A Spirited Perfect Ten

[englanddg]

Did you ever go on the Backlot tour during that time? Back when it was a 2-3 hour extravaganza?

The largest portion of the content was Touchstone related, props from R-rated films, including a video hosted by F-bomb lover Bette Midler when she was very decidedly aimed at a more "adult" audience (this was years before Hocus Pocus, LOL).

If it were today, it would be even more pervasive - the times have changed, and it doesn't matter what Disney owns - they will find a way to promote it.

That was the "lottery ticket" video, iirc...

I loved the old backlot tour...

 

[AEfx]

Really? I've stated that Disney owning Marvel and Lucas is the end of the world? My point is very simple: Disney is now made up of various BRANDS, some very ill-fitting like Marvel, that are watering down the Disney BRAND and are now worth more than it according to various Wall Street types.

Yes, your dramatic repetition of BRANDS et al certainly leads me to think that you think they are terrible.

My like or dislike for Iger (or anyone else for that matter) isn't clouding my opinion on this.

I'll trust that is true, if you say it, but all appearances are otherwise.

I really generally enjoy your posts, and even though I can disagree with you on certain things, I think you are a good guy - and you certainly have shared some great info in the past - but lately it seems it's all about Iger-bashing (I tried, but I can't even follow the posts about his wife you make - I just don't get the fuss or what it has to do with WDW), and complaining about BRAND. It's difficult to not think they are intertwined, but again - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if you say so.

 

[Voxel]

Give it time, the same thing will happen to Marvel that happened to all the Greek and Roman epics from the 50s/60s. That genre still hasn't fully recovered.

 

[WDW1974]

To be fair, you have brought it up multiple times in the past day, and have many times in the past. You bring up Infinity pretty regularly as this example of what is wrong with Disney.

The thing is, that I guess since you have no interest and will never try it even though it seems to be such a focus of concern based on your posts you'll never realize, is that they don't take part in the same "world".

A user can create their OWN world, and allow them to be in it simultaneously, but in the specific themed worlds (Avengers, Spiderman, Toy Story, etc.) you CANNOT cross them. They don't all live in houses next to each other, etc.

The way you put forth is like Disney has made a little Disney town with them all sitting and having tea parties together, and that's simply not how the software works.

I am not going 10 rounds on Infinity. I have no horse in the race. I simply commented that it is BRANDED as Disney's Infinity and that you can, indeed, put the characters from all different worlds/BRANDS/IPs together. I get the toybox and I understand that users are the ones who can put the characters together. Can we move on? You're harming my BRAND!!!

 

[Funmeister]

OK, what presence did Miramax have in Disney P&R? How about in Consumer Products/Disney Store? How about on gaming platforms?

I know this can be the type of discussion that just goes around in circles, but you think people who have experienced Star Tours and Indiana Jones attractions for years or Star Wars Weekends didn't think Disney owned them or had some sort of partnership?

Not at all the same as Miramax unless I missed the Pulp Fiction Experience at The Disney-MGM Studios in the 90s!

In 1998 (i think) I remember sitting in on a meeting at Maingate regarding the Studios and a Halloween event that was to compete with Universal's HHN. Now it was not going to be on the same level of horror or gore but was to feature NIghtmare Before Christmas characters (if Burton decided to allow that) and something (not sure what) based on the Scream movies. There were not many details and it was not well organized and flamed out pretty quick. Did you ever hear anything like that? This was on the heels of the MYST Island idea that also flamed out shortly before.

 

[AEfx]

I don't believe I ever said that.

The post you linked to doesn't show me saying that, and I promise you I haven't edited it.

He's confusing you with me.

That said, to the original point - why is 20K so totally Disney? Because it was made a long time ago.

As much as I hate to say it, without Pixar, who knows where we would be today. And I think in a few years we'll find that the same can be said for Lucasfilm and Marvel when it comes to live-action.

I'm realizing it's silly to argue about - because it is what it is, it's not changing, fans of the franchises are happy, the bean counters are happy, everyone is having a great time. It's going to do nothing but strengthen the company with two huge support pillars.

Mean old Iger may have done nothing for the parks thus far, which I sincerely lament, but he sure as heck has saved the Walt Disney live-action film business, and has done pretty well by the animated, as well. Hopefully his successor is more park oriented, but my extreme disappointment in his lack of park attention isn't going to color the obviously spectacular things he has done for the film business.

 

[WDW1974]

Did you ever go on the Backlot tour during that time? Back when it was a 2-3 hour extravaganza?

The largest portion of the content was Touchstone related, props from R-rated films, including a video hosted by F-bomb lover Bette Midler when she was very decidedly aimed at a more "adult" audience (this was years before Hocus Pocus, LOL).

If it were today, it would be even more pervasive - the times have changed, and it doesn't matter what Disney owns - they will find a way to promote it.

Absolutely. I still loved the Bette film ''The Lottery'' that was actually filmed there. As to props from R-rated films, at that point most of the props weren't even from Disney films and why would one care that a prop is from an R-rated film unless they're off-balance. The tour was about how movies were made and wasn't adult in nature in any way. Now, since Touchstone released the PG-rated Who Framed Roger Rabbit, which was featured to some degree in the Tour, that would be a better point. Of course, Disney itself releases PG films these days.

Again, my comment was about Miramax, which absolutely was adult in nature and wasn't intertwined with Disney ...

And why all the negativity about Bette? Very talented and came cheap to Disney in those days ... she also may have had a relationship with Michael Eisner, but that is another story for another day.

 

[FigmentJedi]

Can we move on? You're harming my BRAND!!!

 

[englanddg]

And why all the negativity about Bette? Very talented and came cheap to Disney in those days ... she also may have had a relationship with Michael Eisner, but that is another story for another day.

Not a mental picture I wished to have... <grin>

 

[AEfx]

I am not going 10 rounds on Infinity. I have no horse in the race. I simply commented that it is BRANDED as Disney's Infinity and that you can, indeed, put the characters from all different worlds/BRANDS/IPs together. I get the toybox and I understand that users are the ones who can put the characters together. Can we move on? You're harming my BRAND!!!

If you stop mentioning it several times a day, then yes, we can move on.

 

[WDW1974]

I don't believe I ever said that.

The post you linked to doesn't show me saying that, and I promise you I haven't edited it.

Nope ... I was responding to @AEfx and for some reason you were quoted (probably just Bob Iger playing with my computer -- that is for PML pals!) I fixed it! Been on here way too long this evening and it may be showing!

 

[englanddg]

Nope ... I was responding to @AEfx and for some reason you were quoted (probably just Bob Iger playing with my computer -- that is for PML pals!) I fixed it! Been on here way too long this evening and it may be showing!

No worries.

Here's the issue, your word carries a lot of weight. When you fire salvos, they make waves.

You know this.

Sometimes I just wonder if your guns are pointed in the right direction, if that makes sense.

 

[AEfx]

Absolutely. I still loved the Bette film ''The Lottery'' that was actually filmed there. As to props from R-rated films, at that point most of the props weren't even from Disney films and why would one care that a prop is from an R-rated film unless they're off-balance. The tour was about how movies were made and wasn't adult in nature in any way. Now, since Touchstone released the PG-rated Who Framed Roger Rabbit, which was featured to some degree in the Tour, that would be a better point. Of course, Disney itself releases PG films these days.

Again, my comment was about Miramax, which absolutely was adult in nature and wasn't intertwined with Disney

The point was about more adult oriented films. And I'm willing to bet there was something Miramax on that tour at some point during their brief tenure together.

You have been talking about content being presented as Disney, and specifically referenced the studios - was just giving an example.

And why all the negativity about Bette? Very talented and came cheap to Disney in those days ... she also may have had a relationship with Michael Eisner, but that is another story for another day.

No negativity about Bette Midler, whatsoever. I think she's wonderful.

But when folks say that things like Marvel and Star Wars are not Disney, she is a prime example of another period where Touchstone defiantly "not Disney", nor "family friendly", who was featured in the parks and who it was clear to the public was connected.

Thing is, they didn't much care. And truth is, they still don't - the things you are talking about matter only to a scant few folks at places like this. The general public doesn't give a crap who owns Marvel or Lucasfilm, they care about the content coming out.

If anything, it would only add to Disney's credibility - now, instead of growing out of Disney at 10, you can grow up with their products and follow them into adulthood. I just can't figure out who it is you think they could potentially be losing face to with these brands under their belt, aside from online Disney purists who come to places like this.

For the record, I also wish we had more "adult" content in the parks - what I wouldn't give for a "no one under 18" hard ticket event (insert jokes here). I'm not for making everything appropriate for toddlers, in any case.

 

[hopemax]

Preach. The only attraction I noticed worse than Splash on our trip last week (when were you there? We could have rubbed elbows!) was CoP... Mistimed scene starts, no rain effect in scene 1, stage right scrim lighting in scene 2 never turned off so both sides of that rotating set were visible the entire scene, John in scene 3 barely moved, and 2 figures in scene 4 didn't move at all. The CM who I reported it too wasn't at all concerned.

With that said, iasw looked better than I've seen it in a decade. No missing dolls, all moving as they're supposed to, and the sets thoroughout looked brand new. It also looked to have some lighting adjustments since I've last ridden it. A lot of that "Blair flair" that was lost to flat lighting was again being highlighted.

I'm behind on the thread. We were pretty impressed with IASW too, but we did see a few things not working on 4/20. The big one for me, was the Sun was stationary. One of the giraffes wasn't working. And in the final room, the cyclist on the wire that rolls back and forth is missing, I think it's been missing awhile.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

I've said before and I'll say again now: There are two different things that we talk about when using the term "Disney". They are very distinct but get conflated because both use the term "Disney".

One is The Walt Disney Company. This is a multi-national entertainment conglomerate. Marvel (and Lucasfilm, ESPN, etc.) is absolutely part of this. Obviously -- the company owns those properties. So they are part of the Disney company umbrella.

The second thing is the Disney brand. That is more nuances and indistinct, but generally covers things closely related to the historical Disney company founded by Walt and Roy. So, the animated movies, the theme parks, films like Mary Poppins or Herbie the Love Bug, etc. Some would include Pixar in this, given how tightly it has been associated with the core Disney brand, and because it seems to share the same "family entertainment" values. I would say very definitely that this Disney brand does not include Marvel or Star Wars or ABC/ESPN, etc.

They are two different things. Both are referred to "Disney" in the shorthand because, well, we refer to things in the shorthand. But I think it is very obvious that when people speak of and refer to the Disney "brand" that they aren't talking about Marvel. And I think this is reflected by the company not using the castle in front of those films -- they want that line to haven identity separate from that of the core Disney brand. Now, mind you, they want people to recognize that it is the Disney company putting out those massively successful films (and corresponding consumer products) but that's a different situation.

So what you are saying is there WAS one Disney. Brand and Company all rolled together. But it is so diluted now that the brand that defined the company is now the pimple on the back of the bohemoth.
So is D23 the Company's pep rally or the Brand's pep rally?

 

[Prog]

Since I'm young and (before March) last went in 2008, I have not noticed most missing effects, but the stationary sun and asymmetric Taj Mahal dancers in IaSW seemed blatant to me.
A side question, did the major refurb a while back reconfigure the music to be less repetitive, or am I just remembering poorly?

 

[doctornick]

So what you are saying is there WAS one Disney. Brand and Company all rolled together. But it is so diluted now that the brand that defined the company is now the pimple on the back of the bohemoth.
So is D23 the Company's pep rally or the Brand's pep rally?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but pre-Eisner sure there was "one" Disney company and brand. But starting in the 80's, the company greatly expanded by either purchasing or simply creating new brands separate from the core Disney brand (e.g. Miramax, Touchstone, Cap Cities). The company hasn't been a rinky entertainment company for decades at this point. It's not like the Marvel or Lucasfilm purchases have really changed anything fundamentally about The Walt Disney Company, they just added new content to the stable.

That said, I would argue that the core Disney brand is still the most important part of the company. It certainly isn't insignificant.

 

[AEfx]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but pre-Eisner sure there was "one" Disney company and brand. But starting in the 80's, the company greatly expanded by either purchasing or simply creating new brands separate from the core Disney brand (e.g. Miramax, Touchstone, Cap Cities). The company hasn't been a rinky **** entertainment company for decades at this point. It's not like the Marvel or Lucasfilm purchases have really changed anything fundamentally about The Walt Disney Company, they just added new content to the stable.

Which is why I think some folks don't look at it in a greater context of how the entire industry has changed in the past 30 years. This didn't happen in a bubble. It's a product of the changing times, not specifically a "Walt Disney Company" issue.

It's the story of every major studio that still exists - swallow or be swallowed - thing is, Disney has just done it better than anyone else of late, because of their unique skill sets and the appropriateness of the properties they have chosen to add to the roster to those strengths.

I think folks have also forgotten the very real times in the past that the WDC has almost been swallowed up itself into another studio - and you certainly don't hear talk like that these days, because they are so strong in the marketplace on their own thanks to Pixar, Marvel, and Lucasfilm.

 

[FigmentJedi]

I think folks have also forgotten the very real times in the past that the WDC has almost been swallowed up itself into another studio - and you certainly don't hear talk like that these days, because they are so strong in the marketplace on their own thanks to Pixar, Marvel, and Lucasfilm.

I'd really love to see the alternate reality where Jim Henson bought Disney like he was considering in the early 80s.

 

[Darth Sidious]

@WDW1974 while on the topic, anyone else catch the push notification from their ESPN app on Friday? You know since Bruce Jenner was an athlete they had a perfect opening to push the ABC interview.