A Spirited Dirty Dozen ...

[flynnibus]

Shifting gears for a bit, I've been on nights and able to peruse the Shanghai Disney wait times occasionally as a result.

We are now more than two months out from opening, but still on the last legs of the peak flex pricing days (set to drop a reasonably substantial 26% September 1st).

I'm still consistently seeing wait times in excess of what I experienced on the sold out 'capacity' Saturday for the opening period (the actual opening day itself was capacity restricted due to the shorted hours of operation).

Really meaning a few things:
1. Shanghai continues to run at or near capacity despite cheaper pricing kicking in very soon.
2. I wouldn't be surprised if they actually have somewhat continued to bump allowable capacity considering everything is posting bad waits, even Pirates.
3. Those doomsday Shanghai predictions are starting to come off the rails.
4. I'd anticipate annual attendance matching or exceeding their stated goals at this rate (without having to lie to get there).
5. Even with expected posted losses, the removal of the capex will easily prop up P&R for the next four quarters. Which is good considering how things at WDW have been sounding lately.

For reference, sampling of wait ranges from opening to mid-day the past 10 days:
Soaring - 130-150 minutes
Roaring - 120-180 minutes
SDMT - 105-135 minutes
Tron - 75-135 minutes (plus one opening at 30)
Pan - 40-75 minutes
Voyage - 30-40 minutes (opening 5)
Pirates - 30-50 minutes (opening 5)
Pooh - 40-75 minutes
Canoes - 40 minutes (!!one opening 105!!)

The rest is what you'd expect 30-50ish minutes. Even omnimovers like Buzz. You actually can't get on anything in under thirty minutes for the majority of the day, even mid-week.

One final thing: to the surprise of no one they desperately need more capacity. At least they have the justification that the park thus far is suceeding.

Don't use wait times as a measure of volume or success. Because you can incorrectly assume capacity is at full vs being held back for operational reasons. Ultimately it's the guest spend that rings home on success...

 

[GregIsNewAroundHere]

I wish...

I still think that with a little judicious editing, the movie would be fine. I doubt that James Baskett would be happy with the idea that his iconic performance is offensive to anyone. When I saw the movie as a kid, I loved Uncle Remus. To me, he was awesome, like Mary Poppins or Peter Pan.

He was well aware that the film was widely regarded as being racist and a gross misrepresentation of either slavery or the reconstruction since it's not clear when the film takes place. It was picketed on it's opening day and did not run long in theaters for that very reason. Walt was advised very specifically to modify the script to make it not offensive, and he decided his advisors knew nothing and went with his version.

It's not just modern audiences that think there's something wrong with the movie, the people working on it knew it was a mess.

 

[englanddg]

He was well aware that the film was widely regarded as being racist and a gross misrepresentation of either slavery or the reconstruction since it's not clear when the film takes place. It was picketed on it's opening day and did not run long in theaters for that very reason. Walt was advised very specifically to modify the script to make it not offensive, and he decided his advisors knew nothing and went with his version.

It's not just modern audiences that think there's something wrong with the movie, the people working on it knew it was a mess.

The primary complaint people make about SotS frankly boils down to the fact, when you get into it, that it didn't deal with "race" much at all. Common tropes tossed out are that it "shows slavery in a good light" (even though it doesn't really comment one way or another on it, but it does show a servant class...it also shows poor whites, who are the bullies and antagonists in the film), etc. It doesn't get into the servant / share cropper dynamic, because it isn't about that. It's a frame for the stories being told to make sense.

The movie doesn't deal with race, because it's not about race.. It's only when people start to layer their own social prejudices and stick out their "I'm offended" lips, that they lose the story.

Walt was telling idealized stories of an idealized south, but a south that also existed, contemporaneously. Not every southerner was out there chasing down "blackey" every day, or whatever cartoonish impression is had by those who ham-fisted their way through US History class. Any even passing knowledge of the post civil-war south would know that it was far more nuanced than that. Being said, the social order of the period had absolutely nothing to do with the story at hand. It's simply what people "wish" the movie had told, which, frankly, is selfish and silly.

Walt had spent time telling euro-centric fairy tales. He takes a risk, and tells a story with american folklore, specifically african-american folklore, and he's lambasted for it. Meh...

What would they have preferred? Disney's Roots? Disney's Django Unchained? Disney's "The South is evil, mmmkay?"?

 

[brb1006]

Oh my god. Surely that's...before they reveal themselves to be Enchanted Objects? That's nightmare fuel. :0

Yeah it's before the reveal.

 

[brb1006]

Another photo featuring concept art for Mrs Potts,Chip, The Wardrobe and the Footstool

 

[Cesar R M]

And hype for beauty and the beast the movie was just murdered thanks to the horrendous design of Lumiere and Cogsworth..in spoilers to not ruin things for people

Spoiler

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cqs3h-ZWYAED7rg.jpg

thats.. disturbing. Did they really wanted to go to the "super realistic" ?

 

[Cesar R M]

Disney's deal with Netflix starts September 1. I guess we get to watch Song of the South finally.

is there an official list of movies or series that will appear in netflix?

 

[Cesar R M]

The primary complaint people make about SotS frankly boils down to the fact, when you get into it, that it didn't deal with "race" much at all. Common tropes tossed out are that it "shows slavery in a good light" (even though it doesn't really comment one way or another on it, but it does show a servant class...it also shows poor whites, who are the bullies and antagonists in the film), etc. It doesn't get into the servant / share cropper dynamic, because it isn't about that. It's a frame for the stories being told to make sense.

The movie doesn't deal with race, because it's not about race.. It's only when people start to layer their own social prejudices and stick out their "I'm offended" lips, that they lose the story.

Walt was telling idealized stories of an idealized south, but a south that also existed, contemporaneously. Not every southerner was out there chasing down "blackey" every day, or whatever cartoonish impression is had by those who ham-fisted their way through US History class. Any even passing knowledge of the post civil-war south would know that it was far more nuanced than that. Being said, the social order of the period had absolutely nothing to do with the story at hand. It's simply what people "wish" the movie had told, which, frankly, is selfish and silly.

Walt had spent time telling euro-centric fairy tales. He takes a risk, and tells a story with american folklore, specifically african-american folklore, and he's lambasted for it. Meh...

What would they have preferred? Disney's Roots? Disney's Django Unchained? Disney's "The South is evil, mmmkay?"?

Imagine replacing Uncle remus actor with samuel Jackson.
Him thrownig f bombs, n words and with double colts and fancy hat. gunning down whites as he counts his stories xD

 

[englanddg]

is there an official list of movies or series that will appear in netflix?

Only new.

http://www.snopes.com/netflix-disney-collection/

 

[englanddg]

Imagine replacing Uncle remus actor with samuel Jackson.
Him thrownig f bombs, n words and with double colts and fancy hat. gunning down whites as he counts his stories xD

I hate to say this, but...I'd watch it.

 

[GiveMeTheMusic]

Hmmm....I get what you're saying, FWIW. But remember what happened with the Pete's Dragon remake. The new version of Elliott is, frankly, a disaster. And so wrong-headed. The original design worked, and people loved it and remember it fondly. The new design destroys the nostalgic appeal, and is just weird-looking and doesn't even remotely look like a dragon. Major fail IMO. A remake of a film ought to improve on the original, or what's the point?

Have you seen the new film? It's actually really beautiful and simple, evocative of a more sentimental, old-fashioned type of Disney storytelling. The new design for Elliot works in the new film as it is a completely different story than the original. It's not really a remake at all - it shares a title and some character names, and that's it. I would seriously recommend seeing it with an open mind, as movies like it don't often get made these days.

 

[GregIsNewAroundHere]

Precisely! To me, he was like my grandpa. A trusted, benevolent guide and mentor. I bet most kids would see him that way - if the PC Police would actually let them see the movie.

The primary complaint people make about SotS frankly boils down to the fact, when you get into it, that it didn't deal with "race" much at all. Common tropes tossed out are that it "shows slavery in a good light" (even though it doesn't really comment one way or another on it, but it does show a servant class...it also shows poor whites, who are the bullies and antagonists in the film), etc. It doesn't get into the servant / share cropper dynamic, because it isn't about that. It's a frame for the stories being told to make sense.

The movie doesn't deal with race, because it's not about race.. It's only when people start to layer their own social prejudices and stick out their "I'm offended" lips, that they lose the story.

Walt was telling idealized stories of an idealized south, but a south that also existed, contemporaneously. Not every southerner was out there chasing down "blackey" every day, or whatever cartoonish impression is had by those who ham-fisted their way through US History class. Any even passing knowledge of the post civil-war south would know that it was far more nuanced than that. Being said, the social order of the period had absolutely nothing to do with the story at hand. It's simply what people "wish" the movie had told, which, frankly, is selfish and silly.

Walt had spent time telling euro-centric fairy tales. He takes a risk, and tells a story with american folklore, specifically african-american folklore, and he's lambasted for it. Meh...

What would they have preferred? Disney's Roots? Disney's Django Unchained? Disney's "The South is evil, mmmkay?"?

The problem with the movie is that Uncle Remus is a grown man and the white people in the film talk to him like he's a child. He's forced to pretend to be friends with the old rich white lady who's gigantic mansion was built on the back of his indentured servitude, and then when their kid shows up at his house to hear stories he gets yelled at not to tell little Johnny any more stories. "Lady how about you keep your damn kid off my property!" would be a normal reply, not "Yes ma'mn" as we get in the film. Literally NO ONE tells the kid to stop going to Remus' shack, how exactly is he supposed to prevent that kid from coming over? Why is the burden of where that child is placed on him? Why does he accept this burden? The film never addresses that there's anything very wrong going on here. Uncle Remus' complete lack of personal agency, and societies at large seeming acceptance of this fact, is the core problem with the film, that was the main thrust of the protests against it. The other problem, which is an expansion of the first problem, is the happy singing slaves (Sharecroppers?) who smile and toil all day to make the people in the big mansion just a little richer, and that somehow in universe in which Song of the South takes place their relationship exists without the threat of violence. The intent of the film is very clearly to white-wash slavery into a happy singing jolly good time, and to make the viewer feel sentimental about it.

 

[englanddg]

The problem with the movie is that Uncle Remus is a grown man and the white people in the film talk to him like he's a child. He's forced to pretend to be friends with the old rich white lady who's gigantic mansion was built on the back of his indentured servitude, and then when their kid shows up at his house to hear stories he gets yelled at not to tell little Johnny any more stories. "Lady how about you keep your damn kid off my property!" would be a normal reply, not "Yes ma'mn" as we get in the film.

No, it would not be a "normal reply". Not in any sense of the word (though, I guess in "Disney's Django" it would, because it's acceptable to show an angry black man, because that has "Agency", as you put it, but not a respectful one). I'd also counter that it was pretty obvious to anyone watching who wasn't looking through racial lenses that the mom was being an unreasonable shrew. In fact, that is part of the character development.

It is a rather common story trope, the "adult friend of the child" whom the mother "disapproves of" but is really helping the child with life lessons. Plenty of other films where this occurs, without the racial lens, that no one mentions anything about?

Literally NO ONE tells the kid to stop going to Remus' shack, how exactly is he supposed to prevent that kid from coming over? Why is the burden of where that child is placed on him? Why does he accept this burden? The film never addresses that there's anything very wrong going on here. Uncle Remus' complete lack of personal agency, and societies at large seeming acceptance of this fact, is the core problem with the film, that was the main thrust of the protests against it.

The film quite clearly addresses it. First, there is the scene after the kid is taken inside (after attempting to run away), and Remus and the Grandmother have an interaction, where Remus tells her that "He needs his father", and is hushed down (again, playing into the dual antagonist roles played by the poor white children and the mother/grandmother).

The other problem, which is an expansion of the first problem, is the happy singing slaves (Sharecroppers?) who smile and toil all day to make the people in the big mansion just a little richer, and that somehow in universe in which Song of the South takes place their relationship exists without the threat of violence. The intent of the film is very clearly to white-wash slavery into a happy singing jolly good time, and to make the viewer feel sentimental about it.

In a way, it IS sentimental. People DID sing around campfires (for example, the song where they are singing about the wonderful stories Remus tells), and gospel is / was a major part of southern culture (for example, the song where they are NOT singing "happily", but rather praying that the boy comes out ok.

There are a lot of undertones, from class to culture, but none of them are racist, unless that is what you are trying to see...and, if you go into pretty much anything with that viewpoint, you are sure to find it.

 

[TalkingHead]

You're consensus about S.W.A.G.S. is quite common around these parts. Initially I wasn't in the same boat, but after a new viewings I have to agree. Its still a fantastic show, but certainly feels scatter brained.

Scatterbrained is the perfect description for it! The projections are used to impressive effect for the most part, but it seems like the scenes especially in the middle were assembled without much regard to the flow of the show.

 

[Quinnmac000]

As a POC, Seen Song of the South is it offensive yes but its dumb to white wash history...some of the greatest works of film have been propoganda film and stereotypical in some sort of way...Disney should just do what Warner Bros does with their old cartoons mentions it reflects the views of the time however they still honor the contributions the creators provided to society even though today they do not agree with everything depicted. I mean some of the most offensive films and characters in film have made some huge strides in the film industry even outside Disney: nearly all Quentin Tarantino films, Long Duck Dong in Sixteen Candles, Birth of a Nation, Downfall (which lead to those hilarous Hitler ranting about MM+ clips people come to love today), etc...

 

[PhotoDave219]

The primary complaint people make about SotS frankly boils down to the fact, when you get into it, that it didn't deal with "race" much at all. Common tropes tossed out are that it "shows slavery in a good light" (even though it doesn't really comment one way or another on it, but it does show a servant class...it also shows poor whites, who are the bullies and antagonists in the film), etc. It doesn't get into the servant / share cropper dynamic, because it isn't about that. It's a frame for the stories being told to make sense.

The movie doesn't deal with race, because it's not about race.. It's only when people start to layer their own social prejudices and stick out their "I'm offended" lips, that they lose the story.

Walt was telling idealized stories of an idealized south, but a south that also existed, contemporaneously. Not every southerner was out there chasing down "blackey" every day, or whatever cartoonish impression is had by those who ham-fisted their way through US History class. Any even passing knowledge of the post civil-war south would know that it was far more nuanced than that. Being said, the social order of the period had absolutely nothing to do with the story at hand. It's simply what people "wish" the movie had told, which, frankly, is selfish and silly.

Walt had spent time telling euro-centric fairy tales. He takes a risk, and tells a story with american folklore, specifically african-american folklore, and he's lambasted for it. Meh...

What would they have preferred? Disney's Roots? Disney's Django Unchained? Disney's "The South is evil, mmmkay?"?

A Tarantino remake of Song of the South?

I'd pay money to see that.

 

[englanddg]

A Tarantino remake of Song of the South?

I'd pay money to see that.

I can see it now.

"What's up with all these MICKEY PLUTO Jakes on this Neverlanding Plane?!"

 

[BrerJon]

What would they have preferred? Disney's Roots? Disney's Django Unchained? Disney's "The South is evil, mmmkay?"?

I think the main annoyance lots of people had is down to their own racism - a black man got an Oscar out of it, which wound people up the wrong way.

I really like Song of the South and think trying to ban it is far more racist than the movie itself - I wonder if some of the people who want it kept locked away haven't even seen it?

 

[AEfx]

The primary complaint people make about SotS frankly boils down to the fact, when you get into it, that it didn't deal with "race" much at all. Common tropes tossed out are that it "shows slavery in a good light" (even though it doesn't really comment one way or another on it, but it does show a servant class...it also shows poor whites, who are the bullies and antagonists in the film), etc. It doesn't get into the servant / share cropper dynamic, because it isn't about that. It's a frame for the stories being told to make sense.

That's precisely why some folks object to it. Presenting slaves as just "servants" who lived happy, cheerful, go-lucky lives. Essentially whitewashing slavery into "not that big of a deal - look, they be happy folk!" It does go beyond that, though - "tar baby" was once a racial epithet, along with other elements that just don't work in a modern context, particularly in a family oriented company like Disney.

I don't necessarily agree it shouldn't be seen; people lobby the same criticism at Gone With The Wind, for instance. I believe in viewing things with some historical perspective. That said, no, Disney wasn't expected to be making "Roots" or some serious commentary on slavery, but then again, it's not really a topic for a Disney film, to begin with. Imagine if Disney made a film that took place during the 1940's in Europe and presented Jewish camps as places of song and dance with animated animals.

Personally, while I think it should be available for viewing for historic purposes, I can't blame Disney whatsoever for not wanting to release it, not just because of the amount of people who would take offense to it, but because - it's just not a very good film, anyway. I can't see Disney promoting it as a big commercial release, it simply wouldn't be that popular and there are many more minuses than plusses to it's possible success. And it's not worth it to do a limited release (like through the DMC Exclusives program) which wouldn't make them much money compared to the risk of PR backlash. It just doesn't make sense from any angle.

 

[PhotoDave219]

That's precisely why some folks object to it. Presenting slaves as just "servants" who lived happy, cheerful, go-lucky lives. Essentially whitewashing slavery into "not that big of a deal - look, they be happy folk!" It does go beyond that, though - "tar baby" was once a racial epithet, along with other elements that just don't work in a modern context, particularly in a family oriented company like Disney.

......or suggesting that a quarterback be happy simply because he's given money?