A Spirited Perfect Ten

[ford91exploder]

I respectfully disagree.

As was previously pointed out, why would he bother shooting the film on 70mm film stock with Ultra Panavision cameras if not to take advantage of this older technology by showing it on the Dome's wider screen? He's a major geek so stuff like this is important to him.

And the only reason Disney was able to grab the Dome for TFA while simultaneously showing it at the Chinese and El Cap, is because Arclight ditched their traditional clearance boundary to accomodate them. Again, why is Arclight violating their own distribution rules to give the Mouse exclusive showings at 3 major theaters all within a quarter-mile radius?

Sorry, but QT has every right to be ticked off.

Why it's easy to understand why it's called Payola

 

[gonzoWDW]

Doesn't it seem strange to anyone else that Disney would have to threaten to entirely remove TFA if the they had a contract? Seems to me that either:

1) Cinerama threatened/asked what would happen if they breached the contract to appease Tarantino, and Disney responded "no TFA" for Arclight
or
2) Disney used "no TFA" as a negotiating tactic to secure the contract

It's not really clear to me which tactic was used, but one paints Disney as a hard-line negotiater, and the other as an extortionist.

 

[Bolna]

It's too bad this information wasn't widely available before. I wonder if all those folks that used to follow his highly negative Disney company posts 10, 12 years ago would have cheered him on so if they had known that his slanted articles were slanted because he was writing about a company that sent him to jail. It's like suddenly, things make sense - in a really-for-real way.

Just finally got around to really read your post and while I liked the whole summary, this is the one point that really stood out to me. While I don't need the life history of every single person writing about a certain topic, background information does make a difference.

 

[doctornick]

Doesn't it seem strange to anyone else that Disney would have to threaten to entirely remove TFA if the they had a contract? Seems to me that either:

1) Cinerama threatened/asked what would happen if they breached the contract to appease Tarantino, and Disney responded "no TFA" for Arclight
or
2) Disney used "no TFA" as a negotiating tactic to secure the contract

It's not really clear to me which tactic was used, but one paints Disney as a hard-line negotiater, and the other as an extortionist.

Or it is just something Tarantino made up or exaggerated. His allegations aren't consistent with what the "inside sources" told the reporters of the articles.

Edit: I'm not taking any sides on this, just that Tarantino isn't exactly a neutral party on this issue and is upset, so taking everything he says at face value and as completely accurate doesn't seem fair.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Why it's easy to understand why it's called Payola

And this particular payola is the gobs of money that the are going to take in to show it in their theater. Not everything is crooked. It is obvious that this movie is absolute gold. QT's, which will probably do well, will not even come close to what Star Wars will take in. It's profit motivation and not necessarily corruption. There is enough money to be made on that movie to influence any theater operator. In fact, if anything would have to be "paid off" it would be the theaters to Disney, not the other way around.

 

[UpAllNight]

Phew, Force Awakens seen, now I can rejoin the internet without fear of spoilers!

I too am so pleased I managed to avoid spoilers

Films just about perfect. A good balance of old and new...I hope this is the stepping stone for more of the new though in future episodes, but this was pretty much the perfect formula for this film.

 

[Rodan75]

Doesn't it seem strange to anyone else that Disney would have to threaten to entirely remove TFA if the they had a contract? Seems to me that either:

1) Cinerama threatened/asked what would happen if they breached the contract to appease Tarantino, and Disney responded "no TFA" for Arclight
or
2) Disney used "no TFA" as a negotiating tactic to secure the contract

It's not really clear to me which tactic was used, but one paints Disney as a hard-line negotiater, and the other as an extortionist.

I don't understand this issue. Didn't TWC move up the release of Hateful8 by a week to create this problem. Or did Cinerama change their screening plans 2 weeks before The Christmas Day limited release. Seems like either TWC screwed up by not securing the theatre, changed plans without understanding the impacts, Cinerama broke a contract, or this is solely a publicity stunt. Likely at least two of these.

At least no one is talking about Taratino's police comments any more?

At any rate the only folks likely not at fault for this is TWDC.

 

[ford91exploder]

Doesn't it seem strange to anyone else that Disney would have to threaten to entirely remove TFA if the they had a contract? Seems to me that either:

1) Cinerama threatened/asked what would happen if they breached the contract to appease Tarantino, and Disney responded "no TFA" for Arclight
or
2) Disney used "no TFA" as a negotiating tactic to secure the contract

It's not really clear to me which tactic was used, but one paints Disney as a hard-line negotiater, and the other as an extortionist.

The latter is more likely especially since the film was shot for viewing in that theater and we know nothing is more important than having the biggest BO haul ever.

 

[flyerjab]

I just saw the film. No spoilers from me at all. The only things I will say are: it was great going in not knowing anything at all, and it is incredible how truly epic a Star Wars movie can be when it is filled with the kind of emotion JJ Abrams infused in this group of actors. Also, the character that is Kylo Ren is phenomenal.

 

[Cesar R M]

Because Star Wars is awesome...

 

[RSoxNo1]

I guess the question I'm actually asking is, "Why shouldn't Hill be punished in the same vein as others who did illegal activity against the Mouse?"

You obviously don't have a problem with individuals achieving financial gains through unethical means, at least when that individual is Jim Hill. In your view, I'm supposed to give Jim a free pass and an "Attaboy!" for getting his Disney handlers to discharge his lifetime property bans and hire him to speak on D23 discussion panels, all the while former employees without criminal records are treated far, far worse, decades after the fact?

And while we're at it, what about the for-profit unauthorized Disneyland tours Jim was giving just 10 years ago? If I recall, that resulted in a property ban as well. Is that now also gone? Why?

Seriously, I question whether or not Hill has actually changed at all. There are plenty of ethical individuals reporting on Disney events as fan attendees or writing history blogs as amateur authors who aren't working the system for financial gain. But there are those individuals who attempt to take their knowledge and parlay it into some kind of "alternate career" because their lack of ethics doesn't preclude them from working the system to their ultimate advantage.

Again, you obviously don't have a problem with individuals like this. I do. And when honest and ethical individuals are kept out of the professional loop because of people like Hill being utilized instead, that diminishes the authorized information being made available and taints the brand overall.

And regarding changing Disney from within... you don't actually believe that's possible any more than I do.

As Disney continues to fight a group of animators suing TWDC for conspiring with other studios in illegal "anti-poaching" agreements, what makes you think terminated former employees will have any effect on changing Disney's future hiring practices? Ain't gonna happen. But getting Disney to better vet their officially blessed spokespeople is actually something that's possible as well as necessary.

Hill has known about the possibility of his ugly past with TWDC coming to light for years. Yet he chose to play the game, anyway. And unlike others who've rolled the dice and come up with snake eyes, Hill has managed to successfully work the system and achieve some notoriety as a Disney historian and online personality, thanks to his handlers' ability to successfully sweep his ugly past under the rug. He played the odds and won. If you want to keep defending him and praise him for pulling the wool over Burbank's eyes, go for it. Personally, I don't find this applause worthy. It's just another reason to justify spending my online time elsewhere.

As Bruce Gordon was often heard claiming, "It is better to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission."

Gee... I wonder how many other Disney online personalities like Hill have also made this their professional mantra? Yeah. Too many. And that's the problem.

You mean Adam the Woo and Nomeus who were both trespassed, both appealed and are both allowed back in the parks?

 

[GiveMeTheMusic]

I just saw the film. No spoilers from me at all. The only things I will are: it was great going in not knowing anything at all, and it is incredible how truly epic a Star Wars movie can be when it is filled with the kind of emotion JJ Abrams infused in this group of actors. Also, the character that is Kylo Ren is phenomenal.

I'm not gonna lie, I don't quite get the love for Kylo Ren. Maybe it's the actor and not the writing, but I was not impressed with him at all. Of the new leads I found him the weakest, especially since the others are SO great. Especially Daisy Ridley.

 

[RSoxNo1]

So now one has to wonder: Was Lee just a pasty who bought this story he was told about my alleged recent bad behavior and then posted it here without first bothering to try and see if it was true? Or did he just make up this additional story out of whole cloth to help justify his decision to post my arrest record here on WDWMagic.

Whatever the case, this new bit of info does make one question whether Lee actually knows what the word "accuracy" means.

Would any ladies here wear a Lee pasty?

 

[RSoxNo1]

I love illuminations but can I have a new show? It's 16 years old, it's able to get a drivers license.

Can we have a new show please?

Absolutely not. Wishes and Fantasmic need to be replaced first and then 20 years after that's done you can replace Illuminations.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Hey Jim, since you're back, is it appropriate for you to insult Lee, a longtime member of this forum, as you have over the past couple of days? You have been less than forthright and honest about your past as well as ignoring fair questions which any ethical journalist worth their salt should be able to answer if they respect their readers. You smear Lee, who has been respectful and courteous and is a valued member of this community, and pretend what he has done in disclosing this information gives you the higher ground in this matter; it does not. We're trying to have an adult conversation about the Disney Company's relationship with social media and you continue to twist this as if it is a personal attack on your character; this isn't just about you.

Whether the original intention was a personal attack or not, that's definitely how it played out.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Hill hasn't been relevant for years now, though (which is why it's so astounding that Disney seems to cater to him even if they can somehow forget about his super-shady and, yes, criminal past with them) - so it's unfortunate that this information didn't come to light earlier when it would have had a lot more relevance than the current - "Yup, just confirms everything I ever thought about that windbag".

This comes up quite often. Jim is a top 3 source for Disney World rumors. I'd say that's pretty relevant. The other two are the guy who's thread this is and the guy who brought Jim Hill's name into this thread.

The highest paid Disney employee has also served jail time and while Iron Man's transgressions weren't against Disney, they were still crimes.

Jim's criminal record is not up for debate here. He hasn't denied any of that. The question of who Disney should be in business with has been brought up here several times by @WDW1974, most notably Jennifer Fickley-Baker. @WDW1974, @Lee and others are seemingly on a mission to question the credibility of those that publicly have established credibility. It's really a call to what is a function of the internet and the changes to actual reporting. The irony is that while @Lee and @WDW1974 vet their sources, the forum that they choose to present their information is literally a forum.

I stepped away from this thread since the weekend. I saw Lee's post, I saw 10+ pages explode, and then I saw Jim's response. Since that response, it seemed people felt that Jim owed them more. The back and forth ensued and no one has tried to bring this back to whatever the topic of this thread should actually be.

I asked 100+ pages ago for this thread to be closed. I'm asking again now. @WDW1974 hasn't posted in this thread for 5 months. These threads were intended for him to post discussion points and for us to actually discuss them. We are so far removed from any Spirited conversation it's laughable.

This doesn't mean the conversation about who Disney gives access to and who Disney doesn't give access to isn't a viable topic, but it's one for general discussion.

 

[TalkingHead]

I asked 100+ pages ago for this thread to be closed. I'm asking again now. @WDW1974 hasn't posted in this thread for 5 months. These threads were intended for him to post discussion points and for us to actually discuss them. We are so far removed from any Spirited conversation it's laughable.

What difference does it make to you if this thread is closed or not? There are hundreds of threads here that I don't read. I don't wade into those discussions, whatever their merits or lack thereof, and suggest that they be closed.

So why do you care about this thread's existence?

 

[RSoxNo1]

What difference does it make to you if this thread is closed or not? There are hundreds of threads here that I don't read. I don't wade into those discussions, whatever their merits or lack thereof, and suggest that they be closed.

So why do you care about this thread's existence?

@WDW1974 justifiably earned the right to have his own dedicated discussion thread in the biggest forum on this site. He hasn't contributed in 5 months, and while I've also contributed to this thread multiple times since then, the thread itself has contributed nothing.

 

[Phil12]

This comes up quite often. Jim is a top 3 source for Disney World rumors. I'd say that's pretty relevant. The other two are the guy who's thread this is and the guy who brought Jim Hill's name into this thread.

The highest paid Disney employee has also served jail time and while Iron Man's transgressions weren't against Disney, they were still crimes.

Jim's criminal record is not up for debate here. He hasn't denied any of that. The question of who Disney should be in business with has been brought up here several times by @WDW1974, most notably Jennifer Fickley-Baker. @WDW1974, @Lee and others are seemingly on a mission to question the credibility of those that publicly have established credibility. It's really a call to what is a function of the internet and the changes to actual reporting. The irony is that while @Lee and @WDW1974 vet their sources, the forum that they choose to present their information is literally a forum.

I stepped away from this thread since the weekend. I saw Lee's post, I saw 10+ pages explode, and then I saw Jim's response. Since that response, it seemed people felt that Jim owed them more. The back and forth ensued and no one has tried to bring this back to whatever the topic of this thread should actually be.

I asked 100+ pages ago for this thread to be closed. I'm asking again now. @WDW1974 hasn't posted in this thread for 5 months. These threads were intended for him to post discussion points and for us to actually discuss them. We are so far removed from any Spirited conversation it's laughable.

This doesn't mean the conversation about who Disney gives access to and who Disney doesn't give access to isn't a viable topic, but it's one for general discussion.

That's just because you're one of those people that view the world in the context that there's a place for everything and everything should be in its place. Some of us don't subscribe to that method.

For example, I wouldn't know anything about the new Star Wars movie if it weren't for the soap opera fandom on this thread. I expect I'll learn a great deal more about the movie in the coming weeks too. That's the real beauty of this thread. You learn about things of which you otherwise have no interest. It's mind expanding.

 

[AEfx]

This comes up quite often. Jim is a top 3 source for Disney World rumors. I'd say that's pretty relevant.

All I hear is him supposedly showing up on Podcasts and spouting his normal "throw enough crap to the wall and see if it sticks" schtick.

I'm sorry, he's gotten a few tidbits before, but most of what he has come up with in the past has been cribbed from this website with some educated guesses thrown in.

He certainly isn't as prolific as he once was; the amount of people who listen to WDW podcasts is not that great, so his little 'guest stars' on them isn't really anywhere near what he used to have. I can't remember the last time any article he wrote got any traction whatsoever - I haven't been to his site in years, because once I realized how full of crap he was (his "stories" are like "inspired by" movies - as in, the bulk of the actual "what happened" to get between point A to point B are completely fabricated), I never went there unless there was a link for some reason. And that doesn't happen much these days.

The highest paid Disney employee has also served jail time and while Iron Man's transgressions weren't against Disney, they were still crimes.

I know he's your buddy and all, but this is...reaching, guy. Who cares? As you state, "weren't against Disney". So has nothing whatsoever to do with the points being made here.

Jim's criminal record is not up for debate here. He hasn't denied any of that. The question of who Disney should be in business with has been brought up here several times by @WDW1974, most notably Jennifer Fickley-Baker. @WDW1974, @Lee and others are seemingly on a mission to question the credibility of those that publicly have established credibility. It's really a call to what is a function of the internet and the changes to actual reporting. The irony is that while @Lee and @WDW1974 vet their sources, the forum that they choose to present their information is literally a forum.

Sorry guy, with all due respect (and with the exception of your blind spot when it comes to this topic, I do quite respect you) - that's not your call.

Jim Hill is a joke throughout much of the Disney community. He has been for years. Thing after thing has turned folks off from him. This is the most "talk" he's gotten in quite awhile. He had one big leak (NFL) that he was used for, but other than that? The guy repeats what others say and, as I said, makes educated "throw crap on the wall and see what sticks" predictions that any of us could make.

That said, I do agree on the point that WDW1974, if he really feels he has vital info, wasted his time on this board if getting this vital info out there was the goal. I have emphatically stated that myself quite a few times.

I stepped away from this thread since the weekend. I saw Lee's post, I saw 10+ pages explode, and then I saw Jim's response. Since that response, it seemed people felt that Jim owed them more. The back and forth ensued and no one has tried to bring this back to whatever the topic of this thread should actually be.

I don't think any of us think Jim owes us anything - I certainly don't. All he did was make a complete fool of himself by posting here, with his erratic follow-ups that read like arguments made by a five-year-old who got caught and is trying to worm his way out. I don't expect anything much more from him, honestly - but even I was shocked at how transparently he pulled every childhood "trick" of "Well, no one cares anyway, and at least they are talking about me!" as he cried into his pillow.

The topic of this thread has never been about WDW1974. In fact, the fact that this thread moves just as quickly when he is not here as when he is proves without a doubt what I have been saying for quite some time is true - it's not about him. It's the "general entertainment/Disney catch-all" thread, and it's popularity has nothing whatsoever to do with him but the fact that it's the only "catch all" in the forum and it's easier to catch up on one thread than many. If Steve created a "General Entertainment/Disney Catch-All" thread, it would have the same amount of traffic. There is no question.

I asked 100+ pages ago for this thread to be closed. I'm asking again now. @WDW1974 hasn't posted in this thread for 5 months. These threads were intended for him to post discussion points and for us to actually discuss them. We are so far removed from any Spirited conversation it's laughable.

See above - that's because that's never been the heart of these threads to begin with.

I'll be honest - this bit of your post sounds like it's going in that direction of Hill's last postings - "Wah take it away because I don't like it!" Don't like it? Skip it. You can ask for it to be closed over and over, but if that hasn't happened now...I'll be surprised. Because, again, even without WDW74 here for five months now - this thread still drives quite a bit of traffic to this site.

This doesn't mean the conversation about who Disney gives access to and who Disney doesn't give access to isn't a viable topic, but it's one for general discussion.

Let's just leave that up to the owner of the site. That's the only option, really. And personally, again, I am quite fond of you and respect you in many ways - but don't get deeper on this Hill thing, seriously, guy - you aren't helping it, and it's not helping you.

What difference does it make to you if this thread is closed or not? There are hundreds of threads here that I don't read. I don't wade into those discussions, whatever their merits or lack thereof, and suggest that they be closed.

So why do you care about this thread's existence?

Because he doesn't like what it says. I think he's pretty plainly said this. On one hand, I admire that he sticks up for someone he believes in - but on the other, I have to deeply question the choice of believing in such a known intellectually dishonest, opportunistic, and now we know, downright criminal person.