Consumer Products- Disney Parks Online

If you want to buy great Disney parks merchandise, unfortunately the only real option is to go there in person. This makes little sense if you think about it. Disney has a strong online presence with multiple sites that sell goods. The Disney website sells Disney merch, then a few years ago Disney began selling Disney parks merch on the Disney site...getting better. However, the selection is very sparse and sad. The online Disney store has little selection of parks merch and offers little in the way of attractions/hotel specific merch. For example, if I want a Grand Floridian coffee cup, it should be on the Disney parks site. How about a Pirates of the Caribbean attraction poster? How about a Wide World of Sports T-Shirt? A Tokyo Disneyland hat?

 To fix this, I suggest a separate Disney parks site with strong filtering buttons. I should be able to filter by resort, by hotel, even by attraction or store. Imagine if you can shop specifically at the Emporium, etc. The goods are stored in warehouses after all, so this should not be very difficult.

Also, the inventory of the World of Disney store needs to be online. Doing so will could greatly increase revenues and will not interfere with vacation shopping for souvenirs. This is an area needing immediate assistance?  Thoughts?

Corporate- What to do with ESPN

ESPN. A strong business that is the thought leader and brand identifier for all sports programming. ESPN was bought in the 1990's when Disney bought Capital Cities, giving majority control of ESPN to Disney. The company (and its revenue) really took off in the early 2000's and continued throughout the decade. When ABC was struggling in the 1990's and when tourism at the parks struggled following 9/11, it was ESPN that saved the company more than any other part. ESPN was a solid producer for years...until they weren't. A few years ago technology has increased so that fewer subscribers continue memberships and prices for sporting rights continue to increase, creating a serious decline in revenue. So what should Disney do about this and what has Disney done about this? Let's start with the latter.

Disney has had two rounds of mass layoffs at ESPN and the future does not look any brighter. However, this might make good business sense for the foreseeable future, it fails to take the long term view into account. If this trend continues, Disney will likely sell off its stake in ESPN. That would just be wrong...so what should Disney do?

Disney should stop listening to the MBA's here. Traditional finance in a mega company such as Disney dictates that each subsidiary under the company umbrella must be independently profitable. However, the Disney company does not operate its businesses independently; the success of the company promotes and leverages cross pollination (a movie spurns a park attraction which spurns a tv show and merchandise, etc.). They all work together in a holistic way. When things go well, every subsidiary wins. However, when things are going bad, the company is seeking to stop the bleeding immediately at all costs. Instead of focusing on immediate course correction within the subsidiary, the parent company should seek to leverage the other subsidiaries in order to outlast and make appropriate corrections without drastic changes.

So what does this mean for Disney and ESPN? Be patient and give it time. Have ABC hold more ESPN promotional events, have Walt Disney World host some major event (i.e. not high school gymnastics) at Wide World of Sports. Continue to update technology to provide more options, but don't lose focus that ESPN is a worldwide brand for sports. These cuts (and possible divestment) will only hurt the Disney brand. Disney currently owns the concept of sports by owning ESPN, that is worth an awful lot and should be taken into consideration.

A family looks out for one another. When your sibling is struggling, the family must pull together in the tough times...layoffs and cost cutting are not the answer.

Disney Company Timeline- The Other Forgotten Era's (1966-1984)

There is a period of Disney Company history that is largely overlooked, where the company's performance was mediocre at best, films were stagnant, and the product was not as fresh as it once was. This short period had three CEO's and additional Chairman and power players in the company. However, each period has its own significant contributions.

Roy O. Disney (1966-1971)-

Though Roy Disney had always been at the forefront of the studio hierarchy, he took over primary duties (creative and business) upon Walt's death in 1966. He was old, he was tired, and he was looking to retire soon, but he stayed on to finish Walt's dream of finishing the Magic Kingdom at Walt Disney World. That was his primary focus as most everything else was delegated.

His tenure saw films such as The Jungle Book (already in development at Walt's death), The Aristocats, and Bedknobs and Broomsticks. Other live action films were also made, but nothing really noteworthy.

No significant changes to consumer products. At Parks and Resorts, Disneyland saw only minor improvements, but he did ensure the completion of the Magic Kingdom at WDW because he knew how to build that. He abandoned Walt's idea for the city of tomorrow because he did not know how to build this.

Roy's primary contribution though was his stability after Walt's passing. He leveled out the ship and got everyone on track.

Donn Tatum (1971-1976)-

This 5 year period was the first without a Disney at the helm and was largely a quiet time for the company in the parks and films, likely due to the tumult in the culture. The films saw Robin Hood as the sole animated feature, and the live action films continued to decline with films such as One little Indian or The Apple Dumpling gang. At the parks, Disneyland saw the creation of a new land "Bear Country", a small land to take on the new attraction "The Country Bears", one of the last attraction concepts ok'd by Walt. At Walt Disney World, Fort Wilderness and the hotels were completed, including the Contemporary and Polynesian resorts. At this point, discussions were starting to look at possibly opening a Disney resort in Asia, but that would not come during his tenure.

Tatum's contributions are measured, but perhaps his most significant one was that the company can be run as a corporation rather than just a family business.

Card Walker (1976-1983)-

Card Walker had worked at WDP for a long time and had worked his way up as one of "Walt's boys" (i.e. a creative employee). Walker's tenure was slightly better than Tatum's and did see some expansion in certain areas.

The films during this tenure included the Rescuers, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, The Fox and the Hound. Live action includes Tron, Pete's Dragon, Freaky Friday, etc. Not amazing films, but they did make some money. They began discussing the idea of the Disney Channel at this point. Consumer products saw some expansion of products. Parks and Resorts saw the opening of Thunder Mountain and Space Mountain. At Walt Disney World, the park turned into a real resort with new golf courses (because Card Walker was a golf addict). He oversaw the opening of the Tokyo Disneyland resort, and he opened up EPCOT (re-themed as a permanent world's fair) in 1982.

His greatest contribution was likely seeing expansion of the Walt Disney World resort into what it is today.

Ron Miller (1983-1984)-

The son in law of Walt, Ron had worked a few jobs at the company and worked his way up. His tenure at the top was short and was not very fruitful. There was a company recession and the company was under threat of corporate takeover. It didn't help that the Disney family was split over Ron because he and Diane Disney had separated. Films were very sparse during this time- No animated films and few live action ones.

However, this period was not all negative. His greatest impact was likely taking on more debt in order to stave off takeover. This broadened the company and its holdings. It kept Disney independent and whole. However, the stock price and lack of films had hurt the company to such a degree that Miller was ousted in favor of a film executive, Michael Eisner (see the post on the Eisner era).

Thoughts?

Disney Company Timeline- The Walt Disney Era (1923-1966)

 

Walt Disney was a fascinating man and he ran the company with his namesake with exacting precision. The impact he had upon the company and the work it produced was very significant and exacting. He is most known for his creativity, storytelling, exacting standards, and bold risk taking. Surprisingly, during his tenure the company was in dire straits just as often as it was wildly successful. He built this company (with his brother Roy) and is responsible for

- Forming the company. This was no small feat to create a major brand from nothing.

- The cartoon short period. Beginning in 1923 the company was exclusively in the cartoon short game. During this period he created the litany of Disney characters Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy, as well as the Silly symphonies, and Three little Pigs.

- Disney merchandise. Walt and Roy hired Kay Kamen to run their merchandise department and this was wildly successful from the get go. Mickey mouse dolls, watches, and even the Mickey Mouse club all stemmed from this. Walt became the father of Mickey Mouse.

-

Feature film production. In 1937 the first feature film "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" was released to huge acclaim. This started the first Disney golden age for a string of five quality films (Snow White, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Dumbo, and Bambi). Walt made the studio the pre-eminent cartoon feature film studio.

- The 1940's brought a great depression to the company. There was not enough money to make a feature film and likely not enough audience able to see it. The company was just struggling to survive. The company began making government war documentary shorts. Additionally, Walt and the company had to endure a major studio strike. The company did continue to make features sparingly, but they were of much lesser detail and quality. These included Saludos Amigos, Three Caballeros, Song of the South, So dear to my heart, Fun and Fancy Free, Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad, etc. Walt kept the company alive.

- The 1950's were a great time for Walt and the company. For features, his first animated feature out of the gate was Cinderella, a smash hit. This gave him enough money to make more films including Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, Lady and the Tramp, and Sleeping Beauty. Additionally, due to the locking of wartime revenue in Britain, he began making live action features and made such hits as Treasure Island, Robin Hood and his merry men, and many more. Walt ceased making shorts, but instead took a risk on an idea for a theme park called Disneyland. He purchased land in Anaheim, CA and mortgaged the company and it paid off wildly. He also began the "Disneyland" television show and made other shows including Davy Crockett and Mickey Mouse club, making him a national celebrity second to none. He became his new persona of Uncle Walt. By the end of the 1950's the company had ample revenue.

-

The 1960's continued this trend of wildly successful ideas. In films, he had taken a much reduced role and created 101 Dalmatians, Sword in the Stone, and Mary Poppins. He continued making live action films, he expanded Disneyland with New Orleans Square and then began the process for making Walt Disney World in Florida. During this time he was also trying to build the Mineral King ski resort and other projects.

Walt's contribution is the company itself, but the company today is very different from what he had created.

Disney Company Timeline- The Eisner era (1984-2005)

The era of Eisner is a fascinating one. Coming into power in 1984, a definitive low point during the company's tenure, Eisner transformed Walt Disney Productions into a Wall street big wig knows as the modern Walt Disney Company.

At his best, Eisner was creative, a risk taker, pragmatic when he needed to, and a strong evaluator of talent, and vast expansion. He gave us

Wild expansion in films, jumping movie production from an average of four movies per year to ten per year. His movie strategy was also very effective; low budget movies (singles and doubles) live action movies that are family friendly while also overseeing large large action movies such as Pearl Harbor, Pirates of the Caribbean, etc. He oversaw the resurgence of the Disney animated films of Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and Lion King. He oversaw the first hits with Pixar as Toy Story, Monster Inc., Finding Nemo, Cars, etc. Though much of his tenure had bad animated movies, the strong brand of the company was able to propel the company past the weak films (i.e. Disney animated films 1995-2005)

New attractions at Parks and resorts, such as Splash Mountain and others...but perhaps most strongly he realized that he may have to go outside the company for a good attraction IP, such as Star Tours, etc. He also opened up new parks (Disney MGM studios, Animal Kingdom, and California Adventure). He also saw the opening of the Disneyland Paris resort.

Consumer products was greatly expanded with the Disney Stores and with the advent of the Internet.

Broadcast networks was also greatly expanded with he purchase of Capital Cities, where the company bought ABC and ESPN, what a deal!

Eisner is sometimes a controversial figure. He is a creative businessman who surely saved the company and established it as a dominant media company, however many feel his focus was never on the quality or detail the company once knew. Under Eisner (and now Iger) the company was clearly out to make a profit at all costs. The "upcharge" was established after continually raising prices. No longer was a Disney vacation a cheap expense, now it's an event that must be saved for.

His pragmatism is also worth commending as he avoided any deal with Time Warner when he believed the soaring stock price was not credible.

Eisner's greatest weakness though was his cling to power and lack of a succession plan. He was forced to take Bob Iger as President, but given his heart condition a succession plan was absolutely necessary. He viewed succession as a threat to his power. However, by putting all the power on himself, he got overworked and his ideas got tired. When the company had a bad spell the writing was on the wall, but once he got rid of Roy E. Disney, the namesake of the company, then the Save Disney campaign went to war with Eisner.

Eisner's tenure was necessary, he should be applauded and thanked for his work. He paved the way for where we are today. There was some recovery that had to happen, but he truly made it a modern company.

Disney Company Timeline- The Iger Era (2005-Present)

What is the Iger era known for?

The Iger era can undoubtedly be considered a success through and through. Let's look at the successes, pillars, and shortcomings.

Most notable
  Acquisitions. Iger is adept at purchasing a company or IP when the stakes are high. His most notable purchases include Marvel and Lucasfilm for over $4 Billion each, and Pixar for over $7 Billion.

Studios-
 Disney's studios films have seen a general quality increase (and certain revenue increase) since he took power. Marvel and Lucasfilm films have been strong additions to the studios bottom line. Pixar's films have generally been strong and many have made lots of money. Walt Disney animation studios films have been hit or miss, but the hits have been significant (i.e. Frozen). Walt Disney pictures films have also had a few hits (i.e. Beauty and the Beast) which have helped propel the studios revenue into the black. Iger also is responsible for the creation of Disneynature. The studios also encompasses live theater, music, radio, etc. Good 12 years so far for the studios.

Parks and Resorts- International expansion in Disneyland Hong Kong and Disney Shanghai. Expansion in Magic Kingdom's Fantasyland, Redo of California Adventure. Pandora and of course, Star Wars land is in the mix. Some new attractions and technology. Again, good year for Parks and resorts.

Consumer Products/Broadcast networks- Nothing really exciting here. These divisions have been fairly stable with a few hits. No major investments to speak of, but the current problems with ESPN have been bogging down the company for the past year.

Biggest Weakness- Succession. Iger's contract keeps getting extended time after time. You'd think that the company would have learned their lesson after Eisner that having an all powerful CEO with no clear succession plan is a bad idea. Nope, Disney repeated this very process. The company HAD a succession plan with both Jay Rasulo and Tom Staggs in place. Iger chose Staggs, so Rasulo left. Then Iger got rid of Staggs. This reeks of holding onto power.

Was Staggs not capable? He was a CFO and head of parks and resorts (as was Rasulo). Perhaps Iger should have made Staggs President instead of just COO (just like Eisner was forced to make Iger). It is this type of attitude towards succession that worries many company investors. If Iger was hit by a bus, the company will once again be in turmoil. So what's next? Iger's contract got extended another year until 2019. Rumors continue to swirl that he will eventually run for office...is their a clear successor today? No. There is no President or COO today.

Also, power continues to be consolidated into Iger by making him Chairman and CEO. This too is a dangerous combination that can be separated. Learn the lessons from the Early 2000's!!!

In the future, there will still likely be some great things coming and with certain hits. Hopefully another large acquisition that will spur excitement and cross utilization across the company. Thoughts?

Parks and Resorts- Competition spurs creativity

The rivalry between Disney and Universal is probably the best its ever been, which is great news for customers (though it will likely take its toll on the wallet). This was not always the case; for much of the last 30 years, the rivalry was nearly non-existent. Universal would try something, if it was a success, Disney might copy it, etc. However, they really operated in different genres; Disney as a family friendly immersive THEME park while Universal was a movie studio with rides tailored to older patrons. This all changed once Comcast bought out Universal and decided to compete in a new type of attraction; the fully immersive themed land. Wizarding World of Harry Potter was a game changer for the industry, becoming the new standard of top notch attractions, stores, and restaurants in a FULLY IMMERSIVE environment. This also drove the cost up considerably for new developments.

Universal did not stop there. Universal made a master plan where they are coming out with a Major attraction every year for the foreseeable future. This is ambitious. How did Disney respond? They tried to match it with Pandora: the world of Avatar. Not quite Harry Potter, but it does create a vivid environment.

More importantly though we need to understand what this represents...it's an arms race. Disney is going to struggle to keep up, but Disney's pace is must slower (5-7 year avg by my calculations). Will this give Universal a distinct advantage?

Additionally, this arms race of themed environments has created a new type of expansion. I call it the Billion Dollar land. It is these improvements which cost anywhere between $800M-$1.2B, (a lot of money), but which actually don't offer much. Examples include

DISNEY

Fantasyland expansion- Two terrible attractions, repurposed Dumbo, One nice restaurant, one quick service restaurant

Cars land- Two attractions, One large one, counter service food

Pandora- Two attractions, one restaurant

Star Wars land- Two attractions, likely some restaurant

Toy Story land- Likely two attractions

UNIVERSAL

Harry Potter- Several attractions across two parks, two restaurants

Simpsons- two attractions, one major, restaurant

Nintendo land- ???


The cost of the themed environment is so high that the actual land provides little to do. The companies need to plan for this. A new land should be all encompassing and be able to pass a LOT of time, i.e. 5-7 attractions (good ones too, not repurposed ones), 1-2 restaurants, shops, etc. Take star wars land; there should be a hoth planet with an attraction, a death star, and several more. The land should take up considerable size, not only a few acres. This SHOULD cost a lot of money to do it well, so the companies should allocate that a new redevelopment should get at least $1.5B if they are trying to go all in. Disney cannot compete with Universal if they try to do this on the cheap; i.e California adventure. If it is too much money then they should not try to engage.

Many will read this and say something like "that's easy for you to say, etc." I agree, spending $2B is a tough call, but that's the business their in.

For Disney, Star Wars and Marvel should get their own theme park (or at least a substantial part of a park) if done right. These are game changer IP's.

For Universal, Harry Potter is making them a FORTUNE. Why is the Lost continent still there? Get rid of it and expand Harry Potter. Get rid of MIB or other dated attractions in USF. For Nintendo, the options are plentiful and could really do some damage.

Unless a company chooses to bow out, the arms race will continue and we should be happy about it! Thoughts?

Parks and Resorts- EPCOT Roundup

What should happen with EPCOT?

EPCOT is a unique and amazing park, but where should the future be. Is it now relegated to the role of a "traditional" theme park or is it still a unique mixture of education and entertainment? I believe the latter and that this distinction should still be idealized. How should this be done?


WORLD SHOWCASE-

The World showcase. The best food at WDW in my opinion, this is an amazing mixture of culture, food, alcohol, and a few weak attractions.

Where can it go from here? Expansion is necessary. New countries? Spain, Australia, Russia, etc.
Also, each country needs at least one TOP quality full service restaurant. Each country should also have some "attraction", whether it be a video or actual ride. Currently, only China, Mexico, Norway, America, Canada, and France have actual attractions. Italy needs something to do, Germany is essentially a shopping center, UK/Japan/Morocco are interesting to look at, but still need something more.

What needs work- Disney should not continue to force current IP into countries unnecessarily. Maelstrom may be been boring, but it was based off of fact. Arrendelle "looks" like Norway, so that's good enough. This is slippery slope if this trend continues. Now, this does not apply to princesses appearing in representative countries, but don't change wholesale attractions that no longer represent the host country.

FUTURE WORLD- 

Future world needs some help, but there are still some great attractions. The land is a small, yet very sustainable little area. The Seas is a great site and with Turtle Talk & Nemo, this is a great site. Mission Space is a unique attraction with great theming. Test Track is a top notch attractions etc.


What needs work-

Journey into imagination- Where Should Disney take this land? How about putting Inside Out into here? This IP seems to fit this one perfectly.

Innovations- This is a tired concept (IMHO), but it could be regenerated...but along with new technologies, I would move the Carousel of progress from MK to here (with a modern update as well).

Ellen's energy adventure- Love the concept, shorten the ride and update it.


The gems of EPCOT however are the restaurants. This park is meant to entertain while educating and is where you are supposed to get great food and alcohol. Therefore adults are the primary customer here...this is a GOOD thing. I suggest the following

1. An expansion of Living with the land (Actually seeing food being grown is a fascinating lesson)

2. The creation of at least three new countries in WS over the next few years (get rid of that outpost area also).

3. AVOID ANY Marvel or Star Wars IP

4. Update Nemo attraction to add Finding Dory characters

5. Update Spaceship earth attraction

6. Make parts of future world a second "shopping district". Currently, the art of Disney store there dominates, but that area could house several more high quality stores

7. Update Club cool with the soda flavors

8. COCO attraction in Mexico?

9. Canada needs some real stores

Thoughts?

Become a Disney T & T Follower today!

If you like what you're seeing, sign up to become a regular follower!

Disney Studios- The Sad Saga of Marvel Villains

   The Sad Saga of Marvel Villains

 A good comic book movie always has its competing forces; the hero and a villain. Alas, the strength of Marvel movies has never helped build up the latter. Most of the villains in the MCU are forgettable and are therefore unusable.

Iron Man (Obediah Stain)-  weak and useless

Incredible Hulk (Abomination)- Personally I think he's a good villain, but they didn't use him as well as they could, and they killed him off

Iron Man 2 (Whiplash)- They edited too much of him, made him boring and nonsensical.

Thor (Loki)- Obviously, Marvel has done well by Loki, but they've basically taken him out of the villain role altogether.

Captain America (Red Skull)- A good villain, a little boring, but again, killing him off doesn't do any good. Bring him back and build him up!

Avengers- (Thanks)- A great villain, who hopefully they will show the twisted titan for what he is.

Iron Man 3 (Mandarin)- Boy did they ruin this one...sigh.

Thor 2 (Malakith) Whatever his name is, it could have been good, but they didn't dive into him nearly deep enough.

Captain America 2 (Winter Soldier)- Once again, a good villain get transformed into a hero.

Guardians of the Galaxy (Nebula)- She could be interesting, but GOTG2 is also using her as a villain.

Avengers 2 (Ultron)- Personally I think they did him well, but where can you take him from here.

Antman (Yellow Jacket)- Weak villain. Can't even use him elsewhere.

Captain America 3 (Whatever the conniving guy's name is, boy did they ruin that one)

Doctor Strange (Mads Mikkelson's character)- Another weak endeavor


How do you make a strong villain? Here are some rules

1. There must be a back story to the villain
2. Hero and villain cannot just immediately start fighting, need a complicated relationship
3. Do not kill the villain or even allude to it
4. Do not use successful villains as heroes.
5. The villain should be a real threat to the hero (i.e. obediah stain against iron man is weak)
6. Do not make up villains or totally change the villain, but them call them a classic villain's name

Thoughts?

Disney Studios- All about Pixar

Well Disney has now owned Pixar for 11 years and IMHO both companies have benefited from the relationship. Obviously, Disney has benefited from the fresh ideas and name recognition that Pixar brings in (especially during the stale disney animation decade of 2000-2010). Pixar benefits from deep pockets, better marketing, and cross promotion leverage. Pixar's hits have been massive, but their occasional misses have been very weak. Let's go over them by time period

The Disney/Pixar Contractual period

Toy Story- A buddy pic that was fresh and opened up new possibilities. Grade- A-

A Bug's life- A bit sloppy and dull. Grade B

Toy Story 2- More clever and fun than the original. Grade A

Monsters Inc.- Another clever hit filled with humor. Grade A-

Finding Nemo- A smash hit, near perfection. Grade A+

The Break off period

The Incredibles- Clever, but still lacking. Grade B

The still contractually obligated to work with you period

Cars- Eisner's pet project, well overrated. Grade C+

The Buyout period (i.e. the renaissance of fresh ideas)

Ratatouille- Clever, fun, heartwarming. Grade A

Wall-E- Innovative and charming. Grade A

Up- Visually spellbinding, weird plot, but amazing first 20 minutes. Grade A-

Toy Story 3- Funny and fitting with the other Toy Story movies. Grade A-

Cars 2- An unnecessary sequel that suffered greatly. Unwatchable. Grade F

Brave- Should have been better, but watchable. Grade B-

Monsters University- Another unnecessary sequel, but did have charming moments. Grade B

Inside Out- A fresh idea with great execution. Grade A

The Good Dinosaur- Too many rewrites with no strong plot. Unwatchable. Grade F

Finding Dory- A tough sequel, but charming moments.


What should Pixar's future be? Clearly they have a good plan of releasing an original film every year with a sequel every other year, unfortunately their not sticking to this plan because there are three sequels planned in the next three years (Cars 3, Incredibles 2, Toy Story 4).

I am not against sequels per se. I think Incredibles and Toy Story might warrant them, I also believe Inside Out could warrant one, but let's not go crazy here. There needs to be another fresh 15 ideas they work on.

Additionally, when it comes to the parks, I believe there needs to be a stronger organization of Pixar properties in the parks. At WDW, if there is a pixar place then clearly they should go there, however, Wall-E is easily doable in tomorrowland, Inside out at Journey into imagination, etc.

Thoughts?

Disney Studios- Marvel Phase 3

We are in the midst of Marvel's Phase 3 films. Captain America Civil War was a strong start to the phase and Doctor Strange helped grow the universe. We now proceed to the rest of the upcoming films through 2019 and where the MCU will likely be heading.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2- We are only a month away from GOTGv2 premiere and there is wide amounts of speculation. The energy of this franchise is unique and is only comparable to the 2012 release of the Avengers. Director James Gunn's leadership helps to make this film both engaging, witty, and relatable, and all with smaller characters (giving them more freedom). Kudos to Kevin Feige and the rest of the Marvel studios staff for experimenting with the smaller characters and making them enjoyable.

Spiderman Homecoming- I know this is not technically not a MCU movie, but it's a hybrid between Sony and Disney. The tone of the film looks promising, Michael Keaton looks great, the humor seems upbeat, very excited about the prospects. Also, if Disney and Sony can continue their partnerships then new agreements can continue.

Thor Ragnarok- Very excited about this one; Thor movies are pretty boring to begin with, but combine it with the Hulk and tease a Hulk vs Thor fight, and i'm sold!

Black Panther- Not too excited about this one. Chadwick Boseman did a solid job as Black Panther in Captain America Civil War, but the lore behind the character is pretty weak. His main interest is in how he interacts with the other characters.

Avengers Infinity War and part 2- This is the one most everyone is ecstatic about! The introduction of Thanos is very promising. If they follow the storyline of Infinity gauntlet (Thanos gets the gems, add Adam Warlock, all heroes die, etc.) then it should be a GREAT way. This could be a great way for the original heroes (Robert downey Jr., Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, etc. can bow out. if they want out)

Ant-man and the Wasp- I admit I did not love Ant-man, but I wholeheartedly believe in growing the universe and this could be good.

Captain Marvel- I would have created this one before Infinity War, but her addition could be a great start.

I'm very excited about these, but here's where I think Marvel Phase 4 could go

- Adam Warlock movie
- Hulk movie (Buy back the distribution rights)
- Celestial figures figure in a movie (Dr. Strange & Warlock?)

Thoughts?

Disney Studios- A proper film slate formula

Disney films come in several forms based upon the business entity that created it. Obviously, Disney owns many franchises including Marvel, Lucasfilm, the Muppets, Pixar, etc. These are of course in addition to all of Walt Disney Pictures, Walt Disney animation studios, Touchstone, and other Disney companies. Each year seems a little different in what the film slate represents, but in general I believe Disney is at its strongest with a mix of the following.

Each year should encompass at least

- 1 Tentpole film. This is a large blockbuster film, typically made by Walt Disney Pictures. Budgets for this one should be at least $100,000,000 and should be released somewhere between May-July each year. Examples of these include Pirates of the Caribbean, Alice in Wonderland, Oz the Great and Powerful, etc.

- 1 Walt Disney Animation studios film. These are the classic Disney cartoons today. The revenue is not always ideal, but the tradition continues and quality remains high. These are respectable films. Examples include Frozen, Wreck it Ralph, Tangled, Princess and the Frog, etc.

- 2 or 3 Small live action films. These are the economical movies that Eisner called the "Singles and doubles" strategy. These will not make lots of revenue, but they can be made for fairly cheap and they tell a compelling story that is family friendly. These are low risk, medium reward. Examples include Million Dollar Arm, Alexander the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day, McFarland USA, etc.

- 1 Lucasfilm movie per year. I am going to limit this to be Star Wars related. The current line up has a switching off between the Skywalker storyline versus anthology films. Disney has a large library of books it can draw from for its anthology films that there are a lot of options here, including character origin stories or side stories.

- 1-2 Pixar movies per year. Pixar is the ultra quality animated films that seek to entertain. These films come in two forms, original films and sequels. If Disney makes two films per year then one should always be original whereas the other can be a sequel. However, if only one film occurs per year then it should be original.

- 2-3 Marvel movies per year. Marvel movies are the best action movies of the year and should continue at a growing frenetic pace. The MCU can continue to grow and should be thought of in that way. There are still many smaller characters that Marvel can introduce and compelling comic storylines they can utilize. If Disney can negotiate with Fox and Sony, then Disney can utilize the restricted characters.

- 1 Live action remake. These are a more recent phenomenon and have included Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, and Jungle Book. There are about 15 planned remakes currently. I applaud the drive to make these, they will bring in substantial revenue if done well, but these must be distinct and separate from the tentpole film as stated above.

1- Disneynature film. These documentaries don't make a lot of money, but they can be made economically and play an important role in film.

Additional- I believe a Muppet movie could be supported every 3 years, Indiana Jones every 3 years,
Winnie the Pooh every 5 or so, etc. Thoughts?

Disney Studios- 2016 Year in Review

The film slate has gotten progressively better under the leadership of Alan Horn (remember the disastrous 2011 film slate) and Disney should be proud of the year they had, but there is still significant room for improvement. The film slate was fairly predictable with few surprises or risks taken...they're playing it safe, which is fine to a point, but is not a optimal long term strategy. The film slate was as follows

The Finest Hours- I admit I never saw this one, no interest. Chris Pine on a boat... It did not get stellar reviews, did not make much money, however it was a January release so what should we really expect. I commend Disney for pushing these smaller movies, echoing back to Eisner's single and doubles strategy should be a part of each year's film slate. This one just looked terrible.

Zootopia- This is a solid film, worthy of praise, but it is not fun. Nobody will be taking home a Judy Hopps doll. I applaud the fact that Disney strayed away from the Musical genre for this one, instead choosing film noir. The potential franchising opportunities of pitch of this film were outstanding; can you imagine a film city full of animals as a more perfect place than Animal Kingdom? Alas, the slow and serious tone make it less of a kid's film than previously expected. Grade- B

The Jungle Book- Fun, technological, and forgettable. The best part of this film was the casting and the graphics. This is a GREAT way to really jump start the "Disney live action remake genre" (After Cinderella). Grade- A-

Captain America: Civil War- A surprise announcement for Phase 3, this film skewered the comic book storyline, but still managed to pit the heroes against each other. Action, plot, and acting were all excellent. Grade- A

Alice Through the Looking Glass- Did you see this one? Most people didn't, it wasn't in theaters very long. Entirely forgettable and nonsensical (Not in the good Lewis Carroll way). This seems like a bloated waste of money that SHOULD have been made, but needed better execution. The first Alice in Wonderland was too heavy, this one was heavy and boring. Grade- F

Finding Dory- A sequel to Finding Nemo...a beloved Pixar classic. The stakes were high. How do you follow near perfection? That is a tough task. Did Pixar meet the same mark, alas no, but Finding Dory is enjoyable and has some very heartwarming moments. Ed Oneil's octopus is a welcome addition and fun character to prod the storyline along. Grade B

The BFG- Read the book as a kid, thought it was ok, however no real interest in seeing this today, so I admit I never did. Reviews were mixed, Spielberg directing...eh i'll move on.

Pete's Dragon- This is the epitome of an unnecessary remake with no purpose that nobody was clamoring for. See, in 2010, Disney made a sequel to Tron...at least it advanced the storyline. Here this is an alternative remake...reviews were fairly positive, but still...I didn't see it. No interest.

Doctor Strange- Moving the MCU along now we get a magical hero, pretty excited about this one. Casting was good with Cumberbatch, The main plot line was constrained because they had to incorporate the time gem into it. Side characters were totally useless. Grade- B

Moana- Haven't seen it yet, but it looks underwhelming, Dwayne Johnson appears to be annoying, Disney marketing did not push it that much so that makes me think they had low confidence in it.

Rogue One- Haven't seen it yet, but I hear it's pretty good. Time will tell how these anthology films will fare. Will they be able to stand on their own after 2019's Episode 9?

Overall, grade- B