A Spirited Perfect Ten

[michmousefan]

Darren Criss has done well for himself.

Then again, being ridiculously talented probably helps.

A BFA Theater degree from the University of Michigan doesn't hurt, either...

 

[PhotoDave219]

In reality though, how many folks are there in relation to the massive numbers of people who consider themselves fans? A few dozen? A couple of hundred?

Folks here hyper-focus on such a minority group in the fandom. I get they are fun to watch. It's fun to watch people watching them, but I don't think they are capable of being the societal drain that is being extrapolated from the PBS special.

Apologies in advance to @lazyboy97o, if I'm taking his initial comments out of context.

You're right… I'm focusing on less than 50 people.

I'm not sure how this relates to a PBS special. How can we get on that?

 

[njDizFan]

"Self-important nitwit bores." Aight.



If by "successful enterprise" you mean popular form of entertainment, there were successful forums of media that managed to be critical and entertaining at the same time -- westerns by John Ford, thrillers by Hitchcock. Disneyland does project a lack of critical awareness that a lot of intellectuals (darn 'em) find disturbing.



Yeah, but Life Magazine isn't a cultural force in 2015 in the way that Disney's parks continue to be. I think the fascination is with a contemporary place that ostensibly owes so much to its 1950s values.



I think that says more about you than it does about her. You've really got a thing for calling people "self-important." Wonder what Freud would say about that?



I dunno if you can date her opinion to the 1980s. Negative assessments of Disney's work had appeared in print in the late 1960s. But where did anyone "blame Disneyland" (God forbid, not dear old Disneyland)? I admittedly didn't study the clip like it's the Zapruder film, but I took it that she was saying that Disneyland sold a romanticized image of America, not that Walt invented that image.

Agreed, Disney has always scewed conservative and portrayed itself as a family type entertainment company. But the family and ideals they portray are generally white, mid-century, Middle America style Americana. They instill a reverence to post war style family values which really just harkons back to the turn of the century. You can see the cycle turn every 30 years or so...the postwar adults were beholden of their rememberence dating back to their childhood memories. And this happened with the 80's when people fawned over the ideals of the 50's and now in turn I think we are there again in the '10s. It seems to be a backlash against perceived change in the social constructs of our current civil right issues.

Disney and in turn Disneyland did not create this dynamic but they certainly held it up as their idealized vision of America. Not to mention the fact that Disney used/created IPs reminiscent of those eras(of course at the time socials norms) i.e. the damsel in distress and racially insensitive characterizations.

 

[Cesar R M]

o some the obsession with keeping tabs lifestyler is on par with the lifestyler's obsession with Disney

hard not to notice these lifestytlers, because they appear on ANYTHING Disney lol.
I mean, wasnt Ricky interviewed about his "knowledge" and "insider rumors" ?

 

[Quinnmac000]

So Deadline put out an article about saying many analysts are expecting Star Wars making $615 mill the first weekend...

When Disney revives the long slumbering Star Wars franchise on December 18, The Force Awakens will take the global tentpole opening to a history-making high. How high? Many are already predicting a record $615M worldwide opening, and they have plenty of reason to be confident in that number. The first Star Wars in 1977 gave birth to the blockbuster era of filmmaking — and grosses.
http://deadline.com/2015/08/star-wa...-office-global-record-predictions-1201505170/

and with Disney forcing IMAX to have Star wars being the only film showing at IMAX for a month

For Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Imax is going big — really big. For the first four weeks of its run, set to begin Dec. 18, J.J. Abrams' sequel will have all of Imax's large-format screens in North America and most of its foreign screens to itself. Imax reserving all of its screens for a single movie for a month is not unprecedented, but it is unusual. The company had a similar deal for the three Hobbit movies, but it struck that pact four years ago and hasn't made that type of commitment since.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/star-wars-force-awakens-set-817709

yet Forbes thinks the film is being set up to fail by fans and analysts just like the Phantom Menace with B.O sales

The biggest opening weekend of all time stands at $208 million for Jurassic World, closely followed by $207 million for The Avengers. The biggest opening weekend in December is the $84 million haul for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, after which they are all $77 million or below. In the 18 years sinceJames Cameron’s Titanic, there has not been a single film save James Cameron’s Avatar that has surpassed the original 1997 $1.8 billion worldwide cume for the Oscar winning boat sinking romance. The Avengers couldn’t do it. Jurassic World couldn’t do it. The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King couldn’t do it. So when I read articles likethis one fromDeadline swearing that Star Wars: The Force Awakens is going to earn $615 million in its global debut weekend andmay well earn $300 million on its domestic opening weekend (andothersofitsilk), I have to wonder if we are setting the movie up forboxoffice failure. Will it be considered a whiff if it merely performs like a top-tier blockbuster. After all, we’ve done that before when it came to new Star Wars movies.

Star Wars Episode One: The Phantom Menace was going to make $240 million on its opening weekend. That was the calculation that my father and I had come to in the months leading up to release. It was a mathematical solution to the question of how much could the new Star Wars film gross if it sold out every theater of every showing during its Friday-to-Sunday opening weekend. Yes, this was before Lucasfilm made the last minute choice to open on a Wednesday. Like manyboxoffice pundits young and old, we saw the proverbial sky as the limit for how muchGeorge Lucas’sprequel could gross. Would it dethrone Titanic? Could it break $100 million in a single weekend? Surely it would demolish the $26 million single-day record set by The Lost World: Jurassic Park, right? And there is nothing wrong with pie-in-the-sky box office predictions among fathers and sons, or among fellow film nerds online, at the water cooler, or in school cafeterias. But what was merely playful speculation on our part was all-but-repeated elsewhere as ironclad analysis and foolproof predictions.

Mainstream media outlets reported not just that the film would break records but that basically every single seat would be sold out on May 17th, 1999 until May 22th, 1999. And thus when it did open, with surprisingly mixed reviews and on a weekend when kids were still in school, it was initially written off as a disappointment for merely doing really well. Star Wars Episode One: The Phantom Menace broke the single day record ($28 million opening on a Wednesday) and became the first film to cross $100 million in five days with a $105m Wed-Sun total. But the Fri-Sun weekend was “only” $64 million, so The Lost World: Jurassic Park‘s $72 million Fri-Sun record still stood. The film was unquestionably a smash, but yet it wasdiscussed as a disappointmentbecause it wasn’t unquestionably the biggest movie ever. The professional pundits hemmed and hawed about why this might have happened. My dad and I joked that the talk of overcrowding may have led to a Yogi Berra effect (“Nobody goes to that restaurant anymore, it’s too crowded!”).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottme...rs-the-force-awakens-is-being-set-up-to-fail/

Is Star Wars being Star Wars going to lead to its success or because Star Wars is Star Wars are people overestimating how well it will do?

 

[Phil12]

Never mind the media...I refuse to accept YouTube "stars."
The very notion of it is like nails on a chalkboard to me.

How could anyone not like Miranda Sings?

 

[Phil12]

I work with a vine star that got an agent. The agent told him he needs to turn his vine following into a YouTube following because there is no revenue in vine for newer users. Top viners is a different story but they were early adopters and created lots of content. There is definitely money to be made in advertisements and product appearance deals on both YouTube and vine.
Top viners can make thousands for 7 seconds of video if they mention or use a product in the video. It's definitely a brave new world in that regard. You also have to remember the demographic for new media stars, where their followers are typically 12-15, prime age for advertising. I'm not against new content makers but it feels like the entire goal is to get in bed with corporations for subtle advertising and feels less than pure for that very reason.

Wow. That was the very core of Walt Disney's business model back in the day. He got in bed with every corporation that would have him!

 

[DisDan]

New Star Wars Teaser

 

[zooey]

Agreed, Disney has always scewed conservative and portrayed itself as a family type entertainment company. But the family and ideals they portray are generally white, mid-century, Middle America style Americana. They instill a reverence to post war style family values which really just harkons back to the turn of the century. You can see the cycle turn every 30 years or so...the postwar adults were beholden of their rememberence dating back to their childhood memories. And this happened with the 80's when people fawned over the ideals of the 50's and now in turn I think we are there again in the '10s. It seems to be a backlash against perceived change in the social constructs of our current civil right issues.

Disney and in turn Disneyland did not create this dynamic but they certainly held it up as their idealized vision of America. Not to mention the fact that Disney used/created IPs reminiscent of those eras(of course at the time socials norms) i.e. the damsel in distress and racially insensitive characterizations.

You really can't classify it as conservative now... it's definitely evolved.

Wow. That was the very core of Walt Disney's business model back in the day. He got in bed with every corporation that would have him!

well, Walt used corporate money to do what HE wanted not the other way around. He had a lot of power that way. Viners don't have that power And they obviously don't have his creativity. They're not using corporate money to make incredible thIngs, the goal itself is the corporate money

 

[jakeman]

hard not to notice these lifestytlers, because they appear on ANYTHING Disney lol.
I mean, wasnt Ricky interviewed about his "knowledge" and "insider rumors" ?

I going to disagree. They don't offer any additional insight than this forum/site; so I don't really see the need in seeking them out. Other than the rantings here over the past few years, I'd have no idea who any of them were except Deb (because who hasn't used allears.net?) and Lou (podcast several years ago that I stumble on but found too saccharine).

On the other hand, we have a very small subset of poster here that seem to actively monitor their every move across the internet and in the real world.

 

[Andrew_Ryan]

The lands and its cinematic representations are reflections of 1950s society NOT the impetus for it.

I think they go hand in hand, no?

Disney has had a big hand in whitewashing history through it's films, television, and theme parks, and it hasn't really changed much. It's probably best that we are seeing critiques of this culture, especially when a trailer for a documentary about that subject gets so much backlash today.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I think they go hand in hand, no?

Disney has had a big hand in whitewashing history through it's...theme parks, and it hasn't really changed much.

Do people really expect a theme park, intended to generate a profit and appeal to millions, to be a thought provoking, brutally honest representation of history? I thought that was one of the issues with Disney's America - that it would fail in trying to histrory "right".

Besides, these days historical representations in Disney parks are just window dressing for character merch shops. Only three Disney attractions today still really do that, and even in those cases most would admit there's only so much you can do with 20-30 minutes of a tourist's time.

 

[zooey]

I think they go hand in hand, no?

Disney has had a big hand in whitewashing history through it's films, television, and theme parks, and it hasn't really changed much. It's probably best that we are seeing critiques of this culture, especially when a trailer for a documentary about that subject gets so much backlash today.

I would need to argue on specifics. You could indict almost anything made in the era if that's the premise. Cultural critiquing is fine but I rarely see it as even handed or even reasonable. It's almost always extreme. To the point where nobody could make anything to satisfy cultural critics. I'm not interested in that at all. Anecdotally I'm very liberal myself and everyone I know is too, young people, all people who grew up on Disney. I just don't see it as influential as cultural critics like to think it is. That's why the Douglas clip is annoying. She's being hyperbolic.

 

[Capsin4]

You really can't classify it as conservative now... it's definitely evolved.

Nope. They sell rainbow crispy treats in some shops. Not earth shattering but a huge message.

 

[Phil12]

You really can't classify it as conservative now... it's definitely evolved.

well, Walt used corporate money to do what HE wanted not the other way around. He had a lot of power that way. Viners don't have that power And they obviously don't have his creativity. They're not using corporate money to make incredible thIngs, the goal itself is the corporate money

Walt dropped a lot of "incredible things" when they stopped making money or when corporations were no longer interested in sponsorship such as the Dutch Boy Paint Color Gallery, Kaiser's Hall of Aluminum Fame and Monsanto Hall of Chemistry to name a few. Walt was in it for the money first and foremost. After all he amassed a huge fortune for himself and his family.

 

[zooey]

Walt dropped a lot of "incredible things" when they stopped making money or when corporations were no longer interested in sponsorship such as the Dutch Boy Paint Color Gallery, Kaiser's Hall of Aluminum Fame and Monsanto Hall of Chemistry to name a few. Walt was in it for the money first and foremost. After all he amassed a huge fortune for himself and his family.

Everything takes money. My point is that he used that money to build other things including his company. He could have sold out in much more egregious ways if all he cared about was money. There are many instances where he spent a lot more than needed to get the details right.

 

[zooey]

Nope. They sell rainbow crispy treats in some shops. Not earth shattering but a huge message.

Disney is one of the most gay friendly corporations of that size around... Goes beyond gay days or rice krispy treats.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Walt was in it for the money first and foremost. After all he amassed a huge fortune for himself and his family.

Is that what he told you over lunch, yesterday?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Right. If people get addicted to escapism in whatever form that may be its not healthy. But escape from work for small periods of time are very healthy because they remind you and give perspective on the important things in life. you'd never be able to convince me that Disney is abnormally harmful to individuals just based on the connection it allows people to feel and have with eachother. That's the quintessential Disney experience.

In reality though, how many folks are there in relation to the massive numbers of people who consider themselves fans? A few dozen? A couple of hundred?

Folks here hyper-focus on such a minority group in the fandom. I get they are fun to watch. It's fun to watch people watching them, but I don't think they are capable of being the societal drain that is being extrapolated from the PBS special.

Apologies in advance to @lazyboy97o, if I'm taking his initial comments out of context.

How often do you see "It is a theme park / movie / television show / radio / novel / whatever, you're not supposed to think too much. Just turn off your brain and enjoy it."? All as though thinking is some awful, painful, misery inducing experience. This mindset is very powerful in our culture. It's not supposed to be the occasional respite, but the defining characteristic of popular culture.

Do people really expect a theme park, intended to generate a profit and appeal to millions, to be a thought provoking, brutally honest representation of history? I thought that was one of the issues with Disney's America - that it would fail in trying to histrory "right".

Besides, these days historical representations in Disney parks are just window dressing for character merch shops. Only three Disney attractions today still really do that, and even in those cases most would admit there's only so much you can do with 20-30 minutes of a tourist's time.

Why not? Themed entertainment has become a staple in the area of cultural interpretation.

Walt dropped a lot of "incredible things" when they stopped making money or when corporations were no longer interested in sponsorship such as the Dutch Boy Paint Color Gallery, Kaiser's Hall of Aluminum Fame and Monsanto Hall of Chemistry to name a few. Walt was in it for the money first and foremost. After all he amassed a huge fortune for himself and his family.

You're assuming those exhibits were owned by Disney and not their sponsors.

 

[Andrew_Ryan]

I would need to argue on specifics. You could indict almost anything made in the era if that's the premise. Cultural critiquing is fine but I rarely see it as even handed or even reasonable. It's almost always extreme. To the point where nobody could make anything to satisfy cultural critics. I'm not interested in that at all. Anecdotally I'm very liberal myself and everyone I know is too, young people, all people who grew up on Disney. I just don't see it as influential as cultural critics like to think it is. That's why the Douglas clip is annoying. She's being hyperbolic.

I think her critique is reasonable, and I don't think she said anything hyperbolic. Walt's entertainment offerings were both reflections and influences of American culture at the time. I think you are correct that you could indict almost anything made in that era from that premise, and maybe that's the point?