Why Disney? Or Episode One: The Phantom Mouse

[danielromens]

Hey Kids, since we have so many varried opinions on the subject, I thought it would be fun to start a post for the Mouse Wars. I personally am quite anti Disney in regards to a Muppet sale and would looove to play devil's advocate to anything you can toss at me and I'm sure a few other's would too.

Don't get me wrong I think Disney can do some good things here and there, but they can also put out some craptacular product as well. Bigger ain't always better, and either is quantity.

In the words of Mils Lane, "Let's get it on!"

 

[danielromens]

I'm going cheeseball and kicking off my own post.

first swing for the Rebels.

Three words people.

PAN AND SCAN!

 

[silverbolt101]

the phantom mouse

well here are my two cents , corparations like disney and even what henson co. has become , do not hve any respect for there greatest assets which would be there artists .the biggest piece of evidence to supprtr that would be the recent layoffs of animators at disney , and an even more startiling layoff of some of the most tallented puppet builders and designers at henson.I am talking about people with nearly thirty years of expirience.

sure they say that moneys tight and they need to cut costs, but exactly how many of thier useless vice presidents and so called "creative executives" did they layoff?

last count was 0.

anyway while i agree that disney would kill the muppets, some one better sweep in and save them before that charlie rivkin kills them first.

dreamworks or pixar i hope you are out there

 

[frogboy4]

I have never been or will ever be much of a Disney supporter for anything, but...

The allegations of Disney being a big corporation that exploits its characters for profit is true - but so do all other companies of its financial stature so that can not be the criteria to judge the sale. And the price tag of the Muppets is too high for anyone else but a large company so we are looking at a Disney, AOL, Viacom or possibly Fox buyout. Rivkin just doesn't seem to have the funds so he seems to be out of the equation.

If you think that the other companies won't exploit the Muppets for gain, you are kidding yourself. It's the nature of the entertainment business. The question really is - what will the company do with the Muppets once they have been merchandised to death - Disney will likely keep them around for generations to enjoy while Viacom or Time Warner may hide them away.

About the pan and scan debate - I'm with you there. It totally disgusts me how they have cropped MTI and MCC. But on the future upside - eventually things will turn to widescreen and the debate will be moot. We are thinking of long term here.

I think it is best that a big American company owns them - it's what Jim wanted initially and will assure their longevity. And promotion is what Disney does best. Just my view.

 

[Bean Bunny]

Dreamworks

Disney:
*Imagengeering
* Animation
* Consumer Division
* Disney Archieves
* ABC,ABC Family, ESPN Channels, Disney Channel, Toon Disney.
* Lilo & Stitch. Nuff Said.
* Kim Possible

 

[BoyRaisin2]

Two words: Well said.

Four more words: Don't mess with Texas.

Three more words: I am bulletproof.

Four more words: Not gonna do it.

Hey, I'm kinda happy, I got my research paper done.

 

[frogboy4]

Bean

To DreamWorks’ credit they do have a sizeable film and animation division. I just think they're too new for the Muppets. They haven't had enough time to really prove themselves as a company. They don't have a theme park either and after the lackluster results of Spirit (that I saw coming from a mile away) I don't think they'll be up for spending much money. Disney is the big fish here and I agree - as long as the Muppets are going to be bought by a big company they deserve the best.

 

[ZootandDingo]

Re: Bean

Originally posted by frogboy4
To DreamWorks’ credit they do have a sizeable film and animation division. I just think they're too new for the Muppets. They haven't had enough time to really prove themselves as a company.

I agree. Dreamworks seems like they would be the right place for Henson, but it's still too early to see if they will stick around or if they will go the way of the Orion. As cool as it would be to see Henson owned by Spielberg (you know how much of a stickler he is about filmmakers' creative rights), they just don't look like they can support an entire separate production company yet.

I don't think whether or not if a studio owns a theme park really makes a difference nowadays, especially since Universal Studios' parks have ties with Warner, Columbia, King Features, Marvel, Geffen and Amblin (in other words, now Dreamworks), and Viacom; Disney/MGM Studios with Disney (gasp), MGM (gasp), Lucasfilm, and Fox; Paramount's parks with Viacom (of course) and Warner; and Warner Bros.' international Movie Worlds and their controlling interest in Six Flags.

No matter who gets Henson, if any of the top brass has any brains, the Muppets would have no trouble finding a home at a theme park.

 

[BoyRaisin2]

Since we're kinda on the subject, what IS Spielberg's relationships with Amblin and DreamWorks? Are they the same company? Is Amblin at Universal? Is Spielberg still with Amblin? I'm just kind of confused.

 

[frogboy4]

Speilberg is one of the three partners of Dreamworks and I believe he still has a stake in Amblin, but it is seperate from Dreamworks. From what I've gleaned, no new projects come from Amblin. It's just the label that he used before teaming up with Geffen and Katzenberg. However, Amblin was in part responsible for the reissue of ET, but that's considered old material. There could be more to it, but that's all I know.