|
|
 |
| Disney Takeover of Imax, Iwerks, and ... |
 
|
| Message/Author |
|
|
 Anonymous posted on Thursday, March 25, 1999 - 01:00 am
|
|
|
The rumor of Disney taking over Imax seems to have been around for as long as I know, yet I've not heard too many valid reasons why they'd consider such. While I do chuckle aloud when I think of a "Disney/Imax Service Rep." showing up at Universal Studios to work on the "Back to the Future Ride," I don't think that would be enough to motivate Disney to do a total buyout of the company.
Disney has partnered with many companies, big and small, over the years. Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Kodak, American Express, General Motors and Pixar to name just a few. The arrangements between the companies are big and complicated, but I truly believe they are win-win relationships in which both Disney and the other companies benefit.
Disney's F2K deal with Imax is not the first time the company has dabbled in a specialty film format. Disney's involvement with Iwerks dates back to the first days of Mickey, and that involvement has continued through to the present day in the theme parks. If anything, I'm surprised Disney hasn't scarfed up Iwerks Entertainment. It would be a far less-expensive purchase anyway. Or maybe Showscan, which would be even cheaper I'm gathering.
Imax is the only one of the three companies (Imax, Iwerks, Showscan) that isn't present anywhere on Disney property these days. While there's talk that the Epcot Horizons projectors will possibly make a reappearance (posted somewhere on this discussion board), it's an Iwerks 15/70 that's being installed in California right now, to the best of my knowledge anyway. If anyone knows otherwise, do tell. Seems sort of odd, if they were indeed even courting the idea of purchasing them.
I think it's great that Disney is testing the waters with the F2K 15/70 release. If nothing else, it'll be something different to look at for 90 minutes. If it blossoms into something more... even better. I am not trying to sound like a Disney employee or stockholder by saying the company has done everything exactly the way I would have done it, but they've come a lot further in the past 30 years than Imax has. Imax currently has 401 employees... Disney ringing in at 117,000. And they did this by exploring and creating new roads, within the entertainment industry, along the way. To limit Imax to institutional films and theaters would just not be fair if shareholders expect it to grow. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Thursday, March 25, 1999 - 11:25 am
|
|
|
If you look at the F2K thing from the 'institutional' viewpoint it really does not make a whole lot of sense: High per gate, total screening commitment, only 4 months to recoup outlay, etc. But the cinemas can afford these type of things and are in fact more
likely to be used to this type of arrangement already with the big studios.
But I can see the above poster's point, the shareholders want return. And that IMHO is the only reason that IMAX is involved with this deal-- Disney is rumored to be putting up 100MILLION in ad money and to buy a media presence for this film that will make the Everest hoopla look very small. A hard thing to say no to.
On the other hand, I think us institutional folks, the ones who were here before the big IPO, the ones who helped this thing grow, are worried about getting a good return on OUR investment. Because, after being sold these systems on thier educational value, we find ourselves with the likelyhood of a trend of films that do not suit our needs. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
