New Muppet-Vision Preshow Incoming?

[Turtle]

It's both amazing and amusing to me that there are people chatting on a Disney board who seem to love to diminish Walt's accomplishments as a way to justify the actions of a cement-headed CEO. Yeah, you guys are right - what Walt did with Snow White and Pinocchio and Bambi weren't anything much. And what Robert Iger has done - bought Marvel and Muppets and Star Wars - is exactly what Walt did when he bought the rights to Mary Poppins and so on. No difference whatsoever. Yeesh!

Sure, other people made adaptations of some of the stories Walt later developed for film. But were any of those memorable? Have any of them stood the test of time? The definitive versions of those properties were created by Walt and his artists, and those versions have remained popular because they were done so well. Iron Man, Kermit and all that stuff have already been fully developed by other people; Disney played no part in their creation or adaptation. The difference between what Walt did with Pinocchio and what Iger did by buying Marvel is the difference between creating a sculpture and merely buying one. It's the difference between acquisition and artistry. And that difference used to make ALL the difference when it came to Disney, before it stopped being a creative mecca and became a storehouse for various cast-off "brands". Sad, sad, sad...

we aren't diminishing walt at all... just stop trying to prove everybody that you dislike brands, cause all it does is it gets people upset at you.

 

[Tigger1988]

I don't see anyone diminishing Walt's accomplishments, what I see is people being realistic about what Walt actually did.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Some people have an interesting take on reality. What Walt DIDN'T do is buy fully-realized properties already developed by other people and simply add them to his stable. His motto was "We don't follow trends, we create them". Artistry vs. mere acquisition.

But let's just acknowledge that today's Disney company isn't Walt's company any more, and that some people are apparently a-okay with that, as long as some of their favorite childhood characters, whether they really fit with Disney or not, are somehow kept alive. But as for me, I'm not going to be too happy about Iger spending money on a very dated show that's not all that popular anyway when attractions like Splash Mountain are literally falling apart, a broken ride remains in operation (Everest) because of the cynical notion that "hey...they're tourists. Those suckers will never know the difference", and a great parade like Spectromagic is tossed into a tent to literally rot from neglect. I'm not a-okay with stuff like that. And another puppet movie or superhero saga will never, ever make up for it.

 

[WED99]

Some people have an interesting take on reality. What Walt DIDN'T do is buy fully-realized properties already developed by other people and simply add them to his stable. His motto was "We don't follow trends, we create them". Artistry vs. mere acquisition.

But let's just acknowledge that today's Disney company isn't Walt's company any more, and that some people are apparently a-okay with that, as long as some of their favorite childhood characters, whether they really fit with Disney or not, are somehow kept alive. But as for me, I'm not going to be too happy about Iger spending money on a very dated show that's not all that popular anyway when attractions like Splash Mountain are literally falling apart, a broken ride remains in operation (Everest) because of the cynical notion that "hey...they're tourists. Those suckers will never know the difference", and a great parade like Spectromagic is tossed into a tent to literally rot from neglect. I'm not a-okay with stuff like that. And another puppet movie or superhero saga will never, ever make up for it.

You say Walt never bought fully realized properties but his first movie is a prime example of this. Snow White was already a popular story and successful movie. He bought the property and then adapted it into animation, he made it better!

Now tell me, how is this any different to what Iger did with the Muppets? He bought them and adapted them with a great film!

I'm not diminishing Walt here, the man is my hero. I'm just proving that although things have changed a little as the Disney company grew, Walt would not be upset.

Oh and Splash is undergoing a major refurb as we speak so you might wanna go ahead and hit that edit button

 

[SirLink]

Some people have an interesting take on reality. What Walt DIDN'T do is buy fully-realized properties already developed by other people and simply add them to his stable. His motto was "We don't follow trends, we create them". Artistry vs. mere acquisition.

But let's just acknowledge that today's Disney company isn't Walt's company any more, and that some people are apparently a-okay with that, as long as some of their favorite childhood characters, whether they really fit with Disney or not, are somehow kept alive. But as for me, I'm not going to be too happy about Iger spending money on a very dated show that's not all that popular anyway when attractions like Splash Mountain are literally falling apart, a broken ride remains in operation (Everest) because of the cynical notion that "hey...they're tourists. Those suckers will never know the difference", and a great parade like Spectromagic is tossed into a tent to literally rot from neglect. I'm not a-okay with stuff like that. And another puppet movie or superhero saga will never, ever make up for it.

Question how did he 'plus' Peter Pan, considering it is still copyrighted and the rights are still with the Great Ormond Street Hospital? How did he plus any of the fairy tales baring turning them into animated features and taking the best bits out ... how did he plus them ?

 

[Tigger1988]

Question how did he 'plus' Peter Pan, considering it is still copyrighted and the rights are still with the Great Ormond Street Hospital? How did he plus any of the fairy tales baring turning them into animated features and taking the best bits out ... how did he plus them ?

You make a good point. Most of the fairy tales adapted by Disney are pretty much neutered versions of the original, especially those based on Grimm tales.

 

[Turtle]

I'm not going to be too happy about Iger spending money on a very dated show that's not all that popular anyway when attractions like Splash Mountain are literally falling apart, a broken ride remains in operation (Everest) because of the cynical notion that "hey...they're tourists.

if it's a dated show they have reason to update it... you always contradict yourself

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'm not sure how the Muppets, Marvel or Star Wars are fully realized when new stories continue to be written. @Magenta Panther, what your comparison falsely assumes is that the acquired brands and their respective stories will forever remain in some sort of stasis. You reapeatedly present these weird rules that diminish so much and anything no directly handed down that it leaves little to no room for anything new to actually be created or developed. I completely disagree with the notion that ownership makes everything the same, but your arguments for why this should be so just get odd.

 

[Dragonrider1227]

I'd rather they update the 3D :/

 

[doctornick]

I don't see anyone diminishing Walt's accomplishments, what I see is people being realistic about what Walt actually did.

Agreed. What Walt did was amazing. And what Disney has done with Iron Man, The Avengers, Thor, etc. is also amazing.

I don't think it's about knocking Walt, it's about acknowledging that he took established works and made them into household names. Which is pretty similar to what Disney is doing now with, say, Iron Man.

 

[doctornick]

lion king was an original, but it wasn't the first. I believe 101 Dalmations was the first

101 Dalmatians is based on a novel.

 

[Turtle]

101 Dalmatians is based on a novel.

Ah okay. I'm probably confusing it with another film

 

[mitchk]

Pixar made Wall-E, not Disney

Ok. That's like dream works made shrek, not universal. They are both connected.

 

[Next Big Thing]

Ok. That's like dream works made shrek, not universal. They are both connected.

Disney owns Pixar...Universal (Comcast) doesn't own Dreamworks, Viacom does. So no, it's not the same.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Disney owns Pixar...Universal (Comcast) doesn't own Dreamworks, Viacom does. So no, it's not the same.

Dreamworks had been owned briefly by Viacom, but never Dreamworks Animation which was spun off and is a separate, publicly traded company.

 

[Next Big Thing]

Dreamworks had been owned briefly by Viacom, but never Dreamworks Animation which was spun off and is a separate, publicly traded company.

The point still stands. Yes, Universal and Dreamworks have worked together a good deal with the parks, but I think I recently remember hearing the Dreamworks contract will soon be up and won't be renewed. Shrek will be leaving sooner than later, too.

 

[mitchk]

Disney owns Pixar...Universal (Comcast) doesn't own Dreamworks, Viacom does. So no, it's not the same.

ok ..... but my point was the person said Pixar made Wall-E not Disney, and I was just trying to say that Disney, and Pixar are connected

 

[HM GhostHostess]

ok ..... but my point was the person said Pixar made Wall-E not Disney, and I was just trying to say that Disney, and Pixar are connected

I guess you could say that Disney and Pixar are connected in some way, since Disney bought Pixar. However, Disney isn't involved in the production of the Pixar films. They let Pixar do their thing and then Disney just distributes the films and makes money off of them.

 

[Figments Friend]

Although I really did enjoy the new Muppet movie, after watching it a few times, I would hate to see anything changed in the pre show, or main show of Muppets 3D. All of the Muppets are voiced by the people who first brought them to life, this marked one of the very last, if not the last time this was done. Jim passed away, then Richard Hunt a year and a half later. My point is this is a classic show, and should be left for generations to come.

The above comments are one of the main valid reasons why i feel the show as a whole should remain as-is.
The fact that it was one of Jim's last projects he was involved in and performed in should be more then enough reason to keep the film and Pre-Show running. It is important indeed to keep that original legacy going. Add to that the appeal of it being the classic, original Muppets ( not the 'contemporary' Muppets ) and it is clear this should remain untampered with.

With that said, i can indeed see a need to possibly refreshen the holding pen. Keep it mostly as is, but adding some interactive elements would be a nice plussing in this particular holding area. This i see as being a actual bonus in this location,as those crates are just the perfect setting for such activities.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I guess you could say that Disney and Pixar are connected in some way, since Disney bought Pixar. However, Disney isn't involved in the production of the Pixar films. They let Pixar do their thing and then Disney just distributes the films and makes money off of them.

While not greatly involved, Disney is not totally hands off. Pixar's new found appreciation of sequels and franchise associated shorts is very much a result of Disney's influence.