Just What IS "Disney"???
Paul Penna
wrote:
> Either way, Disney is where it is right now because
> of the artists...it's NOT the other way around. "Disney" at least admits
> it...why can't the media catch on?
Disney deliberately markets its product as "Disney," rather than "Joe Blow
presents a Fred Schmoe production of a Joan Groan film," knowing full well
that it is the Disney name and reputation that is infinitely more
marketable than any of the individual artists' names. And it's been this
way ever since the name Disney became more marketable than the name Mickey
Mouse (who, in the earliest days "presented" the other "Walt Disney"
films, at that time the Silly Symphonies). What you're objecting to as a
foible of "the media" is a deliberate marketing scheme the Disney studio
has been successfully exploiting for over half a century.
Paul Penna
Paul Penna
> In NO article in all of the coverage--and there was a LOT--did any writer
> or reviewer make such statements as "Paramount has given us a slam-bang
> actioner"/Paramount seems to think /Paramount's clever use of
> editing/Paramount's use of talent".....See the problem?
Amplifying what I said about the marketability of the Disney name, the
reason it's marketable is the perception in the public's mind of what
"Disney" means in terms of a motion picture. And this perception has also
been carefully crafted by the Disney Studio over that half-century I
mentioned, and continues to be nurtured by the present regime.
The individual Disney artists, then, as vital as I'm sure the studio
realizes they are, are necessarily subservient to the Disney image, in a
way that artists employed by Paramount, for example, are not subservient
to the Paramount "image," because there isn't one. What sells Paramount's
pictures are the stars, and sometimes the director. What sells a Disney
picture is largely the fact that it >is< a Disney picture, and it matters
not a bit to the public whether it was Joe Blow or Fred Schmoe who was
responsible for making it one. This is >precisely< the way Disney wants
it, simply because that's been their ticket to success, and continues to
be.
In the 1930's and 1940's, knowing a picture came from MGM told the
audience something about what they might expect from it. It's no longer
like that, except for Disney. Referring to a film as "Paramount's" this
that and the other thing might make sense in a discussion of the film's
finances, but meaningless artistically, since there's nothing that
particularly distinguishes a Paramount release from any other studio's
output. But it >does< make sense to refer to a Disney film in that manner,
and that's a result of decades-old and still-current Disney policies, not
media slovenliness.
Paul Penna
Jenlerew
Yes,you're right--it *does* make sense that, given the history and
cultural weight it carries, the "Disney" name means more than Paramount,
WB, et al.
What I was referring to, though, was the picking apart of the specific
elements of "Hunchback' and implying that everything in the film is a
"Disney" decision--meaning corporate decision. This of course just ain't
so--the writer--in the specific case I'm thinking of, a writer for the NY
Times--*should* definitely know better--he wasn't writing as a dad from
Oxnard taking his toddler's to a movie, but as a cultural critic.
Paul Penna
In article <4r7opa$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, jenl...@aol.com (Jenlerew)
wrote:
But to a certain extent many artistic decisions about the content of
Disney films >are< corporate decisions, or at least made by the artists in
accordance with corporate policy. At least to a much greater extent than
happens with any other motion picture company, if at all.
Obviously, there aren't guidelines from Eisner or the Boardroom on where
to cut a certain shot and what color to use for a certain character's
hair, and I agree that those involved in such creative activities should
be given their due, particularly if a writer is knowledgeable and is
addressing a film-savvy audience. But I still think that, for general
consumption, referring to the main creative force behind a Disney film as
"Disney" is appropriate.
Paul Penna