Rich Ross (Disney Channel) Becomes Chairman of The Walt Disney Studios

[Tommy Lawson]

This was largely expected news as Rich Ross of the Disney Channel has been named Dick Cook's replacement as Chairman of The Walt Disney Studios. Here is the press release, and a New York Times article with some quick analysis.

[judyindisguise]

I don't get why Ross' performance as a producer of teenybopper musicals makes him a good choice to run a movie studio. Kinda sounds like Iger is simply rewarding Ross' success, even though that success may not be relevant to the needs of the Walt Disney movie studio.

I have to say I'm becoming doubtful about Iger's judgment overall. I wish he'd chosen John Lasseter, although I suppose Lasseter has enough on his plate as it is, without adding a movie studio to his overall chores. Still, at least Lasseter is a creative talent and his judgment thus far has proven to be sound. Iger's just a bean-counter, and I'm not sure he's much of an improvement on Eisner. Sigh...

[Old Guy]

Originally Posted by judyindisguise

I don't get why Ross' performance as a producer of teenybopper musicals makes him a good choice to run a movie studio.

Because the Hannah Montana franchise makes a billion dollars a year. Money speaks in Hollywood. I agree that Ross isn't qualified. Disney is much more than a teen girl company. They need someone who could cover all areas.

[Taco Wiz]

...Please tell me he wont have any control over Pixar.

[underdog]

Originally Posted by judyindisguise

I don't get why Ross' performance as a producer of teenybopper musicals makes him a good choice to run a movie studio. Kinda sounds like Iger is simply rewarding Ross' success, even though that success may not be relevant to the needs of the Walt Disney movie studio.

I have to say I'm becoming doubtful about Iger's judgment overall. I wish he'd chosen John Lasseter, although I suppose Lasseter has enough on his plate as it is, without adding a movie studio to his overall chores. Still, at least Lasseter is a creative talent and his judgment thus far has proven to be sound. Iger's just a bean-counter, and I'm not sure he's much of an improvement on Eisner. Sigh...

This just all equates down to money, plain and simple. Ross has been able to turn an underperforming property, Disney Channel, into a cash cow for the company in the decade he's been part of the company. We might be whining about how "uncool" these teen boopers are, but these franchises contributed to the financial stability Disney is currently is at.

Walt Disney Studios under Cook has been underperforming as of late, in fact they've been loosing money as many of their films have underperformed in the box office.

John Lasseter would have been a good replacement, but he has too much under his plate already. An article from Jim Hill media explains why Lasseter wouldn't have been the best replacement (he's already presiding over Disney and Pixar animation projects, consults with Imagineering, there's the Pixar expansion plans for Emeryville and a new branch opening this fall in Vancouver, Pixar's move to live action with John Carter of Mars, a family winery, and he also has five kids to come home to).

Overall Iger seems like he needed a team player, as how Lasseter has been with his responsibilities at Animation. One thing is certain, with everything happening at Disney (Marvel, Disney Double Dare You, Speilberg's Dreamworks, Zimeckis' ImageMovers, Tim Burton, Bruckheimer), things will get pretty interesting. If Ross' proven performance at Disney Channel flows into Disney Studios, then they might have a winning formula - or atleast that's the hope.

http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hi...d-signals.aspx

[TheVileOne]

Like it or not, at the end of the day Disney is a corporation. A corporation looks at the bottom line and keeping the corporation profitable. So if you don't like that a corporation doesn't reward loyalty, time served, history, et al . . . then you don't work for it.

Lasseter said at D23 that his main goal in life was to become an animator for Disney.

[creativerealms]

Well this guy knows how to make money and that is a good thing. What makes money on Disney Channel does not make money in theaters. He should know this given the poor release of the Lizzy Mcguire and the Hanna Montana movie in theaters. So we should not think this means more teen girl targeted movies.

[TheVileOne]

Originally Posted by creativerealms

Well this guy knows how to make money and that is a good thing. What makes money on Disney Channel does not make money in theaters. He should know this given the poor release of the Lizzy Mcguire and the Hanna Montana movie in theaters. So we should not think this means more teen girl targeted movies.

Hannah Montanna:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/...ntanamovie.htm
US: $80 million
WW: $154 million

Lizzie McGuire movie:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/...guiremovie.htm
US: $42 million
WW: $55 million
Production Budget: $17 million

High School Musical 3:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/...olmusical3.htm
US: $90 million
WW: $253 million
Production Budget: $11 million

Hannah Montanna/Miley Cyrus Concert movie:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/...anaconcert.htm
US: $65 million

So can you honestly say these kind of endeavors are NOT making money. No I don't think the Jonas Brothers one did huge business, but most of them aren't doing POOR.

[creativerealms]

Ok not horrible but compared to their family movies yeah those are pretty poor.

Yeah I'm just saying that changing the focus to match Disney Channel would not work for Disney Studios as a whole, that's all.

[TheVileOne]

Originally Posted by creativerealms

Ok not horrible but compared to their family movies yeah those are pretty poor.

Yeah I'm just saying that changing the focus to match Disney Channel would not work for Disney Studios as a whole, that's all.

Compared to what exactly since these movies are for all intents dirt cheap and raking in tons of profit.

I'm not saying they should change the focus either, but just IE it was apparently Cook that didn't want to turn any of the Disney Channel shows into theatrical movies. And for the most part the instinct of avoiding that was a mistake. As of now there's clearly money in translating the TV/Disney Channel properties into theatrical movies. Not saying they should make Suite Life or Wizards theatrical movies, but you said the performance of these movies was poor which was wrong.

[underdog]

Looking at the big picture, I don't think Walt Disney Studios will shift their focus to center on more Disney Channel feature films. Iger didn't promote him because he orchestrated all these teen bopper series, he promoted him because he helped handpick worthy series and talent that created success within the company. The good decisions that Ross has made benefitted the company as a whole, its called being a good visionary. There will probably be better handling and communicating between the studios and the channel, which seems to have been one of the problems under Cook. One of the things that they will probably work at is being more transparent with each other instead of the apparent division between the studio department with the rest of the company.

Cook's recent film efforts have done little for the company, the reality is he was one of the weakest link of the company.

This excerpt summarizes my thought clearly:

Likewise, Hannah Montana is much more than a TV show. It's impossible to walk into a mall without seeing Montana merchandise; its star Miley Cyrus is at every award show and has broken out onto the big screen.

That kind of marketing skill could serve Disney well. Iger recently spent $4 billion to buy comics publisher Marvel Entertainment ( MVL - news - people ). Unfortunately the best properties, like Spider-Man and X-Men, are already locked up at other studios. With his well-hewn teen sensibilities, Ross might be able to turn some of the lesser-known heroes into new movie franchises.

Disney desperately needs some more hits. Outside of Pixar's always successful animated films, the studio has struggled. Only the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise has really caught on. Other Disney films, like Confessions of a Shopaholic and Bedtime Stories, have disappointed at the box office.

If Ross can mine Marvel and find some other original hits, he'll be a hero at Disney. The executive has yet to prove his movie bona fides, though. Films developed from Disney Channel properties, like Hannah Montana: The Movie and High School Musical 3, have done only OK at the box office. High School Musical performed the best, taking in $253 million at theaters worldwide, but that's well short of the $654 million the first Pirates movie earned.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/05/dis...nt-disney.html

Personally, I think you'll be seeing Disney branching out more in the next decade into other genres and creating franchises for various audiences.

[Mikintosh]

I just want Disney to start taking pride in its own movie division, instead of relying on their TV channel and Pixar to bring in the money. It seems like after Lindsay Lohan finished out her contract with "Herbie: Fully Loaded" a couple years ago they've just been looking to the Disney Channel for big-screen stars, and that's not a sustainable strategy. And if Johnny Depp's not coming back for "Pirates 4", then they're doubly in trouble since they won't even have that franchise (because there's no way they'll be able to make that movie without him). I mean sure, they have Touchstone, but the Walt Disney brand still has a tremendous power all over the world that's not being used effectively except to sell toys (not that there's anything wrong with merchandising, but Walt also always made sure they had movies in production, too).

I mean, the Disney Channel was initially created partially to showcase Disney movies and cartoons (among other programming), and they've really lost that kind of synergy as the years have gone on. I understand them not wanting to overexpose the classics, but what's the harm in them running, say, "Aladdin" or "Beauty and the Beast" once a month? It might create longer-lasting brand loyalty among the "Hanna Montana" and "High School Musical" fans who'll grow out of those shows and movies eventually and will no longer be Disney fans if the studio isn't providing them with anything of substance.

...Which is probably why it's a good idea to have a Disney Channel executive in charge of the movies, since he'll probably be more likely to encourage the two divisions to cooperate with each other more.

[TheVileOne]

Originally Posted by Mikintosh

I just want Disney to start taking pride in its own movie division, instead of relying on their TV channel and Pixar to bring in the money. It seems like after Lindsay Lohan finished out her contract with "Herbie: Fully Loaded" a couple years ago they've just been looking to the Disney Channel for big-screen stars, and that's not a sustainable strategy. And if Johnny Depp's not coming back for "Pirates 4", then they're doubly in trouble since they won't even have that franchise (because there's no way they'll be able to make that movie without him). I mean sure, they have Touchstone, but the Walt Disney brand still has a tremendous power all over the world that's not being used effectively except to sell toys (not that there's anything wrong with merchandising, but Walt also always made sure they had movies in production, too).

I mean, the Disney Channel was initially created partially to showcase Disney movies and cartoons (among other programming), and they've really lost that kind of synergy as the years have gone on. I understand them not wanting to overexpose the classics, but what's the harm in them running, say, "Aladdin" or "Beauty and the Beast" once a month? It might create longer-lasting brand loyalty among the "Hanna Montana" and "High School Musical" fans who'll grow out of those shows and movies eventually and will no longer be Disney fans if the studio isn't providing them with anything of substance.

...Which is probably why it's a good idea to have a Disney Channel executive in charge of the movies, since he'll probably be more likely to encourage the two divisions to cooperate with each other more.

We are getting Princess And The Frog this year. So what's the problem?

Its too early to say how this new change will ultimately be executed. All those projects you were bemoaning were part of Dick Cook's regime.

[Mikintosh]

Originally Posted by TheVileOne

We are getting Princess And The Frog this year. So what's the problem?

Its too early to say how this new change will ultimately be executed. All those projects you were bemoaning were part of Dick Cook's regime.

Well, the re-opening of the 2D animation studio was a big step, but they need to commit to more than one film if they want to signal positive change. The shame is that the 3D Disney movies were all actually good (and I really liked "Meet the Robinsons" specifically), but they put too much pressure on those movies in living up to the Disney legacy by closing the 2D studio at the same time.

It'd also be nice if Cook got ABC better integrated with the Disney channels; it's almost as if Disney didn't even own the network, and it'd be a great forum for Disney projects that aren't theatrical in scope but aren't a good fit on ABC Family either...like say, "The Wonderful World of Disney", which shouldn't have been canceled.

[Old Guy]

Originally Posted by TheVileOne

Hannah Montanna:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/...ntanamovie.htm
US: $80 million
WW: $154 million

Lizzie McGuire movie:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/...guiremovie.htm
US: $42 million
WW: $55 million
Production Budget: $17 million

High School Musical 3:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/...olmusical3.htm
US: $90 million
WW: $253 million
Production Budget: $11 million

Hannah Montanna/Miley Cyrus Concert movie:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/...anaconcert.htm
US: $65 million

So can you honestly say these kind of endeavors are NOT making money. No I don't think the Jonas Brothers one did huge business, but most of them aren't doing POOR.

For them the bottom line was merchandise. For example, Hannah Montana: The Movie only made $154 million worldwide but it doubled or maybe even tripled that through merchandise and the soundtrack which at one point was #1 at the charts.

Obviously the goal is to have more successes like Pirates of the Caribbean which made a billion at the box office and another billion in merchandise. But, Hannah Montana is still a good second best.

[Mandouga]

I also think that Rich Ross was the wrong choice. However, I don't think this is relfective of bad judgement on Robert Iger's part; it's still too early to determine one way or the other.

Originally Posted by Mikintosh

I just want Disney to start taking pride in its own movie division, instead of relying on their TV channel and Pixar to bring in the money.

The Princess and the Frog will determine that.

In any case, who knows. Maybe Rich Ross will "see the light" as it were...or maybe he won't. We won't really know for sure until much later on down the road. I will say this much: echoing underdog's sentiments, Rich Ross being promoted to his new position may not necessarily mean that we'll be getting more Disney Channel based movies.

[Ed Liu]

Originally Posted by Mikintosh

It might create longer-lasting brand loyalty among the "Hanna Montana" and "High School Musical" fans who'll grow out of those shows and movies eventually and will no longer be Disney fans if the studio isn't providing them with anything of substance.

Disney will be providing the older kids plenty of material with substance. It's just going to be airing on ESPN or ABC or under the Touchstone movie label or coming out of the Marvel deals. There is Disney the corporation and Disney the brand-name, and Disney the brand-name has never been about appealling outside the family demographics. Even when they were offering TV shows like the live-action Zorro, that was intended for all-ages, not adults. When the kids outgrow Hannah Montana and HSM, they move up to the other Disney-the-company brand names and there's a whole new crop of kids to get hooked on THEIR version of Hannah Montana and HSM.

Disney the company has been doing this for years. The adult fans who continue to be Disney-lovers are the anomaly, and this year is the first time I've ever seen Disney-the-brand-name attempting to appeal to them with the D23 expo.

[Milligan]

Originally Posted by TheVileOne

Compared to what exactly since these movies are for all intents dirt cheap and raking in tons of profit.

I'm not saying they should change the focus either, but just IE it was apparently Cook that didn't want to turn any of the Disney Channel shows into theatrical movies. And for the most part the instinct of avoiding that was a mistake. As of now there's clearly money in translating the TV/Disney Channel properties into theatrical movies. Not saying they should make Suite Life or Wizards theatrical movies, but you said the performance of these movies was poor which was wrong.

Poor performance is in the eye of the beholder, yet the profits made from the movies' themselves say otherwise. As much as people want to feel insulted by them, Disney seems to think otherwise. If they weren't anaylzing their demographic for opinions on all of this, these movies or celebrites which currently represent the regime would still not be around, now would they? I'm just saying this to everyone willing to listen.

Originally Posted by underdog

Looking at the big picture, I don't think Walt Disney Studios will shift their focus to center on more Disney Channel feature films. Iger didn't promote him because he orchestrated all these teen bopper series, he promoted him because he helped handpick worthy series and talent that created success within the company. The good decisions that Ross has made benefitted the company as a whole, its called being a good visionary. There will probably be better handling and communicating between the studios and the channel, which seems to have been one of the problems under Cook. One of the things that they will probably work at is being more transparent with each other instead of the apparent division between the studio department with the rest of the company..

THIS. You can tell with earlier to recent efforts, both studios, to me, have either been misusing each other, or working against eah other, with damaging results. Better communication between the movie regime and the channel regime are the real answer to any problems with Disney right now.

Originally Posted by underdog

Cook's recent film efforts have done little for the company, the reality is he was one of the weakest link of the company.

This excerpt summarizes my thought clearly:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/05/dis...nt-disney.html

Personally, I think you'll be seeing Disney branching out more in the next decade into other genres and creating franchises for various audiences.

That's what needs to happen as soon as now, if Disney wants to stay loved by all ages other than those Hannah Montana and all these other teen/tweeny-bopper stars, whose demopgraphic are aimed at.
As long as we still keep getting good movies for all ages from these guys, wheter live-zction, or animated (as we all prefer, of cours), there's no reason to rant or panic...
Just knowing they'll try to branch out more with what they do in the norm, however, at least away from these silly musicians... This pleases me. They JUST need to do this much more than they have. Then, and ONLY then will we see less people ranting and raving about them IMHO.

Originally Posted by Mikintosh

I just want Disney to start taking pride in its own movie division, instead of relying on their TV channel and Pixar to bring in the money. It seems like after Lindsay Lohan finished out her contract with "Herbie: Fully Loaded" a couple years ago they've just been looking to the Disney Channel for big-screen stars, and that's not a sustainable strategy. And if Johnny Depp's not coming back for "Pirates 4", then they're doubly in trouble since they won't even have that franchise (because there's no way they'll be able to make that movie without him). I mean sure, they have Touchstone, but the Walt Disney brand still has a tremendous power all over the world that's not being used effectively except to sell toys (not that there's anything wrong with merchandising, but Walt also always made sure they had movies in production, too).

Originally Posted by Mikintosh

...Which is probably why it's a good idea to have a Disney Channel executive in charge of the movies, since he'll probably be more likely to encourage the two divisions to cooperate with each other more.

The cooperation of both parts of the regime, is what's essential here.
Agreed. Which is why I hope their latest animated movies, not from Pixar, are a positive change of pace for how movies are being made there.
You can't rely on postar musicians foirever to bring in the big bucks, even if it works for you now.

Originally Posted by Mikintosh

mean, the Disney Channel was initially created partially to showcase Disney movies and cartoons (among other programming), and they've really lost that kind of synergy as the years have gone on. I understand them not wanting to overexpose the classics, but what's the harm in them running, say, "Aladdin" or "Beauty and the Beast" once a month? It might create longer-lasting brand loyalty among the "Hanna Montana" and "High School Musical" fans who'll grow out of those shows and movies eventually and will no longer be Disney fans if the studio isn't providing them with anything of substance.

They only not just need to show off some of their classics more often as a means of keeping balance, they need to promote more and better cartoons, other than just relying on so much live-ac tion, which is what most people are complaining about. EVERYWHERE. This is despite some of their live-action efforts being good. they're just overused, sadly. This also counts Phineas and Ferb, which is great, but cant last forever, which nothing does.

[TheVileOne]

Originally Posted by Mikintosh

Well, the re-opening of the 2D animation studio was a big step, but they need to commit to more than one film if they want to signal positive change. The shame is that the 3D Disney movies were all actually good (and I really liked "Meet the Robinsons" specifically), but they put too much pressure on those movies in living up to the Disney legacy by closing the 2D studio at the same time.

Even Chicken Little. They are committing to more than one film. Winnie The Pooh in 2011 will be released theatrically and is their next planned 2D animated feature.

[Mikintosh]

Originally Posted by Ed Liu

Disney will be providing the older kids plenty of material with substance. It's just going to be airing on ESPN or ABC or under the Touchstone movie label or coming out of the Marvel deals. There is Disney the corporation and Disney the brand-name, and Disney the brand-name has never been about appealling outside the family demographics. Even when they were offering TV shows like the live-action Zorro, that was intended for all-ages, not adults. When the kids outgrow Hannah Montana and HSM, they move up to the other Disney-the-company brand names and there's a whole new crop of kids to get hooked on THEIR version of Hannah Montana and HSM.

Well, you can't really count ESPN and Marvel as "Disney", because even though Disney owns them, I don't think people associate them with the brand (and Disney hasn't even finished buying Marvel); ABC's a bit of an exception because Disney's freely distributed shows between ABC Family and the Disney channels for years. And Touchstone is similar, because even though people know it's technically a Disney studio, the Disney name isn't on them, and that's an important distinction because that's where brand loyalty comes in.

True, Disney doesn't make specifically grown-up fare under its "Walt Disney" name, but the all-ages movies and shows that it has produced in the last 5 years or so appeal to no one any older then the average Disney Channel viewer (other than "Pirates" and "Freaky Friday"...six years ago). When they're remaking The Shaggy Dog with Tim Allen and labeling that a success, it's not a good sign for a company that used to make hit after hit. I wasn't around for the pre-"Little Mermaid" years of the studio, but this feels like what that must have been like (only Disney is now too big to fail at this point, no matter what).

I hope the Tron sequel goes through, Disney needs more ambitious projects like that and less sitcoms about teenage witches (or at least they should boost the special effects budget for that poor show) and mediocre cartoons that don't even compare to the studio's Saturday Morning output from a decade ago (what the appeal of "Phinneas & Ferb" is, I don't know). Anyway, Walt would've insisted on better.