VJ
Well-Known Member
Exactly! Totally agree.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
A Spirited Perfect Ten
- Thread starter WDW1974
- Start date
ABQ
Well-Known Member
This from 2013
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/report-disney-quietly-ends-marvel-651250
In a nutshell, it claims Disney let all licensing agreements for slots expire. But not sure if something happened post 2013 to conflict with this report.
PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
I disagree, it's horribly tacky and a symbol of a horrible time in our country.
71jason
Well-Known Member
Not even close from what I saw over the weekend, both in MK lot and around town. Last two weeks of March felt busier.
VJ
Well-Known Member
While we're on the subject of Walt (and honestly, I don't have many outlets to say these things so please indulge me for a bit)...
I don't like when people say "Oh, Walt wouldn't like this" or "This isn't what Walt would have done" when they encounter something they don't personally like in the parks. While I'm no pixie-duster (more of an inbetweener), I don't think anyone can truly know without a shadow of a doubt what Walt would have or wouldn't have wanted for his park (and the parks that came after it). I'm not saying there aren't obvious things that Walt wouldn't have wanted (like what he's said in the past, and I seriously doubt he'd enjoy the theme park that was given the name of his biggest project reduced to just a reason to go drink 'til you start fighting with other guests), obviously @WDW1974 and others have made really good points regarding that fact, I just think Walt changed his mind as often as he changed his clothes. Something that may have seemed like a great idea to you five minutes ago would maybe not resonate with him right now, but maybe it'd be shelved away and used later. I dunno, I'm pretty young (going to be 20 on July 12) but I like to think I know a thing or two about Disney and its history, and the man that started it all. Of course I could be wrong, everyone is for some things, these are just my thoughts and I'm open to new opinions.
-VJ
I don't like when people say "Oh, Walt wouldn't like this" or "This isn't what Walt would have done" when they encounter something they don't personally like in the parks. While I'm no pixie-duster (more of an inbetweener), I don't think anyone can truly know without a shadow of a doubt what Walt would have or wouldn't have wanted for his park (and the parks that came after it). I'm not saying there aren't obvious things that Walt wouldn't have wanted (like what he's said in the past, and I seriously doubt he'd enjoy the theme park that was given the name of his biggest project reduced to just a reason to go drink 'til you start fighting with other guests), obviously @WDW1974 and others have made really good points regarding that fact, I just think Walt changed his mind as often as he changed his clothes. Something that may have seemed like a great idea to you five minutes ago would maybe not resonate with him right now, but maybe it'd be shelved away and used later. I dunno, I'm pretty young (going to be 20 on July 12) but I like to think I know a thing or two about Disney and its history, and the man that started it all. Of course I could be wrong, everyone is for some things, these are just my thoughts and I'm open to new opinions.
-VJ
ThemeParkTraveller
Well-Known Member
Completely agree. I hear it's because OLC is more risk averse now, and that's why they've been accepting clone after clone (waiting long enough so they can avoid sharing the R&D costs).
I'm actually surprised that they would be building something as ambitious as the Frozen port you described, although I guess they know they have a guaranteed home run with their investments. I was actually expecting them to take the easier route and just clone Mystic Point from HKDL, as that was a big hit and a perfect fit for TDS (S.E.A. and all). I know HKDL has an exclusivity contract until 2018, but they could have easily opened it after it expired.
Magenta Panther
Well-Known Member
But I think it can be said, given his beliefs and behavior, that there is no way he'd buy an IP that some other studio/entertainment company had already fully developed and adapted. He wouldn't see the creativity in it. I think that's the reason that, although he bought up the rights to the Oz books when they came available, and appeared in an episode of the Mickey Mouse Club about a possible Oz project, he never made an Oz film. I think he knew he wouldn't be able to surpass the 1939 MGM Oz film...and so he moved on and made his own Oz film...under the title of "Mary Poppins".
stevehousse
Well-Known Member
But the best OZ film was made by Disney, "Return to OZ" was my favorite!But I think it can be said, given his beliefs and behavior, that there is no way he'd buy an IP that some other studio/entertainment company had already fully developed and adapted. He wouldn't see the creativity in it. I think that's the reason that, although he bought up the rights to the Oz books when they came available, and appeared in an episode of the Mickey Mouse Club about a possible Oz project, he never made an Oz film. I think he knew he wouldn't be able to surpass the 1939 MGM Oz film...and so he moved on and made his own Oz film...under the title of "Mary Poppins".
Magenta Panther
Well-Known Member
Best Oz film is a matter of taste, I guess...but I hated that film. Dorothy getting electro-shock treatments? Gahhh!!!!
VJ
Well-Known Member
Yeah, exactly! I'm okay with people using prior knowledge about Walt to say that he may not like something currently in the park or new films. It's just the baseless "WALT WOULDN'T LIKE THIS!" stuff I'm getting tired of if that makes sense.But I think it can be said, given his beliefs and behavior, that there is no way he'd buy an IP that some other studio/entertainment company had already fully developed and adapted. He wouldn't see the creativity in it. I think that's the reason that, although he bought up the rights to the Oz books when they came available, and appeared in an episode of the Mickey Mouse Club about a possible Oz project, he never made an Oz film. I think he knew he wouldn't be able to surpass the 1939 MGM Oz film...and so he moved on and made his own Oz film...under the title of "Mary Poppins".
Darth Sidious
Authentically Disney Distinctly Chinese
Fosun... Pretty familiar with them... I spoke of them earlier in this thread but not by name. They threw a big event in their new real estate investment which was quite unique.
SirLink
Well-Known Member
But I think it can be said, given his beliefs and behavior, that there is no way he'd buy an IP that some other studio/entertainment company had already fully developed and adapted. He wouldn't see the creativity in it. I think that's the reason that, although he bought up the rights to the Oz books when they came available, and appeared in an episode of the Mickey Mouse Club about a possible Oz project, he never made an Oz film. I think he knew he wouldn't be able to surpass the 1939 MGM Oz film...and so he moved on and made his own Oz film...under the title of "Mary Poppins".
Outside of maybe Fantasia and the Cartoon Shorts - all he did was redevelop existing works and properties.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Oz was featured on The Mickey Mouse Club to promote the film that Walt had spent years working on. You make it sound like the rights casually fell into his lap and he discarded them. He pursued those rights and a film for a long time.But I think it can be said, given his beliefs and behavior, that there is no way he'd buy an IP that some other studio/entertainment company had already fully developed and adapted. He wouldn't see the creativity in it. I think that's the reason that, although he bought up the rights to the Oz books when they came available, and appeared in an episode of the Mickey Mouse Club about a possible Oz project, he never made an Oz film. I think he knew he wouldn't be able to surpass the 1939 MGM Oz film...and so he moved on and made his own Oz film...under the title of "Mary Poppins".
gmajew
Well-Known Member
But I think it can be said, given his beliefs and behavior, that there is no way he'd buy an IP that some other studio/entertainment company had already fully developed and adapted. He wouldn't see the creativity in it. I think that's the reason that, although he bought up the rights to the Oz books when they came available, and appeared in an episode of the Mickey Mouse Club about a possible Oz project, he never made an Oz film. I think he knew he wouldn't be able to surpass the 1939 MGM Oz film...and so he moved on and made his own Oz film...under the title of "Mary Poppins".
I am sorry snow white? He took a lot of his thing from other people's works and stories.
Is that not the same as buyîng IP?
Funmeister
Well-Known Member
Even some of the shorts were based on other stories. I guess you could say they were parody but not sure how far back parody law goes back. In 2015 I do not think they would get away using parody for some of the shorts back then.
Tigger1988
Well-Known Member
She's going to tell you he "made it his own" and it's nothing like buying existing IPs....except it's 100% the same.
Magenta Panther
Well-Known Member
Well, I didn't mean to make it sound like a casual acquisition, because I don't think it was. I suspect - just a hunch - that to Walt, Oz was the property that got away. When his Snow White was a hit, he got tons of letters from people begging him to take on The Wizard of Oz next, so he pursued getting the rights to it. L. Frank Baum's widow rejected his offer - stories vary as to why - and then MGM (inspired by Walt's success with Snow White) made a great film out of the story.
And then Walt got the rights to the Oz books...but nothing came of it. Either he got too busy with other projects, or he quietly gave up on the Oz movie for whatever reason. He once said "We don't follow trends, we create them", and so I can't help but believe that he eventually realized that Oz had already been done, and done well, so what was the point of making another? He also once said "You can't top pigs with pigs" (in regards to his Three Little Pigs cartoon, the sequels of which fell far short of the original's success), and so you have to figure that he might have decided that there was nothing to be gained by creating a likely inferior sequel to MGM's movie. At any rate, he didn't make an Oz film, even though he'd bought the rights to do so in 1954. Instead he focused on getting the rights to Mary Poppins, which he finally got in 1961. And I'm not the first person to say that Poppins is Walt's Oz. It's certainly Oz's equal in terms of audience affection and awards and realized creativity, AND it initially was much more of a box-office success. I think Walt made the right decision in the end, even though he'd originally gone down a different path.
Magenta Panther
Well-Known Member
First of all..."she"?
And oh brother, "100% the same", are you for real? What would happen if Disney made its own Disney version of oh, say, Spiderman, one that varied widely from what Marvel and other studios have already done with the character? Answer: fans would scream bloody murder, because the way Spiderman is portrayed on film (over and over and over and OVER again, I might add) has been well-established. There is nothing Disney can add of any significance, and that was actually the attraction for a venal bean-counter like Iger, because all of the creative and financial risks have already been taken. Marvel, to him, is just a means of printing money.
To try to make in plainer to you, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was a huge financial and creative risk. Another Marvel movie isn't. Hopefully you know enough about the history of the Disney company under Walt to get the distinction.
gmajew
Well-Known Member
I agree with you it is exactley they same, and people need to stop complaining about it it is what disney has been doin for years. Winnie the Pooh etc all were from other people. Disney just fostered them and made them even more.
Magenta Panther
Well-Known Member
NO it is not. Good grief. There's acquisition and then there's artistry. Walt bought the rights to stories, or adapted public-domain stories, and then developed them for the screen - that's where the artistry came in. That's what made Disney DISNEY. Just buying an already-developed IP is an acquisition, nothing more or less. It beats me why some people can't get the difference...and if they don't get it, what attracts them to Disney in the first place.