Disney (NYSE: DIS) desperately wants to get its movie business back in some kind of order. Look no further than the recent departure of Dick Cook. According to the Los Angeles Times, the studio head was forced to resign by CEO Bob Iger because of poor performance (Iger was right to do this, but I'm not sure he's any smarter than Cook, to be honest . . .). Unfortunately, Disney's latest project, Surrogates, starring Bruce Willis, might not do much to help the cause.

According to Boxofficemojo, Surrogates came in second over the weekend at domestic theaters, behind Sony's (NYSE: SNE) Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs. The Disney film captured an estimated $15 million versus Meatballs' $24.6 million (final numbers are due later).

Continue reading Disney's movie business suffers another setback with 'Surrogates'

Disney's movie business suffers another setback with 'Surrogates' originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

This post is part of a series on celebrity spokespeople who ended up doing serious harm to the brands they were hired to promote, or vice versa. See how we rank the 20 top spokesperson fiascos.

In the mid-eighties, a couple of years before I began to drink legally, wine coolers became the alcoholic beverage of choice. Sweet and mildly alcoholic, they came in a variety of fruit flavors and neatly halved the distance between mixed drinks and a Shirley Temple. The combination of cheap wine, carbonated water, fruit juice, and sugar actually packed a pretty decent kick, particularly given that the sweetness almost completely obscured the taste of the alcohol.

One of the toughest problems with wine coolers was selling them to an adult audience. While precocious youngsters were quick to appreciate the Lolita-esque appeal of a super-sweet alcoholic version of Kool-Aid, this image was far from attractive to most of the people who actually bought alcohol. To combat the soda pop overtones of the product, Ernest and Julio Gallo used a version of conservative, home-town sincerity to push their "Bartles and Jaymes" brand. Beginning in 1984, they ran a series of ads featuring two men in hats and suspenders -- "Frank Bartles" and "Ed Jaymes" -- talking in halting sentences about their fine products. The commercials took off and Bartles and Jaymes became an industry leader.

Seagram's (Diageo plc, NYSE:DEO), desperate to up the sales of its flagging brand, hired Bruce Willis in 1986. Popular as "David Addison" on Moonlighting, Willis brought a fun, wisecracking sensibility to the ads, which borrowed heavily from the Bartles and Jaymes brand, often featuring a group of friends sitting around a porch, jamming about the glories of Seagram's Golden Wine coolers. The commercials were exceedingly popular, spawning Willis' short-lived singing career and vaulting Segrams from fifth-ranked to top-ranked brand within two years.

Continue reading Spokesperson fiasco #11: Bruce Willis and Seagram's

Spokesperson fiasco #11: Bruce Willis and Seagram's originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by JK Rowling is scheduled to be published by Scholastic Press (NASDAQ: SCHL) on July 21, and some fans are speculating that Harry will die. I am quite confident in telling you that he won't, for several reasons.

1. The artistic.
Experienced authors will tell you that a satisfying ending is one that, after it happens, readers will see as inevitable, even if they didn't see it coming. For example, the ending of Sixth Sense, while a shocker to many (including me), worked because it neatly tied up loose threads we'd momentarily lost sight of. The ending completed the Bruce Willis' character arc.

Rowling has not established the need for someone to sacrifice his life so that Voldemort might die. In fact, she has already given Harry's parents and Dumbledore to the cause. Harry's death would be gratuitous, and, most importantly, inconsistent with the rest of the saga. Harry is the viewpoint character, and it is our vicarious enjoyment of his overcoming obstacles that gives the series such impact. It's hard to enjoy the denouement of a dead character.

Most importantly, though, Harry is not a flawed character seeking redemption through sacrifice. He is an innocent predestined to conquer the wicked AND LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER.

2. The practical.
If Rowling were to kill off her hero in the final book, it would not only diminish sales of this volume, but horribly impact the future sales of the series. Knowing that Harry was to die, (and who on Earth would not know of this plot twist?), would change the reader's experience, robbing each bit of conflict of its gravitas. Plus, fans would revolt. Arthur Conan Doyle learned this lesson when he tried to kill off Sherlock Holmes -- some plot reversals fans will simply not accept.

3. The financial.
With two more films on the planning board (including Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, due for release July 11th by Warner Brothers, a division of Time Warner, NYSE:TWX) and a theme park in development, I can't believe these companies would invest so much in a closed-end storyline. And while Rowling may have all the money she needs, keeping the tale open-ended is a much shrewder business decision.

So I'm not worried about Harry. My prediction -- he'll defeat Voldemort with Snape's help, assume Dumbledore's position as head of Hogworts, marry Jenny Ginny and stand as best man at Ron and Hermione's wedding.

Harry Potter can't die. Trust me.

Gallery: Everybody loves Harry Potter

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Will Rowling kill off Harry? originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:41:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.