer Bay.' It was a free cool stuntman pyrotechnic show involving the pirate ship, 'Hispaniola' vs. a British Frigate 'HMS Britannia.' A 10 minute free swashbuckling show of epic proportions. Bob Gurr himself designed the sinking British ship! It was very Disney-like with it's backstory and theming. Basically Pirates of the Caribbean blown up and expanded upon should it become a huge property without the movie tie-in or Jack Sparrow. Steve Wynn at the time was inspired from the book of the same name by Robert Louis Stevenson and Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean. Steve Wynn considered himself 'The Walt Disney of Vegas when Treasure Island was in development and construction at the time.


    It was one of my most favorite hotel and casinos at the time before the hotel dethemed and became ugly. Now it is called 'TI.' Tipsy Island, no longer Treasure Island anymore. But they still use the Treasure Island name for their hotel which is dumb. The horrid 'Sirens of TI' replaced the well done Buccaneer Bay for a rather unwatchable and poor show in October 2003. Those higher ups at the time were un-creative and made the most dumbest business decision at the time. Since Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean movies were getting popular starting in 2003 and if Treasure Island at the Mirage remained the same and preserve their theme and free show, then they would huge amounts of money from families...

    The Mirage is similarly the same, but some parts got de-themed. Making it lose some of its touch.

    Monte Carlo Hotel and Casino got rebranded and became a rather boring and bland ugly hotel that looks like a hospital rather than a themed hotel and casino based on a city...I'll never visit the Park MGM, it replaced a already decent hotel and casino. It looks ugly with it's colors like hospital green and feces brown. It used to be cheaper and made for budget clients, the theme wasn't very heavy. But it was simple and elegant with its French Riveria theme at the time with the beautiful lighting, statues, and fountains. A cheaper version of Bellagio without the fountains. I used to stay in Monte Carlo a lot as a kid at the time. I sure miss the mid 90's of the Vegas Strip.

    Oh well, the Las Vegas Strip used to be fun and unique. Now becoming more sterile, bland, boring, and uncreative. Some hotels kept their theme, but most got rebranded and dethemed into a boring looking bland hotel and casino that looks similar to each other. The Strip is becoming more like a city then a unique place to visit. Las Vegas has rather become soulless and creativity bankrupt.
    Last edited by LangenFox; 04-26-2019, 05:05 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • HiddenMickey87
    replied
    I read an article today stating that successful CEOs like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos took personality tests and all scored low in one category: Concern for Others.
    While the article stated that this is not necessarily a bad thing -- i.e. that they simply put their work ahead of what people thought of it -- I think this is a big problem with CEOs. They're great at the business/financial aspect, but often these companies grow and lose the soul/philosophy of what they started as. I wouldn't be surprised if Iger scored low in this category as well. To hell with philosophy and history, it's whatever makes the money... and we'll just throw in a little Walt when it's convenient or seemingly excuses our choices.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr Wiggins
    replied
    Originally posted by PragmaticIdealist View Post
    ...Disneyland still exists and helps some older people and males retain their affinity towards the brand, and Disneyland's multimedia franchise, "Pirates of the Caribbean," is among the few newer things that has done so, as well. But, in general, the schizophrenia of the trademark has inflicted so much damage to Disney's image that the company needed Marvel and Star Wars to bolster the enterprise in the demographic areas where it, itself, had actively alienated both males and older people.
    In the long run nothing is going to change, because Disney will gradually skew the Marvel and Star Wars brands toward the generic kids-and-youth demographic that their corporate groupthink favors. Film by film, toy line by toy line, theme park attraction by theme park attraction, the Marvel and Star Wars brands will be Disneyfied to focus on the youth market. Their demographic graph is by design, not accident. They view it as a successful money-maker, and they aren't about to change it.

    Disney won't be able to not "Disneyfy" Marvel and Star Wars. Disney brand marketing runs on the engine Eisner built: His consumer product sensibility was formed when he was in charge of ABC Children's Television. The paint was barely dry on his name in the Burbank parking lot when he started Disney TV Animation and greenlit Gummi Bears and Winnie the Pooh for kid's TV, with the Disney Afternoon to follow.

    Eisner's market-to-the-kids-and-their-parents-will-follow sensibility is woven into Disney's DNA, from the executives he hired to the corporate culture he created. It has been expressed for decades in the kiddiefication and toonification of Disneyland. It's why Disney Consumer Products guru and chief toy marketeer Bob Chapek is in charge of DPEP (Disney Parks, Experiences and Products). And it's why, when the acquisitions were announced, Marvel and Star Wars purists feared the generic corporate blanding -- the loss of soul -- that would accompany the "Disneyfication by degrees" of the brands.

    Last edited by Mr Wiggins; 04-26-2019, 08:29 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • stovk
    replied
    Originally posted by PragmaticIdealist View Post
    ..the schizophrenia of the trademark has inflicted so much damage to Disney's image that the company needed Marvel and Star Wars to bolster the enterprise in the demographic areas where it, itself, had actively alienated both males and older people
    Great post.

    This goes to my point above. By relying on an established IP from a different entity, Disney has no connection to it. The fan base has been established already and just because Disney has taken over the property, does not necessarily guarantee the fanbase will have any affinity for Disney.

    I think this was already proven for the Star Wars franchise. Although fan loyalty to SW is undeniable, they were soured by George Lucas and Lucasfilm for their handling of the franchise prior to Disney's involvement. Disney may have a hot commodity, but garnering an identity and loyalty is difficult when it's not your "baby." I would wager that most SW fans could care less about who controls SW as long as the "Universe" doesn't change.

    Now compare that to the way Disney originally established their fanbase. Starting with Mickey Mouse on up to the pre Eisner days, the Disney "brand" was undeniable. There was a unique "look". Anyone, no matter where they were from, could recognize a Disney "product." The "product" was an original creation, even if from an established story, and it was taylored to fit the Disney mold.

    The same is true for the Parks. When you walked into Disneyland, there wasn't any doubt where you were. There is a unique look, sound, smell, and feel to Disneyland like no other.

    But now, Disney seems to have no interest in marketing their uniqueness. They seem content picking up IPs the way some people pick up paperclips and not even attempting to put the Disney look onto it. That only shows me they're only interested in the cash generating aspects of the product and could careless about preserving the history and brand of Disney.
    Last edited by stovk; 04-26-2019, 07:58 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • PragmaticIdealist
    replied
    Here is a graph that shows the problem.

    After decades of "Disney Princess" junk and Disney Channel crap that holds appeal only for prepubescent girls, the affinity that males and older people feel towards the Disney trademark has virtually disappeared.

    Disneyland still exists and helps some older people and males retain their affinity towards the brand, and Disneyland's multimedia franchise, "Pirates of the Caribbean," is among the few newer things that has done so, as well. But, in general, the schizophrenia of the trademark has inflicted so much damage to Disney's image that the company needed Marvel and Star Wars to bolster the enterprise in the demographic areas where it, itself, had actively alienated both males and older people.

    The lesson that should have been learned is that failing to correct the schizophrenia of the "Disney" name is not only unwise. It's untenable. And, a company-wide effort should have been, and should still be, undertaken to make the meaning of the trademark, wherever it is used, consistent with Disneyland.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eagleman
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr Wiggins View Post

    Exactly. It's true that pre-Eisner Disney did plenty of character brand marketing. It's also true that there is no similarity between the Disney corporate culture of the pre-Eisner and post-Eisner eras. As those who worked in Burbank, Glendale, or Anaheim during the transition will testify, they are entirely different companies -- particularly in terms of "soul." The only thing they have in common is the Disney name. (Which is why the old-timers roll their eyes when people insist that "Walt did the same thing as Eisner and Iger.")
    Like This !

    I been told the same ,from Employee's

    The Disney company is not same company
    and change came about during the
    Eisner eras
    and right into Iger pocket !
    corporate company with very little soul = and only cares about the almighty dollar
    IMO
    Last edited by Eagleman; 04-20-2019, 04:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • stovk
    replied
    Originally posted by Blurr View Post
    I don't blame Chapek, per say, for the way he has been running things in the park. He's just doing things the way he's always done and the only way that he knows how which, to be fair, is probably great when it comes to marketing brands, etc. This is where his strengths lie and this kind of person is needed somewhere but they are not needed to run the theme parks. The theme parks require a creative mindset, the ability to create new and original experiences instead of advertising and selling ones you've already purchased. Chapek only knows how to do the latter, which is fine in a certain context. If I were a character developer, I would absolutely trust Chapek to market and sell my characters as a brand to local shops, create plush merchandise, etc. But I would never trust him to make creative decisons regarding my stories, etc. He has his strengths and they could be used to great effect accordingly, the problem is that he was appointed to a position that he has no place in and is now basically the eqviuelent of a chicken running around with its head chopped off and pretending like he belongs or knows what hes doing.
    Brings to mind this article "The Problem With Bob Chapek"

    Leave a comment:


  • DarthBrett78
    replied
    Unfortunately, I think it just is the sign of the times. America is ruled by big corporate companies with very little soul and Disney is now one of those companies. The bigger a company grows and grows and gobbles up more entities and ventures, the more likely it will eventually fall victim to becoming a money-making machine that only cares about the almighty dollar.

    Disney has done just that. It's bittersweet, because they have more resources than ever to invest in or recruit incredibly creative talent and could crank out amazing things if they truly wanted to. But shares mean more to the current regime than any sort of breeding ground to showcase talent and imagination.

    I don't blame Disney for building Marvel or Star Wars attractions. In fact, I want them to -- Galaxy's Edge though, and not Mission Breakout overlays. But they also need to come up with some original ideas of their own for pete's sake and stop relying on already established IPs.

    DL and Disney parks truly need more Tropical Hideaway, Space restaurant (at EPCOT) and Mickey's Runaway Railway type of creations in the future. And less Marvel Land, Pixar Pier, Galaxy's Edge, Guardians coasters, Ratatouille or Pandora attractions.

    I realize I may have contradicted myself a little, but what I mean is Disney could do Galaxy's Edge and Pandora but also come up with a bunch of original ideas for lands and attractions. But instead, they played it safe and chose not to.

    Soulless, cowardly...all decent terms to describe the current Disney way. Perhaps maybe "safe" is the best word to describe them right now? They are playing it safe and not being daring or innovative or taking chances. Something Walt himself prided on doing numerous times in his life.
    Last edited by DarthBrett78; 04-20-2019, 11:31 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr Wiggins
    replied
    ^ Great post!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Blurr
    replied
    I don't blame Chapek, per say, for the way he has been running things in the park. He's just doing things the way he's always done and the only way that he knows how which, to be fair, is probably great when it comes to marketing brands, etc. This is where his strengths lie and this kind of person is needed somewhere but they are not needed to run the theme parks. The theme parks require a creative mindset, the ability to create new and original experiences instead of advertising and selling ones you've already purchased. Chapek only knows how to do the latter, which is fine in a certain context. If I were a character developer, I would absolutely trust Chapek to market and sell my characters as a brand to local shops, create plush merchandise, etc. But I would never trust him to make creative decisons regarding my stories, etc. He has his strengths and they could be used to great effect accordingly, the problem is that he was appointed to a position that he has no place in and is now basically the eqviuelent of a chicken running around with its head chopped off and pretending like he belongs or knows what hes doing.

    As far as IPs go, I think they can be used creatively and correctly, we all know this is technically true with attractions like Indiana Jones. These attractions absolutely have a time and a place. When Disney bought Marvel, of course they were going to cash in and build Marvel attractions, I think they would have been stupid not to. Does Marvel deserve attractions? I think they do, the brand is incredibly popular and the films being made are top notch. But the attractions being crapped into the parks right now are being done cheap and fast in order to gain exposure and as a result, do not represent the Marvel brand or films properly, in my opinion. Was Guardians of the Galaxy a great film and would an attraction be a good idea? I think so. But whats not a good idea is erasing an already exisiting attraction which has previously proven its worth and decorating whats left of its corpse with what is effectively a rushed overlay. Overlay is even a strong word to use and quite frankly is an insult to other attractions like Haunted Mansion Holiday.

    Before I end what I have to say I alsk want to touch on a concept I had mentioned previously in another thread. IPs and "playing it safe" can and should be used as powerful tools. But tools should be used to create new things. Disneyland is having the same issue that a lot of Hollywood is having. Star Wars, Marvel, etc. have a certain worth that comes with them and could be used as all around money makers with their films, attractions and merchandise to obtain great profit. The problem here is that Disney (and many other companies) then take that profit and, instead of investing it into creating something new or "the next big thing", use it to create more of the same tried and true stuff that they already had. This not how I believe the cycle should be going. I love Star Wars and Marvel but I may also love something thats never had the chance to be created without even knowing it because said idea is being denied a chance at life in favor of playing things safe. This is the power of tried and true IPs. I think Disney should absolutely use them, they would be stupid not to. But once you have created something you know will be fiancially successful with them, allocate a certain amount of those funds and invest them into taking a risk or creating something new and original so that you can give birth to the next big thing. Then you would have two instead of one and have a need to constantly be innovating. If things go wrong and lets be honest, at times they will, then you still have the power of your previous successes or IPs to fall back on. They just dont seem to have the guts to be willing to risk it.

    So, in many ways, I dont know if I would say current Disney management is "soulless", they have a soul, abiet placed into the wrong body. Maybe a better fitting term would be "cowardly". Yes, I think that fits quite nicely.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr Wiggins
    replied
    Originally posted by PragmaticIdealist View Post
    Consumer Products is an entirely-different animal. (Before the rise of Internet advertising, Media Networks was, too.)
    Exactly. It's true that pre-Eisner Disney did plenty of character brand marketing. It's also true that there is no similarity between the Disney corporate culture of the pre-Eisner and post-Eisner eras. As those who worked in Burbank, Glendale, or Anaheim during the transition will testify, they are entirely different companies -- particularly in terms of "soul." The only thing they have in common is the Disney name. (Which is why the old-timers roll their eyes when people insist that "Walt did the same thing as Eisner and Iger.")

    Leave a comment:


  • PragmaticIdealist
    replied


    See this: https://www.doz.com/marketing-resour...eting-strategy

    The seeds were already sown. Disney's merchandising strategy in 1957 laid the groundwork. It is not a perversion, it is the natural evolution.
    Consumer Products is an entirely-different animal. (Before the rise of Internet advertising, Media Networks was, too.)

    Merchandise has a utility beyond the copyrights and other intellectual property that Disney, mainly, licenses, so, naturally, a marketing orientation is important for that business.

    Leave a comment:


  • DL714
    replied
    Originally posted by PragmaticIdealist View Post

    That fact is true for car makers and the like, but the marketing orientation was really never true for Walt Disney.
    See this: https://www.doz.com/marketing-resour...eting-strategy

    The seeds were already sown. Disney's merchandising strategy in 1957 laid the groundwork. It is not a perversion, it is the natural evolution.

    Originally posted by PragmaticIdealist View Post
    ​Disney needs to regain more of its original production orientation that understands human beings are much more alike than they are different and that avoids alienating anyone.
    This sounds so benign on the surface.

    Leave a comment:


  • stovk
    replied
    Excellent post and you've identified the problem with IP acquisition. As each division acquires it's property (whether it's ESPN, SW, Marvel, or whatever) those properties bring their own demographics. Now you are left with a unifying central entity, WDC, trying to pigeonhole them into a common "Disney" brand. What you end up with is a product with "Disney" stamped on it, but no relationship to anything else. And that, as you stated, is the problem when you lose the ability to develop your own original brand.

    Now get your popcorn, this is gonna be good.
    Last edited by stovk; 04-20-2019, 08:23 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • HiddenMickey87
    replied
    I hate it when companies sell out, whether it's Disney or the local mom-and-pop shop that sells to new owners who totally disregard the former beloved ways of the prior.
    See it all the time with hotels. Remember how distinct the hotels in Reno and Vegas were before they all got bought up by one of three major companies. Now aside from exteriors they're largely the same, down to the website layout. Bland! Same with airlines too.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X