Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 1234512 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 350
  1. #16

    • Goodbye VMK.
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Missouri.
    Posts
    1,612

    Re: Nude tweens should not be "Disney" branded

    That is TRUE! Seriously, i know she had someone TAKE the picture, but you know she didnt post them.
    and so, the princess must leave her kingdom on May 21st, 2008. </3

  2. #17

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,084

    Re: Nude tweens should not be "Disney" branded

    >>"I totally agree. Lets not forget that Vanessa happens to be an adult. She and the other cast members are 18+. They are entitled to their own personal lives. Something very private was made very public. Why isn't the perv that posted the pics getting into any trouble?"<<

    See? Here's the problem. This post illustrates how Vanessa's actions now define the Disney brand and influence its consumers, just as Lindsay's did.

    With Minnie and Daisy and Ariel, we didn't have to be concerned about that.

    >>That is TRUE! Seriously, i know she had someone TAKE the picture, but you know she didnt post them.<<

    So what happens if we find out Zac took the picture? With Mickey or Ludwig we wouldn't have to speculate on what that would mean for the Disney brand.

  3. #18

    • MiceChat Moderator
    • It's SisterP Time!
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Bozeman, Montana, United States
    Posts
    8,666
    Blog Entries
    9

    Re: Nude tweens should not be "Disney" branded

    I guess I believe the old adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity. I'm betting that Disney is sitting back enjoying all the free publicity they are getting. I guess I just don't see this being any issue to the brand. I would think this is only going to bring more people to the Disney channel to see what this High School Musical hoopla is all about.

  4. #19

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,084

    Re: Nude tweens should not be "Disney" branded

    >>I guess I believe the old adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity. I'm betting that Disney is sitting back enjoying all the free publicity they are getting. I guess I just don't see this being any issue to the brand. I would think this is only going to bring more people to the Disney channel to see what this High School Musical hoopla is all about.<<

    Probably, but that's very cynical. The company has been worried that the "special feeling" consumers have toward Disney is weakening. And this sort of this you propose is part of that.

    Isn't it better that "Walt Disney" be defined as timeless cartoons that people feel special about? There are "hot teens" on every channel.

  5. #20

    • Goodbye VMK.
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Missouri.
    Posts
    1,612

    Re: Nude tweens should not be "Disney" branded

    Quote Originally Posted by merlinjones View Post

    So what happens if we find out Zac took the picture? With Mickey or Ludwig we wouldn't have to speculate on what that would mean for the Disney brand.
    Yeaa. If he posted it, then he should be in huge trouble for it. Almost more than Vanessa is in now.
    and so, the princess must leave her kingdom on May 21st, 2008. </3

  6. #21

    • Faith, Trust & Pixie dust
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania6-5000
    Posts
    2,368

    Re: Nude tweens should not be "Disney" branded

    Quote Originally Posted by merlinjones View Post
    I'm saying stop labelling the tween material "Disney" and bring back the missing-in-action cartoons, tv shows and real family movies as "Walt Disney" material. Why would that be bad?
    MJ, I do see you point, but the material that Disney makes and brands are good family fun. HM 1 and 2 are clean. It was the actress who made the mistake. But with anything a production company comes out with, you have the human factor to contend with. With those TV shows you talk about, any of the actors involved could conceivably get into trouble as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by merlinjones View Post
    So what happens if we find out Zac took the picture? With Mickey or Ludwig we wouldn't have to speculate on what that would mean for the Disney brand.
    Disney is so much more then cartoons. We are living in 2007, the audience expects so much more now from Disney then just Mickey. The brand name is worth its weight in gold, why should they produce tween shows under another name when the Disney brand is so recognizable? That would be not be smart in a financial way.

  7. #22

    • rainy day girl
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    walking in the rain
    Posts
    8,438
    Blog Entries
    68

    Re: Nude tweens should not be "Disney" branded

    Off topic: MerlinJones, do you know how to use the quote function?
    Looking for the truth about giraffes? http://www.menacinggiraffes.blogspot.com/

  8. #23

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,084

    Re: Nude tweens should not be "Disney" branded

    Disney may be about more than cartoons, but they never should have severed the link to traditional Disney so completely. They show NONE of Walt Disney's film library on the Disney Channel. That's just bad business.

    All their Disney eggs in the tween basket is a bigger mistake, especially when it can have any name on it. Then the resulting tabloid photos won't affect the little kids and parents and families.

  9. #24

    • Faith, Trust & Pixie dust
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania6-5000
    Posts
    2,368

    Re: Nude tweens should not be "Disney" branded

    Quote Originally Posted by merlinjones View Post
    They show NONE of Walt Disney's film library on the Disney Channel. That's just bad business.
    They did show them at one time many years ago. I don't have the figues, but maybe the shows didn't get the ratings they wanted. To keep them on when the ratings are low would be bad business.

    They did make a Toon network for their cartoons. So maybe some of the shows you are looking for are there?

    I can see that you really like the classic cartoons, and that is great, but a company has to keep moving forward and trying new things or they are at risk of falling apart. And that would be bad business for Disney fans indeed.

  10. #25

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,084

    Re: Nude tweens should not be "Disney" branded

    >>They did show them at one time many years ago. I don't have the figues, but maybe the shows didn't get the ratings they wanted. To keep them on when the ratings are low would be bad business.<<

    No, when the Disney Channel became a free basic channel, the programming executives downgraded the "older" material to late-night and other low-rated slots, ensuring its demise. They wanted rebranding. To take "ALL" Walt Disney programs off the air, not differentiating one from the next, or even giving the traditional shows one slot a week can't be attributed to ratings, but choice.

    >>They did make a Toon network for their cartoons. So maybe some of the shows you are looking for are there?<<

    None of them.

    Walt Disney's classic cartoon shorts, Disneyland, Walt Disney Presents, Walt Disney's Wonderful World of Color, The Mickey Mouse Club, The Mouse Factory...

    None of them.

    >>I can see that you really like the classic cartoons, and that is great, but a company has to keep moving forward and trying new things or they are at risk of falling apart.<<

    You don't think its important to the brand to perpetuate those cartoon characters, films and shows in any way? THAT is bad business. Walt Disney and his film library should remain relevant to his own name.

    Again, I never said they shouldn't distribute tween material. The tweens can twinkle on ABC. Why not?
    Last edited by merlinjones; 09-08-2007 at 11:27 AM.

  11. #26

    • Faith, Trust & Pixie dust
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania6-5000
    Posts
    2,368

    Re: Nude tweens should not be "Disney" branded

    Quote Originally Posted by merlinjones View Post
    You don't think its important to the brand to perpetuate those cartoon characters, films and shows in any way? THAT is bad business.
    I think it is important to the brand to perpetuate those cartoon characters and so does Disney, that is why you can buy them on DVD. Sure, it might be nice to see them on cable, and maybe some day Disney will add another channel just for those shows, but they are out there now in the stores, and each time they put one out they heavily advertise it. I don't see the demise of any of their classic cartoons in the future but you have to keep adding more characters and more shows to the brand to keep kids coming back.

    I love the characters and shows you mentioned, but I'm 40 and grew up with them. The children of today are different and I don't think some of those shows from years ago would interest them. And I really don't see the problem with adding more.

    But I think I have said enough in this thread. Time for others to contribute as well.

  12. #27

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Trenchtown
    Posts
    946

    Re: Nude tweens should not be "Disney" branded

    Quote Originally Posted by merlinjones View Post
    That is never a problem with the Walt Dianey material and cartoons - - or do you not want those to represent the Disney brand anymore? Disney Channel execs definitely do not - - they actually think Walt material is "off-brand"?
    Wh- WHAT?

  13. #28

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,084

    Re: Nude tweens should not be "Disney" branded

    >>I think it is important to the brand to perpetuate those cartoon characters and so does Disney, that is why you can buy them on DVD.<<

    The shows I mentioned are not available on DVD either.

    There is NOT ONE Ludwig VonDrake program commercially available. Not one.

    >>Disney Channel execs definitely do not - - they actually think Walt material is "off-brand"?<< >>Wh- WHAT?<<

    Not hyperbole. It has been said.

  14. #29

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Trenchtown
    Posts
    946

    Re: Nude tweens should not be "Disney" branded

    Quote Originally Posted by merlinjones View Post
    Mind you, I'm not saying judge the actress (unless she has a morals clause in her contract),
    Nobody has those anymore, merlin.

    Quote Originally Posted by merlinjones View Post
    or stop making tween material. Just call it ABC Family or Buena Vista or Hollywood or Touchstone.

    I'm saying stop labelling the tween material "Disney" and bring back the missing-in-action cartoons, tv shows and real family movies as "Walt Disney" material. Why would that be bad?
    It wouldn't, really. You make a good point. There should be a special brand just for tween products. However, when it comes to controversy affecting Disney (company-wide), remember all the various controversies, large and small, that plagued Disney during the Miramax heyday? Every so often there was a film that raised hackles and there was always some news item about whether the controversy was going to affect Disney stock and so forth. It ultimately amounted to nothing, but it happened nonetheless.

    Quote Originally Posted by merlinjones View Post
    >>I guess I believe the old adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity. I'm betting that Disney is sitting back enjoying all the free publicity they are getting. I guess I just don't see this being any issue to the brand. I would think this is only going to bring more people to the Disney channel to see what this High School Musical hoopla is all about.<<

    Probably, but that's very cynical. The company has been worried that the "special feeling" consumers have toward Disney is weakening. And this sort of this you propose is part of that.
    To be fair, though, they've contributed as much, if not more, of that weakening of the "special feeling" consumers have toward Disney. There are a LOT of people out there who don't have the same feeling for Disney like they once had, and others who've always had this impression of Disney as yet another greedy corporate megagiant whose only value is the almighty buck. That impression wasn't born in a vacuum.

    Quote Originally Posted by merlinjones View Post
    Isn't it better that "Walt Disney" be defined as timeless cartoons that people feel special about? There are "hot teens" on every channel.
    Another good point, and again, I don't disagree with this. Ever since the 50s, at least, most teens have always had a very ambivalent feeling toward Disney, considering it "for kids" (meaning pre-teens), rather than something they could embrace without some level of embarassment. A unique teen/tween brand would be very ideal, and wouldn't necessairly tarnish the Disney brand name, even if any public controversies were to have an impact on Disney stock price or whatever.

    Quote Originally Posted by merlinjones View Post
    Disney may be about more than cartoons, but they never should have severed the link to traditional Disney so completely. They show NONE of Walt Disney's film library on the Disney Channel. That's just bad business.
    100% agreement there. I'm still amazed they don't regularly re-release the classic Disney feature films and shorts in theaters anymore. Hopefully once digital cinema becomes the norm, they'll start that up again. Disney DVD titles can easily get lost amongst all the other DVD titles that come out every month, and classic titles often don't get stocked at rental stores (I can't find any of the True Life Adventure DVDs on Netflix, believe it or not; Blockbuster Online - of which I'm not a member - has it online, but it's not stocked at any of their stores near me, and I've got at least 5 near me).

    Quote Originally Posted by merlinjones View Post
    All their Disney eggs in the tween basket is a bigger mistake, especially when it can have any name on it. Then the resulting tabloid photos won't affect the little kids and parents and families.
    To be honest, let's say that HSM was branded with a unique tween name, rather than Disney, and then these photos showed up. There'd still be a controversy, and despite the different brand name, it's likely that Disney corporate execs would still be quoted and whatnot. No matter the brand, most of the industry knows which brands belong to Disney, and eventually this becomes public knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by merlinjones View Post
    >>They did show them at one time many years ago. I don't have the figues, but maybe the shows didn't get the ratings they wanted. To keep them on when the ratings are low would be bad business.<<

    No, when the Disney Channel became a free basic channel, the programming executives downgraded the "older" material to late-night and other low-rated slots, ensuring its demise. They wanted rebranding. To take "ALL" Walt Disney programs off the air, not differentiating one from the next, or even giving the traditional shows one slot a week can't be attributed to ratings, but choice.
    And a very bad choice it was.

    Besides, how many little kids are watching the Disney Channel at 2 am?

    I just looked at today's Disney Channel schedule. From 12 noon to 8 pm, it's nothing but Hannah Montana episodes, one after another.

    That's extremely poor, highly unimaginative, and just plain lazy TV programming. A chimpanzee could program a TV channel better than that.

    Quote Originally Posted by merlinjones View Post
    >>They did make a Toon network for their cartoons. So maybe some of the shows you are looking for are there?<<

    None of them.

    Walt Disney's classic cartoon shorts, Disneyland, Walt Disney Presents, Walt Disney's Wonderful World of Color, The Mickey Mouse Club, The Mouse Factory...

    None of them.

    >>I can see that you really like the classic cartoons, and that is great, but a company has to keep moving forward and trying new things or they are at risk of falling apart.<<

    You don't think its important to the brand to perpetuate those cartoon characters, films and shows in any way? THAT is bad business. Walt Disney and his film library should remain relevant to his own name.
    Agreed. A TV channel can and should certainly provide new programming if they can, but opting to abandon their classic material and shift 100% to post-1990 TV productions isn't making the channel attractive to anyone who isn't interested in that. It's turned what was a family channel - which has something for the whole family at all times - into a children's-only channel. Why would anyone in their 20s, 30s, 40s, or older, without kids around, watch that channel?

    These days, the Disney Channel is only Disney in name. You wouldn't know it was Disney unless you were told. The programming doesn't reflect Walt's vision, it just reflects typical vapid Hollywood "kidvid" sitcom "values." I've seen those reruns of That's So Raven and Hannah Montana that run every Saturday morning on ABC. Boring, boring, BORING drivel. Looks like any other typical "Who's the Boss"/"Charles in Charge"/"Full House"/"Home Improvement" sitcom mess, just with a greater emphasis on the teens in the cast. I couldn't care less about the characters, and it's clear nobody at Disney gives a damn, either.

    Quote Originally Posted by merlinjones View Post
    Again, I never said they shouldn't distribute tween material. The tweens can twinkle on ABC. Why not?
    Ideally, here's what Disney should do: make more cable channels. The flagship, Disney Channel, should have a little of everything; old stuff, new stuff, animated, live-action, documentary, live events, stuff for adults, stuff for kids, stuff for tweens, etc. They already have one separate channel - TOON Network, for their newer animated TV productions (theoretically, at least). That's fine, leave that as is. Then make the long-desired Walt Disney Classics Channel (WDCC), where classic Disney animation and live action are available 24/7, whether shorts, features, anthology series specials, or what have you. Then make a channel just for teens/tweens, called something like, I dunno, the Young Adult Network, or something like that, and focus on the teen audience by putting shows like the HSM movies on there, along with the That's So Ravens and the Hannah Montanas and occasionally even some material that would be fine for its audience but is a bit too adult for the Disney brand. This way, not only can you more easily keep certain programs tied to their primary audiences, you also have a way of keeping the Disney brand a bit more protected from controversy.

    Ultimately, Vanessa Hudgens' private nude photo (and I saw it earlier today; very nice, actually, it's not salacious, but it is obviously for adult eyes only) isn't going to ruin Disney (as a company), and I really don't understand how anyone would think that it would, given the nature of the photo. Is it a bit of a blackeye on the Disney brand? Yeah, to a degree. But it will soon blow over and be forgotten. Should Hudgens be fired? Probably not. The way Walt ran the company and treated his aging teen actors in the early 60s reflected not only his own personal moral values but also the times they were in, as well as the public image Disney portrayed (and was expected to portray - we all know that Walt sometimes chafed under the weight of living up to that demanding public image). Walt just didn't want his actors to inadvertently ruin the public's expectations of what "Disney people" were like. Back then, the public wanted Disney people - from CMs to movie actors - to be 100% cleancut, squeaky-clean individuals, both on-screen and off (I'm still amazed they got Kirk Douglas in one of their earliest live action movies, given his rep), and Disney naturally wanted to please his audience. But today, in the post-sexual revolution early 21st century, that sort of expectation is long gone. As long as Disney actors aren't doing drugs on the studio lot or carousing around town getting plastered, and having photos of that wind up on the cover of the tabloids you see at the supermarket checkout line, the public has no expectation that a certain actor is necessarily tied to a certain brand. Furthermore, given the fact that the old studio system went bye-bye long ago, the studios today have very little control over their actors as it is. Very, very few people, if any, wonder what the studio chiefs are going to do when a certain young actor makes a public spectacle of himself/herself these days. Actor identities are not tied into studio identities as strongly as they once were.

    Also, parents really need to stop letting their children idolize actors and actresses as role models. If a certain fictional character that an actor or actress plays can be used as a role model for a child, that's fine, but never in a million years should the ACTOR be considered a role model (unless, of course, the child desires a career in acting). Actors, by their very nature, are (like fiction writers) paid liars, and I don't say that as a slam against them, it's just the truth. They pretend to be something they're not in order to get a paycheck. The reality of who the actor is as a person is often vastly different from what is seen on the screen, and if they're believable enough onscreen, chances are they're doing their job. Why would any parent want his or her child to consider a person who lies for money to be a role model, unless that child can already clearly discern the difference between reality and fantasy (and if they can do that, then a nude photo isn't going to shatter their illusions)?

  15. #30

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Trenchtown
    Posts
    946

    Re: Nude tweens should not be "Disney" branded

    Quote Originally Posted by merlinjones View Post
    >>I think it is important to the brand to perpetuate those cartoon characters and so does Disney, that is why you can buy them on DVD.<<

    The shows I mentioned are not available on DVD either.

    There is NOT ONE Ludwig VonDrake program commercially available. Not one.

    >>Disney Channel execs definitely do not - - they actually think Walt material is "off-brand"?<< >>Wh- WHAT?<<

    Not hyperbole. It has been said.
    Both of those are awfully sad.

    Why isn't Roy doing anything about this? I thought the whole purpose of getting rid of Eisner was to bring back all that had been lost? It doesn't sound like that's being done.

Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 1234512 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [Chat] Should DCA be branded as ..... "DCA"?
    By Uncle Bob in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 12-30-2008, 02:28 PM
  2. Nude 'Tweens Should Not be Disney Branded: The Sequel
    By merlinjones in forum MiceChat News Archive
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 06-11-2008, 10:56 AM
  3. "IASW" in 2008, Combo ride"POTC" and "Raging Spirits" shelved, "MSEP" postponed
    By HongKongDisneyland in forum Hong Kong Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-20-2006, 02:40 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •