The LA Times has recently run a number of articles on the new philosophies of the Walt Disney Corporation, as determined by CEO Bob Iger. One of the latest summarizes Iger’s position the best: he’s all about the merchandising.
Case in point: “The Proposal.” The Sandra Bullock-Ryan Reynolds romantic comedy from last year grossed millions, making back the cost of its production in spades.
So, inevitably, the suits behind the film suggested a sequel. But because the film comes from Touchstone Pictures, which is a subsidiary of Disney, Iger ultimately calls the shots (should he so choose) on this sort of thing. And the answer was no.
Now, “The Proposal” didn’t exactly appeal to my tastes, so I don’t really care whether or not it gets a sequel. What’s got my feathers ruffled is the reasoning behind the rejected plans. Iger’s plan for Disney, you see, isn’t just to make good movies or even movies that will bring a lot of profit.
What Iger’s interested in is creating a brand, putting the weight of Disney behind products that will rake in cash not just from the films themselves, but from merchandising. Iger said it himself, when describing the future he envisioned for a Disney now strengthened by its ownership of Pixar and Marvel.
He feels that the value of the Disney described above is “going to be a lot greater over time than any [value] we could create from a non-Disney branded, or non-Pixar or non-Marvel film. That is where we are headed.”
Translation: what Iger cares about more than a quality film or even cheap one that will make a staggering amount of money (i.e., “The Proposal 2”) is a product with a recognizable brand name, one perfect for cross-promotion. If a potential movie won’t yield video games, clothing lines, or plastic Happy Meal toys, it sounds like Iger isn’t interested.
This is exactly what I was worried about when I wrote my very first Disney blog for families.com. I applauded Pixar for the direction it was taking with “Up,” a fantastic but (unfortunately) not as marketable film, and urged Iger, who seemed to speak out in support of “Up,” not to let the quest for merchandising draw him away from making quality films.
To me, Disney movies (particularly their animated ones) are art for art’s sake. Sure, the Walt Disney Corporation is a global conglomerate, and that means its ultimate goal is making more money and putting its weight behind products that will do so for it. But isn’t ownership of Marvel and Pixar enough? Does all their focus now have to be on products that will make for good merchandise?
I have to wonder if the process hasn’t started already. Earlier this year Disney decided to sell Miramax, one of its companies dedicated to making genre films. Miramax has made films with high box office returns and critical acclaim, but apparently that wasn’t enough.
In the past year a lot of film companies have let their genre studios go, but I have to wonder if there isn’t more (i.e., Iger’s new policy) behind this decision.
In the 1980s, when Roy E. Disney stepped back to power in his uncle’s company, he said Disney Corp. needed a change because it felt more like a real estate company that happened to make movies, than a film company.
Well, if Iger keeps up his new policy Disney’s going to soon be on similar ground: a toy company that happens to make movies as tie-ins for its latest products. I sincerely hope it doesn’t get that far.
Related Articles:
Disney-Marvel Takeover Official
Disney Innovation in Times Square
Disney Fostering Holiday Greed?
Disney is a Great Investment and a Great Gift