-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Another movie shot at WDW
- Thread starter drew81
- Start date
SteamboatStitch
Active Member
I honestly have no idea what to feel about this, but considering the subject matter, distaste would be up there, considering the lack of consent. I sort of wish Disney would step in to quash it, but the problem is that would give it more exposure, which means possible copycats. Though that doesn't seem to be stopping them considering this is #2 in what might become a rather irresponsible trend.
PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
Two thoughts.
1 - This looks infinitely better than "Escape from Tomorrow" as that was a giant pile of awful (and anything looks good by comparison.)
2 - Gonna just cause the continued crackdown of professional photo gear.
1 - This looks infinitely better than "Escape from Tomorrow" as that was a giant pile of awful (and anything looks good by comparison.)
2 - Gonna just cause the continued crackdown of professional photo gear.
Bolt
Well-Known Member
Better, maybe. Still looks like it was shot for a school project. People seem to forget how much a good lighting crew can do to make a movie great. Sun doesn't always mean good shots.
Matt_Black
Well-Known Member
If they've learned anything from Sea World and Blackfish, it's for heaven's sake don't draw attention to it.
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
Wonder when some genius at Disney Legal is going to add the following to admission to Disney parks. "All images and sound captured on TWDC property are the exclusive property of TWDC and are subject to copyright law as defined in $INSERT_US_CODE_CITE). You will find similar language already at sporting events.
DisneyFans4Life
Well-Known Member
Wow...I'm not sure what to say about this. It's one thing to record using a small camera, but I'd imagine they were using something much bigger that would draw the attention of CMs.
My question would be why was something like this allowed in the first place? Unless you have a media pass or have a legitiment reason (which WDW is already aware of and has approved) to film with the type of equipment they used, it shouldn't be allowed in the parks.
My question would be why was something like this allowed in the first place? Unless you have a media pass or have a legitiment reason (which WDW is already aware of and has approved) to film with the type of equipment they used, it shouldn't be allowed in the parks.
Creathir
Well-Known Member
Actually, modern DSLR cameras are more than capable of shooting "professional" video. They do not even need huge lenses or anything like that to be able to deliver astounding results.
A lot of indie films are made using Canon 5D Mark III cameras which look just like any other DSLR on the market.
The thing which would draw attention would be having to shoot multiple takes. A crew loitering for a few hours while shooting over and over would stand out. At a minimum there are the actors, the cameraman/cinematographer, the director, and possibly a sound guy holding a small portable audio recorder.
Even entry level DSLR cameras (Canon t6i for instance) shoot terrific video.
As mentioned by others, lighting would be the limiting factor. One of the main reasons Escape From Tomorrow was filmed in black and white is because BW is more forgiving in over/under exposure situations, which without a light crew will be a common problem while walking around the parks.
Its a winner IMO simply for the jab at My Magic+
alissafalco
Well-Known Member
meh...looks terrible
AEfx
Well-Known Member
There isn't much they can do once you've captured the footage. You cannot copyright buildings, for example, and while WDW is technically private property, in terms of they can tell you to leave, it's open to the public and Disney would have an awful hard time finding grounds for even a civil case. Given the billions of photographs and videos taken by guests over the years with not only the consent but encouragement of Disney, they would have an awfully difficult time arguing that footage taken suddenly needs protection.
About the only thing they could do would be to go after the audio, if they captured/used copyrighted audio and left it in the finished product. However, it's doubtful that anyone doing a project like this would not take that into consideration and compensate for it.
Basically, Disney just doesn't want to open this can of worms, because even on a trademark level, they'd have to go after pretty much the entire fan community as well to have any legal standing - they can't just pick one they don't like (if they even care, that is) and argue it violates anything and then not go after everyone else. In fact, by forcing any litigation, they stand to lose more than they would ever gain (because chances are, a precedent would be set - and if it was set against Disney, it really would open up the floodgates).
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
The key of course is it's private property and they could take out design copyrights on the buildings and layout, It's similar to the woman who took out a copyright on her body to go after 'revenge pix' on the 'Net. There is a precedent which has been held up in multiple courts. So... But that can of whup-a-- is not one I think Disney really wants to open because it just might go pear shaped.
