PHOTOS - Construction walls now block of the back section of Streets of America

[marni1971]

People get upset about Frozen, but, for some reason that I cannot understand no one seems to be bothered by the concept of "Drinking around the World".

Oh they certainly are!

 

[Goofyernmost]

Oh they certainly are!

Maybe so, but, the only ones that I have ever heard about are the ones that immediately jump to the conclusion that you are calling them an alcoholic because they want a drink. However, nothing I can think of is less Disney Theme Park then a contest for drinking. It is probably the saddest thing that ever happened to WDW. It should have stayed confined to Pleasure Island.

Spoiler: No, I don't think you are an Alcoholic...

because you want a drink. I just think that there is a time and a place for everything, and Epcot shouldn't be that time or that place. You're an adult, and your on vacation (not sure what that has to do with anything), but, to me it's like going to church and carrying in a Rum and Coke!

 

[Goofyernmost]

Read this and report back to me: http://micechat.com/101023-tim-grassey-addicted-easy-money/

I read it quickly, and honestly the only paragraph that was necessary for those against the IP setup are the last two or so. The rest seemed to contradict itself a lot. Yes, it worked, no it didn't. But, but, it wasn't an original idea. Well, it was someones original idea, just because they weren't on Disney payroll at the time doesn't make it unoriginal. But again, if we look at most of what Walt did they were someone else's idea, he just adjusted it to his own thinking. As the author said earlier, people are more attracted to something that they are familiar with. That doesn't mean that a long shot won't make the list of great. However, if you were to ask anyone that went to EPCOT early on if they came there just to see Imagination, they would have said... see what?? It became a classic because it was good. Good can be done with outside IP's as well. Calling them lazy, is nothing more then a personal opinion, not necessarily fact. What kind of risk is it to spend lot's of money on an IP that was some 70 years old. (7DMT). Wasn't Mission: Space a risk. Wasn't EE a hit, Disney didn't invent Mt. Everest. To me the concern is over nothing at all. Without those ideas Disney would still be producing an endless line of Small Worlds.

As for Eisner and his insisting that we get the best... how do you explain the crap this is Imagination #3. It was just slightly better then #2 and worlds away from #1. Hardly, the best they could do. Maybe the best they could do with Kodak's money, but certainly not the best that could be done.

 

[Magenta Panther]

I'm sorry, this is such a stupid criticism and it gets thrown around here a lot.

Snow White - 19th century German fairy tale
Cinderella - 17th century French folk tale, later published by the Brothers Grimm in 1812
The Lion King - Based on Hamlet by William Shakespeare
Peter Pan - First appeared in The Little White Bird in 1902
Dumbo - Based on a children's story written by Helen Aberson and introduced to Walt by his head of merchandise licensing (gasp!)
Beauty and the Beast - 18th century French fairytale

Disney feature films have always been based on "acquired" IP, the only difference is that many of the classics were public domain so there was no billion-dollar buyout of the rights to the content.

So...you're saying that the innovation, creativity, imagination and risk that Walt and his artists applied to that "19th Century German fairy tale" is exactly equal to Robert Iger's deep pockets?

 

[RSoxNo1]

I read it quickly, and honestly the only paragraph that was necessary for those against the IP setup are the last two or so. The rest seemed to contradict itself a lot. Yes, it worked, no it didn't. But, but, it wasn't an original idea. Well, it was someones original idea, just because they weren't on Disney payroll at the time doesn't make it unoriginal. But again, if we look at most of what Walt did they were someone else's idea, he just adjusted it to his own thinking. As the author said earlier, people are more attracted to something that they are familiar with. That doesn't mean that a long shot won't make the list of great. However, if you were to ask anyone that went to EPCOT early on if they came there just to see Imagination, they would have said... see what?? It became a classic because it was good. Good can be done with outside IP's as well. Calling them lazy, is nothing more then a personal opinion, not necessarily fact. What kind of risk is it to spend lot's of money on an IP that was some 70 years old. (7DMT). Wasn't Mission: Space a risk. Wasn't EE a hit, Disney didn't invent Mt. Everest. To me the concern is over nothing at all. Without those ideas Disney would still be producing an endless line of Small Worlds.

As for Eisner and his insisting that we get the best... how do you explain the crap this is Imagination #3. It was just slightly better then #2 and worlds away from #1. Hardly, the best they could do. Maybe the best they could do with Kodak's money, but certainly not the best that could be done.

Sorry, I just skimmed your post... so you didn't read it?

 

[Goofyernmost]

Sorry, I just skimmed your post... so you didn't read it?

No, I read it, but, apparently you didn't like my take on it. Suppose you tell me what the point of the article was. What fact it is based on, if any and why I should give a tiny rats butt about it. If the IP is interesting and people want to see it then what exactly is the problem. Is it less entertaining if Disney didn't think of it first, does that make it bad or as I picked up in it sometimes it is a good thing. Someone must make up their mind and tell me is it good or bad and why. Report back to me when you figure it out.

 

[RSoxNo1]

No, I read it, but, apparently you didn't like my take on it. Suppose you tell me what the point of the article was. What fact it is based on, if any and why I should give a tiny rats butt about it. If the IP is interesting and people want to see it then what exactly is the problem. Is it less entertaining if Disney didn't think of it first, does that make it bad or as I picked up in it sometimes it is a good thing. Someone must make up their mind and tell me is it good or bad and why. Report back to me when you figure it out.

The article speculates that there has been a shift to IP driven attractions come hell or high water. It suggests that there should be a healthy mixture and there is a fear that in the future there will be less original concepts than what were previously in place. Under Iger, I can't think of a new attraction built from scratch that wasn't tied to an intellectual property or properties for the stateside parks. This is a legitimate concern.

With that said, the article also states that quality should always win out irrespective of intellectual property or not, and retrofitting an intellectual property rarely, if ever works.