The names Jay Rasulo and Thomas Staggs don't mean much to animation professionals or fans right now, but the Los Angeles Times speculates that one of them may be Robert Iger's successor when he retires in 2016.
I wonder if they would consider Jeffrey Katzenberg. I'm not joking about that. While Robert Iger has been using Disney's money to buy everything in sight, Katzenberg has been building an organization from scratch and diversifying it so that it is stable enough to survive any problems. Katzenberg also has his own record of success at Disney. There are many worse candidates out there.
With the exceptional profitability of animated features, combining Disney, Pixar and DreamWorks makes sense from a business standpoint, if not an artistic one. Who knows? Since Robert Iger is running out of things to buy, maybe DreamWorks and Katzenberg are already on his list.
Showing posts with label Robert Iger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robert Iger. Show all posts
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Sunday, June 02, 2013
Written in Water
Disney recently released its animation schedule through 2018. There are two and sometimes three films a year slated for release. There are people, like Charles Kenney, who fear that we're looking at a glut of animated films that will wear out their welcome at the box office. I agree with that, but I also think that it is inevitable. The nature of capitalism is for companies to keep making what sells until it stops selling. Once that happens, they move on to whatever is selling next. If that's not animation, we're out of luck. For those who might be skeptical, I can point out that westerns and musicals, both of which were commonplace in past decades, are now rare. Animation could suffer the same fate.
Whatever happens, it's important to realise that Disney's schedule is written in water.
All predictions are based on current conditions continuing into the future, and that rarely happens. For proof, we only have to go back to the start of this year. After DreamWorks' Rise of the Guardians underperformed at the box office, there were layoffs and a schedule shuffle. Peabody and Sherman was delayed and Me and My Shadow was taken off the schedule all together.
There will be no difference if a Disney film underperforms. There's nothing like a write-off to get an executive to reexamine the plan and hedge his or her bets.
There's another elephant in the room that nobody is mentioning. Robert Iger retires as CEO in 2015 and as chairman in 2016. Iger was a marked departure from Michael Eisner. While Iger is open to criticism for his decisions, his tenure has been free of the feuds that Eisner had with Jeffrey Katzenberg, Michael Ovitz and Steven Jobs. Iger's successor, whoever that may be, will undoubtedly bring different ideas and priorities to the job. Those differences may have to do with animation, including the status of Pixar, John Lasseter and releasing films in 3-D.
Ed Catmull, the president of Pixar, is currently 68 years old. He'll be 70 by the time Iger steps down and he or the studio may decide to call it quits. That may also result in changes to what happens to Disney animation.
No changing of the guard takes place without a change in the status quo. While Disney and other studios can plan their release schedules for as far into the future as they like, the truth is that changing personnel and box office results are variables that they can't control. As they say, past performance is no guarantee of future results. If it was, we'd be watching Lion King 8 by now.
Whatever happens, it's important to realise that Disney's schedule is written in water.
All predictions are based on current conditions continuing into the future, and that rarely happens. For proof, we only have to go back to the start of this year. After DreamWorks' Rise of the Guardians underperformed at the box office, there were layoffs and a schedule shuffle. Peabody and Sherman was delayed and Me and My Shadow was taken off the schedule all together.
There will be no difference if a Disney film underperforms. There's nothing like a write-off to get an executive to reexamine the plan and hedge his or her bets.
There's another elephant in the room that nobody is mentioning. Robert Iger retires as CEO in 2015 and as chairman in 2016. Iger was a marked departure from Michael Eisner. While Iger is open to criticism for his decisions, his tenure has been free of the feuds that Eisner had with Jeffrey Katzenberg, Michael Ovitz and Steven Jobs. Iger's successor, whoever that may be, will undoubtedly bring different ideas and priorities to the job. Those differences may have to do with animation, including the status of Pixar, John Lasseter and releasing films in 3-D.
Ed Catmull, the president of Pixar, is currently 68 years old. He'll be 70 by the time Iger steps down and he or the studio may decide to call it quits. That may also result in changes to what happens to Disney animation.
No changing of the guard takes place without a change in the status quo. While Disney and other studios can plan their release schedules for as far into the future as they like, the truth is that changing personnel and box office results are variables that they can't control. As they say, past performance is no guarantee of future results. If it was, we'd be watching Lion King 8 by now.
Sunday, March 03, 2013
John Carter and the Gods of Hollywood
The perceived failure of Andrew Stanton's John Carter dominates any talk of the film itself. I say "perceived" because the film was the victim of studio politics and ineptitude. It was easier to bury studio mistakes and move on than it was for Disney to take responsibility for the debacle. And while I am not a fan of Andrew Stanton's Wall-E, Stanton is, perhaps, the biggest victim of how the release of the film was handled.
Michael D. Sellers has cataloged all the missteps in his book, John Carter and the Gods of Hollywood. A fan of the work of Edgar Rice Burroughs, he covers the writing of the original novel, A Princess of Mars, and Burroughs interactions with Hollywood, predominantly on the Tarzan films.
Animator Bob Clampett was the first one to attempt to turn the John Carter stories into film, albeit animated. While Clampett produced samples, he was unable to find a backer for the series. At various times, Ray Harryhausen, Disney, and Paramount were interested in the property, but while scripts were written, nothing was produced.
Andrew Stanton first became a fan of John Carter though Marvel's comics adaptations. When the rights became available, he was working on Wall-E and asked Dick Cook, Disney Studios chief, if could direct it as his next project. Cook secured the rights. As Stanton moved onto the project, two questionable decisions were made: setting the budget at $250 million and not casting stars.
Shortly after the budget was set, Dick Cook was out at Disney. It's common in Hollywood for projects to be orphaned when executives are fired. In this case, given Stanton's importance, it was impossible to cancel the project, but Cook's replacement, Richard Ross, was not enthusiastic.
Neither was Robert Iger, who fired Cook. Iger's pattern is to buy established franchises like Marvel and Lucasfilm rather than spend the money to develop franchises in-house. In fact, at the time Cook was giving John Carter a green light, Iger was negotiating to buy Marvel, which would give Disney a line-up of characters all better known to the public than John Carter. And while John Carter was in production, Iger was negotiating with George Lucas for the purchase of the Star Wars franchise, one that would give Disney a much higher profile space adventure than John Carter.
While the studio was willing to allocate a standard marketing budget for the film, it was not willing to spend more. Given the risks associated with the production budget, this could be seen as prudent or foolish. In addition, once Ross was in place, he hired a new director of marketing, MT Carney, who had no experience marketing films. What made it worse is that she was fired before John Carter was released, so there was little continuity in the marketing campaign.
Months went by without marketing activity for the film. The release date was moved from summer to March, which raised questions as to whether the film was strong enough to compete with summer blockbusters. "Of Mars" was dropped from the title, leaving the very generic sounding John Carter. The budget began to attract attention, the implication being that costs were out of control. Stanton's interviews implied that he was less comfortable with live action production than animation, which didn't help the perception that the film was over-budget. In reality he held to the budget, including 18 days of reshoots.
For the March release, the film's main competition would be The Hunger Games. Sellers shows how that film trounced John Carter in creating audience awareness prior to release.
The film did not open with enough box office to suggest it would be profitable, but only 10 days into the release, Disney publicly declared the film a failure and indicated that it would write off $200 million on it. It's unusual for a studio to abandon a film while it is still in release domestically and yet to open all around the world. Sellers explanation is that Richard Ross made the announcement early so that it would be old news by the time Iger next had to meet with the financial press for the quarterly earnings report. It also attached the failure to Richard Ross, who Iger was about to replace. In total, the three executives most responsible for producing and marketing the film -- Dick Cook, MT Carney and Richard Ross -- were all fired. Stanton was sent packing back to Pixar.
Sellers is scrupulous about his statistics and quotes, but less scrupulous when it comes to his own involvement. While he admits to being a Burroughs fan in the introduction, it isn't until the second half of the book that he reveals that he is the proprietor of www.thejohncarterfiles.com, a fan site that collected information about the film prior to its release. He also cut a fan trailer that received a lot of praise for being better than the official trailers and he met with Disney, hoping to involve himself in the film's marketing but was rebuffed. While there is no question about the facts surrounding John Carter, Sellers actions do raise questions about his motives for writing the book. He is not a dispassionate reporter but a spurned fan. Is the book reportage or revenge?
Ultimately, John Carter fell victim to three problems: a budget that made it difficult for the film to be profitable; source material that seemed old hat after influencing other science fiction projects; and a major changing of the guard and focus at Disney's film studio.
Andrew Stanton brought his first live action film in on budget, a major accomplishment considering the difficult logistics of the project, but the merits of the film couldn't overcome the aforesaid problems. Sellers has written a textbook for all the things that can go wrong off a movie set that ultimately affect the success of a film. John Carter isn't unique, just the latest Hollywood film to be mismanaged and cast aside.
Animator Bob Clampett was the first one to attempt to turn the John Carter stories into film, albeit animated. While Clampett produced samples, he was unable to find a backer for the series. At various times, Ray Harryhausen, Disney, and Paramount were interested in the property, but while scripts were written, nothing was produced.
Andrew Stanton first became a fan of John Carter though Marvel's comics adaptations. When the rights became available, he was working on Wall-E and asked Dick Cook, Disney Studios chief, if could direct it as his next project. Cook secured the rights. As Stanton moved onto the project, two questionable decisions were made: setting the budget at $250 million and not casting stars.
Shortly after the budget was set, Dick Cook was out at Disney. It's common in Hollywood for projects to be orphaned when executives are fired. In this case, given Stanton's importance, it was impossible to cancel the project, but Cook's replacement, Richard Ross, was not enthusiastic.
Neither was Robert Iger, who fired Cook. Iger's pattern is to buy established franchises like Marvel and Lucasfilm rather than spend the money to develop franchises in-house. In fact, at the time Cook was giving John Carter a green light, Iger was negotiating to buy Marvel, which would give Disney a line-up of characters all better known to the public than John Carter. And while John Carter was in production, Iger was negotiating with George Lucas for the purchase of the Star Wars franchise, one that would give Disney a much higher profile space adventure than John Carter.
While the studio was willing to allocate a standard marketing budget for the film, it was not willing to spend more. Given the risks associated with the production budget, this could be seen as prudent or foolish. In addition, once Ross was in place, he hired a new director of marketing, MT Carney, who had no experience marketing films. What made it worse is that she was fired before John Carter was released, so there was little continuity in the marketing campaign.
Months went by without marketing activity for the film. The release date was moved from summer to March, which raised questions as to whether the film was strong enough to compete with summer blockbusters. "Of Mars" was dropped from the title, leaving the very generic sounding John Carter. The budget began to attract attention, the implication being that costs were out of control. Stanton's interviews implied that he was less comfortable with live action production than animation, which didn't help the perception that the film was over-budget. In reality he held to the budget, including 18 days of reshoots.
For the March release, the film's main competition would be The Hunger Games. Sellers shows how that film trounced John Carter in creating audience awareness prior to release.
The film did not open with enough box office to suggest it would be profitable, but only 10 days into the release, Disney publicly declared the film a failure and indicated that it would write off $200 million on it. It's unusual for a studio to abandon a film while it is still in release domestically and yet to open all around the world. Sellers explanation is that Richard Ross made the announcement early so that it would be old news by the time Iger next had to meet with the financial press for the quarterly earnings report. It also attached the failure to Richard Ross, who Iger was about to replace. In total, the three executives most responsible for producing and marketing the film -- Dick Cook, MT Carney and Richard Ross -- were all fired. Stanton was sent packing back to Pixar.
Sellers is scrupulous about his statistics and quotes, but less scrupulous when it comes to his own involvement. While he admits to being a Burroughs fan in the introduction, it isn't until the second half of the book that he reveals that he is the proprietor of www.thejohncarterfiles.com, a fan site that collected information about the film prior to its release. He also cut a fan trailer that received a lot of praise for being better than the official trailers and he met with Disney, hoping to involve himself in the film's marketing but was rebuffed. While there is no question about the facts surrounding John Carter, Sellers actions do raise questions about his motives for writing the book. He is not a dispassionate reporter but a spurned fan. Is the book reportage or revenge?
Ultimately, John Carter fell victim to three problems: a budget that made it difficult for the film to be profitable; source material that seemed old hat after influencing other science fiction projects; and a major changing of the guard and focus at Disney's film studio.
Andrew Stanton brought his first live action film in on budget, a major accomplishment considering the difficult logistics of the project, but the merits of the film couldn't overcome the aforesaid problems. Sellers has written a textbook for all the things that can go wrong off a movie set that ultimately affect the success of a film. John Carter isn't unique, just the latest Hollywood film to be mismanaged and cast aside.
Friday, December 07, 2012
The Difference Between Walt Disney and Robert Iger
From Seth Godin:
"Capitalists take risks. They see an opportunity, an unmet need, and then they bring resources to bear to solve the problem and make a profit.
"Industrialists seek stability instead.
"Industrialists work to take working systems and polish them, insulate them from risk, maximize productivity and extract the maximum amount of profit. Much of society's wealth is due to the relentless march of productivity created by single-minded industrialists, particularly those that turned nascent industries (as Henry Ford did with cars) into efficient engines of profit.
"Industrialists don't mind government regulations if they write them, don't particularly like competition or creativity or change. They are maximizers of the existing status quo."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
