A Spirited Perfect Ten

[englanddg]

I bolded the sentence I feel like responding to. I generally hate LEDs. They give off an incredibly harsh (hospital or prison, I like to say) feel in general. I also don't like how the whole campaign to switch to them was sorta shoved through when no one seemed to be paying attention.

But WDW can still use incandescents as long as it wants as stage lighting/theatrical lighting is exempted from the law if I understand it correctly (if I don't, then I'm sure someone will use it to show what a fraud I am and damage my BRAND!) ... Not that it matters as WDW seems totally incapable of creating proper lighting just about anywhere on property. A few nights back I was walking out of the WL late at night and thought I saw one area where the lighting was all the same and synched and that was the flickering lantern like lights between WL and the Villas. Alas, a few were flickering like they were having a seizure with non-stop blinking ... like I said, Disney can't even get the basics right anymore. They are so totally lost.

You redo pricey hotel rooms at the BC and you don't sand down doors and wooden baseboards, you just throw another coat of paint over the 11 below? And then charge $500 a night for the room.

I'd argue that is related to a loss of show due to the size of the operation.

When you have showmen, people who specialize in theatre and film production, running daily operations, they view things differently than when you hire someone who has a 4 year degree in "hospitality" and could just as easily be slapped into any hotel around the country.

Same goes for restaurants at Disney, imho.

And, that is what the system is today. A bunch of people who are not passionate about SHOW, but rather merely see it as a high mark on their resume.

That said, unless the corporate culture at Disney drastically changes, I see it as a cause and effect sort of thing. They may have their internal "traditions" training, and the like, but it's vastly different than a classical Imagineer peeking at the park properties with...excuse the term as I made it up, an "editor's eye" for showmanship and presentation.

 

[PREMiERdrum]

You haven't been looking at the right LED's.

Yeah, LED headlights are like that - but standard bulbs are just like any other bulb, coming in varying hues and coatings and intensities.

I've moved by whole home over to them, they are spectacular - they are rated to last decades, they give off a great, even light, and you can buy various types for various uses - for instance, I have softer lighting where I read, clearer lighting in the bathroom, etc.

LED technology is very diverse; don't write them all off because the ones you were aware were LED's were harsh. I'm sure you've been around a lot of LED's that you had no idea - you wouldn't walk into my house and likely even notice, until I bragged about how much I've saved on my electric bill (even over those awful Halogen pieces of crap).

Heck, even WDI didn't have their arms around this not that long ago.

Remember how that awesome Storybook Circus entry marquee debuted to the masses with those terrible cool white LEDs all over it? It totally killed the idea of a traveling tent show in the circus's golden age. It was only a matter of weeks (right?) before they were swapped out with nice, warm-light LEDs.

 

[WDW1974]

I'm trying too hard because I'm trying to force this nugget of information called "nuance" into your brain. You're absolutely failing to see the difference between owned content and branded content.

Marvel at D23 means Marvel is Disney-branded? Okay, please explain to the reader the difference between that statement and this one: "Marvel attractions exist at Universal theme parks. Therefore, Marvel is obviously being branded as a Comcast product."

You don't see how absurd that sounds? Marvel is Marvel. That's its BRAND. Presence at or in events, places, or publications owned by various entities does not somehow negate that fact and make Marvel instead branded as whatever umbrella entity is organizing said event, place, or publication.

I agree with much of what you are saying, Cap. But in the end, the most important thing is ownership. Ask Ike how happy he is being Disney's (bad word for female dog self-censored so as to not upset anyone).

The Avengers may be Marvel's Avengers. But Marvel is Disney's Marvel.

Marvel as a unique BRAND disappeared in 2009 when the ink dried on the contract. Marvel is a subsidiary of TWDC today. They are under/beholden/controlled by Disney. So, yes, they absolutely are a part of Disney's content library. And Disney isn't one to separate the BRANDS. I think this is largely a semantics deal, like many online discussions.

 

[AEfx]

How can it not be Disney's Avengers when you can play Disney Infinity with Thor, Merida, Hulk, Sully, Mickey, Captain Jack, Stitch etc?

I love ya WDW1974, but man...this "thing" you have about Disney Infinity is really odd. You bring it up constantly as this negative thing but based on previous discussions I really don't think you know what it is.

 

[Phil12]

I think, for me, it comes back to the fact that there is no longer the folksy facade of Disney as the ubiquitous "America's Family Entertainment Company."

Eisner's Disney always managed to hang onto that "aw shucks, house that Walt built" image that helped make a publicly traded, major media conglomerate seem like a down-home, ground up kind of operation.

The actuality of what Disney is hasn't changed much at all: It's still a media leviathan with hands in many pots, all driven by the almighty dollar.

What has changed is the dissipation of the "Walt's place" veneer. To today's Disney, Walt is just another character in the vault.

Walt is just another character in the cryogenic chamber.

 

[englanddg]

Fortunately for me, I really don't care what Wall Street thinks - I like good movies, and Disney is releasing them now, and raking in 100's of millions of dollars doing so which ensures we'll continue to get those films.

That's the definition of "WINNING!"

Or the crash of arrogance.

Frankly, I'm both nervous and curious about the Marvel release schedule. To plan that out either they have most of the scripting largely done, or they are going to be forced to shove films out quickly of lesser quality (specifically in terms of character and script development)...

I like to think it's the former...but we shall see.

 

[WDW1974]

Fair enough, I just have a personal vendetta against hyperbole.

And you participate in an online Disney fan forum? You must be on some powerful meds!

 

[AEfx]

Heck, even WDI didn't have their arms around this not that long ago.

Remember how that awesome Storybook Circus entry marquee debuted to the masses with those terrible cool white LEDs all over it? It totally killed the idea of a traveling tent show in the circus's golden age. It was only a matter of weeks (right?) before they were swapped out with nice, warm-light LEDs.

They also decrease operational costs because they can last decades. A standard home bulb (about $7 at Home Depot) is rated for between 25-30 years of every day use. Obviously under Disney's commercial usage it's not going to be nearly that long, but certainly signifigantly longer than incandescent.

 

[WDW1974]

https://disneyland.disney.go.com/attractions/disneyland/star-tours/

I thought you were referring to this.

Star Wars land is supposedly going in the back of the park to replace Toontown.

That has been the latest plan and it doesn't appear to be changing. TDA wants Toontown gone anyway because it was supposed to be interactive and the lawyers have destroyed it, the IP has little relevance (sadly) today and, largely, they feel the entire real estate is ''underutilized'' ...I would expect to hear of its demise in August.

 

[ford91exploder]

I bolded the sentence I feel like responding to. I generally hate LEDs. They give off an incredibly harsh (hospital or prison, I like to say) feel in general. I also don't like how the whole campaign to switch to them was sorta shoved through when no one seemed to be paying attention.

But WDW can still use incandescents as long as it wants as stage lighting/theatrical lighting is exempted from the law if I understand it correctly (if I don't, then I'm sure someone will use it to show what a fraud I am and damage my BRAND!) ... Not that it matters as WDW seems totally incapable of creating proper lighting just about anywhere on property. A few nights back I was walking out of the WL late at night and thought I saw one area where the lighting was all the same and synched and that was the flickering lantern like lights between WL and the Villas. Alas, a few were flickering like they were having a seizure with non-stop blinking ... like I said, Disney can't even get the basics right anymore. They are so totally lost.

You redo pricey hotel rooms at the BC and you don't sand down doors and wooden baseboards, you just throw another coat of paint over the 11 below? And then charge $500 a night for the room.

Hey @WDW1974 Panasonic has a LED bulb which emulates the look and feel of incandescent bulbs,
http://www.tested.com/tech/3175-panasonic-led-light-bulb-honors-its-incandescent-forefather/

One thing about LED's is they do emulate daylight really well as such are a good choice for those who suffer from Seasonal Affect Disorder. I personally like the bluer light as it helps with proper print color matching.

 

[WDW1974]

To support this...whenever you see Mickey Mouse as Luke Skywalker or Goofy as Chewbacca or Minnie Mouse as Princess Leia...those are great examples of Disney BRANDED Star Wars characters (or some could say Star Wars BRANDED Disney Characters). I guess if it is Mickey dressed as Luke Skywalker it is a Disney character branded as a Star Wars character and if Darth Vader is wearing mouse ears then he is branded as a Disney-esque character.

I was at my Disney outlet store today. For the last 4-5 months they have been attempting to clear out a batch of Lightning McQueen as Luke Skywalker diecast cars for $4.99 (I'd buy one for $1.99 myself!)

That's how BRANDING works with Disney. There is no separation. There is no ultimate autonomy. Disney controls all.

 

[AEfx]

Or the crash of arrogance.

Frankly, I'm both nervous and curious about the Marvel release schedule. To plan that out either they have most of the scripting largely done, or they are going to be forced to shove films out quickly of lesser quality (specifically in terms of character and script development)...

I like to think it's the former...but we shall see.

I don't think it's as crazy as you might think - scripted? Doubtful. Plotted? Certainly, there is a whole team within Marvel responsible for the overall story of the franchise, tying everything in (TV, Movies, Video games), just like with Star Wars. The big exception here is the comics, for obvious reasons (with Marvel, not Star Wars, as the new Star Wars comics are included in their story team's realm).

 

[WDW1974]

Wasn't Mickey's Philharmagic sold the same way with interchangeable segments?

Yes and George Scribner (whose sister in law was one of Frozen's producers) the Imagineer working on the Arrendelle attraction for EPCOT told a group of us on the Disney Wonder last spring the same thing.

I think his exact words were something to the effect of ''So don't be surprised if Tangled or Frozen wind up part of Phil because that's how we designed it.''

(He was the producer of said film, btw.)

 

[Phil12]

Fortunately for me, I really don't care what Wall Street thinks - I like good movies, and Disney is releasing them now, and raking in 100's of millions of dollars doing so which ensures we'll continue to get those films.

That's the definition of "WINNING!"

 

[englanddg]

I don't think it's as crazy as you might think - scripted? Doubtful. Plotted? Certainly, there is a whole team within Marvel responsible for the overall story of the franchise, tying everything in (TV, Movies, Video games), just like with Star Wars. The big exception here is the comics, for obvious reasons (with Marvel, not Star Wars, as the new Star Wars comics are included in their story team's realm).

Well, the general story arch was plotted in the comics nearly 2 decades ago.

They are retelling stories that have already been, for lack of a better term, storyboarded in the comics.

That doesn't mean, however, that the comics will relate to good films that have both fan service as well as general appeal (as we've seen over and over again thanks to Sony and frankly, Marvel, in the past).

They'll all make money, of that I have little doubt, but I have an inkling that 3/4 of a decades worth of "story" won't sell as well on the big screen, unless they do it exactly right.

TV show? Yes. Movies? No.

And, the minute one of those movies doesn't meet expectations, budgets for the rest of the saga will be slashed.

As I said, it could turn out impressively amazing...but, it could just as easily go the other way.

At least that's my opine.

 

[ford91exploder]

@WDW1974 did you see the puff piece on Staggs in the Sunday New York Times?.

 

[englanddg]

I was at my Disney outlet store today. For the last 4-5 months they have been attempting to clear out a batch of Lightning McQueen as Luke Skywalker diecast cars for $4.99 (I'd buy one for $1.99 myself!)

That's how BRANDING works with Disney. There is no separation. There is no ultimate autonomy. Disney controls all.

Or that's just evidence of a marketer having fun with the IPs without concerns of IP negotiations.

Before the Star Wars buyouts there were crossover toys, and Lucas certainly wasn't against pimping out his brand...in fact, that's where the core value of the IP traditionally lay.

It's not always negative. Take Dr. Who, for example, which has a significant amount (historically) of pushing products to shelves due to the complex nature of how the IP is divided between the BBC and content creators. It is arguable that had a dramatic impact on foreign adoption of the series, one that the BBC has only recently seemed to deal with.

 

[WDW1974]

It does, however, mesh with Hollywood Studios.

Not so much Tomorrowland or EPCOT though.

I'm speaking in general, though. The Marvel BRAND as a whole.

And since it largely (yes, Disney could build a GotG ride, it won't though, at Disney-MGM, so long as Marvel BRANDING was left off) can't use its own IP at WDW, it doesn't matter that it might fit in the Studios.

 

[AEfx]

That's how BRANDING works with Disney. There is no separation. There is no ultimate autonomy. Disney controls all.

What major media franchises are not under control of a corporation?

At least with Disney, they have shown both the fanbases of Marvel and now Star Wars that they aren't "Disney-fying" everything. Adding to the fact that both Marvel and Lucasfilm continue to exist as their own companies and their own creative directions is that Disney is exactly what both needed - a large pocketbook, relative creative freedom, and an unprecedented merchandising operation.

It's really a match made in heaven.

I guess I don't see where you are coming from with this because neither are replacing anything - Disney has had no real ongoing success with live action since the 1960's, except under other brands (Touchstone, Miramax, etc.) which, as I said above - when you look at the content they produced, versus Star Wars/Marvel - I don't think anyone would ever say that anything either of those studios did was "Disney" like.

In short, it's not like Disney had anything else going on - these franchises are raking in billions - people are happy. This concept of "what Disney is" is nebulous at best, and suspect at least when you really look at their track record.

 

[englanddg]

I'm speaking in general, though. The Marvel BRAND as a whole.

And since it largely (yes, Disney could build a GotG ride, it won't though, at Disney-MGM, so long as Marvel BRANDING was left off) can't use its own IP at WDW, it doesn't matter that it might fit in the Studios.

It would in France...and that park needs a lot of help from what I can tell...far more than HS does. That said, Marvel doesn't poll so high on their interest levels outside of UK, iirc (been about 9 months since I researched those box office results)...

In addition, there's the stuff they can do on all their other properties.

And, if Disney were willing to cut the right deal, they could get it for their Florida parks from Uni/Comcast...it would involve a lot of zeros and a redevelopment investment in IoA and probably an IP sale, but I think they could.

I agree with your underlying point (degradation of the original Disney brand to one of Princesses and Pirates), I just don't think it's that bad of an investment, nor do I mind seeing Marvel creep its way into Disney.