Diz Co. returns to older ways.
An influential proxy advisor criticized the Walt Disney Co.'s board of directors for naming Chief Executive Robert A. Iger as the company's next chairman, a decision that it claims “reversed a commitment to independent board leadership.”
Disney disputed Institutional Shareholder Services' contention in a regulatory filing Thursday, calling it “false — no such commitment was made.”
... The matter of an independent board chairman dates from a contentious period of the company's history, in early 2004, when 45% of Disney's shareholders heeded the late Roy E. Disney's call to cast a vote of no confidence in then-Chairman and Chief Executive Michael D. Eisner.
After the shareholder vote, the Disney board announced it would separate the positions of chairman and chief executive, and named an independent director, former Sen. George Mitchell, to serve as board chairman.
... The issue was reignited last fall, when Disney's board announced that Iger would assume the role of chairman upon the retirement later this month of the current chairman, John Pepper. Iger would then serve in a combined chairman and CEO role until he retired as chief executive in March 2015. He would remain chairman through June 30, 2016. ...
It's difficult at any time for the Top Dogs of our fine conglomerates to relinquish power. Mr. Iger's predecessor did it when there was a large, negative vote and pressure was immense to change the status quo.
But that was then, and this is now.
On a related note, I visited the Disney hat building this afternoon. The droll Wreck It Ralph display is now fully operational on the first floor, work is humming along on a variety of projects on various other floors. Some new directors on stalled projects, some new projects, and Frozen still follows Ralph.
And away from Hat, Tim Burton is directing this blast from the past:
Posts
19 comments:
Is King of the Elves still following Frozen?
I hope the replaced directors aren't Ron & John. Are they?
Yeah and they really messed up with the Muppets which bombed so badly it won't even get a sequel! Or.....
http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/the-muppets-sequel-in-the-works/261749
HA! Suck it Mr. Know it All who proclaimed the Muppets were dead.
I hope the replaced directors aren't Ron & John. Are they?
John and Ron are working on the same picture they've been developing for awhile.
I'm told that there is no movie yet designated to follow Frozen.
There'll be more trouble for Iger and Ross when John Carter bombs. That, plus announcing a sequel to a non-money-making film, will be the all the impetus Disney stockholders need to show Rich Ross the door. It's just a matter of time.
Muppets made money, but keep living in your fantasy world. i do agree with the projection you have for John Carter tough.
Steve, do you know if Frozen will have the original painterly look it was supposed to have Rapunzel in the original Glen Keane's version for the story?
^ Actually no. I've talked to Frozen's art director at length, but no about what the picture will ultimately look like.
I saw designs some time ago, and they look great. I don't know if I would call them "painterly."
If the Muppets made money (which I doubt), just how much money? It was reported here yesterday that Puss in Boots netted $86 million, yet it's considered a disappointment.
The term "painterly" doesnt really mean anything.
Its like saying something looks "photo-ey" or "clay-ey" or "pencil-ey"
Paint is a tool to achieve many looks
What do you mean "painterly" doesn't mean anything? Obviously you haven't seen the old Glen Keane Rapunzel test footage (or maybe you just don't remember).
Personally, I wish SOMEONE would make a paint-inspired 3D, as I am growing tired of detailed, watch-every-strand-of-hair-blow-in-the-breeze look of "photo-ey" CG films.
The Muppets was definitely not a cash cow, but netted a small profit. Anything that doesn't bring in a gazillion dollars is considered a disappointment in this town. Puss cost way more to make and was a bigger risk, but Muppets did the following:
1. Made a small profit in BO
2. Will make even more DVD, VOD and streaming
3. Expanded the world wide audience
4. Reestablished a brand as viable
This is considered a success and it is why there is a sequel. It wasn't a bomb.
**2. Will make even more DVD, VOD and streaming**
That has yet to be determined. Quit presenting your wishes as fact.
The DVD presales are the highest for family films - no wishing just sound speculation based on preexisting data - try it sometime.
^More assumption.
Meanwhile the Lorax is probably going to pull off 60 million or more in just 3 days. Horrors, and it was animated in evil old CGI! Yet somehow it will likely surpass the Muppets' 4-month worldwide total in like 2 weeks.
But that's the 21st century for you. CGI rules, you Muppet tools!
No one is saying it performed better than CG films you tool - we're just saying it didn't lose money.
Thank you Steve for your answer.
I hope Frozen will be a great movie with great story and great design.
Anonymus: when I told about "painterly look" I told about Glen Keane's original version of Rapunzel. If you have "The Art of Tangled", you can understand what I want to say. Keane want to do a movie based on Rembrandt and Fragonard art, so I hope his studies will be used in a new feature...
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/kristen-bell-cast-as-the-lead-in-disneys-animated-snow-queen-tale-frozen-warner-bros-buys-graphic-novel-bolivar-for-animated-movie
The article linked above says that John Musker and Ron Clements are doing a hand-drawn feature called "The Name Game". I know that they aren't really using Rumpelstiltskin as source material, but are they really doing a movie called "The Name Game"? And if so, then is it something at least among the lines of Rumpelstiltskin?
Post a Comment