<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.4" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: COMMENTARY: Disney turns PG-13</title>
	<link>http://www.thirdwayblog.com/post-types/commentary/commentary-disney-turns-pg-13.html</link>
	<description>Straight Talk on Advertising from the Client Side</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 23:13:53 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Rij</title>
		<link>http://www.thirdwayblog.com/post-types/commentary/commentary-disney-turns-pg-13.html#comment-81723</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:41:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.thirdwayblog.com/post-types/commentary/commentary-disney-turns-pg-13.html#comment-81723</guid>
					<description>You're right on the spot! Disney's current obsession with exposing the Walt Disney Pictures brand with mainstream content will cause long-term damage to the entire company. I've never understood why, if Disney wants to be associated with mainstream content, not place a sign under the Touchstone Pictures name like "Part of the Magic of the Walt Disney Company" - just like on their internal stationary materials?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re right on the spot! Disney&#8217;s current obsession with exposing the Walt Disney Pictures brand with mainstream content will cause long-term damage to the entire company. I&#8217;ve never understood why, if Disney wants to be associated with mainstream content, not place a sign under the Touchstone Pictures name like &#8220;Part of the Magic of the Walt Disney Company&#8221; - just like on their internal stationary materials?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: John Turner</title>
		<link>http://www.thirdwayblog.com/post-types/commentary/commentary-disney-turns-pg-13.html#comment-38717</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2007 00:10:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.thirdwayblog.com/post-types/commentary/commentary-disney-turns-pg-13.html#comment-38717</guid>
					<description>Kids today debate the merits of their favorite 'R'-rated movie characters while still in sixth grade, and by eighth grade have moved on to Internet porn and hook-up parties.  That "graphic novel" your freshfaced son is reading is probably a hentai manga (look it up) and that "cool tattoo" your daughter wants was invented by medium-security prisoners to mark their sex slaves.  In a world like this the Disney brand smoothly extends from the wholesome to the profane.  The Touchstone brand remains for the films that depict consenting adults -- you know, "Adult Themes."</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kids today debate the merits of their favorite &#8216;R&#8217;-rated movie characters while still in sixth grade, and by eighth grade have moved on to Internet porn and hook-up parties.  That &#8220;graphic novel&#8221; your freshfaced son is reading is probably a hentai manga (look it up) and that &#8220;cool tattoo&#8221; your daughter wants was invented by medium-security prisoners to mark their sex slaves.  In a world like this the Disney brand smoothly extends from the wholesome to the profane.  The Touchstone brand remains for the films that depict consenting adults &#8212; you know, &#8220;Adult Themes.&#8221;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: mr skin</title>
		<link>http://www.thirdwayblog.com/post-types/commentary/commentary-disney-turns-pg-13.html#comment-9696</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2006 03:07:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.thirdwayblog.com/post-types/commentary/commentary-disney-turns-pg-13.html#comment-9696</guid>
					<description>Pirates 2 pretty much sucked compared to the first one.  It had a few good parts, but I think it was just a prelude to the 3rd one.  I hope number 3 is better!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pirates 2 pretty much sucked compared to the first one.  It had a few good parts, but I think it was just a prelude to the 3rd one.  I hope number 3 is better!
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: david</title>
		<link>http://www.thirdwayblog.com/post-types/commentary/commentary-disney-turns-pg-13.html#comment-4774</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:31:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.thirdwayblog.com/post-types/commentary/commentary-disney-turns-pg-13.html#comment-4774</guid>
					<description>Jen,

Thanks for the link to the bbc story.  You are correct, it is probably too early to tell what Disney's motivation is.  Sometimes, though, a company cheats a brand strategy for entirely honorable reasons, gets a short-term reward and continues to cheat to get the reward again until the brand is seriously damaged.  We'll have to follow this to see what happens

dv</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jen,</p>
<p>Thanks for the link to the bbc story.  You are correct, it is probably too early to tell what Disney&#8217;s motivation is.  Sometimes, though, a company cheats a brand strategy for entirely honorable reasons, gets a short-term reward and continues to cheat to get the reward again until the brand is seriously damaged.  We&#8217;ll have to follow this to see what happens</p>
<p>dv
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Jen</title>
		<link>http://www.thirdwayblog.com/post-types/commentary/commentary-disney-turns-pg-13.html#comment-4769</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:50:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.thirdwayblog.com/post-types/commentary/commentary-disney-turns-pg-13.html#comment-4769</guid>
					<description>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5193590.stm 

This story just out from the BBC...Two ways you could read it: A) It looks like Disney wants to focus on more family-friendly fare (the article cited "Family blockbusters"). or B) Touchstone is losing money, just make racier teen films under the Disney masthead and make boatloads of money with tie-ins.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5193590.stm' rel='nofollow'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5193590.stm</a> </p>
<p>This story just out from the BBC&#8230;Two ways you could read it: A) It looks like Disney wants to focus on more family-friendly fare (the article cited &#8220;Family blockbusters&#8221;). or B) Touchstone is losing money, just make racier teen films under the Disney masthead and make boatloads of money with tie-ins.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Jen</title>
		<link>http://www.thirdwayblog.com/post-types/commentary/commentary-disney-turns-pg-13.html#comment-4407</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2006 20:55:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.thirdwayblog.com/post-types/commentary/commentary-disney-turns-pg-13.html#comment-4407</guid>
					<description>Oof, if they continue that trend, then yes that could be a misake, esp. if the movies aren't based on already-made Disney property.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oof, if they continue that trend, then yes that could be a misake, esp. if the movies aren&#8217;t based on already-made Disney property.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: david</title>
		<link>http://www.thirdwayblog.com/post-types/commentary/commentary-disney-turns-pg-13.html#comment-3718</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:58:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.thirdwayblog.com/post-types/commentary/commentary-disney-turns-pg-13.html#comment-3718</guid>
					<description>Jen,

You make an excellent point about the connection between the Disney ride and the movie.  In itself, Disney could probably get away with the connection to Pirates because of that link and I agree that introducing Touchstone might have confused things.

What surprised me is that Disney told the Wall Street Journal that it was their plan to continue expanding the use of the Disney name to general audience (meaning PG and PG 13) movies.  That creates the problem, I think.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jen,</p>
<p>You make an excellent point about the connection between the Disney ride and the movie.  In itself, Disney could probably get away with the connection to Pirates because of that link and I agree that introducing Touchstone might have confused things.</p>
<p>What surprised me is that Disney told the Wall Street Journal that it was their plan to continue expanding the use of the Disney name to general audience (meaning PG and PG 13) movies.  That creates the problem, I think.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Jen</title>
		<link>http://www.thirdwayblog.com/post-types/commentary/commentary-disney-turns-pg-13.html#comment-3710</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:39:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.thirdwayblog.com/post-types/commentary/commentary-disney-turns-pg-13.html#comment-3710</guid>
					<description>But if the movies were originally based on a Disney ride (which was a point highly hyped w/ the first movie), wouldn't packaging them under Touchstone hurt the profits or confuse customers, or at least dilute the message that the film originated w/ Disney? 

And, if that was Disney's primary motivation in releasing the films under the Mouse's name, maybe this trend won't continue? Just a thought. It'll be interesting to see what develops with later releases and films.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But if the movies were originally based on a Disney ride (which was a point highly hyped w/ the first movie), wouldn&#8217;t packaging them under Touchstone hurt the profits or confuse customers, or at least dilute the message that the film originated w/ Disney? </p>
<p>And, if that was Disney&#8217;s primary motivation in releasing the films under the Mouse&#8217;s name, maybe this trend won&#8217;t continue? Just a thought. It&#8217;ll be interesting to see what develops with later releases and films.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
