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

Bairstow

Well-Known Member
Note how all three movies had terrible advertising and marketing.
John Carter had the nondescript title and didn't feel the need to lean on the Pixar connection or Burroughs.
Tomorrowland had a viral campaign that ended up being about two years before release thanks to the movie being pushed back in favor of Star Wars and Maleficent that had no followup.
And I didn't really see much ads for BFG.

I saw plenty of ads for BFG, and the other two as well.
It's easy to say that the marketing was "bad" when no one goes to see a movie, but it's also possible that these just aren't movies people wanted to see.
 

Earl Sweatpants

Well-Known Member
Right, we are on the internet. Never let facts get in the way of a your opinion!

For the record, during the same three year period (2015-2017) in addition to the list above, Disney is releasing:
5 MCU movies
3 Star Wars movies
3 remakes
4 true sequels
2 DreamWorks partnership movies

That's a very diverse listing of movies that includes sure-fire blockbusters, smaller "singles and doubles" movies and a few risks. And considering Disney had 3 of the top 5 movies in 2015 and currently has 3 of the top 6 for 2016 with Star Wars and Moana to go, I think the strategy is working quite well.
Actually, Disney has 4 of the top 6 for 2016 so far.
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
Maybe she was right on the money by making the remarks? No one seemed to question it?

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.

I personally think she was right on the money... Unfortunately Walt was most certainly not perfect, and Meryl most certainly shared true facts about him. I do believe however, that if Walt had lived longer, he would have shown that he had grown with the times... I think he was showing that a bit during Disneyland times.
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
I honestly believe they are on equal levels..
Diagon Alley doesnt have a full stage show like Harambe, but Harambe doesn't have a full coaster attraction.
both have food areas, live music, tons of shops and sighsees.



How many Peter Pan movies has been there yet?
I lost count on the whitewashed "Pan" one (where they replaced the native girl with the whitest girl they could find)
I would take Kilimanjaro Safaris over Escape from Gringotts 10 times out of 10. Attraction type is somewhat irrelevant here.

This is not meant as an attack on Diagon Alley or Escape from Gringotts, but Gringotts isn't as strong an attraction as Kilimanjaro Safaris.
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
This is my main issue with it at DCA. Other than being completely unnecessary, it's going to destroy sight lines from all over the park.
Those siteline issues already existed because Tower of Terror didn't fit in with the rest of that park's lands. Having said that, the attraction itself fit in with the overall theme of the park. That theme is clearly going away with the addition of a Marvel land.
 

Earl Sweatpants

Well-Known Member
Look, I'll sum it up like this...
Strip away all Disney's major acquisitions. No MCU, No Star Wars, No Pixar...what do they have left?
Reboots, Sequels, and the animation department. Disney's feature film department relies too heavily on the MCU and SW to fill in the gaps. Outside of say, the first Pirates of the Caribbean, can you guess what has been the last truly successful original Disney (non-animated, non-sequeled, non-rebooted) feature film?

Answer: The Sixth Sense.

Until they can figure out how to successfully make originals again, we're going to be largely on sequel-remake-outside acquisition overload.
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
How so? I thought it fits in with Buena Vista Street, Grizzly Peak, and HollywoodLand at the very least. That's half the park there. I've also heard that BugsLand was also designed to be part of the garden in front of the Tower (not 100% sure on this). Maybe it doesn't fit with Paradise Pier, but that land is a dumpster fire of bad sightlines anyways.
Hollywoodland is a disjointed mess. It's a cheaply done area that's 60% of Sunset Boulevard. Tower isn't really visible from Grizzly Peak so that's somewhat irrelevant. It's only real thematic fits are technically in Hollywoodland and as a backdrop (kind of) to Buena Vista Street. Where it's most visible and most problematic are Cars Land, Pacific Wharf and Paradise Pier.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Because they are so desperate for something NEW from Disney they will accept anything at all uncritically
Probably because the mass-consuming average "fan" is probably only caring about rides that go ZOOM! Never mind that it sticks out like a sore thumb in its surroundings.
I'm speaking a bit more broadly than Disney fans and more narrowly than the "general public." There is a pervasive self-hatred or lack of self esteem amongst theme park and also amusement parks fans, a deep fear of being too interested in a way not really seen in other fields of interest such as sports or wine or film.
 

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
That's a very diverse listing of movies that includes sure-fire blockbusters, smaller "singles and doubles" movies and a few risks. And considering Disney had 3 of the top 5 movies in 2015 and currently has 4 of the top 6 for 2016 with Star Wars and Moana to go, I think the strategy is working quite well.

For the record, I don't think the tentpole strategy is all that sounds. Studios are starting to realize that as they have largely been running against a wall this year....

Except if you are Disney. This year is mind boggling. They've somehow managed to strike gold with not one, but four different studios.

I like the worldwide statistics better than domestic for the amusement factor. There is a not altogether unrealistic shot that WDAS, Pixar, Lucas, Marvel and Disney will each have one of the top five movies worldwide. It pretty much just hinges on Fantastic Beasts not hugely over-performing and Rogue One not hugely underperforming.

You are right though, there is diversity. That's why I'm not worried about the health of their film strategy in the same way I am for competing studios. Disney is the current king of formulaic diversity. Even if one or two of their formulas implode (like Super Heroes or the Live Action remakes), they still have their Animated Buddy movies, Musical Adaptations and Space Fantasy's.
 

Earl Sweatpants

Well-Known Member
I'm speaking a bit more broadly than Disney fans and more narrowly than the "general public." There is a pervasive self-hatred or lack of self esteem amongst theme park and also amusement parks fans, a deep fear of being too interested in a way not really seen in other fields of interest such as sports or wine or film.
I think it has to do with people's personal experiences at the parks. They grow attached to things a certain way and become accustomed to a "feel" they associate with being there. Anything that changes that perception is liable to be taken personally...in some abstract way.
 

Cesar R M

Well-Known Member
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 hope they have more screen time than just a simple cameo. Reminds me the big opportunities of Ghost Busters.. while funny.. they were too short.
 

SorcererMC

Well-Known Member
Maybe she was right on the money by making the remarks?
I personally think she was right on the money...

In the event that you're not joking re: Meryl Streep's remarks, and for those who aren't familiar:

Walt Disney Family Museum: http://www.waltdisney.org/blog/defense-walt-disney
Floyd Norman's selected remarks included in this article: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...-of-sexism-Disney-family-responds.html?pg=all
Cartoon Brew: http://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/fact-checking-meryl-streeps-disney-bashing-speech-94380.html
 

Cesar R M

Well-Known Member
I can't imagine why the studio is acting more risk-adverse lately...

http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/03/disneys-john-carter
http://movieweb.com/box-office-bombs-2015-tomorrowland-fantastic-four/
http://www.slashfilm.com/steven-spielberg-brand/

Money-Toilet.jpg
Fantastic four was a turd from the start.. no surprise there
Still not Disney.
In the other hand, there has been gems that were "risky" yet did amazing.
See Deadpool and GOTG.
Its not about risks, its about DOING IT RIGHT.
If you do a turd, then polish said turd for the sake of having a glorified shinny turd.. You shouldn't expect millions.
Also, did they even promote John Carter correctly? I didnt see a single ad for that movie in my country. No surprise it flopped here.. not that many knew about the book over here o_o
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom