Disney Interactive- The Plight of the Disney Video Game

I'm convinced that Disney is cursed when it comes to video games. Why has Disney not made an epic video game yet? The talent and the passion are there, but the results have not even come close. Let's look at the list

Disney has made numerous bad video games on each console ranging from Mickey's Mousecapades on NES to Toy Story 3 on Wii. These games are just plain bad...but why? The gameplay isn't there, the fun isn't there, and neither is the entertainment value. You might be saying "hey, what about Kingdom hearts...that was a great game...", ya well that wasn't a Disney game. That was a game that involved Disney characters. Disney games are typically of a significant lesser quality.

So let's ask ourselves why the quality games have not come. Disney owns multiple game companies...these are professional game designers, and yet the studio is still lacking. For most of the 1990's and early in the 2000's, Disney didn't really emphasize the role of the video game. That was a bad decision. Video game companies today have created more iconic characters and have more loyal followers then most companies can dream of having. Think of the following franchises: Halo, Legend of Zelda, Mario Bros., Donkey Kong, Call of Duty, Mega Man, Madden Football, etc. These franchises are  solid; they could have movies (done well, not like the Mario movie we've had in the past), television shows, and maybe even attractions. A video game is more interactive than a movie so a well made character should become more popular than a movie character. DISNEY NEEDS TO CREATE AN ICONIC CHARACTER FROM A VIDEO GAME. To date, I would say that Disney's best video game has been Adventures in the Magic Kingdom on NES. It was tacky and ridiculously hard on some attractions, but the CONCEPT was great. Now look at today's game, the most hyped and invested Disney game lately has been Epic Mickey on Wii. This game had some solid moments, but overall was underwhelming. It had strange gameplay moments, terrible lighting, and the story was so abstract that you just couldn't get into it. I applaud the effort, but they can do better.

     What should Disney do?

- Rely more on your professional game companies to make a quality game. Disney should interfere in the development process as minimal as possible.

- Offer up your characters for a good concept. Disney has the characters that can make a great game. A video game lets you experiment with its iconic characters that the company is unable to do in a feature length movie. You can do mickey and the gang racing, mickey and the gang fighting, etc. A game wouldn't have the backlash that a movie would have. START FROM HERE. Make a quality game with its iconic characters.

- Stay away from games based on movies. Toy Story, Aladdin, Cars, Wall-E...I could go on, but look at all the video games based on movies and what do they have in common? They're all terrible. GAMES SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON MOVIES, BUT A MOVIE COULD BE BASED ON A GAME IF ITS DONE WELL.

- Disney should continue to purchase quality game companies and let them create adult oriented games as well as child friendly games.

- Stop making games solely for Wii. Most adults purchase PS3 or XBOX 360 games; since Disney has no agreements with Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft, they should publish games on all platforms.

- Invest more in the game companies. Realize that this is going to be a large part of the future of the company.

- Make a modern day Adventures in the Magic Kingdom game. The game had a following and there's a movie coming in the next few years...this is how you capitalize on your brand in this industry.

- With Disney's emphasis on sports and on owning the ESPN brand, Disney should control the sports video game market. They should buy Electronic Arts, which I will address in another post.

Just to compare, look at a modern high quality video game, such as Batman's Arkham Asylum or The Legend of Zelda games. Now look at Epic Mickey and Toy Story Midway Mania. See the difference? THERE SHOULDN'T BE THAT MUCH OF A DIVERGENCE.

Corporate- A Smart Purchase- The WWE

Preamble-
The Smart Purchase posts will likely be the most fun to read and write because they will ultimately be the most controversial. We all know that Disney has their hands in many different industries, and will continue to do so, but what industries will help them to grow as a single company and help the brand the most? Simply buying other companies with good sales figures will not help grow your company because it inevitably fails in the long run. The acquiring company must NEED some facet of the smaller company to further their interests or strategy that are ALREADY IN PLACE. Example, Nike should not buy Jiffy Lube even if Jiffy Lube is expected to bring in significant short term products. However, Starbucks might want to purchase Redbull because they are similar in that they both provide caffeinated beverages, but they differ in almost every other facet. The demographic between the two companies is different and such a venture could help Starbucks achieve its goals and expand its customer base.

For Disney, the mission is to entertain audiences by providing positive family content and quality products. Disney creates and innovates brands, building them up and making them profitable, before adapting those brands into different mediums. Example, Disney and Pixar created Toy Story. It was a movie, it became successful. Then came movie sequels, then came merchandise, then came commercials, then came park attractions, etc. This "franchising" is how Disney maximizes the value out of their products and properties. However, what if a product is not successful at targeting a certain demographic or not achieving its goals? Disney is one of the best companies at knowing where they are weak. They know they have trouble reaching boys, so they buy Marvel, etc. These posts present companies/businesses/properties/products representing the best opportunities for potential growth to expand their strategic mission, target a specific demographic, or re-invigorate a current franchise.

In this post I propose that Disney should

  - Buy The WWE. 
I know what you're thinking- professional wrestling has nothing to do with Disney, the brands are completely different, the demographic is all wrong, they specialize in adult content are not family oriented fare like Disney, etc. However, lets look at some reasons that it is a smart purchase.

First the facts:
FACT 1- WWE brought in $142 Million last year with assets of $400 Million, therefore Disney COULD purchase them easily. Now lets look at if Disney SHOULD purchase them. Yes, Disney is family friendly fare and yes, WWE is adult oriented themed fare, but they have more in common than most think.
FACT 2- Disney is in the entertainment business and that includes adults. Disney owns Touchstone, Disney owns Hollywood Pictures, Disney used to own Miramax, etc. What does this mean? It means movies such as Pulp Fiction, Clerks, Trainspotting, Tombstone, Nixon, Annapolis, and Arachnophobia are or were all Disney films...so get the idea that "Disney doesn't do adult content or violence, etc." out of your head. Disney is a large enough company to separate the more adult content under a different sub-business like Touchstone. Additionally, WWE is the same concept (and much of the same demographic) as Marvel.
FACT 3- WWE brings larger than life characters to life, each embodying some ability or character, as they kick butt. That is the same concept as the X-men or Hulk except that they have mutant powers and are in comic book form. The Hulk Hogan character of the 80's was the same as Captain America in the 80's; Hogan fought the Iron Sheik while Captain America fought the Red Skull, etc. In more recent times, the WWE has taken on the mantra of "Attitude", meaning edgier characters and tougher language. The campiness associated with professional wrestling is long gone under this new idea; in today's environment, characters like The Rock, Stone Cold Steve Austin, and Kane bring catchphrases, charisma, merchandising, and flash to the audiences.

FACT 4-  WWE's bread and butter are live-action events, character development, and merchandising. Disney's live-action events (outside of the parks) are weak. The Disney-on-ice events (though not directly owned by Disney) are laughable and their ability to develop live-action characters is minimal. Therefore, WWE's main strengths are some of Disney's biggest weaknesses.
FACT 5- The creation of Disney XD and the acquisition of Marvel shows a concerted effort to reach boys, but Disney has yet to make an attempt to reach adult males. WWE has a history of reaching this demographic.

FACT 6- WWE is essentially a superstar factory. They take talented individuals and make them superstars...sounds just like Disney. Instead of branding musicians and actors, by acquiring WWE, Disney could brand adults and own those characters.

I could go on, but you get the point. They are similar business CONCEPTS and should be run as such. The WWE had a strong resurgence in the late 90's, but due to a lack of competition (WWE bought its two previous competitors WCW and ECW and currently only competes against the smaller Impact wrestling) the company has gotten stale and the revenues have fallen. IN BUSINESS, YOU CANNOT COMPETE AGAINST YOURSELF AND EXPECT TO REMAIN INNOVATE AND EXCITING. They essentially run a monopoly and felt the negative effects. Disney's creative atmosphere can regain the sense of innovation in this company. Now, how would the company run? Like Marvel, Disney should let WWE run as it does, but it should have a seat at the table. Vince McMahon, Owner of WWE, is a smart man and knows his company inside and out. Vince needs Disney so that he can experiment with new concepts without betting the barn. Disney needs Vince because he reaches the male demographic better than anyone. Also, Impact wrestling has an agreement and takes place at Universal Studios...so lets not pretend that theme parks and professional wrestling don't have any connection.

Owning WWE and having them under their own umbrella is a smart move. Should they ever interact with Mickey Mouse or any child friendly Disney brand? No. WWE should be run on its own merit and as a separate entity.

Broadcast Networks- The Disney Channel- Winners and Losers

Since 2000, the Disney Channel has had a string of consistently strong hits including Hannah Montana, Wizards of Waverly Place, The Suite Life of Zack and Cody, The Suite Life on Deck, Sonny with a Chance, etc. Then somewhere along the way things started to change...tested formulas got tired, stars got older, stars got bad publicity, writing got campy, people stopped caring and ultimately the viewers stopped watching.

 Today's Disney Channel shows is a stark contrast to what it was 1-2 years ago. Today's lineup of the A.N.T. Farm, Shake It Up, Jesse, and So Random offer bleak prospects.

- So Random is so not funny that they should either cancel the show immediately or change the title to something more applicable. Saturday Night Live, and all successful sketch comedy shows, are funny because they are edgy and smart. So Random takes the opposite approach, staying away from the edge (like you'd expect any Disney Channel show to do) and dumbing the sketch down to the lowest common denominators. Point being, sketch comedy doesn't belong on the Disney channel. I would be surprised if this show stays on another year, and if it does then there really isn't anything better in development. 

- Shake It Up is the show that Disney is placing all of their chips in because it has a smart concept, it promotes dance as the inspiration for a comedy show. Unfortunately, the execution of this show is terrible, the characters and acting is abysmal, and it really isn't entertaining. I do not think this is going anywhere and will likely remain on the channel. 

- A.N.T. Farm is a brilliant idea because it targets Disney's true consumer demographic, PRE-TEENS and involves Disney music. China Anne McClain is very talented and should have a bright future in front of her. However, this show still isn't funny or entertaining...why not? Probably because the jokes are old and tired, formerly used in many Hannah Montana or Suite Life episodes, and because the Gibson character is the only one setting up recurring jokes. This simply isn't sustainable. 

- Jesse is the traditional Disney Channel show. You take a well-established Disney channel star and put them in a situation where they have to deal with outlandish characters and situations. However, this one isn't quite there yet. This show has hope, but it needs some fundamental writing and actor changes. 

Disney XD, the channel for boys, is in EVEN WORSE STATE. Shows about making the band, a karate squad, and more attempt to reach boys by UTILIZING A CONCEPT BOYS ARE FAMILIAR OR INTERESTED IN (BAND, KARATE, ETC.), BUT DO NOT PROVIDE A COMPELLING OR EVEN REMOTELY INTERESTING STORYLINE. 

Disney needs to continue doing what it does best. By far, one of Disney Channel's best shows EVER is Good Luck Charlie...and not because of its star Bridgit Mendler, but because ITS FUN AND FUNNY FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY. This show has MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS and SOMETHING FOR EVERYBODY. Teddy, the main character, is appealing to the pre-teen girls. Gabe, a rascally younger brother, has taken on a cult like following among boys. PJ, the not-quite all there older brother, is pure comic relief and is essentially the same character as Jason Earles character Jackson in Hannah Montana, the side characters like Ivy Mrs. Dabney also prove to have a niche following, but the biggest strength of the show is a compelling storyline, witty writing, and the comedic timing of the parents (Leigh-Allyn Baker and Eric Allan Kramer). THE PARENTS MAKE THE SHOW BY DEFINING THE LIMITS AND SET THE TONE FOR THE SHOW. Notice the parents in the other shows, they aren't nearly as funny or watchable. Good Luck Charlie combines all the elements of a classic sitcom with the Disney message. 

Wizards of Waverly Place is a good show. Not great, but good. The need was obviously there as it was designed to reach the Harry Potter craved youth. Selena Gomez has proven herself a star, and is undoubtedly Disney's biggest star since Cyrus' departure, but what makes the show is the relationship and rivalry between her and her older brother Justin (David Henrie). This relationship sets the dynamic for the series and introduces a conflict (the wizarding competition) that makes the series interesting. Unfortunately, besides being an expensive show to produce (special effects), the rest of the characters are pretty mediocre. The parents and the other child, Max (Jake T. Austin) are forgettable and the best friend Harper (Jennifer Stone) is not as funny a character as Disney would have hoped. 

Now, what do these two shows have in common? They have INBEDDED CONFLICTS AND A NATRUAL STORY ARC (wizarding competition among the siblings and the crazy daily antics of a slightly disfunctional family). The characters in these shows are NOT OVER-ACTED OR OVER-PORTRAYED like they are in A.N.T. Farm or others. The comedy is also smarter in these shows then they are in shows like So Random or many others. They need to have a small cast (Disney usually has a cast of about six actors) AND MAKE EACH ONE COMPELLING. Simply having one character be the "likeable", while another is the "funny" one, and one is a "straightline" one will result in a boring show. Sitcom comedy is about putting characters in relatable situations where the circumstances that occur have gone a little crazy. Disney should re-evaluate many of their shows as well as searching for actors that are simply too young to carry a show. I know Disney wants to maximize the amount of time they can get out of an actor before they are out of the "Disney Channel range", but having 8 or 9 year olds take leading roles can be disappointing because they simply don't have the comedic timing or skill yet. 

So what should Disney do in the long run? Hire Good Luck Charlie creators Drew Vaupen and Phil Baker to develop a few more series. Not necessarily ones that revolve around a family, but stories that are compelling and involve sharp humor, and is watchable for ALL AGES. Walt Disney described the need for Disneyland as a place where a parent and child could have fun together...the Disney Company needs to have the same philosophy for their Disney Channel television shows, radio shows, and movies, and the latest generation of shows created simply fail to entertain on any level. 

Parks and Resorts- The Transformation of the store inside the park

Topic #1- Distinctive Stores

Remember when the stores inside the park were all different and sold different merchandise? What happened to that idea? Why do they all sell the same stuff now?

Don't get me wrong, every store should have the basics (camera, poncho, etc), but beyond the basics, each store should not only be themed differently, but stocked differently. Lately, each store has become less visually stunning, distinct, and fun. They all stock the same items (with a few exceptions) and have become all the more "vanilla". Though this helps control inventory and accessibility to items, there is something to be said for a particular store having particular items. Disney needs to return to this idea that the store should have the according items as the land calls for. Here are some examples where Disney does this perfectly

- The Heritage House in Liberty Square is distinct and sells colonial and Presidential history merchandise. The setting is appropriate and the items are unique to this store.

- Remember a villains store in Fantasyland at Disneyland? That store was distinct, sold only villains merchandise, and had an exciting flavor.

- The Art of Disney store at EPCOT.

- The Christmas stores in several parks.

Unfortunately, many of the recent stores are becoming more homogenous in their look and inventory. Main Street shops, and especially The Emporium, are meant to be the stores that sell everything the guest may have missed. Stores in each separate land SHOULD NOT sell all the same merchandise because that ruins the flavor of that particular store. Each store should feel like its own attraction of sorts that helps to tell a story. I should not see the same Mickey Mouse T-shirt in Frontierland that I do in Tomorrowland...something is wrong here.

Topic #2- The greatest marketing ever created

Want to know the best marketing technique ever created by man? It's the store at the end of the attraction, where the guest cannot help but walk through the shop after stepping off the attraction, and almost feels compelled to purchase a memento to memorialize the experience of the attraction. The shop is no longer a store, but is AN EXTENSION OF THE ATTRACTION, now what better marketing technique is there than that? If you're a fan of Pirates of the Caribbean, wouldn't you like to buy a memento from the official pirates store? And it is the official store because it is connected to the attraction. THIS IS BRILLIANT. These stores are in a much better position to sell merchandise than stand alone stores.

Additionally, with all the upgrading and re-designing going on at the Haunted Mansion, I am confused why Disney has not created a specific Haunted Mansion store. The detached cart simply doesn't cut it and needs to be discarded for a proper connected attraction shopping experience. ALL ICONIC RIDES SHOULD HAVE THEIR OWN ATTRACTION SHOP WITH DISTINCT MERCHANDISE FOR THE ATTRACTION. So, the Haunted Mansion shop should have the LARGEST AND BEST SELECTION for Haunted Mansion merchandise. The Emporium should not have better Haunted Mansion merchandise, but should have a sufficient amount as a "catch all", in the same way that the hotel gift shop and the airport should all have some sort of merchandise.

The store can help sell the attraction and make it iconic by making it fun. They need more good stores. Guests should have favorite stores they like to shop in because the merchandise is unique and fun, reflecting their personality and interests. Every fan walking around the park should ideally be wearing merchandise of their favorite attractions that they got after riding that attraction. That is also brilliant marketing.

Disney Studios- The future of Disney Animated Films

Disney fans should count their blessings that Pixar came along when it did. Disney animated movies had hit a lull that had extended past a decade and Disney had not had a hit since the Katzenberg era's string of successes. Since 1995, the list of animated underperforming movies was staggering: Pocahontas, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, Mulan, Tarzan, Fantasia 2000, Dinosaur, Emperor's new Groove, Atlantis, Lilo & Stitch, Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, Home on the Range, Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons, etc. All of these movies failed to garner a significant audience and failed to resonate with the viewer that past Disney movies had. These movies simply lacked the charm that past movies had. Pixar changed all that; with Pixar, Disney had a new player with a new strategy. They had FRESH IDEAS, new technologies, and a strong writing & directing team backing them up. Pixar brought a much needed spark to Disney animation, a division that Eisner was ready to shut down at one point. We must consider though, what is Disney without animation? The Walt Disney Company is based on the results of animation and should not abandon the entire medium based on lousy returns. Imagine if an NFL football team, that has fallen on a decade of poor seasons, decided to simply call it quits and close up shop...that would be ridiculous. Disney must always seek to re-ignite their animation department so that it is always relevant and always at the forefront of the company's efforts. The Disney animation/Pixar combination has already produced results. Disney's recent animated films such as The Princess and the Frog and Tangled were clearly of higher quality than its recent predecessors of Home on the Range and Chicken Little. Simply having Pixar on the same team helps Disney animation in their ventures. Next, Disney also capitalizes on the success of Pixar's films. Pixar's success streak was unheard of in the film industry. Films such as Finding Nemo, Toy story, and Up are deemed masterpieces by even the toughest critics, but the smaller films like Monsters, Inc., Ratatouille, Wall-E are just as good and should be considered just as elite. (Notice I leave out A Bugs Life and Cars, which I think are the weakest of the Pixar bunch. In fact, I was really disappointed that Disney chose Cars for a movie sequel and for the basis of the Carsland in California Adventure, when Ratatouille and Up provide much more endearing characters and settings). Pixar's upcoming film slate looks promising as well with Brave, Monsters University, and two untitled pictures about dinosaurs and the human mind. Although details on these are slim, IT IS PROMISING THAT PIXAR IS NOT SOLELY SEEKING TO CREATE SEQUELS TO THEIR FRANCHISES. Disney animation's upcoming film slate also seems promising with Wreck-It Ralph and King of the Elves.

  The Disney Animation division is still in a fragile state and must be invested in heavily and every film in the near future must be handled carefully. Disney animated films must be able to put the butts in the seats if Pixar's films begin to erode at any time.

 Don't get stuck on sequels. I loved Toy story 3, but that should not deter Disney/Pixar from making a new movie and putting something new out there. Once a film is successful and has received a sequel, it should be considered "franchised", a term I use to infer that ITS SUCCESS AFFECTS MORE THAN JUST THE STUDIOS, THEREFORE ITS COSTS SHOULD BE BACKED BY MORE THAN JUST THE STUDIOS. They could continue to make Toy Story sequels for years, but the burden of cost should not come from the Studios, but from the Company as a whole. All sequels should originate from this. Disney/Pixar animated films should focus more on NEW content, about making films that resonate with the viewer and build future franchises. What will be the next character or movie to earn an attraction or parade at the parks? We don't know, but I do know that it will almost assuredly come from the creative genius of the Disney Animation/Pixar team.

Parks and Resorts- Avatar at Animal Kingdom...Really?

I'll be the first to admit Animal Kingdom needs some work. The Camp Minnie Mickey area is terrible with only one Lion King show (which itself is pretty tired) and no other significant attractions or spectacles. Other areas of the park are sparse as well. Animal Kingdom is a large park, but has only a few real attractions. The most significant attractions are the Safaris, the river rapids, Expedition Everest, Dinosaur, "It's tough to be a bug", and the animal exhibits. However, these attractions do not even come close to filling up the park. In fact, guests usually spend less than one day at Animal Kingdom because they can do everything they want to in less than one day. That's Pretty sad. Disney needs more high level attractions and exhibits in Animal Kingdom, they know that. Then came the movie Avatar, a story about big blue aliens that has a subplot of living with nature, that was a large success that made a lot of money. Some people really loved this movie and it almost won the 2009 Oscar for Best Picture. Disney saw the opportunity to combine Disney with Avatar and recently announced an agreement to create a type of "Avatarland" inside Animal Kingdom under the guise of creating Pandora with the idea of promoting a symbiotic relationship with nature.

Is this a good idea? Well it is better than nothing, so at least Disney is doing something, but overall I think this is a poor choice. Why? Well to start off with, Avatar is a good movie, but its not a franchise. This was a SINGLE MOVIE that made a lot of money that is now going to get two simultaneous sequels to come out in 2014 and 2015 because of those receipts. Will these two movies be as popular as the first movie? Will the sequels help feed the new Avatarland? I do not think it will and here's why.

There have been a few other movies that have attempted the simultaneous sequels following strong profits and they are all terrible. Think about the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels (Dead Man's Chest and At World's End), The Matrix sequels (Reloaded and Revolutions). Both of these sets of sequels were terrible because the stories made no sense. Can you actually think about what the plot of The Matrix Revolutions was or all the character turns in Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End? These movies should serve as an example that one big hit DOES NOT ensure that simultaneous sequels will be popular, profitable, or even watchable.

So let's assume the Avatar sequels follow this pattern and these movies are big disappointments with no coherent plot. Disney will open up a whole area of a park to this franchise. How is this a good idea? When attractions are created based on bad movies they tend to be short lived (think The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian at Hollywood Studios). Additionally, Disney doesn't own the Avatar intellectual property. While I also don't agree with the creation of an entire Carsland at California Adventure (i'll save that for another post), AT LEAST DISNEY OWNS THE CARS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. Disney will have little ability to change the context or intent of their attractions if it collides with the message of the films whereas Disney can do anything they want with the Carsland area. Disney cannot make the Avatar films any better, yet they are stuck with the result of those movies in the parks.

Next, ask yourself how much you'd really like to be in a Pandora type land. Could it be fun to look at? Definitely. Will it have some good stores and maybe a good restaurant? Probably. Are you enchanted enough with the Pandora world to spend a lot of your day there? Maybe. Would you rather go here instead of on the African Safaris? Heck no! Put simply, there is no excitement, anticipation, or need to experience Pandora at Disney. There is no buzz. When Disney undertakes a big project there's generally lots of buzz. The Fantasyland Expansion project has tons of buzz, so much so that people are flying their planes over the site just to get daily looks at construction. Star Tours II? Fair amount of buzz. American Idol Experience? Definite Buzz. Expedition Everest? Buzz was en fuego. Avatarland? No buzz.

The imagineers should not be looking for a quick solution to fill in Animal Kingdom, but should be looking for a solid solution with lots of growth opportunities. I am not against contracting with an outside entity for an attraction, such as Star Tours, but make sure it really fits. AVATAR AT ANIMAL KINGDOM IS A STRETCH. Look in-house first for the answers. Look at DisneyNature, a subsidiary that makes nature documentaries for Disney, a company with shrinking box office returns. As such, there is only one announce project at this time, meaning that the company may not be around much  longer. Animal Kingdom can promote DisneyNature and house aspects of DisneyNature. Also, look at the scrapped plans for Beastly Kingdom. These are all viable ideas and will be MORE RELEVANT THAN AVATAR WILL BE IF THE MOVIES ARE TERRIBLE.

Be honest, when was your reaction to learning that Avatar was coming to Animal Kingdom? I didn't say "Yippee", I said "hmm" and felt disappointed. I felt more excitement when I learned that the parking signs at Magic Kingdom had been replaced or that walkway railings had been replaced at Disneyland...at least you KNOW those will be around a few years from now.

Disney Studios- Disney Live Action Consistently Lacks

Lets talk about Disney's live action film slate the last few years? What's been your favorite? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you probably haven't been too impressed. Over the last ten years, look at the biggest live action releases for the Disney Studios

2002- Country Bears, The Rookie
2003- Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl, Seabiscuit, Haunted mansion
2004- Princess Diaries 2, Miracle, National Treasure, Around the World in 80 days
2005- Ice Princess, The Pacifier, Herbie: Fully Loaded, Santa Clause 3, Sky High, Chronicles of Narnia: Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe
2006- Glory Road, Eight Below, Shaggy Dog, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, Invincible
2007- Bridge to Terabithia, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, The Game Plan, Enchanted, Underdog, National Treasure: Book of Secrets
2008- College Road Trip, Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, Beverly Hills Chihuahua, High School Musical 3, Bedtime Stories
2009- Race to Witch Mountain, Hannah Montana: The Movie, G Force, Old Dogs
2010- Alice in Wonderland, Prince of Persia, The Sorcerers Apprentice, Secretariat, Tron: Legacy
2011- Prom, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

So what is my point? Really look at some of these movies and think about their budget, the returns, and the actual quality of the movie.

The good movies- The most successful movies from this list are ones that earned the most revenue with the least overhead cost AND were well received by viewers. These are Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl, Miracle, Princess Diaries 2, and Enchanted. These movies were of HIGH QUALITY.

The bad movies- The Rest. Most of the other movies maintained small to medium budgets and were unique, i.e., Ice Princess, Eight Below, Invincible, College Road Trip, Old Dogs, Prom, etc. These movies were not successful, but Disney experimented and just fell short, no harm done.

However, there is a third category, one's that Disney SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER, and that should not have been made. These movies had no solid story or plot, had overblown budgets, and were complete failures. Disney ignored common sense and simply sought to capitalize on A-list stars, special effects, and nonsense stories. I call these the ridiculous movies.

The ridiculous movies-
  Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest & At World's End. The first movie (Curse of the Black Pearl was fun), had a story, and even had the visible moments from the attraction. The second and third movies were pure nonsense. What is the story? You can't even follow all the twists and turns of the third movie. The special effects took center stage in these movies and it was obvious they only wanted the biggest explosions and the biggest actors. So I ask this question- WHY WERE THESE MOVIES MADE? The answer is simple, because the market called for it and the consumer demand was there for more pirates. Disney capitalized on the pirate craze and FRANCHISED the idea by putting it in all of their business segments, i.e., Disney used pirates in all areas to reach the boys demographic. Knowing this, Disney sacrificed the standards for a quality movie, such as plot and simply wanted the method which would bring in the most money at the least resistance.

  Alice in Wonderland. Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter sounded great didn't it? Who wasn't looking forward to this, it was a great cartoon, so why wouldn't it make a great live action movie? Not only was this movie weird (Yes it's Tim Burton, but still it was very weird), but it was bad AND it didn't stay true to the book it was based off of. Concepts like stabbing an eye out and calling it "Underland" were completely unnecessary for a DISNEY MOVIE. Additionally, I know they wanted to make Johnny Depp the star of the movie, but the MAD HATTER IS NOT THE MAIN CHARACTER OF ALICE IN WONDERLAND. Depp's $20 million salary may not have helped the movie. Now I know it made over $1 Billion at the box office and the budget was around $200 Million, so profitability was great, but making a movie PURELY FOR PROFIT PURPOSES AND TO FRANCHISE THE IDEA INTO OTHER BUSINESS SEGMENTS is wrong and shows poor movie making quality.

The Chronicles of Narnia Movies. These movies had huge budgets and were just plain terrible. I'm glad Disney realized this prior to Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

The Pacifier, The Game Plan, Race to Witch Mountain. Stay away from Dwayne Johnson, he doesn't help a movie.

I have come up with a few basic guidelines that would help Disney in their film slate each year.

1) Continue to make low to mid budget movies each year. These are the films you can experiment on and not go "all in". The stakes should be low. Every once in a while you will hit a homerun.

2) Stop casting Dwayne Johnson. Find me one good movie of his that is Disney appropriate.

3) I know this will be controversial, but STOP DOING BUSINESS WITH JERRY BRUCKHEIMER AND MICHAEL BAY. These tentpole movies with $200 million budgets are unnecessary, focus too much on special effects, and are just plain not good movies. Pearl Harbor (Touchstone), Pirates 2 & 3, Sorcerers Apprentice, Prince of Persia, Chronicles of Narnia films, Tron: Legacy, and Alice in Wonderland were all unnecessary tentpole movies. What's worse is that Disney is continuing this trend with huge budgets, superfluous visual effects movies, and overpaid A-list actors. Disney's the Lone Ranger will star Johnny Depp as Tonto. Of course, the camera will be on him the majority of the movie, but HE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THE MAIN CHARACTER. Additionally, the planned Oz: The great and powerful and Tron 3 are expected to have bloated budgets as well while there is LITTLE DEMAND for such movies. Andy Hendrickson's comments that "story" is essentially irrelevant in tentpole movies shows just how far the studio has slipped at making quality movies.

4) The most interesting aspects of Disney live action over the past ten years are successful adaptations of inspirational sports movies, Marvel movies, and movies based on attractions should receive most of the emphasis and funding.

   Inspirational sports movies have a long history with Disney (Remember the Titans, Miracle, Invincible, Angels in the Outfield, Seabiscuit, The big Green, the Mighty Ducks, etc.) and while ALL OF THESE ARE NOT GOOD, THEY HAVE LOW BUDGETS AND TELL A STORY. Sports help tell a story and are very relatable to kids and parents. They should keep making these because they make them better than other studios.

  Movies based on marvel characters are the new trend and are exciting. THIS CREATES BUZZ AND THESE ARE THE MOVIES WHICH SHOULD HAVE THE LARGER BUDGETS. THE ANTICIPATED AVENGERS SHOULD HAVE A LARGE TENTPOLE BUDGET, but with that budget Disney needs to ENSURE that the STORY IS SOLID, CHARACTERS ARE RELATABLE, AND THE MOVIE IS FUN.

  Let's face it, thus far movies based on attractions have not been great. Though Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl was fun and had some visible moments from the attraction, the trend has been pretty poor with these movies. The Haunted Mansion was bad, we all know that, but most people can't really express why. The Country Bears was awful, no explanation needed. An attraction movie MUST FOLLOW THE PATH OF THE ATTRACTION TO A DEGREE AND SHOULD SEEM REMINISCENT OF THE ORIGINAL. Disney is going back to the drawing board and re-evaluating these movies. The upcoming Jungle Cruise and Magic Kingdom could be very exciting and fun, but it is clear that these could also be terrible if not done properly.

5) The upcoming Muppet Movie looks very exciting and TRUE TO THE MUPPET CHARACTERS. Given this, Disney has likely realized that the Muppets are a tremendous asset for Disney because they are essentially a PG-13/R Rated set of characters. The Muppets can do things that the standard Disney characters cannot.

6) Re-start Hollywood Pictures and Emphasize Touchstone pictures more. These studios let Disney make more adult oriented movies. One could be for PG-13 while one is for R rated movies, or some combination thereof, but they own these names and can use them to disassociate a title from the Disney name, letting them make more risky and unique pictures.

  Disney needs to get back to making love action quality movies at reasonable prices. Going to the movies should be fun again. I will address the animated features in other posts.

Corporate- Core Competencies and Functional Components

We all know that the Walt Disney Company has four main core competencies and functional components, i.e. company pillars- Studio entertainment, Parks and Resorts, Media Networks, and Consumer Products. However, perhaps it is time to update this framework to reflect new business ventures, technologies, and emphasis.

1. The first new pillar I propose is the Dining services branch, reporting directly to the CEO and executive management team, as shown.

 You may be wondering what Disney and these restaurant chains have to do with one another. Simple, they are businesses that have a strong brand that delivers a unique customer experience similar to Disney, but are limited in their size and growth options under current circumstances. Companies like these are what Disney would be if it were accessible in every major city. I am proposing that Disney acquire these chains and CONTINUE OPERATIONS across the globe. You may be arguing that Disney has never run a chain of restaurants or anything like this, but in reality they have. Most malls across the U.S. have a Disney Store inside of it which is now run by the Walt Disney Company. Disney has in essence learned how to properly run a store from their parks and resorts division and decided to apply it to nationwide retail by re-purchasing the remaining stores. Additionally, seeing a Disney store in every major city provides a necessary gateway to sell their products, advertise upcoming releases, and provide an exploratory setting to test new products or explore new design options. Think about it, Disney cannot experiment with the stores in the parks, but they can at the Disney stores in the malls. Now apply this same principle to restaurants. Disney has mastered the art of running a unique and exquisite restaurant at their resorts and in their hotels, why not expand their reach, but designing for individual malls would be nearly impossible. Acquiring recognized and strong brands with strong market share will give Disney the ability to continue to hone their service craft in the food sector and will automatically give Disney better food source products to fix the food catastrophe that continues to occur inside the parks (See posting titled "Disney Dining: Excellence, mediocrity, and slop". Through smart acquisitions and growth, Disney can increase its influence and demographic, not just through the television and movie medium. Guests can enjoy a quality Disney product by eating at Red Robin or Dippin' Dots, etc.

  You may be wondering why these companies? Simple, they all have very strong followings, but are limited in number and revenue, and can be bought out. Disney's history of strong service, brand maintenance, and deep pockets would RUN THESE BUSINESSES BETTER THAN THEY ARE CURRENTLY RUN, hence growth and profits. This was the same principle for Disney buying Marvel. Few would argue that Marvel, with Disney's oversight and funding, is a better company now and offers a better and more profitable product than ever before.

Disney should also explore CONTRACT AGREEMENTS with certain companies to provide guests with popular food inside the parks at certain stands. Under these contracts, Disney would let the company sell their product in their parks and increasing their reach, and would pay Disney a high regular fee. These companies are private and are known to not be for sale, but would still add value to the Disney brand through their association. The best known example of this was the Wayward Ho' fry carts at Frontierland that sold McDonalds french fries to Disney guests. The arrangement can be profitable for both parties.

Companies worth contracting with
 - In-N-Out Burger
 - Chick-Fil-A

2. The second change would be acquiring select other businesses with strong brands, strong followings, unique products, and a niche that Disney could easily grow into. These businesses would be run under the Consumer Products division and would help further Disney's growth in certain industries. A good example of a company Disney should acquire is the famous language software company, Rosetta Stone.

 Why Rosetta Stone Inc. you ask? Let's look at it. First, this company is the #1 language learning software in the world and has GUARANTEED CONTRACTS with the U.S. government. Second, as the world becomes more global in technology and business, employers demand for employees who can speak multiple languages will increase greatly, thus ensuring a growing customer base. Third, the company is still relatively small (annual revenue ranging between $220-$280 million per year). During an economic crisis, the government contracts alone will help to ensure increased economic stability for a company in an unstable market. Fourth, the company is strong and unique, and has built a strong brand.

Now, you may be wondering what experience Disney has at language software? Well, first off, Disney continues to invest more money into its English learning labs in China, so Disney already does do business in this industry. Additionally, Disney owns the Baby Einstein company, aimed at teaching young children subjects through interactive activities. Lastly, Disney continues to purchase and grow their interactive media group, recognizing the need for a strong computer software industry. Rosetta Stone is already established and will help them in pursuit of expanding their technology and software development sections.

Are these all of my ideas? No, these are just a few, but these are FEASIBLE and PROMISING acquisitions. There are many more ideas that we will pursue in further postings, but for now I think we need to realize that Disney has the ability to enter any industry, but that a smart acquisition will help them with their EXISTING CUSTOMERS AS WELL AS HELP THEM REACH NEW CUSTOMERS AND OFFER NEW EXPERIENCES. Thoughts?

Parks and Resorts- Disney Dining: Excellence, mediocrity, and slop

   Disney parks and resorts is known for its fine dining experience as much as its attractions and hotels. Disney has some of the most exquisite and unique restaurants including a five star restaurant (Victoria & Alberts) at the Grand Floridian Resort at Walt Disney World. Disney's restaurant quality is pretty outstanding at all the RESORTS, but Disney's food quality INSIDE the parks is falling short.

  Disney's good restaurants are really good. Every restaurant inside a hotel at a Disney resort is certain to be a great experience. Additionally, restaurants inside Disney's California Adventure and EPCOT are some of the best restaurants around. However, Disney's food service inside some of the more traveled parks including the Magic Kingdom, Disneyland park, Hollywood Studios, Animal Kingdom, etc. are all pretty sad. There are exceptions (Blue Bayou at Disneyland), but overall food focus is pretty lackluster. More disturbing though is not the restaurant experience inside parks, but the available food to the guest inside the park, such as at carts or stands. Disney needs to seriously evaluate their food sources and the experience that it provides the guest. If I were Phil Holmes, VP of Magic Kingdom, I would be unsettled that droves of my guests were leaving at mealtimes to go to EPCOT because they were known to have better food. EVERY PARK'S FOOD AND RESTAURANTS SHOULD STAND FOR ITSELF. The Park Hopper Pass should not be used simply as a means to escape from one park's bad food during meal times,  but should be used to experience more than one park because that is the guests preference.

The Good
 The churro (any park). Disney's perfected these little tasty suckers.
 Popcorn (any park). The smell hits you from a land away doesn't it?
 Funnel cake (Magic Kingdom, Disneyland, EPCOT). Pure deliciousness


  The Bad

 The cheeseburger (Any park)- Have you had one of these? Not only are they overpriced, but they're terrible. If Disney (the all-American company) should execute one food consistently well, it should the be the cheeseburger (the all-American food). Guests often wonder why the cheeseburger is so poor if park admission is so high. Disney needs to go back to the drawing board with the cheeseburger; they need to study successful burger chains (In-n-out, Red Robin, etc.) and seek to recreate a unique burger experience that is suitable for Disney.

 Coffee (Any park)- Disney's coffee is terrible. It's late at night at the Magic Kingdom, you see a coffee cart in Frontierland and you decide to get a coffee, latte, mocha, or hot cocoa. You're excited, you take that first sip, and your lips pucker...and you start to wonder how they can screw up a cup of joe so bad and where the nearest Starbucks is. Disney needs to re-design their coffee creation process, they need to train baristas in the same manner that Starbucks does, and they need to place more emphasis on the importance of a cup of coffee for the park experience (after all, coffee lets the guest stay awake longer and enjoy more activities).

The breadbowl (Magic Kingdom, Disneyland park). Consistently stale bread, lackluster soup or gumbo inserted, and an overbloated price tag make these a poor choice.

Fries (any park). These are just plain bad. The Westward Ho' carts selling McDonalds fries were the best bet...too bad they got rid of them.

Solutions
 So what should Disney do? I think Disney needs to place as much emphasis on in park dining as it does on resort dining. EVERY PARK SHOULD HAVE GREAT FOOD AND EVERY PARK SHOULD HAVE GREAT DEGREES OF FOOD SUCH AS FULL SERVICE DINING, CASUAL DINING, AND FAST FOOD. How do they do this? They must address the restaurant experience at the most crowded parks and improve the quality of those products. Restaurants in Fantasyland and Tomorrowland should have just as good of food as ones in Main Street or Frontierland, but it never seems to be equal. Disney needs to conduct a thorough evaluation of their in park restaurant experience and admit when a product falls short. Additionally, Disney should follow the principle that they follow in other business ventures, that if it can't produce a top quality in-house then it should acquire or contract with an outside entity to increase the quality of the guest experience. I will address smart acquisitions, mergers, and negotiated contracts in another posting, but what should be gleamed from this post is that Disney food IS NOT AS GOOD AS IT COULD BE in many areas, namely the most populated areas, and that Disney Dining should have increased emphasis put upon it by the company. I address this aspect more in the post titled "Core Concepts and Functional Components".

Corporate- The Marvel Acquisition

On 31 August 2009, Disney bought Marvel Entertainment for $4 Billion and made the best purchase the company has made in the past 25 years. By purchasing Marvel, Disney gained access to a large and significant demographic that had previously eluded Disney for years; Boys. Boys, teenagers, and even men read Marvel Comic Books, they identify with the characters and the stories, feel nostalgia over them, and who are eager to pay for their merchandise. Disney's attempts to target boys had largely fallen flat (see Disney XD's lineup of shows including "Kick Buttkowski" and "I'm in the band"), but the purchase of Marvel outright gave them a headstart and a competitive advantage necessary to maintain success. They are complements rather than competitors. DISNEY NEEDS MARVEL'S ESTABLISHED HISTORY AND UNIQUE DEMOGRAPHIC. Marvel had been so poorly run for years and with so little direction in its film division that ultimately MARVEL NEEDS DISNEY'S EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT, LEADERSHIP, AND DEEP POCKETS. Disney appears to have laid out a strategic framework, that if followed correctly (and with some adjustments) will better both businesses.

  - Consumer Products. This division can have the most immediate and profitable impact by leveraging all of Disney's resources to make all sorts of consumer products. The transformation has already begun with increased apparel and posters.

  - Television and Media Networks. Disney should start generating lots of new television shows for Disney XD using Marvel's characters. Some of the most popular television shows of the 90's were Spiderman, X-Men, and other Marvel cartoons. Disney needs to seek to recreate those shows, but in a more contemporary form.

  - Movie studios. Disney taking over Marvel is perhaps best for their film division because their bankruptcy and mismanagement had seen all the major characters film rights sold to other studios and had profits in a freefall. Since Disney took over, Marvel's movie quality has seen a distinct improvement. Movies such as Iron man 2, X-Men First Class, Thor, and Captain America all came out on Disney's watch and make the Marvel brand appreciate in value. Disney can also take advantage of live action theater, such as the cursed Spiderman musical, and turn the familiar characters into charming musicals.

  - Parks and resorts. Though Universal Studios Florida does have the theme park rights to some of Marvel's characters, that lease arrangement likely will not last beyond the near future. Marvel characters provide a strong story for many attractions and TRAVEL WELL ACROSS ALL CULTURES. Though Universal Studios Florida will still run Marvel Superhero Island for a while, Disney can create a Marvel area at Disneyland, Tokyo Disneyland, Disneyland Paris, and Hong Kong Disneyland. I don't just mean a section of a park, i.e. Carsland at California Adventure, but these characters and stories could  make up an entire park. Marvel had the idea for this prior to the acquisition for a Marvel theme park in Dubai. How would Marvel's management team had run this? It probably would have been a significant disappointment, but with Disney's knowledge of how to run a park, such an idea would likely be a huge success. Eventually, after Marvel Superhero Island is re-themed, Walt Disney World could open up a fifth park that focuses on all the main characters and has corresponding attractions.

  With Marvel, Disney got the shot in the arm it needed to reach the coveted boys demographic. This along with the other strategic demographic tools, such as ESPN and Disney Princesses, will help Disney to reach all of its target audiences.

Disney Studios- The Laws of Comic Book Movies (And how so many movie studios are doing it wrong)

I love the Disney and Marvel combination. They are a perfect fit for Disney and help them reach greater demographics, but the bread and butter businesses relationship between the two is not comic books, merchandise, or television...it is the movie. Disney has had very little experience in creating and successfully executing a comic book movie. Most industry comic book movies make a modest revenue at the box office, but are considered terrible movies overall, so we must ask ourselves why the dichotomy? The answer is simple- Comic book movies are a different entity of movie genre to which Disney needs to get up to speed on (as well as most of the other studios). They are NOT action movies. They are NOT dramas nor comedy. A successful comic book movie tells a story that is based on that character so that READER'S FAMILIAR WITH THE CHARACTERS CAN RELATE TO THE STORY. So why do most comic book movies fail and why are the few good ones that much better? I present to you a Bill of Rights for Comic book movies.

 Law 1-  Comic book movies should have a LARGE budget. Eisner's old "singles and doubles" strategy does not correspond well to Comic book movies. These movies need to be larger than life and should never be skimped on, but where you invest the money is what's really crucial. The bulk of the money should go the STORY and the SUPPORT elements (directing, lighting, costumes, make-up, props, visual effects, etc.) A comic book is born on the page and so too are their movies; THEY ARE WON OR LOST ON THE PAGE. Invest in a good writer, invest in a good director, invest in a good support staff, and make sure you have a solid story that stays true to the original creation.

 Law 2- Casting A-list stars can actually hurt your movie. A-list stars may help get butts in seats for many dramatic or action movies, but not in a comic book movie. THE COMIC BOOK CHARACTER PUTS THE BUTTS IN THE SEATS. The same fan will go see the Hulk whether is it played by Mark Ruffalo, Edward Norton, Eric Bana, etc. There is no need to pay $20 Million for Edward Norton when a lesser known actor WILL LIKELY BE BETTER in the part. Don't mistake what I'm saying, Acting is crucial to a comic book movie as it is to any movie and bad acting will kill a movie, but discovering relative unknowns with strong acting talent is a better choice than paying for a well-known celebrity actor. The actor must become the character that the fans know. The actor must BE THE FACE AND IDENTITY OF THAT CHARACTER FOR THAT GENERATION, hence the actor should not already have a face in another big movie three months from now. Additionally, signing relative unknowns to multi-film deals will drive down your costs and lower the overhead. Edward Norton is a great actor, but he is not the hulk. Find me an actor who's got real talent and is hungry, he'll work for a low wage, but will deliver the character better than anyone. Stay away from actors well known or iconic enough that they skew the image of the movie or what its going to be.

Law 3- A good director is fundamental. A good director should understand the comic medium and ALREADY BE A FAN OF THE CHARACTER so that the intent of the story is true to the comic. Christopher Nolan's Batman movies are so good because he is a self-described Batman fanatic, so the movies are a natural fit.  Alternatively, Ang Lee is a well known director, but his Hulk movie was so abysmal and unnecessarily dramatic that I wanted to erase it from my memory.

Law 4- Do not make up main characters. The comic book universe is filled with characters and there are decades of stories to draw inspiration from, so why on earth do so many writers and directors take such liberties as making up a new character, especially for a villain? Nick Nolte's character in Hulk was so bad, not just because the guy literally has no acting talent, but because what character was he? Hulk fans around the world were trying to figure out who this Electric guy was or wondered why Hulk was fighting big dogs rather than a known villain. The film should draw characters exclusively from the books.

Law 5- Do not add extra characters if they do not serve the story. X-Men origins Wolverine was terrible. I hated every minute of it, but what I hated more than anything is that they wasted Gambit. A comic book character cannot appear in different movies that have different settings; once they've been used, they can't really come back, therefore Gambit will not be making an appearance in later X-Men movies since he was already in a prequel. Gambit is a great character, and fans have been clamoring to see him, but he was wasted. His part was minimal and useless. He served no real purpose in the story. Same principle for Blob. THEY USED THEM TO INCREASE FAN APPEAL AND MARKETING NOTORIETY, BUT HAVE NO OVERALL PURPOSE TO THE STORY. If the character doesn't fit, don't waste him, wait and put him in the next one. A five minute Colossus bit part in X-Men 2 does not do justice to the character. X-Men 3's depiction of Angel was terrible that many fans just assume it didn't exist. Don't waste characters.

Law 6- Do not double-dip actors in the same universe. When I heard that Chris Evans was Captain America I was sad and confused. Why is the Human Torch playing Captain America? CHRIS EVANS IS THE HUMAN TORCH, I have two previous movies that say that. Is the acting pool really so shallow that we have to double-dip actors for roles? Now there can never be Captain America and Human Torch in the same movie (I don't know why they would, but you never know). Once you've played an iconic comic book character, you're done, you are that character from that point forward. Disney and Marvel must look at each actor as a LONG TERM investment in the character. The rumors that Wesley Snipes wants to play Black Panther should send a chill down all of our spines. Aside from being perceived as a tax-evader, Snipes is Blade, so he can't be Black Panther. Now, though I don't like Ryan Reynolds playing Deadpool and Green Lantern, at least they are in DIFFERENT UNIVERSES, so it makes it acceptable. Movie companies need to realize that you get one guy to play each character. If If I was casting Captain America, I don't look at how many butts a person has put in the seats. The movie will make money regardless. I would look at who's the best fit. My personal preference would be someone that looked like John Cena (from the WWE), but without the terrible part time rap career.

Law 7- Do not formulate a plan for a sequel only after it has made significant revenues. A writer should be aware of the LIMITS of the current script and ALREADY HAVE IN MIND where they'd like to take the next sequel. The "Go or No Go" decision should be based on the revenue incurred, not the idea for the movie.

Law 8- Ensemble movies only work if character backstories has been successfully built. Disney does this very well. The Avengers movie only occurred AFTER the Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, and Hulk movies had all been made. DC is having the opposite problem. They tried to make a Justice League movie (that nearly began filming) that would have had over 20 characters, with only three of them having had their own backstory and own movie. This would have been a disaster. Since there hasn't been a Wonder Woman movie yet (don't ask me why DC moves so slowly at churning out quality scripts), throwing her into a Justice League movie would have been disastrous.

Law 9- Don't make movies faster than you can ensure they are made well. There needs to be a strong FILTER MECHANISM in place to ensure character development is done well. This is self-explanatory.

Law 10- The movie should exude fun and should feel like a comic book. The movie should not feel like a soap opera, a love story, or another Die Hard movie.

The Marvel films good and the bad

1970's and 1980's-
Spider man, Punisher, and Captain America. These were all terrible and looked like a highschool film project.

Pre Disney
  Blade (1998)- Good
  X-Men (2000)- Good
  Spiderman (2002)- Good
  Blade 2 (2002)- Terrible
  Hulk (2003)- Terrible
  X-Men 2 (2003)- Very Good
  Daredevil (2003)- Bad
  Spiderman 2 (2004)- Very Good
  Punisher (2004)- Average
  Blade Trinity (2004)- Terrible
  Fantastic Four (2005)- Bad
  Elektra (2005) Terrible
  X-Men 3 (2006)- Bad
  Spiderman 3 (2007)- Bad
  Ghost Rider (2007)- Terrible
  Fantastic Four 2 (2007)- Terrible
  Punisher: War Zone (2008)- Average
  Incredible Hulk (2008)- Average
  Iron Man (2008)- Very Good
  X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)- Terrible

Disney owned Era
  Iron Man 2 (2010)- Average
  X-Men First Class (2011)- Good
  Thor (2011)- Good
  Captain America (2011)- Average

As shown, the track record thus far is not stellar. By wasting characters (see Law 5) Disney is very limited in what characters they can pursue (even if other companies own the larger characters film rights, Disney still has a seat at the table).

 Potential future movies-
   Dr. Strange
   X-Force/X-Factor/Avengers West Coast
   Thanos/Infinity Gauntlet
   Sinister Six (With Spiderman)
   Gambit origin
   War machine

Comic Book Movies to emulate
   The Dark Knight
   Watchmen
 
 
Marvel makes more than THREE times as many movies as DC, but when DC makes a good one, it's usually VERY GOOD. Marvel must continue to make CONSISTENTLY good movies and realize that the deeper well of potential characters is their GREATEST ASSET. DC has no room to make a bad movie because they don't have an ample amount of characters. Marvel has an ample supply of lesser known characters; by following these laws they can make a good movie out of a character/story that not many people know.