Difference between revisions of "Disney Ein Rckblick und eine kulturelle Analyse"
Pantrygeese3 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with "[https://www.webwiki.at/besten-iwc-gst---aquatimer-replica.blogspot.com https://www.webwiki.at/besten-iwc-gst---aquatimer-replica.blogspot.com] <br /><br /><br /><br /><p>Auth...") |
(No difference)
|
Latest revision as of 21:48, 28 March 2024
https://www.webwiki.at/besten-iwc-gst---aquatimer-replica.blogspot.comAuthor’s Note: Please read until the very end, or at least skip to The Verdict. This review was written over a short period of time, and the transition between criticism and reflection reflects that. Sometimes a critical review isn’t enough to fully capture the value of art itself.
Disney is no longer the creator, but the mediator and arguably executioner of entertainment trends. That’s no overstatement or presumption, it’s clear that any time the industry spits out a profitable market space, Disney takes a lunge and rears its ugly head. Just a few include the domination of the home video market upon the development of the Disney Vault, strong investment in Maker Studios as the YouTube boom ushered in early-stage content for teen viewers, and the investment in the MMO Gaming space both with their own intellectual property and purchasing power. Rarely do they take the risks in proving a potential success, rather, they wait until the space has developed before introducing their branding to a safe, focus-group-tested product that guarantees a financial return.
There was a time when Disney was at the forefront of experimentation and development. The quality of content may be consistently high, but the interest in breaking the mold has certainly fallen far beneath where it once was. Disney, the company that had once developed a theme park devoid of recognizable characters in pursuit of a universally human goal has now cannibalized Hollywood itself through corporate buyouts totaling 35% of the entertainment market. Consistent criticism against these tactics directs attention to the homogeny of the content, and the effects that such qualities will have on the industry as a whole.
This is information I’ve covered before in a previous article, but I feel that it can be discussed under the lens of Disney+, the streaming service Disney had posed to both redefine streaming and further the company’s near-monopoly on the market. They watch in waiting, and when the market has proven itself as a great target for a “Disney-D” bumper sticker, they strike.
When Disney announced the service, they promised a wealth of content pulled directly from the Disney Vault. Other companies have followed on foot (CBS, NBC, Viacom, Shudder, etc.), pulling their content from third-party options (Netflix) to create their own money-makers, but none have the choking grasp and sizeable library of the Walt Disney Company. Not only do they own some of the most recognizable animated content of the past century, but they retain the distribution rights of entertainment powerhouses Marvel Studios, Lucasfilm, Pixar Animation Studios, and National Geographic. On the sheer quantity of content, Disney+ offered the strongest deal in the industry ($7 a month).
Brilliant marketing shortly before the project’s release captured the internet’s attention sheerly by name-recognition alone. Every film on the endless thread was perfectly marketed to reflect some recognizable property. Characters and titles sprawled down the page and made their rounds across the “Twitter-verse” in a strong display of brand loyalty. “I can’t wait to watch Sammy: The Way-Out Seal!” cried adoring fans as they hobbled over to the D23 page for the exclusive deal, tired and desperate after their daily Disney branded financial bloodletting. Consumers can recall a time where Disney+ was more myth than reality, with constant think pieces about the strength of such a powerful service on the streaming market and the fear companies like Netflix should recognize.
Since launching on November 12th, the service has been relatively successful for the company and a consistent topic of conversation amongst the general entertainment community. What was posed to be a devastating force seems to have left a very marginal impact on the competition, which not only defies the predictions but calls into question the quality of the service.
In true cliche fashion, I present to you my early experience with Disney+. Much of this could very well change in the near future, but I already find myself with a clear opinion of the service’s quality at this point in time. Is it the groundbreaking success Disney had hoped it to be, or just another streaming service destined to burst as the bubble rises closer and closer to the ceiling?
Let's find out.
The GoodVery rarely do I have a chance to start anything defining what I enjoyed. That’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, but one I keep up nonetheless.
By far the most valuable aspect of the service is the impressive backlog offered to users, which I found to be surmountable if and only if you have unlimited time and attention. From the more comfortable picks in the popular Pixar and Marvel library, nostalgic live-action films from the early days of Disney, Disney Channel original movies, or even a wide variety of lesser-known classics, the service absolutely fulfills its promise on providing a library perfect for the die-hard Disney fan. My own experience has led me to films like Frank and Ollie (a wonderful documentary on two of Disney’s earliest and most influential animators), Darby O’Gill and the Little People (one of the most charming films I’ve ever seen with a knack for creative design), and Disneyland Around the Seasons (a short documentary on a year at Disneyland), just to name a few.
Not only can the library be a source of new content, but the abundance of classic, popular content will surely give consumers a reason to return to films and shows of their past. The wealth of Disney Afternoon cartoons, Marvel Cinematic Universe Films, and Pixar animated movies are likely familiar to users but define the service’s commitment to providing easy access to entertainment with guaranteed quality. Think of Disney+ as a monthly library card rather than a service to absorb new content. Unlike Netflix, the primary draw is derived from the familiar, not in constant updates or a rotating selection.
Of the originals, I can say I’m most pleased with only two. The Mandalorian restrains a series run creatively loose by bringing Star Wars to the western genre once again. Jon Favreau and crew employ groundbreaking visual effects and a concise writing style, which hits at the core of what Star Wars has been missing: charm and individuality. Unlike the heavy pandering in TFA and ROS, The Mandalorian is a heavily unique experience only inspired by and grounded within the Star Wars mythos.
In the near-polar opposite direction is The Imagineering Story, the newest Leslie Iwerks documentary focusing on the history of the Disney Parks that most consumers know very little about. The Parks may be the most popular vacation destinations in the world, but the politics and processes behind some of the most popular landmarks have gone undiscussed in the cultural zeitgeist for years. Those with little knowledge on the Imagineering process will find an abundance of information here, and even extremely literate fans will find impressive behind-the-scenes footage from Imagineering archives that have never been seen by the public. Mild criticism on the way the documentary presents history beyond 1990 is only fair, but minor research on DisneyWar or a day in the slums of DisTwitter can fill in the blanks.
While writing this article, Disney-Pixar has released their new theatrical film Onward on Disney+ only a month after debuting in theaters. This may be a rare occurrence (seeing how long it has taken for SW: ROS to hit the service), but future releases during a time of restricted theater attendance (Artemis Fowl will also hit Disney+ instead of theaters) are a development in the streaming market. If these company-specific services allow for speedy transition between theater to home-video, the offer may become more intriguing.
I can say with absolute certainty that the promise of content has been fulfilled.
But you already knew this.
The BadAlright, let’s start the nitpicking.
This may seem minor, but it has driven my good friend and co-host Ryan O’Reilly away from rewatching one of his favorite series. When Disney announced the service and merger with 20th Century Fox, they guaranteed that the first 30 seasons of the American classic (for 10 seasons) The Simpsons would be on the service at launch. I’ll admit that my Disney+ subscription has turned into a Simpsons Machine, but a key criticism comes in the aspect ratio of the earlier seasons. Despite Simpsons World on FXX having episodes in the original 4:3 ratio, Disney only transitioned the 16:9 format for Disney+, which noticeably zooms in every episode and cuts off certain sight-gags or visual cues. They’ve promised to have everything ironed out by May, but this error makes little sense given how easily you can download every episode online in the proper format.
For some reason, the service has an “Extras” tab on films without having most of the special features from previous releases. I noticed this at first when the Wikipedia page for Frank and Ollie noted that the most popular home release featured “commentary, 5.1 Dolby Digital Surround Sound, a behind-the-scenes featurette, footage of Frank and Ollie’s very first animations made at Disney, and some of Frank and Ollie’s home movies as well as some scenes of Ollie’s live steam train, excerpted from a Disney TV show.” However, the Disney+ page features only a trailer for the film, with the aforementioned features unavailable on what was posed to be a pristine library of Disney content. The inconsistency in which Disney delivers special features somewhat undermines the library praise made previously, and I can only hope that this will be a running addition to the service rather than a neglected aspect.
The originals may have been a prime marketing point for the service to distinguish it from an expensive backlog, but the offering so far is disappointing. Aside from the two I praised previously, the originals are primarily underdeveloped nonsense that gives the illusion of new content. Here’s a small review for each I’ve seen.
The World According to Jeff Goldblum: Like Anthony Bourdain without the writing prowess or world experience. Nothing to see, learn or discuss within the show. I get that Goldblum is a meme, but a meme does not a good show make.Pixar in Real Life: A YouTube quality series that even Disney wants to forget. The Wall-E robot is neat, but the rest of the episodes are both underdeveloped and mildly cringe-worthy.Forky Asks a Question: Every episode begins with a really annoying voice reading the title in a tone perfect for the crowd of 4th graders who find mustaches, bacon, and randomness funny. The show constantly employs the “Boo’s Going Home” track from Monster’s Inc. which, though beautiful, is extremely annoying when used in an undeserving context and ad nausea. The writing is fine, and animation surprisingly good, but the repetitive structure grows very stale, very fast.I really tried with a few of the others but can’t find anything here of value. Nothing screams unique art (except maybe Timmy Failure, directed by Tom McCarthy of Spotlight and The Cobbler), and I’m not drawn to the reboots or continuation series. Until the Marvel content slowly trickles onto the service, the originals are almost wholly worthless.
It seems that any time Disney+ tries to do anything besides delivering the classic films and series you know and love, it flounders. Most of the original content is bland, the User Interface is lackluster but manageable, and the extra content for each of the films is borderline nonexistent.
But that’s what we wanted, right? One service for all of our favorite films at a relatively cheap price, what could go wrong?
The UglyMost every criticism I’ve mentioned so far can be forgiven as minor nitpicks. Something as minor as aspect ratio or forgotten feature can be annoying, but consumers seem to forgive small gripes in favor of a far stronger general product.
My greatest issue is one of homogeny. The content available is dense in quantity, but a streaming service from one company is prone to feeling universally similar between all the content on display. If there’s one situation I consistently find myself in, it's the endless search through the movie screen to find anything that I want to watch. The films available range in quality, but are all incredibly similar in feeling and style.
The success of Disney over the past few decades has been in dependability and consistency. When viewers go to the theater and see the Disney branding, the expectation is that they’ll receive something relatively similar to the last Disney/Marvel/Pixar film and appreciate the comfort such conformity brings. With the intention to see something in the Disney thematic vain, each film perfectly fits the mold.
With a streaming service, especially in the landscape that existed before major production companies entered the ring, the expectation is a wide variety of content in both title and style. Netflix doesn't have value because it delivers an endless stream of content to my TV, rather, I enjoy Netflix because I can go from Bojack Horseman to Into The Spider-Verse to There Will be Blood to Breaking Bad to Back to the Future to Twin Peaks. On a day where I prefer a documentary, I have documentaries. If I want a comedy, I have access to comedies.
That’s the real bubble of streaming. Not the point where the market loses its novelty, but when the streaming libraries like Netflix are gutted by entertainment companies to pad out their own streaming ventures. Where consumers originally had one or two services with a diverse selection of content akin to an endless library of Babel, they’ll now have to invest in multiple libraries for multiple styles and decide amongst them like the archaic system of television many attempted to leave behind.
It’s a disappointing world where I must pay $7 a month for a near-universally homogenous library of animated and live-action films. Disney films are uniquely magical, methodical, and brilliant, but that aspect is wholly situational. Without a variety of content, from a variety of mindsets, with a variety of visual styles, the consumer can grow bored incredibly fast.
It’s with this that I offer one piece of advice to a company far more successful and powerful than I’ll ever be. Despite the child-friendly branding Disney has developed, some sort of 20th Century Fox film classics section would be absolutely stellar for service devoid of any unique films for audiences not devoted to the Disney brand. I know Disney wants to use Hulu for their more adult properties (or controversial in the case of the Love, Simon sequel) but promoting the Disney+ service as a library for various forms of cinema will not only add decades of history to the service but will also diversify the platform.
This isn’t any type of criticism on Disney’s quality of content, more the variety of what they provide on the service. On a hypothetical day, let’s say I boot up Disney+ to watch something during my lunch break, except today I don’t really think that the comedic style of the Marvel movies is up my alley. Also, I just watched a documentary yesterday, so anything non-fiction is off the table. Finally, I want something a little more realistic, with an artistic twinge. Already I have eliminated most of the Disney animated library, all of the Marvel and National Geographic content, and most of the Star Wars films. I’m left with a small handful of varying quality, though it seems like I’m looking for something in their 20th Century Fox library.
Without children in the home to watch the same programs on repeat, I can’t help but think Disney+ would bring the average consumer a month of novelty, and then boredom for the rest of their subscription. I can only watch so many films tested by the same focus-groups and executives before monotony sets in. Earlier this year Ryan O’Reilly and I watched 20 Disney+ films to commemorate the service (as recommended by some viewers of the podcast), and I noticed that since then I’ve had difficulty finding anything to watch aside from films I have already seen. When trying to recommend films during our self-quarantine episode, I realized that most of the movies are either universally popular, uniquely nostalgic, or rather unimpressive.
If the originals start to come out with some reliability, and Disney can attract some respectable directors willing to create content separate from the Disney brand (I see Iger trying to court Gerwig over twitter), maybe there could be some potential here for a diversified library that acts as a single stop for streaming content. Otherwise, expect one thing and one thing only.
Disney.
The VerdictI began to write this article in an analytic mood. I wanted to share some of the criticism that I found in my short time with the service, and hopefully give some kind of an impression on whether you, the reader, should continue with the service or even make an investment in the first place. It’s that key aspect, the recommendation, that drives 90% of the things I write. I find value not in the script, nor the structure, but by the thesis that determines how I believe you should spend your money and time.
I must admit then that my original goal was to tell you not to buy Disney+. Purely on the objective standpoint, the service has a resectable quantity of content but is far too limited in certain features while having a library focused on showcasing one thematic direction. The feel-good family film is the main export, and while that may be appreciated from time to time, I can’t imagine a world where consumers need that every day.
You can tell now what direction my commentary is going in, that being a world where we genuinely need something brutally happy every day.
It’s no surprise that the world around us has become more and more… scary. That’s the best word I can come up with. I spend every day scared of the next, desperately hoping that I can somehow make it out of this worldwide catastrophe unscathed. I have family at risk, and my actions are limited by the potential of me carrying a deadly virus into an environment populated by the people I love. I watch the statistics rise every day, and the government respond poorly every night. Waking up to a wall of numbers increasing exponentially only to read another article about negligence and improper response by our officials is heartbreaking. I can’t sleep without telling myself it’ll be okay, and I can’t be awake without learning it isn’t.
I have to break the conventions of a critical review to deliver something far more meaningful. In a perfect world, I wouldn’t recommend Disney+. In our imperfect timeline, Disney+ has brought me a consistent stream of positivity that uniquely does not avoid the pain of life. Disney and Pixar succeed together by recognizing that blind happiness is meaningless. To actually deliver something of value, you must confront what you fear and find the value deep within.
The quarantine may be stifling or heartbreaking, but an outlet of fantasy and magic redirects isolation into meditation. When I desperately seek wonder and beauty outside of my home, I watch The Nightmare Before Christmas or Wall-E. The universe is limitless, and what exists outside these walls is still as expansive as it was before. When I become overwhelmed with emotion and desperate longing for a world of free expression, I revisit The Simpsons (Season 2 is especially wholesome) or the deceptively complex relationship drama The Incredibles. If my future seems unsure, and I question whether we can truly overcome this impediment, I find myself leeching off the childish and imaginative minds of Frank and Ollie or Walt Disney in The Plausible Impossible. The Muppet Movie brings me childhood wonder, and Empire Strikes Back takes me to galaxies far, far away from the issue at hand.
I, just like the rest of you, are ultimately helpless in this fight against an invisible enemy. We are not the policymakers, nor the doctors (if you are I love you), we are the people locked inside our homes out of desperation and necessity. The only response to fear is hope, and that hope can be derived in numerous ways unique to each individual.
It’s with this clarification that I have to redefine my perspective on Disney+. If you can bear with minor criticisms and have an open mind to the wonders and beauty of animation amongst other mediums, I absolutely recommend Disney+ at this point in time. Without the endless imagination from these groundbreaking animators and directors, I would be in a state of constant fear and mind-crushing anxiety.
Take this entire aside as you will. Maybe you find the corporate films of Disney inherently cynical and fabricated, plastic and unnatural in emotion to the extent where their worth is diminished in the face of other art. Maybe you find my fear melodramatic, and find your catharsis in literature, music, or denial and disillusionment. This conclusion is not universal but rather subjective, especially in the way you view films of this caliber. Animation is an artform criticized as limited by audience marketability, but the limitless potential and creativity necessary provide the perfect avenue for unrestrained imagination.
Disney+ is not just a product created to cash in on the restructuring of entertainment. It absolutely is, but it’s also the culmination of decades of hard work and creative brilliance. The limitless library may lack diversity in direction, but expresses solidarity in an emotional perspective which may bring solace in a world where the only guarantee is change.
Step back and enjoy the magic. It will all be over soon.
Ryan Dorman is a Columnist and the Content Director for the Boardwalk Times. He can be found on Twitter at @OpentheDorman, and as a host of the Boardwalk Talk podcast on iTunes.
