Disney's Response to My Bitching

Two months ago I posted by complaint letter to Disneyland. I was upset, certainly, and I was disappointed.

I promised to post their response, and I've been sitting on it all this time, because...well... It made me sad. I don't want to say anything else before posting it.

First, as a refresher, here's my letter to them:

Hello Disney Customer Service

I’ve taken a while to decide if I wanted to write this e-mail. I’m not a complainer anyway, but it’s especially difficult for me to complain about anything “Disney”.

I am a very big Disney fan. A defender. A Walt Disney aficionado. I’m a Charter Member of D23. I’m a current Disneyland Annual Pass holder, and I’ve been a Walt Disney World Annual Pass holder in the past. I’ve visited Walt Disney World literally dozens of times. I have collected Disney Pins for 13 years, and have spent thousands and thousands of dollars.  I have been a loyal lover of The Mouse for many, many years and I am certain I will continue to be for many years to come.

All of that said, after a lot of thought, I’ve decided to bring some issues I had on my last trip to Disneyland, May 9^th to 11^th of 2013, specifically regarding my stay at Paradise Pier.

The short version is that I failed to read the details of my hotel reservation, and didn’t realize that the “free parking” extended to annual pass holders does not apply to hotel parking. When I asked about it, I was told that the “free parking” associated with the annual pass only applies to theme park parking. I asked if I would be able to park overnight at the theme parks to take advantage of the “Free Parking” and was informed that I could not, and that my car would likely be towed.

In essence one of the great benefits of having an annual pass is nullified by my choice to stay on site at Paradise Pier.

This policy will almost certainly prevent me from staying on-site at Disneyland ever again.

I specifically chose to stay at Paradise Pier so that I could walk to and from the park and create a more immersive experience (similar to the kind created by staying on site at Walt Disney World). I realize I’m not being deprived of that experience by being charged for parking, but there’s also a “feeling” I look for while visiting Disney. When I go to Disneyland I want to get the “feeling” that my visit is valued; that my loyalty is valued. I am certain that part of valuing a customer is making them feel that they’re getting something of value in return. I believe we all implicitly agree to spend 30 dollars a person on a mediocre breakfast buffet in exchange for the amazing feelings our kids have when they see Mickey. I believe it’s perfectly reasonable to be asked to wait for an hour to ride ‘Soarin’ Over California’, because what you get in return is nothing short of an amazing experience. Value.

I’m certain you are aware of this, but staying on site at Disneyland is a significantly more expensive proposition than staying at most of the other hotels anywhere nearby. I assumed the additional cost willingly, believing I’d have a more valuable experience in exchange for the higher cost. Instead, in exchange for the extra cost of staying in a “Disneyland resort” I was confronted with even more additional fees. I’m not even suggesting that you don’t charge for parking, but I do know there are more seamless methods of carrying out these fees without making the customer feel like they’re being shaken down. Far be it from me to begrudge Disney from making your money, but the more transparently capitalistic you become, the less enchanted I become.

I called the hotel where I stayed last time (Sheraton Anaheim). They also charge for parking (*though their rate is $14 dollars per night as opposed to your $15).  They also charge significantly less per night to stay (about half). So my question is…If I’m not getting ridiculously great, seamlessly executed service at your Disney hotel, why wouldn’t I save the money, stay at Sheraton Anaheim, and simply drive the .5 miles to park for free much closer to the entrance?

It’s so disappointing to say this, but I sincerely doubt I’ll ever stay at a Disneyland Resort Hotel again unless I can be sure I won’t have this kind of cold experience the next time.

Listen… I know this is ultimately a small thing. 30 dollars for parking in the grand scheme of a Disneyland visit is nothing. It’s 3 pins. It’s not even a full dinner for one at The Blue Bayou. It’s nothing.

And yet, truly it’s everything, because for so many years I’ve defended my visits as a grown man to Disneyland and Walt Disney World. Sure… it costs more, but Disney does it right. Disney makes you feel special. Disney makes you glad to give them your money, because even though they’re a business they make you feel like they’d be there for free.

It’s such a little thing, this silly parking policy, but it’s taken away my feeling that I’m valued.

I’ll always go to Disneyland and Disney World, because they’re as much a part of who I am, and what I love, as where I went to high school or where I grew up. I just don’t know that I’ll ever wear quite the same shade of rose colored glasses again.

Just thought you should know.

Sincerely,
Daniel P. Cohen, Phone -***-***-*075
Annual Pass #********431

Here's Disney's response:

Dear Mr. Cohen:

Thank you for your e-mail to the DISNEYLAND® Resort. We appreciate you 
taking the time to share your experience with us. 

We are concerned with the disappointments you mentioned in your e-mail. 
As you are aware, our goal is to provide the finest service and 
accommodations. Please be assured we do take our Guest comments very 
seriously, and take them into consideration when evaluating our 
operation. Your remarks have been shared with the appropriate leaders so
they are aware of your experiences. 

As stated in the "Annual Passholder Terms and Conditions" The parking 
benefit, as applicable, is subject to availability and valid only at 
pay-on entry lots at the Disneyland Resort. Regrettably, Annual 
Passholders who have parking on their Annual Passes do not qualify for 
free parking at any of our Resort Hotels or at the Downtown Disney 
Parking Lot. We do apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused 
you or your family. Please accept our sincerest apologies. To view the 
"Annual Passholder Terms and Conditions" you may see them at the 
following website address: http://disneyland.disney.go.com/faq/apterms/

Again, thank you for contacting us. Comments such as yours are welcomed 
in that they assist us in evaluating our operation and our success in 
generating happiness for our Guests. We hope you will have the 
opportunity to visit the DISNEYLAND® Resort soon and that our 
attractions and entertainment will delight you in every way.

Sincerely, 

Terry Sampson 

DISNEYLAND® Resort
Guest Experience Services

I can't decide if maybe my expectations were too high, but this seems like a blow-off, doesn't it? 

I'd like to hear your thoughts.

I'm almost ready to return to blogging about Disney and the good stuff. I just haven't totally gotten over this yet.

A Rare Complaint

Below is the exact e-mail I sent to Disney Customer Service regarding my recent stay. I have not yet received a reply. I'd be curious to know what other fans think of what I had to say.

______________

Hello Disney Customer Service

I’ve taken a while to decide if I wanted to write this e-mail. I’m not a complainer anyway, but it’s especially difficult for me to complain about anything “Disney”.

I am a very big Disney fan. A defender. A Walt Disney aficionado. I’m a Charter Member of D23. I’m a current Disneyland Annual Pass holder, and I’ve been a Walt Disney World Annual Pass holder in the past. I’ve visited Walt Disney World literally dozens of times. I have collected Disney Pins for 13 years, and have spent thousands and thousands of dollars.  I have been a loyal lover of The Mouse for many, many years and I am certain I will continue to be for many years to come.

All of that said, after a lot of thought, I’ve decided to bring some issues I had on my last trip to Disneyland, May 9^th to 11^th of 2013, specifically regarding my stay at Paradise Pier.

The short version is that I failed to read the details of my hotel reservation, and didn’t realize that the “free parking” extended to annual pass holders does not apply to hotel parking. When I asked about it, I was told that the “free parking” associated with the annual pass only applies to theme park parking. I asked if I would be able to park overnight at the theme parks to take advantage of the “Free Parking” and was informed that I could not, and that my car would likely be towed.

In essence one of the great benefits of having an annual pass is nullified by my choice to stay on site at Paradise Pier.

This policy will almost certainly prevent me from staying on-site at Disneyland ever again.

I specifically chose to stay at Paradise Pier so that I could walk to and from the park and create a more immersive experience (similar to the kind created by staying on site at Walt Disney World). I realize I’m not being deprived of that experience by being charged for parking, but there’s also a “feeling” I look for while visiting Disney. When I go to Disneyland I want to get the “feeling” that my visit is valued; that my loyalty is valued. I am certain that part of valuing a customer is making them feel that they’re getting something of value in return. I believe we all implicitly agree to spend 30 dollars a person on a mediocre breakfast buffet in exchange for the amazing feelings our kids have when they see Mickey. I believe it’s perfectly reasonable to be asked to wait for an hour to ride ‘Soarin’ Over California’, because what you get in return is nothing short of an amazing experience. Value.

I’m certain you are aware of this, but staying on site at Disneyland is a significantly more expensive proposition than staying at most of the other hotels anywhere nearby. I assumed the additional cost willingly, believing I’d have a more valuable experience in exchange for the higher cost. Instead, in exchange for the extra cost of staying in a “Disneyland resort” I was confronted with even more additional fees. I’m not even suggesting that you don’t charge for parking, but I do know there are more seamless methods of carrying out these fees without making the customer feel like they’re being shaken down. Far be it from me to begrudge Disney from making your money, but the more transparently capitalistic you become, the less enchanted I become.

I called the hotel where I stayed last time (Sheraton Anaheim). They also charge for parking (*though their rate is $14 dollars per night as opposed to your $15).  They also charge significantly less per night to stay (about half). So my question is…If I’m not getting ridiculously great, seamlessly executed service at your Disney hotel, why wouldn’t I save the money, stay at Sheraton Anaheim, and simply drive the .5 miles to park for free much closer to the entrance?

It’s so disappointing to say this, but I sincerely doubt I’ll ever stay at a Disneyland Resort Hotel again unless I can be sure I won’t have this kind of cold experience the next time.

Listen… I know this is ultimately a small thing. 30 dollars for parking in the grand scheme of a Disneyland visit is nothing. It’s 3 pins. It’s not even a full dinner for one at The Blue Bayou. It’s nothing.

And yet, truly it’s everything, because for so many years I’ve defended my visits as a grown man to Disneyland and Walt Disney World. Sure… it costs more, but Disney does it right. Disney makes you feel special. Disney makes you glad to give them your money, because even though they’re a business they make you feel like they’d be there for free.

It’s such a little thing, this silly parking policy, but it’s taken away my feeling that I’m valued.

I’ll always go to Disneyland and Disney World, because they’re as much a part of who I am, and what I love, as where I went to high school or where I grew up. I just don’t know that I’ll ever wear quite the same shade of rose colored glasses again.

Just thought you should know.

Sincerely,
Daniel P. Cohen, Phone -***-***-*075
Annual Pass #********431

Escape from Tomorrow

A movie called ‘Escape from Tomorrow’ has recently come to my attention. That’s not unusual in and of itself, as I probably see more new movies than just about anyone. The unusual thing about this particular movie is that I hadn’t heard of it, and the majority of it was filmed at Disney World.

“What!?!” – That was my reaction when I first heard about it.

The movie premiered this year at the Sundance Film Festival to little pre-showing fanfare, and by all accounts isn’t that great of a movie as a whole.  Though it’s being lauded for having an interesting visual style, the “horror” and script are being written off as average. There’s a lot of speculation that it wouldn’t have been accepted to such a major festival without the Ninja-Disney cache.

It was shot, in secret, on small hand-held cameras and other subtle or “touristy” video cameras. They did this, because Disney has never authorized any outside productions to film in their parks. They’ve always been extremely protective over their branding and their images. Because of this, the movie is very unlikely to ever see wide release, since the movie not only takes place there, but depends on the location as part of the story, and Disney is pretty unlikely to allow this movie they had no hand in creating using their images. As of now, the only known showing planned for it is next week in Ebertfest. And then that’s it. Maybe it’s gone forever. Maybe you’ll be able to scrounge up a bootleg somewhere.

Thinking about this movie, and my desire to see it, and my overall love of Disney and Disney Parks has raised several questions for me. I’m going to take some time to toss them around.

First… What’s the issue?

Well, I guess it depends on who you ask, but the main issue would seem to be that Disney doesn’t want people using their images (characters, park rides, names, etc..) without their permission. Now, when last I heard, Disney hadn’t released any official “Cease and desist” statement. They simply said they were aware of the movie, and that was it. The idealist in me would like to think that Disney would let it go, and not stop it, but I can’t see that happening. So basically there’s this movie that won’t be purchased by a distributor because there’s a good chance Disney will just sue the daylights out of them if they ever try to release it. If the movie was undeniably good, maybe someone would take the risk, but not for this.

Second… If it’s not that good, who cares?

That’s a good point. I think there’s an obvious niche audience that just loves to see Disney images, and is sort of titillated by this sort of illicit depiction of “It’s a Small World” and “Space Mountain” in this unsanctioned way. There’s something kinda fun in the notion that you’re breaking the rules. Even the most staunch of Disney fans will likely admit to having had fantasies of hiding on The People Mover until after close and wandering the park all night. None of us wants to do damage, but all of us wants an unforgettable, unique Disney experience. This movie represents that unique experience, and there’s value in that to a Disney Fan. Someone got past the security. Someone figured out ways to perform whole scenes of dialogue amidst the unknowing crowd and on rides. It’s fascinating just to think about it.  Basically, there’s a small audience of big Disney fans who just wanna see it out of curiosity. That’s who cares, and I don’t think that’s enough.

Let’s say it was great? Shouldn’t it be released?

The thing that I’m reminded of most of all in regards to this situation is the Metallica vs. Napster case. For anyone who’s forgotten, Metallica sued Napster (at the time the world’s largest file sharing program) because their songs were being shared from user to user without Metallica’s consent. They insisted over and over it wasn’t about the millions of dollars they weren’t making through legitimate sales of their songs (that’s probably not true totally, since I’d definitely care about the money for sure), but rather that they believed that Metallica alone should have control over how their music (their “intellectual property”) should be made available.

Essentially, if Disney puts up a fight, or refuses to give consent to the filmmakers to use their images, Disney will be arguing the same thing. If Space Mountain appears in some movie, Disney wants to have the ONLY say in how. If Mickey Mouse is a major plot point in a story, you can bet Disney’s name is the only one on it.

The argument made by the other side is emotional and complicated and certainly worth considering.

“Disney is the most powerful entertainment company on Earth. It’s not going to hurt them”
“Disney has enough money. They should just let it go.”
“Shouldn’t they be encouraging young film makers?”
“What about all the fans who want to see the Disney stuff?”
“What happens to all the money the people spent making the movie?”

These are basically all valid, emotion-based questions, with boring, unemotional answers that all make sense to me, but the answer that resonates the most with me is this:

Maybe the money doesn’t matter to them, because them crazy rich, and maybe they’d like to encourage young filmmakers, and maybe this film wouldn’t hurt their image, and obviously they love the fans, but ultimately it’s not about THIS movie or THESE filmmakers. It’s about setting the precedent. There’s no way Disney is going to open the door to film makers not under their umbrella. Maybe this one movie doesn’t harm them, but what about all of the subsequent movies made in the same way? Does Disney have to give them all a pass? Even if it’s a case-by-case thing, I can’t see them wanting to encourage the practice at all.

And lemme talk about this “Doesn’t Disney have enough money?” argument for just a second, because it’s the same one leveled by Napster against Metallica, and it’s just as stupid now.

Disney doesn’t have enough money. Maybe to you they do, but they don’t. Their entire purpose is to make money… (Some would argue that their purpose is to entertain, to which I’d say… “that’s cute”…)  and the only way they make money is off of their own intellectual property (or the legal purchase of George Lucas’ intellectual property, as it were). If someone else is making money off of it, then it’s more difficult for them to. Even if the actual amount of money is small, I have a very difficult time saying they shouldn’t be able to make that money.

I guess, after talking through this with you, my position is pretty clear. The scenario is much less muddy to me than it was before I started writing.

Yes, it’s kinda cool that this dude made this movie and got creative to use a place nobody’s ever used before.

Yes, I wanna see it.

Yes, in a perfect world where nobody has any monetary or creative stake in such things, it’d be available for all the world to see…

But in the end, I was on Metallica’s side against Napster, even though I used Napster. I’m on Disney’s (presumptive) side in this. I care more about the Disney brand than I do about this movie. I am protective of their brand. I like that Disney is also. There was a time in the late 20s and 30s where Disney didn’t license their merchandise and it was bootlegged and replicated all over the place. Disney lost countless millions during that time when all of these other companies put out junk with Mickey and Donald on the side and passed it off as Disney. They have the right to protect their creative property. In fact, I’d go so far as to argue they have the responsibility to do so.

If they let THIS go, couldn’t there be an argument made that if I scrounged up enough money, I could buy a chunk of land in Iowa, and build my own Disney World? How is it different?

I applaud the director for his moxie. I hope to see the movie some day, but I won’t pay to see it.

A friend will be going to Ebertfest next week and will be seeing the movie. If they blog about it, I’ll be sure to point you all in that direction. I’m certain fascinated by the whole thing. But to me, the fascination is where it stops.

Disney + Star Wars = Best Day Ever

Apparently it takes a 4 billion dollar deal to get me blogging. That’s okay, though, because if the news of Disney buying Lucasfilms can’t do it, I may as well close up shop.

So yeah…

Disney inked a deal to buy Lucasfilms for 4.5 BILLION dollars. That purchase includes Industrial Light and Magic and Skywalker Sound. Lucasfilms, in case you don’t know, is the studio that has the creative rights to Star Wars and Indiana Jones.

As you can imagine, as a Disney fan, I believe this is the awesomest thing in the history of awesome things. Both film franchises feature original trilogies that are easily among the 5 best trilogies in film history. Not only are they awesome, but they’re also insanely profitable. In fact, maybe 4.5 billion dollars isn’t enough money to pay George Lucas.

So yeah, Disney can’t lose.

But what do I say to all of the obsessive Star Wars fans who are afraid that Disney will ruin the legacy of The Force?

Well…

First, let me defend my beloved Disney against all of this “Disneyfied” nonsense. I’ve seen around the internet this idea that suddenly Disney is going to somehow over-commercialize or over-cutesy the Star Wars creative property.

Um… Have these people seen the Star Wars legos, and video games, and toys and toys and toys? George Lucas was the all time greatest ever at wringing out every tidbit of cash out of literally ever corner of his kingdom. My long-time buddy, The Scary Pinecone used to collect the Star Wars figures, and there were tons of figures of characters I had no recollection of from movies I’ve seen dozens of times.

George Lucas created Ewoks. George Lucas created Jar Jar Binks (for Pete’s sake!) He forced poor little innocent Jake Lloyd to shriek “Yippee!”. Do they really want to get into this “Disney=Cutified” thing?

Anyway, here are my points in favor of the deal:

1) As many others have pointed out… There’s absolutely no risk from either side of the deal. Disney will make boatloads of cash no matter what, and they’ll also have the extremely valuable studios of ILM and Skywalker Sound. Lucasfilms risks nothing in terms of quality, because let’s face it… The last good movie to come out of Lucasfilms was Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade in 1989. The last good Star Wars movie was in 1983. I was 3 years old. I will be 33 in February. The recent Star Wars movies have been worse than mediocre, and my preference is to just forget that Indy 4 never happened at all. Disney can’t make it worse. There’s only one direction to go, and that’s up.

2) George Lucas conceptualized Star Wars as a 9 Part Story, and only 6 parts have been created. He’s openly said that he’d never make Episodes 7 to 9, and that’s a shame, because if they use the Timothy Zahn “Heir to the Empire” trilogy as a basis, the fans are truly missing out. Those stories are awesome, and they introduce some spectacular characters, aliens, and worlds. It could be awesome, and Lucas doesn’t have the creative juice to do it. Even if he did, let’s just be honest and admit that the biggest problems with the recent films is that he had too much control. Disney is arguably the only studio to have the bandwidth, talent, and funds to do it right. I’m excited. I say give the reins to J.J. Abrahms or Rian Johnson or Joss Whedon and sit back and enjoy the ride.

3) Disney, with their enormous scope, can offer the Star Wars fans an opportunity to love their stories for years to come in dozens of different medias. I’ve already heard talk of Star Wars themed attractions at the parks. New movies. New cartoons. It’s a way to keep the stories alive and bring them to even more audiences. I mean… who wouldn’t love to go to Disney World at ride the hot new roller coaster “The Millenium Falcon and the Kessel Run”? (That’s my idea, Disney… HIRE ME!)

4) Nobody’s really talking much about the Indy movies, and maybe that’s because Harrison Ford is old, Shia LeBouf is… unsuitable to take over the franchise, and you can’t really do “Indy” without “Indy”. That’s fair, but a buddy of mine asked me about Disney’s track record with Sci-Fi, and I have to admit, it’s not that great. Action/Adventure, however… I’d venture to say that the best Action/Adventure movie of the past 10 years is the first Pirates flick. The Avengers is pretty good too… I’d be interested to see what Disney does with a property like Indiana Jones… Can they go in a different direction without Harrison Ford in the spotlight?

5) Speaking of “The Avengers”, I think that perhaps this is the best example of why a Disneyfied Lucasfilm is going to be awesome…

Disney bought Marvel a couple of years ago, and every comic book fan boy freaked the hell out. “Oh no! The Hulk will have Mickey Ears! They’ll be “baby” versions of Iron Man and Captain America.”

That hasn’t happened. Disney’s done a great job of keeping true to the Marvel stories and characters. I realize that there’s only been a small samples size to this point, but The Avengers was stupendous. They did it right. They hired respected “Geek Insiders” like Joss Whedon to write and direct. They made sure the effects were tight. They treated their stars right, so we know they’ll be back. It was masterfully done, and nobody can complain. Maybe someone doesn’t love the plot, but all-in-all, it was an enormous success. Also they made 1.5 Billion dollars.

Look… There are no guarantees, but Disney is the one company out there that combines the technical prowess, the creative talent, and the ridiculously deep pockets to do it right.

Let me put it this way…

If we knew that Lucas wasn’t going to be available to make another Star Wars movie, but we knew there would still BE a Star Wars movie… what studio do you want taking over?

Disney is it.

Rumors and Whatnot

Ooof. It’s been a while.

I wanna take a little while to talk about some of the rumors swirling around the development of different stuff at Disney World.

The main new rumor is surrounding the new “Avatar” themed area at Animal Kingdom. The newest information says that the entire project has stalled out, because James Cameron is difficult to work with, and is obsessing over “Avatar 4”. This is especially weird due to the lack of an “Avatar 2” or ‘Avatar 3” yet. Different sources are saying that Cameron’s tendency toward perfectionism is threatening to drive Imagineers to insanity, and at the same time they’re talking about how even if the new land does get off the ground, the cost to achieve Cameron’s vision will simply be too high when the interest level isn’t really even coming close to that of the main competitor for this type of attraction, Universals “Wizarding World of Harry Potter”.

So… the question is… is it worth it to pursue? Initially, I thought the Avatar themed area was a great idea. It provided a sort of built-in full immersion vision straight from a true creative innovator in James Cameron (if not also a total egomaniacal nut). It had the potential, assuming they expanded the “known Avatar universe” to include creatures and beasts from the 2^nd and 3^rd films, to really be a beautiful, unique addition to Animal Kingdom.

The more I thought about it, though, the less interested I became. Avatar just seems so… fleeting. It seems so much just a thing of the moment, and not an enduring classic in much of any sense. I also started to have real issues with using a largely non-Disney creative property to devote so much time and money. If Disney wanted to add a new area to Animal Kingdom based on a movie, or movies… what about Finding Nemo (even though The Seas in Epcot already sort of does that), or Tarzan, or The Jungle Book. Seems like The Jungle Book would be a fantastic option. It’s iconic and memorable and wholly Disney (at least the animated version. ). I feel like they could even create some really cool attractions around it. I am imagining a wild mouse type roller coaster ride using the King Louie sequence. It just seems really fun in my head.

You know… I just thought of this, but what about a world dedicated to “Brave”? I know it wasn’t AS popular or AS well received as some of the other Pixar movies, but the visuals of it were stunning, and it has a shitload of bears…. Maybe that’s not enough to build a whole “land” around, but whatever. My point is there are options.

Anyway… the other big rumor is sort of connected to the Avatar thing, so I wanted to address this too…

The supposition is that if Avatar isn’t happening, that Disney will have to do some other big thing in order to grab crowds and interest. There’s a lot of talk around the grapevine that Disney will close off “Lights, Motors, Action” in Hollywood Studios and build in a carbon copy of “Cars Land” that they just completed in Disney’s California Adventure.

This… doesn’t interest me.

It’s not that I’m against “Cars” as a movie… Well… I sort of am, but I’m not against the Cars Land in Disneyland. I think it’s one of those things that makes sense financially, because Cars is so damned popular, and Disney is ALWAYS looking for ways to market to pre-adolescent boys.

I just think that porting it, wholly, over to Disney World would be just straight-up lazy. It’s not a thing that’ll garner big interest from anyone really. It was when it opened in Cali, but I believe that aside from Magic Kingdom, Disney should be working hard to make Disney World and Disneyland two divergent experiences. Doesn’t that even make more sense money-wise? If DL and WDW aren’t interchangeable, people will want to experience both places individually, instead of seeing them as an either/or kind of experience.

As of now, there’s no official word from Disney that would lead us to believe anything other than Avatar being on schedule, but keep an eye on Festival of the Lion King in Animal Kingdom. If it doesn’t close in January, that’s a surefire sign that Avatar isn’t happening , at least as planned.

Next time? I talk about Disney and how they can take advantage of the Marvel Universe.

Back to Basics

A new era at Disney may have started last Monday, and few people are aware of it. I didn’t even really read much about it until the day before, and knowing how much time I have to read about just about everything, it’s safe to say this was a stealthy shift in power.

I’m getting ahead of myself.

Rich Ross was named Chairman of Walt Disney Studios in 2009 and even though he was at the helm for huge hits like Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Alice in Wonderland, and Toy Story 3 (3 of the 11 highest grossing movies of all time), he was also largely responsible for the crazy spending (and disappointing returns) on movies like John Carter and Mars Needs Moms, both of which lost over 100 million dollars, and let’s be honest… were hugely damaging to the company’s reputation as a developer of top tier movies.

Primarily due to the failings of these two movies, and his silly attempt to pawn the issues of John Carter off on Pixar, Ross resigned in April.

This is a good thing.

I’m not saying that he did all bad. He was with the company in one way or another for a long time, and he helmed some important projects. It was just time for him to go. John Carter, especially, didn’t have to be the failure that it was, but the over-spending and poor marketing plan were crushing.

Until this past weekend, I’d not heard much in the way of rumors about who would replace Ross.

To be sure, this is a HUGE job. Let’s talk about what all it entails these days…

The Chairman is charged with overseeing:
Walt Disney Pictures
Walt Disney Animation Studios
Pixar Animation Studios
DIsneyToon Studios
Disneynature
Touchstone Pictures
Hollywood Pictures
Disney Music Group
Disney Theatrical Group
Disney Distribution
Disney Studio Services (This is a lot of stuff0

This also includes the new Marvel movies.

I mean… this is a ridiculously big job, handling dozens of subsidiaries, and thousands of employees. Rich Ross wasn’t that great at it, it appears.

When I read that Alan Horn was tapped to replace Ross, I got excited. I don’t know a lot about the inner workings of the Hollywood studio system, but I knew of Horn, at least a little.

Alan Horn was one of the founders of Castle Rock Entertainment. He also was most recently President of Warner Brothers. During his tenure there, he oversaw the release of the new Batman films as well as ALL of the Harry Potter franchise movies. It’s hard to argue with that sort of cohesion of process.

This was, at the outset, all I knew about Horn, and I was still pretty happy about it. Then I started to read the press info about the guy…

Some quotes:
“It’s like James Dolan hiring Phil Jackson to coach the Knicks. You feel like Disney is back in the game.” – a veteran Hollywood agent.
“A great choice, he's an executive that ran a big studio for years with a lot of success. He knows movies and he knows the business." – Jerry Bruckheimer

I like these quotes.

I also like that from everything I’ve read, it appears that Disney is refocusing on making movies. This sounds like a weird thing to say about what is a movie studio, but the thing is… in recent years, with Bob Iger running the show, the Disney focus has been on other parts of the brand. The parks. The cruise line. The merchandising. The television divisions (the very successful ABC and ESPN are both Disney properties). I’m not saying that Iger has done a bad job, because I think for the most part he has been successful. It’s just that he’s sort of marginalized the movie part of things, and thus alienated a lot of the front-line movie talent.

Now.. this is all speculation, but let’s take the epic failure that was John Carter. This was a 250 million dollar movie that featured a near-complete unknown in just about every scene. I’m not saying that Taylor Kitsch was bad, because he wasn’t the problem with that movie (or with other, non-Disney, failure Battleship), but tell me… if you’d seen the exact same campaign advertising the film, but instead of a no-name TV actor playing the lead role, you had a proven movie action movie leading man like, I dunno… Chris Pine, or Chris Evans, or Chris Hemsworth, or Christian Bale (literally any Chris, really). Wouldn’t you have thought twice before passing up on seeing it? Who knows.

Anyway, there’s a lot of speculation that Disney’s recent de-emphasis in the movie business has steered top name people away, and thus we have Taylor Kitsch instead of one of the many successful Chris actors I mentioned.

The actual Walt Disney was a man of many interests. He spent time focusing on animation, movies, television, theme parks, and you know… trains. The thing that Walt never forgot, though, was that the movie business can be the bread-winner when done right.

The thing that seems to have been forgotten is that the movies feed every other facet.

Create a new, iconic, animated film and suddenly you have new merchandise. New theme park tie-ins. New everything. A really popular movie is the gift that keeps on giving. Just look at the Harry Potter franchise. Those movies single-handedly saved Universal Studios by giving them That Magical World of Harry Potter, or whatever the hell those people are calling that thing we try not to acknowledge, but is clearly very popular.

Alan Horn brings that clout and respect to Disney, perhaps for the first time since the heyday height of Jeffrey Katzenberg. I can’t help but feel that this is the direction and the momentum that will bring Disney to new heights.

I don’t say this without reservations. Horn is 69 years old, and essentially chose Disney over retirement. It’s hard to imagine he’s got more than a hand full of years that he’ll WANT to give. I would never say a man can’t do something because he’s old, but I can certainly speculate as to the degree to which he’ll want to do it for a long time.

Five years is not a long time in the movie business. Look how long certain movies develop. It’s very possible that Horn won’t be in the working mood long enough to really build much of a pipeline, and with Iger leaving in 2015, it’s possible that five years is optimistic. Whoever replaces Iger will want his own people in places of power.

Alan Horn is beloved and well respected. He’s got a fighter’s chance to really make some hay. Maybe the best thing to realistically hope for is that Horn gets the ball rolling, and Iger sets up his and Horn’s successors to keep on running with it.

I’m not sure what it all means, but it’s worth watching, and I have very high hopes that Disney has made a choice that will ring in another golden age. My fingers are crossed.