Film Futurist

There’s been a lot of chatter over the last month about Disney chief Bob Iger’s ruthless housecleaning over at Disney. Big executive shakeups like Iger’s seem more unusual in Hollywood than perhaps in many other businesses because Hollywood for the most part is a business of predictability, stability and sameness. Ironic, given that they are often wrong in their predictions of what a public will want, what will be successful, and what the zeitgeist is embracing. So when Iger, after five years of leading Disney decided to change the game, I believe he was saying something to the business that they are not used to hearing: It’s time to engage in the business of the future.

As suspicious as I naturally am of these Hollywood suits and their flawed business models and bad personal style, I’ve still kept one eye on Disney for as a possible game-changer. When High School Musical and Hannah Montana came out of what seemed like nowhere, blew up to become a couple of the most recognizable brands in kids/tween entertainment, who didn’t wonder how the hell that happened? I remember seeing images of tween girl throngs at a Miley Cyrus concert and being stupefied that such a phenomenon could grow out of an original Disney TV character and Disney Radio star.

Granted, we’ve always known that children’s entertainment is the monster of the box office, the DVD and of franchise merchandising because, as we’ve come to understand, children’s tastes are often quite bizarre, obsessive and well, lucrative. This has always been Disney’s “vein of gold”. And when Iger acquired Pixar, he took that idea to an even broader level by acquiring a wholly independent, well-run animation house that again, was in the business of original characters, stories and thus, more franchises. So, despite their public differences, Pixar and Disney have managed to create some of the most memorable, adult-friendly animation in recent history.

Fast forward five years, and Iger again makes a move for Marvel, whose trove hadn’t been completely pillaged and remains filled with lesser known action heros but come with built in fan bases, the possibility of both animated and live-action fantasy content with serious transmedia potential. These moves seemed practical, if expensive, and Iger pulled Disney out of the quaint Mickey-Mouse world into the Pirates’ of the Carribean era. Then as if that wasn’t enough to show Disney’s shareholders that he meant (profitable) business, he goes and fired a whole layer of senior executives (read: old-school) that had been running the company for years and replaces them with a variety of new people, some of whom have little experience in the business of film and TV.

And just as the articles were circulating about his madness, Iger goes and pulls the Alice in Wonderland move: telling theatrical exhibitors in the US and UK that he would shorten the window between the theatrical release of the upcoming film and the DVD release–a move which terrified theater-owners and diminished the grand status 0f the theatrical window. This of course led to some strong words from the UK distributors, threat of boycott and all such manner of protest. Oh, then there was his refusal to make a sequel of the $315 million grossing Sandra Bullock movie, The Proposal which many including LA Times blogger Patrick Goldstein viewed as bizarre, since Hollywood is after all, the sure-bet-sequel town.

This of course begged the question: Is Iger a fool or a maniac? To which I reply: Neither.

The most cynical view of this strategy would be the one taken by critics like Culture Vulture’s Claude Brodesser-Akner, who sees this direction as an aggressive move towards merchandising driven entertainment. But I’m not sure that analysis in entirely correct. While I could never argue that Disney’s responsibility to it’s shareholders to be increasingly more profitable isn’t a driving force in these radical changes, I see the strategy as a real response to the way social media, branding and convergent media are changing consumer/viewer behavior.

Sure, Pirates of the Carribean can have a theme-park ride whereas Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds are pure passive entertainment–but is Iger’s decision to stick with properties that have cross-media opportunities really THAT crazy sounding to anyone who hasn’t been asleep through the advent of social media, interactive entertainment and yes, Miley Cyrus? All this hand-wringing really shows a lack of understanding that Iger’s sharp assessment about the future of entertainment includes the stark reality that for any property to be profitable in age of bit torrent and audience involvement, there have to be multiple streams of revenue that take engagement into serious consideration.

So, no, he is NOT mad. And perhaps somewhere in the wings his largest individual shareholder, Steve Jobs is whispering in Iger’s ear to check out the looking glass of the future.