Comcast may be giving up its bid to snag Disney already. No one from the company is talking, but analysts are claiming Comcast has no ability to raise its original bid and doing so would seriously question CEO Brian Roberts's credibility. Yeah, it's surprising that anyone in big business - especially the CABLE business - has any credibility, but Comcast's leaders have done great things for their shareholders and they simply can't damage the trust they currently have. Of course, this could just be a ploy, but if it is, I can only figure out one angle. If Comcast publicly drops its bid, Disney's stock might fall a bit. Combined with wretched grosses for current high-profile films, Home on the Range and The Alamo, the plunge could be steep indeed. Making a takeover interesting once again. And not just to Comcast, but to other companies as well. Just when the wound from the theme parks healed, another wound has opened up and is bloodying the water.
NOW WITH TWO PERCENT MORE BLOOD!
Orlando Sentinel - Apr 16
The actual tallies from the shareholder vote are in! Instead of the 43% withholding vote everyone believes Michael Eisner got, the actual total is 45.37%. Not that it really matters since the vote was only a figurative vote against Eisner's management "skills." The vote only counted against Eisner's status as Chairman of the Disney board, and he was effectively removed from that position. But the whole thing turned into a cruel joke anyhow since the person with the second highest withholding vote - George Mitchell now officially with 25.69% withholding - was made Chairman instead.
Still, earnings are what's keeping these people afloat, and Disney is claiming that not only will they get the predicted 30%, but are on track to increase earnings by 40%. Clearly, these "on track" estimates are still including what Disney believes Range and Alamo will make overseas. Yeah, a movie that only Texans want to see will really draw the crowds in Europe! Disney is banking on the parks to excel during summer too, but with gas prices soaring to heights never seen before, driving and flying will soon be too expensive for most families. But then Disney has never been good at predicting anything. DCA was going to be a big hit, remember?
BEGGARS CAN BE CHOOSERS
Orlando Sentinel - Apr 14
Disney is planning to meet with six state pension funds next month to discuss performance. You'd think Disney would have suggested such a meeting, since so many such funds withheld their votes, but it was actually the pension funds who requested the meeting.
The funds, one of which is the ever-present CalPERS, want to talk about more than just performance too. Of great importance is how independent the board really is now that Eisner is no longer Chairman. Three of these board members already received more than 20% withholding votes apiece, which may actually force some independence out of them. Otherwise, that 20% could easily skyrocket and all three could be board-free. As free as the wind blows. As free as the grass grows.
Another tack Disney seems to be taking in their ongoing war is to show how unnecessary Pixar really is. The company has been talking about setting up a new CG studio in Glendale solely for the purpose of creating sequels to the Disney-distributed Pixar films. You read that right. Disney. The company behind the hideous look - and script - of Home on the Range. The company that keeps hiring Phil Collins to ruin soundtracks. The company that couldn't understand why Finding Nemo was such a smash. THAT company will be creating sequels to some of the most beloved movies of our time.
Of course this could just be a threat to get Pixar back into the Disney fold, and Pixar bit by saying they'd come back happily... if Eisner got a boot up his booty. If this really happens, though, don't be surprised to see Toy Story 3: Woody's Wooden Script, A Bug's Life 2: A Trip to Flik's Fun Fair!, Monsters, Inc 2: Electric Boo-galoo!, Finding Nemo's Twin Brother That Marlin Never Knew Was Born and The Not-Nearly-So-Incredibles.
There was both good news and bad news for Disney on my local station this morning.
Bad: Alamo dropped all the way to #10 in only it's second week of release! ouch!
Good: Somehow Disney parks claimed the top 5 spots for attendance in 2003. Magic Kingdom and Disneyland were #1 & #2 followed by the other 3 Florida parks. I'm curious to see the rest of the list as my local station (from Tampa) only listed those 5, #6 Universal (don't remember if it was IOA or Studio), and of course #11 BGT (which they said had a minor drop in attendance last year).
I can remember waiting anxiously each year for the big Disney movie to come out because we were assured it was going to be excellent. I was born in 1981, and the only not so good movie that I can remember during that span was Oliver and Company. But I was fortunate enough to be alive during some of Disney's best years. Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Lion King, all of these were genuine, bona-fide hits. And all three of them were the only major Disney release in their respective years!
Does anyone else see this pattern?
2) Some of Phil's Tarzan songs were bearable, but others were extremely generic. Everything I have heard from Brother Bear has been wretched. Conan had Elvis Costello do a "Secrets" bit one night where Elvis said, "Every day I write twenty songs. The great ones I record. The good ones I sell. The rest I give to Phil Collins." And the audience died laughing. So there's the general consensus on Philboy.
3) Nemo was a hit because it truly was a great film. People didn't go back to see it because it was CG. People went back because it was great. It being CG most likely bumped up its BO totals, but it would have made major bucks without. The fact that Disney couldn't understand how good the film was sure says something about the quality of film they pump out, doesn't it?
4) Sequels don't always ruin the original, but most of Disney's do. And NO Disney-produced sequel has EVER been better than the original. None have come close. Lion King 1 1/2 is probably the closest, and no one but you is suggesting it's even in the original's league. In comparison, look at Toy Story 2. A rare sequel that reached the heights of its predecessor. Because Disney had NOTHING to do with it!
Robert O... I have to find out exactly how much Disney benefits from Miramax films. I'm sure the Weinsteins keep a big hunk of the grosses for themselves, and I'm sure Tarantino got himself a percentage too. Disney may own them, but none of the creative cachet transfers to them. But I was thinking of a Kill Bill attraction too! 4-D with knives and swords and guns in your face and everytime someone gets killed you smell copper and get drenched in warm water! And once in a while a little poke in the back!
They have that same "event film" thing going for them that many people miss from Disney. Disney has diluted the market so much with so-so films that even a good Disney film would have to work twice as hard (if not more) to get people to care enough to come see it. Do you think people are going to flock to Chicken Little just because it's CG? heck no! Disney is going to have to prove to people somehow that it's worth seeing.
No, it wasn't. It was as if Disney was attempting to make something harkening that Windwagon Smith/Pecos Bill/Johnny Appleseed era, but ended up making a film so full of modern attitude that it totally ruined the goal. I will say that Randy Quaid's Alameda Slim is the ONLY reason to see it...a nugget of tasty corn in an otherwise smelly log of poo.
2) Phil Collins has sung great songs on both Tarzan and Brother Bear.
Or he would have, rather, had the rest of Genesis been available. But since it was just Phil, it was prepackaged pop just like everything else he has released since he went solo.
3) Why was Nemo a hit? Because it was CG. Deny it if you want but CG brings in the teens and the adults. And believe me, most teens and childless adults would not have seen it had it have been traditional.
Agreed, Kev...Nemo was a hit because it was a great film. It didn't condescend to the audience, it had great sight gags, and an intelligence that catered to FAMILIES, not just kids or teens...there was something for everyone.
4) Sequels do not ruin the original movie! Some of the sequels were very bad (Cinderella 2, Hunchback 2), but there were a lot that were wonderful if not better than the original (The Lion King 1 1/2, Return to Neverland, Aladdin 3)
I'll agree that some sequels are not bad...THE RESCUERS DOWN UNDER was decent, as were the ALADDIN sequels...but note that these were made in the era before Eisner and co. started whoring out the characters for cheap DTV sequels on a near-monthly basis. And PLEASE...THE LION KING 1 1/2 was an hour and a half of fart jokes. As for THE JUNGLE BOOK 2 and RETURN TO NEVERLAND, the writers shot themselves in the foot by not following the existing storyline continuations. Kipling and Barrie both wrote additional material for these characters which went ignored in favor of cheesy "more marketable" ideas.
