Walt Disney – A Magical Life

[Magenta Panther]

Love him or hate him, at least Michael Eisner had genuine affection to Walt. He even managed to do opening introductions for various Disney television special and programs during the 80s and 90s. You don't see Iger putting that much effort into making himself know to the general public.

Eisner bought the Muppets and thus started the whole abysmal trend of buying non-Disney off-studio crap, but overall...yeah, I agree with you. He seemed to genuinely LIKE Disney. Whereas Iger just sees Disney as a brand, and the parks as merchandising hubs. Man I hate that guy.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

Disney did Johnny Depp likeness pretty good with his character years back. Why all the sudden artistically is getting off?

The likeness of Johnny Depp isn't actually very good. It's a pretty decent Jack Sparrow, but Jack Sparrow is easier to achieve than just a regular every day Johnny Depp. If they just made an AA of him the actor sitting at home, then it wouldn't look much like him. We see a good Jack Sparrow because of the wig and facial hair and all of that. We're not looking at Johnny Depp, we're looking at a character.

With Walt, we're looking at what is meant to be just the guy. And honestly, it's as close to just the guy as an AA was ever going to get. People have been talking in here about the Biden AA and second Trump AA, but those aren't really any closer to their subject than this. They're suggestive, just as this one is suggestive.

As far as AA tech has come, it just is not currently possible to make a figure that really and truly looks like the real individual it's depicting. Especially when it's a contemporary figure that people have a pretty firm grasp on the appearance of.

This is without a doubt one of if not the most complex AAs the company has ever built. It's movement profile and abilities are genuinely impressive. That is ultimately what the selling point here is. Visually, it's the same as all of their other figures of real folks: it suggests the person.

Because that is all we're currently capable of doing. It's not Disney's artistry being off, it's just a limitation of the tech and resources as things stand today. Which is why I think if they were so dead set on this, they should've waited for the 80th or something.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Walt, in that picture, probably already had cancer, but didn't know it yet.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

he'd feel about the general state of the parks, though (mostly the price gouging)

I really don't think he'd be as opposed to certain things as a lot of people like to believe he would be. Some things absolutely, but not the things I reckon a lot of die hards would like to believe he'd be against.

 

[ChrisFL]

The likeness of Johnny Depp isn't actually very good. It's a pretty decent Jack Sparrow, but Jack Sparrow is easier to achieve than just a regular every day Johnny Depp. If they just made an AA of him the actor sitting at home, then it wouldn't look much like him. We see a good Jack Sparrow because of the wig and facial hair and all of that. We're not looking at Johnny Depp, we're looking at a character.

With Walt, we're looking at what is meant to be just the guy. And honestly, it's as close to just the guy as an AA was ever going to get. People have been talking in here about the Biden AA and second Trump AA, but those aren't really any closer to their subject than this. They're suggestive, just as this one is suggestive.

As far as AA tech has come, it just is not currently possible to make a figure that really and truly looks like the real individual it's depicting. Especially when it's a contemporary figure that people have a pretty firm grasp on the appearance of.

This is without a doubt one of if not the most complex AAs the company has ever built. It's movement profile and abilities are genuinely impressive. That is ultimately what the selling point here is. Visually, it's the same as all of their other figures of real folks: it suggests the person.

Because that is all we're currently capable of doing. It's not Disney's artistry being off, it's just a limitation of the tech and resources as things stand today. Which is why I think if they were so dead set on this, they should've waited for the 80th or something.

I don't necessarily disagree but even the facial hair seems...off from reality, which has nothing to do with the movement.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

The majority of people think it’s not good enough. So do you think we all had unrealistic expectations and you re just one of the few people who had realistic expectations or do you think that perhaps they should have done better?

Why can't it be both?

I think a lot of folks had incredibly unrealistic expectations and I think they could've done a little better in some areas. I personally thought this show was an awful idea when they announced it and I think it's an awful idea now. It's not that I believe my own expectations were the only realistic ones, it's just I got pretty much what I thought I was gonna get and I think a lot of folks are in the same boat.

Then you've got another pool of folks who expected a lot less and have been surprised.

Then you've got the folks who expected way too much and are disappointed.

 

[mickEblu]

The likeness of Johnny Depp isn't actually very good. It's a pretty decent Jack Sparrow, but Jack Sparrow is easier to achieve than just a regular every day Johnny Depp. If they just made an AA of him the actor sitting at home, then it wouldn't look much like him. We see a good Jack Sparrow because of the wig and facial hair and all of that. We're not looking at Johnny Depp, we're looking at a character.

With Walt, we're looking at what is meant to be just the guy. And honestly, it's as close to just the guy as an AA was ever going to get. People have been talking in here about the Biden AA and second Trump AA, but those aren't really any closer to their subject than this. They're suggestive, just as this one is suggestive.

As far as AA tech has come, it just is not currently possible to make a figure that really and truly looks like the real individual it's depicting. Especially when it's a contemporary figure that people have a pretty firm grasp on the appearance of.

This is without a doubt one of if not the most complex AAs the company has ever built. It's movement profile and abilities are genuinely impressive. That is ultimately what the selling point here is. Visually, it's the same as all of their other figures of real folks: it suggests the person.

Because that is all we're currently capable of doing. It's not Disney's artistry being off, it's just a limitation of the tech and resources as things stand today. Which is why I think if they were so dead set on this, they should've waited for the 80th or something.

The new Trump looks much much better than Walt. Explain that.

 

[mickEblu]

Why can't it be both?

I think a lot of folks had incredibly unrealistic expectations and I think they could've done a little better in some areas. I personally thought this show was an awful idea when they announced it and I think it's an awful idea now. It's not that I believe my own expectations were the only realistic ones, it's just I got pretty much what I thought I was gonna get and I think a lot of folks are in the same boat.

Then you've got another pool of folks who expected a lot less and have been surprised.

Then you've got the folks who expected way too much and are disappointed.

We just expected it to look like him. And it doesn’t.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

I don't necessarily disagree but even the facial hair seems...off from reality, which has nothing to do with the movement.

Yeah it's definitely not perfect. I think they made some concessions visually to accomplish what they wanted to accomplish with it's movements. Which is a shame, but like I said I also think it's just a current limitation of the tech that we're not currently able to get around and why I think if they were dead set on this terrible idea they should've really waited.

 

[ChrisFL]

I realize this film is Walt in around 1965-66 but still you can see more "side by side" differences.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

The new Trump looks much much better than Walt. Explain that.

I don't think that it is, though. It's suggestive of him, but doesn't look a whole lot like him when you really get to looking at it. It looks like him from a distance in brief spurts, and it's helped tremendously by being just one of 45 AAs on stage so it is not the focus of all attention like Walt is. If we had the time to really sit and look at the Trump AA for a long time, we'd see all of it's shortcomings in likeness. It's the same case with all of their figures of real, contemporary individuals. They just can't get that close.

We just expected it to look like him. And it doesn’t.

Which is why I don't fully understand why everyone had the expectation that it was going to be a 1:1 figure, or even anywhere super close to that perfect. That's never been the case before, and I don't know why it suddenly would be now. This show was a terrible idea, and this limitation is one of the reasons why. It's a limitation they were no doubt aware of, but they banked more on it's impressive fluidity. And to that end, they did well. But visually, the capabilities of getting likeness that good just isn't there.

 

[Magenta Panther]

I remember renting a DVD of "Bambi" some time ago, and watching the "Special Features" disc. It included a read-through of an actual story meeting (written down by a studio stenographer) wherein Walt and some of his artists discussed the film. The producers of the "Special Features" disc hired voice actors to portray Walt and the others to perform the read-through, and then the audio was overlaid on the movie itself. And whoever portrayed Walt was spot-on. Sounded just like him. Amazing performance. So, surely, today's Imagineers could have found somebody to do a Walt voice for that AA. Its voice is no more accurate than its face. What a disaster all around.

 

[Magenta Panther]

I realize this film is Walt in around 1965-66 but still you can see more "side by side" differences.

My god, you can really see what an utter fail that AA is. It looks NOTHING like Walt. Somebody needs to get fired for this.

 

[mickEblu]

I don't think that it is, though. It's suggestive of him, but doesn't look a whole lot like him when you really get to looking at it. It looks like him from a distance in brief spurts, and it's helped tremendously by being just one of 45 AAs on stage so it is not the focus of all attention like Walt is. If we had the time to really sit and look at the Trump AA for a long time, we'd see all of it's shortcomings in likeness. It's the same case with all of their figures of real, contemporary individuals. They just can't get that close.

Which is why I don't fully understand why everyone had the expectation that it was going to be a 1:1 figure, or even anywhere super close to that perfect. That's never been the case before, and I don't know why it suddenly would be now. This show was a terrible idea, and this limitation is one of the reasons why. It's a limitation they were no doubt aware of, but they banked more on it's impressive fluidity. And to that end, they did well. But visually, the capabilities of getting likeness that good just isn't there.

Many of us assumed that the only reason they would even attempt to do something like this is if they were 100% sure they would knock it out of the park. They didn’t. His face is looks really bad. The voice is off. So why do this at all? But I’ve learned that WDI/ Disney does not deserve the benefit of the doubt anymore.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

Many of us assumed that the only reason they would even attempt to do something like this is if they were 100% sure they would knock it out of the park. They didn’t. His face is looks really bad. The voice is off. So why do this at all? But I’ve learned that WDI/ Disney does not deserve the benefit of the doubt anymore.

I think it's been pretty clear from day one their reasons for doing this, and it had nothing to do with whether or not they could get the figure perfect.

 

[Disney Irish]

I realize that Walt seems that he didn't want an animatronic made of himself and maybe he asked for the company to honor that wish, I don't know for sure....but I do know that Disney made animatronics of several people posthumously that also didn't provide permission either (or did they contact the estate of everyone they've ever made an animatronic of?)

I do know that specifically politicians are considered sort of "public domain" regarding use of their names, etc. so that is more of a grey area. I am not a lawyer

This was discussed previously in this thread, but the Disney Family sold Walt's name and likeness rights back to the company in 1982. So basically other than getting a "blessing" (which they did as I recall though some were against it) they don't really have to contact the family for this project.

 

[mickEblu]

I understand that they had to clean up those old audio tracks and that has something to do with it sounding off but why does it sound like the emphasis of the words coming out of his mouth are on the wrong syllables and that the intonations are off in that little snippet he tells about how he considers himself a bee? It literally sounds robotic in certain spots.

 

[Disney Irish]

My take, other than the face (which has now been discussed for pages) I think its a technological advancement for AAs. Hopefully they can improve the face over time like they've done for HoP and DL Lincoln. I think the main issue is that most face AAs are "cartoony" and so its real hard to do a proper human sculpt without it looking off.

I'll be seeing in person on Friday, and so far based on reports it looks better in person. So look forward to seeing it in the flesh so to speak.

 

[TP2000]

One comparison on X. I have to be fair. It's out there.

View attachment 870790

Oh, geez! Now I can't unsee that.

Yet it's valid, and is probably a more recognizeable figure for folks under age 50 than Walter Matthau is.

*Singing jingle* For the best animatronic in the whole wide world
Visit Dis-ney-land...Right now.

But seriously, his Gaza Dream Sheets are wonderful. They are on all the beds in my guest rooms. Everyone loves them!

The actual pillows though? I tried one, and no thanks. Too lofty for my light head.

I knew this was going to be a tall order to get right, in the...if it isn't absolutely perfect you shouldn't even try type of thing....and it's far from perfect and worse than I expected.

Yeah, that's where I'm at too.

They knew this was an important thing. And they knew they had to do it at Disneyland, where the audience is far more engaged and demanding than WDW's audience. And they screwed the pooch on this one. It's bad. They need to redo it.

 

[ChrisFL]

I understand that they had to clean up those old audio tracks and that has something to do with it sounding off but why does it sound like the emphasis of the words coming out of his mouth are on the wrong syllables and that the intonations are off in that little snippet he tells about how he considers himself a bee? It literally sounds robotic in certain spots.

I think it depends on what they used to clean it up and did they add anything, and/or did they combine different recordings and try to make it more complete that way with certain tools.

I'd guess whatever they used would probably be public recordings somewhere else right?