Corporate- It's time to learn the Martial Arts

  Disney is very good at showing its guests a concept in a short amount of time. Think about it, where did you first learn about pirates? Probably from Pirates of the Caribbean. Now why is this significant? It's significant because Disney is a master at introducing concepts in innovative ways and and fleshing out the story out of there. Though the Pirates movies aren't great films, it furthers the lore and makes the concept exciting. This is similar to the way the Sopranos reignited the Mafia craze, Harry Potter reignited the Wizarding craze, etc. Disney is simply good at making things fun again if the concept is good. So what is the next concept? Given Disney's focus on sports (ESPN and Wide World of Sports), sports movies (Look at nearly every live action movie in the 1990's), tv shows that empower children (see current Disney channel shows), their desire to improve Disney XD's shows, and their public service messages on staying active...Disney should focus on Martial arts. Now i know Disney has a show called "Kickin It" and it stars Jason Earles (from Hannah Montana fame). This show is pretty sad and doesn't delve into the concept. Disney needs to introduce the world to the martial arts in its entirety...what does this mean? It means a real tv show with interesting characters and storylines, not a quick slapstick comedy. It means a movie, like Miracle did to hockey, that starts a craze. It means a huge demonstration or tournament takes place at Wide world of sports. This concept is ripe for a new character to inspire a craze. Imagine Karate by Disney, they can make it the fascination of every young boy and focus on the discipline needed and the abilities of the participants. Disney could educate kids about responsibility in the martial arts as well as educate kids about all different styles of martial arts. They could create a Karate academy and be the first global company to put martial arts on the mainstream.

Following Disney T and T!!!

If you like what you see, don't forget you can follow us by clicking the follow button at the bottom! You'll be notified at each new posting and any controversy that originates from it.

Corporate- The Greatest Franchises

Disney has some great franchises to rely on including Toy Story, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Disney Princesses, but lately it seems that Disney's new franchises are weak and underwhelming. Think about this term for a minute; what is a franchise? A franchise is an idea or concept that the company can bank on. A franchise is never a one hit wonder, it is an idea that starts a trend and easily spawns new ideas and ventures. A franchise should also be able to have successful movie sequels, strong consumer product lines, television shows, video games, and theme park attractions. Don't be mistaken by franchise fakers; as dear as the Haunted Mansion is, it's not a franchise. The Lion King is not a franchise. Cars is not a franchise (though I know Disney is really trying to make it one). A franchise is exciting. The best franchises do not get an attraction at the park, they get a whole park to themselves. Here is a list of the ten best franchises in entertainment

10) Marvel Universe. It's fun to follow and know how the characters interplay.

9) Indiana Jones. The act of discovery is very exciting.

8) The Simpsons. The strength of this franchise is in the large cast of characters.

7) Preacher comic book series. (Potential...why has this not been made a series of movies yet?)

6) Lord of the Rings. Imagine walking around the Shire, Rivendell, or Gondor.

5) Harry Potter series. Wizards of Waverly place was Disney's attempt to capture some of these fans, but the Potter series is so well-written and full of fun ideas and language that it is in a league all its own.

4) Star Wars. Since 1977 this franchise has been leading the charge. The Disney/Lucas cooperation projects only help Disney, but they can do more. Why not a star wars themed land or park? Why not a Soarin style attraction in the millennium falcon? Star Tours is good, but why not create a 3-D environment that actually follows the stories?

3) Batman. He's a superhero without superpowers...making him believeable (to a degree) and addictive. Look at the Christopher Nolan Batman movies, they are amazing. The adventures of Batman are never going away.

2) The Muppets. This is the strongest asset Disney has right now that they can actually work with. They can't mess with Mickey, but the Muppets are those type of characters for adults. They can use adult humor and they can experiment with these characters! I'm glad they re-vitalized the franchise again, but lets hope they made it good.

1) Jurassic Park. What a concept this is, interesting, fun, exciting, and full of imagination. The books are great, the first movie is great, and it hits the inner kid in all of us...but the best part is that IT IS A THEME PARK SO THERE WON'T BE ANY PROBLEM ADAPTING IT. It is a shame that universal has this because they do not know how to properly leverage this asset. The ride they have now is terrible, the little eatery is terrible, and they aren't using it to its full potential. Imagine what Disney could do with this idea. It would demand its own theme park and Disney would really attempt to recreate the feeling of the books/movies. Not just a "dinosaur ride", but imagine a park that had all the elements and layout of the story. That would be exciting.

Obviously, all of these franchises already exist and would cost a lot of money to acquire (if they even could). However, Disney can also grow franchises in-house. Concepts such as Ninjas, Karate, Astronauts/Space, ghosts, Mafia, etc. All these concepts are GENRES in addition to their current Pirates, Princesses, and the recent vampire craze.

Disney Studios- The Triumph of the Disney Theatrical Group

  When people think Disney musical's, most will likely conjure up the eternal movies, but Disney Theatrical Group (DTG) is giving the film studios a run for its money. DTG is a great concept because it brings to life the characters and stories from the films. Their history is short and their movement is slow, but their successes so far are solid.

 Beauty and the Beast (1994)
 The Lion King (1997)
 Aida (2000)
 Mary Poppins (2004)
 Tarzan (2006)
 The Little Mermaid (2008)

Furthermore, Disney was wise enough to really begin expanding their theatrical investment with planned shows of:
   Dumbo
   Aladdin
   The Hunchback of Notre Dame
   The Jungle Book
   Alice in Wonderland (Tim Burton version)

Though I can't say i'm excited about the Tim Burton version of Alice in Wonderland, the rest of the upcoming slate shows lots of promise. Disney has a variety of stories that they can bring to life in front of the audience. Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Lady and the Tramp, etc. would all make potential popular musicals and will help make them popular and relevant again today. Disney must also use these in-production musicals as a test beacon before they attempt a musical based on a Pixar movie. You think Lion King was good, how about Finding Nemo, or Toy Story, or Up, etc. Pixar musicals would bring immediate sensation and make DTG the premier show producer in the country. Disney must be careful to protect and ensure these musicals are produced to their fullest, but need to keep the entity of the musical alive. Their shows are too often out of service; Beauty and the Beast should be traveling around the globe, Lion King will always be popular, Mary Poppins and Little Mermaid were not out long enough to gain the momentum needed. DISNEY MUST DEBUT ON BROADWAY, BUT THEN TRAVEL THE SHOW TO GAIN SUCCESS. THEIR MAIN AUDIENCE WILL NOT BE FOUND ON BROADWAY, BUT IN LARGER CITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

   Disney also has a break in the theatrical venue because the audience will not be heavily scrutinizing the characters acting. Disney's main priority must be to ensure the music and the story flow well. If the actor can sing it well then the guest will enjoy, but a good actor who is unable to sing the character's notes like they do in film will cause disappointment and anger in the guest.

DTG has a strong future and I look forward to the future in this endeavor, I just wonder what took the company so long to actually make DTG a priority and realize the potential within it.

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.