A Terror-rific Spirited 13th (ToT fans have lots to fear)...

[Cesar R M]

And Chip and Dale is supposed to be a rescue rangers movie I believe. Probably Alvin style animation/live action mix, but hopefully done well.

I'm sold.
I was expecting something akin the classic Donald vs Chip and dale cartoons.

 

[Bairstow]

Except for the people who actually know anything about Walt Disney. Judging him based on today's standards, while everyone else in the 1900s is excused, is incredibly pathetic. Only an illogical, uninformed person would do that.

That's not the current thinking in academia.
No one's ethics get a pass just because they lived before the modern era.

 

[MrHappy]

If TOT is on the chopping block. I can see this scenario: GOTG moving into RnRC, and Dr Strange moving into TOT. From what I know about Strange, there's travel through 'dimensions' (ala Twilight Zone), and the drop maybe one of those elements from the film where the city landscapes flip and unfold as Strange "falls" through dimensions. Just a thought. I, like most, want to keep TOT in its current form forever.

 

[Cesar R M]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed in another thread, but posting here since ESPN is an ongoing issue. Nielsen retracted their report re: 621,000 subscriber loss. Why? Disney refuted it saying it wasn't consistent with their internal analysis. Interesting read.
http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/nielsen-november-cable-estimates-espn-1201904983/

I wonder who is actually telling the truth.
Nielsen making a mistake, or Disney cooking the statistics (like they do with the surveys) to look good.

 

[Pi on my Cake]

I wonder who is actually telling the truth.
Nielsen making a mistake, or Disney cooking the statistics (like they do with the surveys) to look good.

Probably a bit of both. I've never though of Nielsen as particularly accurate and usually just an estimate. But I'm sure Disney is trying to cover up their losses too

 

[GiveMeTheMusic]

Now I'm wondering- what kind of outcry was there when Disney cloned the Tower into California Adventure in the first place?

The feeling amongst DLR fans was positive at the time - DCA needed it desperately. Those familiar with the DHS incarnation were largely disappointed by the finished product. An ugly building, no surrounding theming and an abbreviated ride experience with no surprises.

 

[Mike S]

/sigh

No I am talking about a mature, overall adult tone. The original show is seen as rather vanilla these days, when in fact at the time many of the tales were rather perverse and controversial. I expect similar from the reboot.

Come on, it's not like you to be so obtuse.

While we are again on the subject, was just reading today in a new television history book which named the Twilight Zone theme to be the #1 most known TV theme song of all time.

My overall point is that I don't think it would matter. The ride is clearly based on the 60's TV show and doesn't feature any of those things. Whatever oversensitive baby would think "the new show is too mature for Disney to have a ride themed to the old show!!!" needs their head examined and is not someone I would care to meet, just like the people who think "Zootopia Mountain" is a good idea because Song of the South is "racist." Damn Snowflakes need to grow a pair. This is the park that has featured Alien in its star attraction since day 1 after all.

Tiny rant over.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

Not only that but they have Meryl Streep in it. After all she's said about Walt, I don't think I'll be able to watch the film.

*googles Meryl Streep Disney comments*
/sigh. I'm sorry, but why Meryl? What were you hoping to accomplish with those comments?

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

The Mary Poppins is the risky one trying to measure up to the original.

Let's see now...
-No "Robert Petrie" (it censors his real name)
-No Julie Andrews
-No Sherman Bros soundtrack (assuming Richard doesn't contribute)
...so yeah, it has a lot to live up to.

 

[GiveMeTheMusic]

Let's see now...
-No "Robert Petrie" (it censors his real name)
-No Julie Andrews
-No Sherman Bros soundtrack (assuming Richard doesn't contribute)
...so yeah, it has a lot to live up to.

Well, Dick Van and Julie Andrews are both signed on for roles in the film, likely cameos of some kind. But yes, this project seems like an Everest that doesn't need to be scaled.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

Just as a general comment on the wave of reboots...I'm not assuming they will all be terrible films, but rather just against them in principle. I don't understand why its so hard for Disney to at least attempt to line up a slate of original films. Yes, I understand that reboots make money and that they're less "risky" then an original idea, but it just seems like they're looking for a way to make a quick buck so Iger can cash his huge bonus in the remaining years he has.

This is just me personally, but I wish Disney would go back to making movies like Heavyweights, Honey I Shrunk the Kids, The Big Green, etc.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

Well, **** Van **** and Julie Andrews are both signed on for roles in the film, likely cameos of some kind. But yes, this project seems like an Everest that doesn't need to be scaled.

Thanks for the info! It will be interesting to see how they're used.

Oh, and just to bring several threads together...it appears that the Disney-bashing Meryl Streep has a role in the upcoming Mary Poppins sequel...because sometimes the universe is funny.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Well, **** Van **** and Julie Andrews are both signed on for roles in the film, likely cameos of some kind. But yes, this project seems like an Everest that doesn't need to be scaled.

"I am Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

 

[Californian Elitist]

You can't quote half of my sentence and try to prove me "wrong". As I continued to say, it's not 'ruining' the theme that much more than other additions. Which includes Carsland, Bugs Land, scattered Little Mermaid stuff... How do you justify those to have not messed with the theme of the park. Or, as you reply to another poster its false that Hollywood Land is not a portrayal of a Hollywood studio, but rather classic Hollywood, why do you think Monsters Inc and Frozen fit better in Hollywood Land than GotG?

Actually, I can and I did. And this isn't about proving each other wrong. This is an opinionated topic, there is no right or wrong.

Did you actually read my post? With the exception of Cars Land, I never made an excuse for the others you mentioned. I said to compare those to GotG going into Hollywood Land is a little absurd.

And so because there are a few attractions in the park that don't quite fit, we should continue to put more things in that also don't fit and make things worse?

 

[ford91exploder]

Just as a general comment on the wave of reboots...I'm not assuming they will all be terrible films, but rather just against them in principle. I don't understand why its so hard for Disney to at least attempt to line up a slate of original films. Yes, I understand that reboots make money and that they're less "risky" then an original idea, but it just seems like they're looking for a way to make a quick buck so Iger can cash his huge bonus in the remaining years he has.

This is just me personally, but I wish Disney would go back to making movies like Heavyweights, Honey I Shrunk the Kids, The Big Green, etc.

Because 'new' stuff is 'Too Risky' for the numbers obsessed suits currently infesting the executive suite in Burbank, Because the movies were successful in the past the suits assume they will be again, I'm STILL wondering how GotG got greenlighted.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

Because 'new' stuff is 'Too Risky' for the numbers obsessed suits currently infesting the executive suite in Burbank, Because the movies were successful in the past the suits assume they will be again, I'm STILL wondering how GotG got greenlighted.

Which just proves that a CREATIVE person needs to run Disney...not someone with $$ blinders.

 

[SorcererMC]

I wonder who is actually telling the truth.
Nielsen making a mistake, or Disney cooking the statistics (like they do with the surveys) to look good.

Well I thought it was interesting that Disney would have enough 'pull' for the retraction, and Nielsen is reviewing the numbers. And the timing before the upcoming earnings call, so I'm curious how ESPN will be addressed.

This was Disney's statement:

“The Nielsen numbers represent a dramatic, unexplainable variation over prior months’ reporting, affecting all cable networks. We have raised this issue with Nielsen in light of their demonstrated failures over the years to accurately provide subscriber data. The data does not track our internal analysis nor does it take into account new DMVPD entrants into the market.”
​

And the crux of the issue from the article [emphasis added]:

ESPN in particular remains a big target for sports media types and analysts because of its outsize subscription fee: Parent company Disney gets $7.21 per ESPN subscriber, plus a little more for ESPN 2 and other related channels, according to estimates from SNL Kagan. (For comparison’s sake, CNN gets about $0.71 per subscriber, per SNL Kagan.) Because it brings in so much money for Disney, investors are more prone to greet any news regarding the Worldwide Leader in Sports with big swings in the stock price. [referring to August 2015 media stock sell-off after Disney confirmed subscriptions were down].

​

 

[ford91exploder]

In other words, they didn't ask Zenia's permission to issue the ratings...

Don't worry the crew at Zerohedge and Seeking Alpha are already dissecting it and not in a way that would curry Disney's favor.

 

[ford91exploder]

Well I thought it was interesting that Disney would have enough 'pull' for the retraction, and Nielsen is reviewing the numbers. And the timing before the upcoming earnings call, so I'm curious how ESPN will be addressed.

This was Disney's statement:

“The Nielsen numbers represent a dramatic, unexplainable variation over prior months’ reporting, affecting all cable networks. We have raised this issue with Nielsen in light of their demonstrated failures over the years to accurately provide subscriber data. The data does not track our internal analysis nor does it take into account new DMVPD entrants into the market.”
​

And the crux of the issue from the article [emphasis added]:

ESPN in particular remains a big target for sports media types and analysts because of its outsize subscription fee: Parent company Disney gets $7.21 per ESPN subscriber, plus a little more for ESPN 2 and other related channels, according to estimates from SNL Kagan. (For comparison’s sake, CNN gets about $0.71 per subscriber, per SNL Kagan.) Because it brings in so much money for Disney, investors are more prone to greet any news regarding the Worldwide Leader in Sports with big swings in the stock price. [referring to August 2015 media stock sell-off after Disney confirmed subscriptions were down].

​

The Disney spin machine is gonna need magnetic bearings for this little oopsie, Guess the surveys were right last year that most subscribers would dump ESPN and affiliated properties if they could.

 

[lazyboy97o]

And so because there are a few attractions in the park that don't quite fit, we should continue to put more things in that also don't fit and make things worse?

The whole gimmick of a theme park, it's big defining characteristic, is theme. I just don't understand why so many fans dismiss it as irrelevant and cheer straying from theme.