The solution is to not have one giant company own literally all mainstream video entertainment.
Oh I agree.
And I definitely agree that making money is what they’re looking at. My hope is that the two things align, making money and making great entertainment.
The live action remakes are a great example of just making money and not making good entertainment.
I’ll actually be curious to see how “Mufasa” does since it’s a small branch into original content (it’s a new story, but it is also a prequel). We might get an era of direct-to-VHS like in the 90s but on the big screen. Not that those 90s films were great, I just think they were interesting.
I dunno I think they have a pretty good track record of doing both (ignoring the past few years, which I blame Chapek for).
Pixar has had a pretty great run over the years. Sure Disney was just partnered with them for the first few years, but they acquired them in '06 and still kept up the quality. Not to say they had 100% success, but far more wins than losses.
Star Wars animation has done solid work throughout the years. Sure you can give credit to Dave Filoni who started it before the acquisition, but Disney didn’t mess with it.
Disney Animation was obviously the gold standard starting in the 1930s. They did struggle after the 90s boom, especially shifting to 3D animation, but starting with Princess and the Frog/Tangled (2010ish) they’ve had solid hits.
The MCU, largely developed while under Disney, has been considered a huge hit both in quality and monetarily. A few missteps along the way but overall solid.
Now Star Wars live action. That is the area that’s been the weakest. It’s also what got us on this conversation. As I said the Sequel Trilogy, not great. An OK start, but terrible finale. I liked Solo, but I get that’s not a common opinion. Rogue One & Andor, solid so far. Mando had a great start.
Again I’ve stopped once Chapek shows up. Which also means I skip the weaker Pixar films in the past few years, I ignore the Disney Animation sequels we might have too many of, I ignore the post-Endgame drop (some are OK, but overall it’s a drop), and ignore the weaker Star Wars live action.
Could one man really screw all that up? Probably not, but he can cause a lot of damage.
I’m not saying Disney can’t, hasn’t, or won’t make good stuff.
I’m saying Disney isn’t an art-making-machine, because it’s actually a money-making-machine.
Sometimes a byproduct of it making money, is art. But the art hasn’t been the point for decades, and never will be again.
And I’m not saying art can’t be the point for some of the people involved, but that still doesn’t change the fact that they are a component of a money machine, that WILL squander them, if it means more money.
Oh I agree.
And I definitely agree that making money is what they’re looking at. My hope is that the two things align, making money and making great entertainment.
The live action remakes are a great example of just making money and not making good entertainment.
I’ll actually be curious to see how “Mufasa” does since it’s a small branch into original content (it’s a new story, but it is also a prequel). We might get an era of direct-to-VHS like in the 90s but on the big screen. Not that those 90s films were great, I just think they were interesting.
They do, but when it happens, it’s coincidence. That’s what I mean when I say Disney only makes good stuff by accident.
Not all good entertainment makes money, and not all entertainment that makes money, is good.
I dunno I think they have a pretty good track record of doing both (ignoring the past few years, which I blame Chapek for).
Pixar has had a pretty great run over the years. Sure Disney was just partnered with them for the first few years, but they acquired them in '06 and still kept up the quality. Not to say they had 100% success, but far more wins than losses.
Star Wars animation has done solid work throughout the years. Sure you can give credit to Dave Filoni who started it before the acquisition, but Disney didn’t mess with it.
Disney Animation was obviously the gold standard starting in the 1930s. They did struggle after the 90s boom, especially shifting to 3D animation, but starting with Princess and the Frog/Tangled (2010ish) they’ve had solid hits.
The MCU, largely developed while under Disney, has been considered a huge hit both in quality and monetarily. A few missteps along the way but overall solid.
Now Star Wars live action. That is the area that’s been the weakest. It’s also what got us on this conversation. As I said the Sequel Trilogy, not great. An OK start, but terrible finale. I liked Solo, but I get that’s not a common opinion. Rogue One & Andor, solid so far. Mando had a great start.
Again I’ve stopped once Chapek shows up. Which also means I skip the weaker Pixar films in the past few years, I ignore the Disney Animation sequels we might have too many of, I ignore the post-Endgame drop (some are OK, but overall it’s a drop), and ignore the weaker Star Wars live action.
Could one man really screw all that up? Probably not, but he can cause a lot of damage.
You’re not hearing me.
I’m not saying Disney can’t, hasn’t, or won’t make good stuff.
I’m saying Disney isn’t an art-making-machine, because it’s actually a money-making-machine.
Sometimes a byproduct of it making money, is art. But the art hasn’t been the point for decades, and never will be again.
And I’m not saying art can’t be the point for some of the people involved, but that still doesn’t change the fact that they are a component of a money machine, that WILL squander them, if it means more money.