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.

Parks and Resorts- Hotel Identity

Disney is very skilled at giving each of their hotels a distinct and strong identity so that the guest feels transported to that setting, but this skill has seemed to have gotten muddled in the recent past. The Las Vegas strip, known globally as the center of debauchery and excess, is the absolute master of the hotel with an identity concept, and is what Disney must repurpose themselves to aspire to. Hotels in Las Vegas include such strong concepts as medieval England (Excalibur), Egyptian pyramids (Luxor), New York sky line (New York New York), Romantic Italy (Venitian), etc. These hotels SET THE STANDARD for deluxe resort that represents a DESTINATION rather than simply lodging. Disney needs to re-invigorate their resort experience so that guests are excited to stay at THAT hotel, so that guests garner a strong loyalty to one hotel or decide they have to stay at every resort at least once. I've evaluated the U.S. hotels by presenting the good and the bad...

  The Good themed hotel experiences
- Wilderness Lodge (I think this is the strongest ambience hotel Disney has)
- Grand Floridian
- Polynesian
- Animal Kingdom Lodge
- Value themed resorts (All-Star Suites, Pop Century, Art of Animation) These resorts are essentially warehouses with large cartoony figures out front, but they still deliver an experience to the guest.
- Yacht and Beach Club
- Boardwalk
- Caribbean Beach (the idea is good, the execution is weak)
- Fort Wilderness
- Grand Californian

- Disneyland Hotel (Though the identity of this has been waning)
- Aulani

  The poorly themed hotel experiences
- Coronado Springs (What is the actual theme here? Location is not simply enough, there needs to be a connection and feeling the guests feels)
- Saratoga Springs resort (Golf is not a feeling, this needs more)
- Port Orleans Riverside/French Quarter (They need more distinct feelings. Not just present New Orleans  sights, but how does that apply to the hotel experience?)
- Paradise Pier hotel (It's VERY obvious that this was a non-Disney hotel which was simply re-packaged)
- Hilton Head resort

- Vero Beach resort

One of the best themed resorts on property isn't even owned by Disney. The Swan and Dolphin resorts offer a distinctive and fun EXPERIENCE at a LOWER PRICE than Disney resorts and is NEXT TO EPCOT. These three factors help make them a dominant force in the hotels at Walt Disney World.

Possible hotel ideas
- Under the sea theme (The art of animation does not count, I mean a real underwater experience)
- Flight and air theme
- Dream theme
- Life/Living a full life theme
- Land of Giants theme (where everything is overly large)
- Marvel Superhero/Comics theme (value resort obviously, but if done properly with a hall of galleries and life size statues then this could be very successful)

Corporate- The Sports Dilemma

Disney has had a sad history with sports, but it could be so much better. The businesses dealing with sports are not linked well and as such do not support one another as they could. Disney knows that sports are the best method to reach the coveted target demographic of males (both young and old). The main sports business Disney controls is ESPN, which is simply a money making machine, but Disney still needs to know that they can do more with sports.

ESPN- This is one of Disney's best decisions. ESPN is not simply Sports Center or Monday Night Football, but is a brand. ESPN will continue to make more money and give Disney the access it needs to the male demographic consistently. Additionally, ESPN gives Disney an entry into reality events which is always a good defense against the old "Disney is Fake" argument. Where Disney can improve with this is that they only own 80% of it; Hearst corporation owns the other 20%. Though 80% represents the controlling interest, Disney should acquire the remaining 20% from Hearst, making Disney the full owner of the worldwide leader in sports.

World class Golf courses- Walt Disney World's golf courses set the standard for courses and are frequently used by PGA tournaments. Disney has done very well with these courses and should treat ALL of their sport facilities the same as these.

Wide World of Sports- The creation of this area in Walt Disney World was an inspired idea that fell flat fairly quickly. Sports facilities of all kinds made Walt Disney World the "it" destination to play sports in Florida. Recently, Disney merged the Wide World of Sports with the ESPN name. Additionally, Disney struck a deal with the Atlanta Braves to play a few spring training games there. Unfortunately, that's about it for entertainment unless you're a parent of a high school soccer player and you've come to watch your child. Put simply, Wide World of Sports doesn't have much (if anything) to offer on a daily basis because there isn't much to watch and you can't go on and play. Wide World of Sports needs a few changes making it either more accessible to the guests or more professional sports teams to watch.

Many people may have forgotten that Disney owned majority interest in two sports teams- The Anaheim Angels and the Anaheim Ducks. The purchase and management of these was to help make Anaheim a resort destination similar to that of Orlando. Though Disney divested itself of these businesses and did not view them as profitable in the long run. This was a gross misconception. The businesses are profitable, but Disney had simply never run a professional sports team. If given time, resources, and opportunity Disney can make these businesses profitable and enduring. Some possible solutions are given:

  - Attempt to purchase (or re-purchase) local sports teams in Anaheim and Orlando. Disney must be careful to avoid a conflict of interest (by owning ESPN and a team), but can achieve this successfully if the teams are kept under the Disney name and do not report to ESPN. Potential teams in California include the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (MLB), The Anaheim Ducks (NHL), and The Los Angeles Clippers (NBA). These teams will likely be expensive, very expensive at this point. In contrast, Florida may present the best opportunities. The Orlando Magic (NBA) began playing in its new AMWAY center arena in 2010, but Disney could likely negotiate several games to be played at Wide World of Sports. The most promising prospect is that of acquiring the NFL's Jacksonville Jaguars franchise. The Jaguars are a struggling franchise and the only professional sports franchise in Jacksonville. They play in Everbank Field and rarely sell out more than half of the field's tickets. The owner, Wayne Weaver, has been quoted as saying that the current attendance levels are unsustainable to keeping a professional sports franchise. So what should they do? Disney should buy the Jacksonville Jaguars or at least make a long term deal to make Wide World of Sports the regular home of the team. They should rename them, rebrand them, and have them play out of Wide World of Sports. The local tourism figures would skyrocket for evenings at Walt Disney World. Imagine the revenue, cross-sales, and attendance that Downtown Disney and all the Disney hotels would accommodate. Disney could also look into purchasing the Tampa Bay Rays, an organization that has publicly stated they are looking for a new home and that has not been drawing forecasted attendance numbers.
- Disney should make Wide World of Sports publicly available for any professional sports team if their local city has undergone a natural disaster.

If Disney is really serious about reaching males and increasing non-park attendance then it needs to re-enter the sports businesses. A professional sports franchise will truly give Disney the resort destination concept it was searching for by attracting both local and distant guests to their resorts. Disney needs to realize what it has: ESPN- the worldwide leader in sports, one of the largest sport facility complexes in the world, and a loyal fan base.

Parks and Resorts- Cautious Change

Change can be tough, even in optimal circumstances, and can spur a lot of anger and resentment. In other circumstances, change can also be a welcome rejuvenation of life into a stagnant entity. At Disney, change is typically viewed at the extreme end of both sides. Disney must be very careful with what and how they make changes; they have had some successes, but they've also had some miserable failures. Conducting change at Disney is a huge and broad topic, so this blog will focus specifically on changing attractions at Disney parks.

The Good.
  Successful ride changes and updates continue the same trend as the original conception of the ride and present a natural opportunity for the change. If these two principles are followed, changing an attraction will be seen as an upgrade or an update, rather than a fundamental shift from its original intent. Disney must ask themselves 1) What is the purpose of this change? 2) Does this change help evolve the story 3) Does this change reenforce the overall feeling the guest walked away with?
If you know the answer to these questions and the change is well aligned with the original story and intent then change can successfully happen. Examples below are attractions that have undergone successful change/transformations

1) The Hall of Presidents (This ride is an example of a natural opportunity for change as each new president makes its debut at Walt Disney World. The company must be careful not to steer the partisan divide too heavily one way or another, but shutting down the attraction to introduce each new President brings a renewed sense of excitement among the guests and makes the attraction fresh).

2) Space Mountain (Resolute Space Mountain fans are often discouraged at how often this attraction is closed, but these fans are quickly appeased as they experience the new attraction and its intricacies. Space Mountain is an evolving thrill ride; with each iteration of the attraction a new element is added such as increased darkness, new music, faster speeds, sleeker designs, etc. The fan still experiences the excitement and joy that have captivated guests for many years, but the added change helps to clarify and enrich the experience. This attraction also was successful in eliminating elements that ruined the experience such as the multitude of FED EX advertisements in the queue. Sponsorship is good, but not at the expense of the rider's experience. When we think of a high speed journey through space we should not be bombarded with images of package deliveries.

3) Haunted Mansion Queue experience (Disney's additions to the Haunted Mansion at Walt Disney World only serve to amplify the experience they are about to have. More active information technology, increased smaller details, and plussed gags all make the attraction experience stronger and more rewarding.

The Bad.
  Bad attraction changes are like a pimple at the prom- that's all anyone notices and there isn't much you can do to fix it. Bad change is often forced change. Disney must avoid the temptation to update an attraction simply because the attendance is stagnant or the ride is older. Disney must avoid adding a level of change that is inconsistent to the overall effect of the attraction. Imagineers must ask 1) Is this change simply so that more people will come to this attraction 2) Is this an older attraction that is perhaps more tired than before so we're doing anything we can to rejuvenate it? Examples of bad attraction change include

 1) The Enchanted Tiki Room: Under New Management (I actually thought this change was clever in that they utilized existing strong branded bird characters and added a catchy song, but the change eroded the overall serene Tiki experience. The Tiki room is not about Zazu and Iago, but is about the nature and the magic coming together. The Tiki room was always about the unexpected; what's popping out next and what else is going to talk. A new song and adding additional animatronic elements may have been needed change, but adding in characters from a different context erode the overall story.

2) Pirates of the Caribbean (Both the 1997 Change and the Johnny Depp change. Some attractions are so iconic that any change will likely be vilified even if it meets all upgrade criteria; Pirates of the Caribbean, the Haunted Mansion, and It's a Small World are probably Disney's most sacred cows in this aspect. Imagineers must expect there to be severe backlash against any sort of adjustments because these are attractions that parents have experienced as a child and hope to experience with their own children. The two Pirates of the Caribbean changes were different in their intent and must be addressed separately.

  - The 1997 change was Disney submitting to outside pressure and ensuring they remained politically correct. The original design called for pirates chasing women around in circle while the revamped version saw the women chase the pirates around in a circle. Is this a drastic change? No, it's a small scene and really does not change the overall effect of the ride, additionally, it adds a level of humor that was not there before in that particular scene. However, many guests left the attraction scratching their heads thinking because they EXPECT PIRATES TO ACT LIKE PIRATES. Pirates were not politically correct and the attraction is supposed to transform the guest to the early nineteenth century. This update was OVERKILL and was UNNECESSARY. The political backlash when showing the ugly truth is usually overestimated as it was in this case.
  - The 2006 refurbishment saw vast additions and changes to the characters of the attraction to include and center the story around the title character of the movies, Captain Jack Sparrow. At multiple points in the attraction, imagineers added Jack Sparrow into the mix, acting as a coy and elusive figure. Additionally, the pirate ransacking the town looks and sounds mysteriously like Captain Barbossa and Davey Jones's face now introduced the context rather than the skull and crossbones. Was this a smart move? It depends. From a BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE this was a very smart move by creating synergy among Disney's products, creating a link between Disney's film franchise to the parks and even aiding in merchandise, etc. Kids today, growing up on the Pirates of the Caribbean films, will EXPECT to see the main characters from the films, so changes needed to be made to the attraction. However, the change had sloppy elements to it. Rather than travel around the pirated town and experiencing an expose of the culture, the new attraction attempts to combine the old premise with a few "where's Jack Sparrow" comments and animatronics. The most vivid scenes in the attraction, such as the overweight woman up for bid "stout hearted and corn fed she be" and the prisoners attempting to lure the dog with the key no longer have any context in this Where's Jack Sparrow attraction. The new attraction is simply a boat ride that follows Jack Sparrow's activities, ending with him with a whole lot of treasure, that just happens to have some extra pirate figures involved. What is the new story? How did he get the treasure? Does the auctioneer know or even care about Jack Sparrow? We don't know. If Disney really wanted to make an attraction based on Jack Sparrow then it would not have looked like this, but Disney also dare not tear down an iconic attraction like this. So what should they have done? Well for one thing it does seem rushed. Timing it with the movies made economic sense, but the story was obviously sacrificed for efficiency, which is very sad indeed.

The Undecided.
  Some attraction changes simply take time to know whether they were done properly or not; initial gut reaction tells a lot, but is not everything. If a revamped and updated attraction can increase the guest experience then it is worth it, even if it is different, but only if it stays true to the original intent. The following changes have yet to prove whether they are better upgrades or simply franchised products linked to former attractions in a futile attempt to peak interest.

1) Submarine Voyage featuring Finding Nemo (Personally, I was never a huge fan of the original submarine voyage, but I know there was a strong following. Additionally, Finding Nemo was a mega-hit and was due for a quality attraction at the parks. However, does the concept of submerging in a submarine and seeing a few characters really give the guest the experience that a real Finding Nemo attraction would? I understand the method to the madness- "people were clamoring for the submarine voyage again and people like Finding Nemo, so let's put them together!", however, this attraction is still weak in many areas, but the amount this attraction resonates with the younger guests is yet to be seen and may actually surpass that of the original.

2) The Seas with Nemo and Friends (The Living Seas was interesting and educational, but EPCOT was never the favorite of the young kids, so Walt Disney World transformed the entire Living Seas into a Nemo themed area. The most significant change occurred with the addition of the clamobiles and the projections of the characters of the Finding Nemo characters INSIDE the actual aquarium. This change is relevant and engaging to the guest, it meshes well, but the only question remains is what purpose do the actual fish have in the tank? They are no longer the stars, but simply background that makes the guest  wonder "how did they do this?". I think this change was conducted thoughtfully, but I still cringe when I see a franchised character used to promote such important concepts like nature or agriculture. Yes, they make the experience more engaging and relevant, but it also leaves it diluted.

Change must be conducted cautiously. Imagineers must know the original intent, the strength of its fanbase, the nostalgia factor, the relevancy of the proposed inputs, and the likelihood of backlash.

Introduction

This blog is a watchdog for the Disney Company- It is written for fans and by a Disney fan. Disney is more than a company; it is a brand, it is a feeling, and it is treasured moments. The parks, the movies, and the toys all bring that sense of joy to all people. In recent years, the company has made similarly strong moves. Acquiring ABC and re-building their television dominance with hit shows, the growth of ESPN as a mainstay american brand, the purchase of Marvel Entertainment, etc. However, the company has also had several missteps along the way that are damaging or cheapening the company's reputation and experience to the guests. This blog is written so that we, the Disney Community, can revel in its greatness, but also hold it accountable and be critical of its shortcomings in the same way that fans rebelled against Eisner's missteps. We put our confidence in Bob Iger and the management team to continue the exceptional experience that Disney has played in our lives and hope that it will never cease to be short of magical.

    Eric Lundin
    10/10/11