From: jrjj@moscom.UUCP (Jad Jordan)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.disney
Subject: Re: Varied Subjects
Date: 29 Jul 92 13:38:00 GMT
Reply-To: jrjj@moscom.UUCP (Jad Jordan)
Organization: Moscom Corp., Pittsford, NY

In article <19692@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell) writes:
>  My complaint is not with free-enterprise. Of course they have the *right* to
>do as they wish. My problem is what they choose to do. They choose to milk
>those of us who are in fact big Disney fans and who are willing to put out the
>$20 or so to purchase their tapes and cards and a variety of other products.
>They deceive the public as to their policies and intentionally mislead in
>an effort to maximize profits - do they have the right to do so? Of course, and
>I have the right to get angry about such policies.

You know, you keep saying you are a big Disney fan. Tell me something. How did
you become a big Disney fan? Have you been around for 50 years, and seen
every animated movie in its original release? Although I don't know you, my
guess would probably be not. I would hazard to guess you are younger than 50,
therefore you became a Disney fan by seeing a re-release of Snow White and
Pinocchio. Or by reading a book by the Disney company containing these
stories. Or watching a TV special with excerpts or visiting a park or having
a stuffed animal. The point being you became a big Disney fan because the
Disney company had enough intelligence and experience to promote its product.
You bought into it. They are only doing the same thing for future generations
and to attract the section of the populace who haven't become a big Disney
fan. Pure and simple.

>I would
>have gladly purchased the tape from Disney for a reasonable price at many points
>over the past 2-3 years but alas in an effort to milk more money from the
>public they choose to artificially limit the supply of tapes and create an
>artificial demand for the product. To top it off, they choose to lie about
>their re-release policy, implying that they would not re-release their tapes
>unless or until their was a significant change or improvement in technology.

Where's your proof? Implying something is so and doing something else is
not lieing. Explicitely saying something is so and deceitfully doing something
opposite is a lie, but since you don't have any proof Disney said they 
would NEVER re-release Pinocchio on video, I don't buy it. And gee, I would
think 'milking' a product would be having it around for years and years on
a shelf, waiting for someone to buy it.

>Anyone know the supposed price of the infamous Pinochio improvements? I'm
>curious if the $25 million in gate receipts will cover it. I have little doubt
>that Disney will once again change its video policy when the number of Disney
>stores in the US increases and a wider area of the country is covered. At that
>time, I suspect that they will either only sell their tapes out of their
>own stores (at a price much higher than you can find the tapes now) or they
>will release even fewer copies to other sources for an even shorter time and
>then have the tapes available for an unlimited time in Disney stores at a
>significantly higher price. I frankly would prefer this in some ways as at least
>then one could buy the tape at any time without having to deal with this absurd
>pseudo policy they currently have.

But once again, you already have the tape, so why should you give a damn?

> Allowing the public to purchase their own copy is a pretty good way to ensure
>that each generation appreciates the product. Making relatively small changes
>to the product for the expressed purpose of milking the public doesn't make
>me want to jump for joy about Disney's intent to please the masses.

I see. So if these films were in Black and White, and Disney decided to
colorize them, would that be a relatively big change? Would making relatively
big changes to the product for the expressed purpose of milking the public
make you want to jump for joy about Disney's intent to please the masses? I
understand that isn't your point, but your point doesn't hold up. Do you condem
MGM for releasing a 50th anniversary video of The Wizard of Oz, when it has
been on TV a bijillion times, plus previous video releases are already in the
video store? How about Casablanca's upcoming 50th anniversary video release?
Are they milking the public too? Are you a big Wizard of Oz or Casablanca fan?
Would you be a fan if it never left a shelf in some vault somewhere? Or are
you a fan because you had the opportuinty to view it and decide it was a 
great movie, rather than hear about some film critic say it was a great movie
and never have the opportunity to decide for yourself?

> Of course. In fact, I have gone to see every Disney release in the past 6
>years at least in the theatre - until now. I would actually feel better
>about going to see a film like Pinochio if I didn't know that they are
>simply attempting to manipulate me with their video release policy. Seeing
>a film in the theatre is the only way to fully appreciate it - that doesn't
>mean that you must manipulate your audiance in order to get this point
>across.

You complain about being manipulated. But at the same time you've seen every
Disney release. Did you see all these movies because they looked good, or
heard good things about them, or wanted to see them? Or did you go because
they had the Disney name on them? If the answer is the latter, then somehow
you came to expect good things from the Disney name alone, rather than the
quality of the movie itself. You already have been 'manipulated' into believing
any Disney film is a quality product. And besides, it is a pretty solid fact
in the world today any movie release will be on video and cable within a year.
Do you feel manipulated to know you can go out and rent the movie in two months
instead of seeing it in a theatre now? If that's the case, you've got a pretty
big cross to carry there, bud.

> Disney has clearly found their market and they own it without any real
>competition to speak of. The animated musical is theirs now (face it you
>probably won't see another non-musical Disney animation for the next decade
>and a half at least). They make big-time money of very good films like
>TLM and BatB. They will most likely hit the big time again with Aladin.
>I find it hard to believe that the manipulation of the video market
>is essential to the success of Disney.

Well, that's wrong on both accounts. First Disney is getting more and more
competition. Let's look at the last year or so. There was Fievel Goes West,
Fern Gully, Rockadoodle, Cool World, Bebe's Kids, and that new one from
Bluth which name escapes me right now. (We're Back?) Everyone thinks they
can do animation, and have joined the bandwagon. Disney will always lead the
parade. But that isn't the point. And I haven't seen another non-musical
Disney animation for the past 50 years. Every animated movie from Disney
has had songs associated with it. Period. Perhaps The Rescuer's Down Under
wasn't a musical, but it certainly had music. I've got the CD to prove it.
But I suppose you have a problem with releasing Disney music too, right?
And speaking of The Rescuer's Down Under, I believe it didn't START to make
money until it was released on video. Animation is very expensive, and if
a movie doesn't do as well as Beauty and the Beast at the theatres, it relies
STRONGLY on the video market. It is very naive to think any movie company
always makes money and is successful. Pinocchio was a dog in its first
release (discussed on this net before), and didn't make money until its
re-release seven years later. Some companies can't afford to wait seven
years, and need the capital generated by the video market. Disney is one of 
those companies. The money you spent on the video of Pinocchio a few years
ago helped to bring Beauty and the Beast to the screen. I for one want to
thank you for that, and hope the money I spent to see Pinocchio at the theatres
when I already have the video at home will bring forth some wonderful movie
for my children and their children to see over and over again. 

>> Gary is entitled to his opinions, but of all the issues in
>> the world to feel that strongly about, how Disney handles the home
>> video release arm of its business ranks 'way down on the list.
>
> So one should only talk about one or two issues considered to be important?
>This is a disney group no? Seems to me that Disney's video policy is a
>reasonable topic for such a group...

I think what he was saying was CALM DOWN! A discussion is fine, but being so
violently opposed to something that in the big picture is trivial seems to
be overkill.  You are 100 percent right that any subject about Disney can be
brought up here, and I will defend your right to do so. But it isn't something
to loose any sleep over.

      
      ()_()  Jad R. J. Jordan		"I hope we never loose sight of one 
       (_)   MOSCOM Corporation. 	 thing... That it all started with a
	     jrjj@moscom.com		 mouse."  - Walter E. Disney
						(the all-mighty creator) 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.disney