Disney acquires Pokeman rights via Miramax

[lrodk]

Miramax Films has acquired the distribution rights to the next two Pokemon movie sequels, both in North America and internationally outside of Asia. The deal gives Miramax the theatrical, home-video and television distribution rights, and the option of releasing future Pokemon films. Warner Bros. had the distribution rights to the first three Pokemon movies, which grossed more than $145 million domestically, and was bidding for the fourth and fifth installments. Miramax co-chairman Harvey Weinstein said the company will reinvigorate the Pokemon franchise, using the company's marketing savvy. "We'll come up with a bolder, smarter marketing campaign," he said. "For us, this is a big fish and a valuable brand." Miramax plans to release Pokemon 4 in October.

 

[Testtrack321]

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO..................

 

[JustBob]

Great, more crappy animation somehow connected to Disney! Come onnnnnnnnn........

 

[Jaypd]

Why is this so bad. Everyone says Disney has been making movies that have not made money. Well Pokemon makes money with everything it does so this could be a good thing for the company.

 

[cmbelle]

I have a son that is still very much into Pokemon, and he has many friends who still enjoy POkemon. So I'm glad to hear Disney has taken an interest in it. Pokemon still does make money, and with Disney doing the animation, I think it will do great!

 

[JeffJewell]

Why is this so bad

...because it's yet another indication that Disney is creatively bankrupt. Within the last year, Disney has acquired Power Rangers and Pokemon, two flavors of the month whose months have passed. I'm sure we all eagerly await Disney's acquisition of Cabbage Patch Kids, Atari Games, and the Big Wheel.

Everyone says Disney has been making movies that have not made money

If everyone said that, everyone would be wrong. What everyone would be correct in saying, is that Disney has been making low quality movies... very often putting so little into their production that they "made money" even on sales that Disney would historically consider very disappointing.

I actually can't argue much with the people who defend Disney's producing (or, in some cases, simply re-labelling) crap with the point that people buy crap; as long as they don't try to use that argument as their proof that there's something "Magical" about crap production.

Jeff

 

[Testtrack321]

Poekmon is the "falvor of the month". Thanks Jeff, thats the best description yet. It hit and fell on it's stired in 1999. That's 3 years ago. Exect the same thing from what happened to Doug and Goosbumps, 1 year in production, one attraction, closes in 6 months, sells rights back to orgional owners.

 

[Another Voice]

“Why is this so bad?”

Because in the end one’s reputation is built on the quality of your products, not any short-term financial gain you might report to the stockholders.

Because it’s part of a continuing trend where Disney doesn’t make anything – they simple put The Name on stuff they think make a buck. While sell-out marketing might get you a quick wad of cash, it doesn’t add any lasting value to the company. Mickey Mouse became an icon because of the films that were made about the character, not because he appeared on breakfast cereal boxes.

Because Disney won’t be doing the animation, it will still be done by others. Another dilution – and cheapening – of the Disney brand.

Because there are thousands of better projects collecting dust on the shelves: original projects, good projects, inventive projects. And there are hundreds of talented people waiting for a shot too.

Because it’s “a safe business move” in exactly the way that ‘Snow White’, ‘Fantasia’, and Disneyland weren’t. Safe makes accountants feel pleasant, but it doesn’t stir people’s imaginations.

Because after ‘The Power Rangers’ and now ‘Pokemon’ – ‘Hello Kitty’ is the next logical move. And that’s a horror I dare not think about…

 

[Safari Steve]

Have you ever seen anything regarding the Tom and Jerry movie or The Thief and the Cobbler in any of the parks? Mirimax is pretty insulated for a WDC Subsidiary as far as I've seen. Harv pretty much does his own thing. This isn't even going to have BVD on it, and the movies are already made (remember, these are pretty much just US distribution rights).
Big fat hairy non-issue... so far.

 

[Planogirl]

I agree with Safari Steve. How many casual viewers know that Miramax is a Disney brand? Besides, I don't think that Pokemon has quite fizzled out YET. Power Ranger is another matter though.

 

[Testtrack321]

It isn't WHO knows, its that they ARE. They could easily import it to a ride/attraction (ohh, god, not where Dough used to be....) Don't believe me, when you went to the Studios in past years, don't almost all the sets, movies, and other things eather do with MGM, Disney, or MIRAMAX. Look, Pearl(y) Harbor is the pre show to the Backlot Tour, and it's Miramax.

 

[raidermatt]

I'm not exactly doing cartwheels over the Pokemon acquisition, but Steve touches on a very good point. Whenever anyone around here points to a quality film that Miramax distributes as evidence of Disney still doing quality, the response is "yeah, but Miramax isn't really under Ei$ners control. They succeed because they operate on their own and without his meddleing" Well, the same holds now. If the good movies they put out aren't a credit to Disney, and don't improve the brand's image, then Pokemon won't hurt it.

Personally, I agree. Good things from Miramax don't do a lot for Disney's name because I'd bank less than 5% of the population even knows about the relationship. So, I'm not too worried about Pokemon damaging the Disney name. Its a Miramax thing, and distribution is their game.

 

[Bob O]

Esiner controls everything disney does, be it with the disney nameplate or not. This wouldnt have been done without his approval as he isnt know for his handoffs appraoch with anything to do with something owned by disney. And isnt he always in favor of synergy???? How lont till the stupid/dumb pokeman charachters are polluting disney's parks???
Whatever haapened to thinking up original ideas rather than trying to repackage old ideas???

 

[roymccoy]

Disney has been able to pull down the distribution rights to the following hot new properties:

Cabbage Patch Dolls (Think of the movie potential here)

Beanie Babies (Cost their entire theme park upgrade budget, but they see big things for these undiscovered jewels)

POGS (They're hard to explain...you'll just have to stand in line and see one for yourself!)

The Smurfs (They're little and blue and coming to a store near you!)

Ren and Stimpy - Paul Pressler does the voice of Stimpy.

Furby (pronounced Fur-bee)


and in a hostile takeover, Michael Eisney singlehandedly managed to acquire not only HeMan but also She-ra.

- - DEVELOPING - -

Roy
;-)

 

[meowthew2]

Ah, I remember just a couple years back when Eisner mentioned "Pokemon" specifically in an interview as the kind of "fad" entertainment that Disney wasn't interested in. I believe he said you couldn't build a long-term following on characters like that.

 

[Safari Steve]

Pearl Harbor wasn't released under Mirimax... was it?
That not withstanding, I SERIOUSLY doubt there will be any tie-ins at the parks. (I know that someone is going to go hysterical in a couple of weeks when they see pokemon toys on sale at Downtown Disney... guess what, gang, they've sold pokemon toys there for years. I don't agree with it, but it has nothing to do with any licensing agreements.)
If PH was released under Mirimax, (which makes no sense at all), keep in mind that the pre-show to the backlot tram tour is called "Harbor Attack" and is only vaguely tied-in with the movie.
Pokemon was not purchased, only distribution rights.
There has not been a 'Kiki's Delivery Service' tie-in (that distribution deal is years old, and directly through BVHE) so where's the precedent?
The sky is (still) not falling.

 

[Another Voice]

So if Miramax doesn't get the blame for 'Pokemon', will everyone take back all the gloating over 'Spy Kids'? You can't only accept the "good" out of the relationship. Besides, around town this will be seen as just one more desperate attempt by Disney as they grab for cash. The public may not notice too much, but the industry surely will.

I do agree that Miramax is growing more independent all the time. There is a full slate of family movies on their books now (some of which will compete directly against The Mouse). And has anyone noticed all those Miramax/Universal joint productions?????

Maybe Harv won't be a "Disney" problem for long.

 

[Safari Steve]

I didn't say that Mirimax shouldn't be "blamed" for Pokemon. Anyone who consciously chooses to bring such a foul 'product' within our borders should be shunned, reviled, and generally pointed at.
I'm always baffled at the people who want to blame Eisner/Pressler for every bad decision that comes down the pike, but any success is just chalked up to luck. (I'm not saying that everything they touch turns to gold, but you can't have your kayak and heat it too.)
My main point was that I don't think this will have any affect on the parks.

Wait, is Hollywood now a moral barometer? God help us all!

 

[Distriv]

I would not call Pokemon a fad. In 2001 it had 4 for of the top 20 best-selling video games. I played one and found it ok. I then picked up the squel and re-sold it before i finished it. I am not a Pokemon fan but maybe this will get Disneys traditional animation back on its feet.

 

[JeffJewell]

I'm always baffled at the people who want to blame Eisner/Pressler for every bad decision that comes down the pike, but any success is just chalked up to luck.

...you're certainly correct... in any corporation, the biggest dogs don't make all of the nuts and bolts decisions. But I do think it's fair to say that they create the environment and conditions under which decisions are made. If the decisions that are getting made throughout the company and its divisions consistently favor short-term profit over long-term investment, I personally think it's fair to question (perhaps decry) the corporate environment the big dogs have created. Particularly if the company's tag line mentions a unique brand of Magic-with-a-capital-M, it's disppointing that so many decisions end up boiling down to slapping a tm Disney sign on something bought whole from alledgedly more banal one-time competitors.

Jeff