Rumor Avengers E-Ticket More Dead Than You'd Think

TragicMike

Well-Known Member
How do you know the theatrical numbers aren't being hurt by Disney+? Are you suggesting that the Disney+ release has no impact on theatrical performance?
Sure? But what are you arguing then?

You're saying that Black Widow's numbers would be even more impressive than they already are if it weren't for Disney+? While, simultaneously arguing that the general population is losing interest in superhero films? Seems like a logical juxtaposition don't you think?
 

SpoiledBlueMilk

Well-Known Member
No because one was the introduction of a major character in between Infinity war and endgame. Black Widow should be compared to the first ant man if anything.
I just wonder how much more money Black Widow could have made if it were released back between Age of Ultron and Infinity War.
 

choco choco

Well-Known Member
We both know that Disney could get together research showing that kids like to eat broccoli while getting punched in the gut.

The increase in linear narrative and Eleanor are backstory also parallels a significant cultural shift in which the lives of children has become increasing and overwhelmingly structured. Structure and organization has to so strongly dominate our lives that it is what we have culturally set as a default that we’re starting to see isn’t entirely healthy. And we starting to see growth in the area of non-structures experiences with things like Meow Wolf’s offerings and even how a lot of FEC museum type experiences are being developed.

The commercial nature of the design process also creates conditions that favor not just linear narrative but ever increasingly complex and convoluted narrative. If you are pitching an attraction like The Haunted Mansion with art and a brief description it’s going to look like less work compared to a Phantom Manor where you now have all of this extra elaboration. This is compounded by the fact that people who don’t draw, who so often are in major decision making positions, too often believe that drawing is merely a talent, not a skill, and doing drawings is therefore quick and easy but they almost certainly have had some experience in having to write something and therefore can better relate to the effort that goes into drafting a narrative. If you want your team to look productive more narrative and backstory can help make that happen.

A far bigger issue though in my opinion is the crisis of confidence that has far bigger ramifications. While there are prominent individuals, the themed entertainment industry has largely eschewed notions of the auteur and singular creative vision. This has slowly but surely been taken to an extreme that is detrimental to producing work. There are the proverbial “too many cooks in the kitchen” and a deep fear of decision making lest one make the wrong decision, even when an obvious decision is there. The frighten creatives must also appease executive leadership who can issue singular fiats without question, experience or taste. The whole point of backstory is to provide a team with a common basis upon which everyone can work, but when there is a deep resistance to personal preference and the air of arbitrary decision making it can become a booted crutch. The backstory becomes a sort of Bible, sometimes literally referred to as a story bible, that provides truth and guidance on all decisions. It isn’t enough that this lamp would be fitting for the business of some era and the designers like, no, it was found on so and so’s grand adventure into town one day, made by some wise old lampist who has peddled his craft for decades. The narrative gives a semblance of structure and rationality to the project in the face of at times competing egos and sensibilities, including those above whose taste cannot be rebuked but could be gently guided to see that it doesn’t match the story, which they understand as a work of significant effort.

The indecision is even more confounding because... well, there's not much creativity going on. Mostly Imagineering these days is trying to replicate the look of a movie. The visual development is mostly already done for you! The character design is mostly done for you! With the way rides and shows replicate movie scenes, most of the writing is already done for you!

Imagineering hasn't done what we would have traditionally thought of as Imagineering in a long time.
 

Mac Tonight

Well-Known Member
The indecision is even more confounding because... well, there's not much creativity going on. Mostly Imagineering these days is trying to replicate the look of a movie. The visual development is mostly already done for you! The character design is mostly done for you! With the way rides and shows replicate movie scenes, most of the writing is already done for you!

Imagineering hasn't done what we would have traditionally thought of as Imagineering in a long time.
I hate that management assumes guests will only respond positively to things they've already seen on TV and in movies... Or that movie-goers only want to watch live-action remakes of their animated favorites.
 

No Name

Well-Known Member
I hate that management assumes guests will only respond positively to things they've already seen on TV and in movies... Or that movie-goers only want to watch live-action remakes of their animated favorites.
But the ultimate hypocrisy is that they don’t really apply this same thinking to movies. Original movies like Moana, Zootopia, Luca, etc. are greenlit, but the idea of an original theme park ride is laughable to Bob Chapek.
D242AA3E-62EA-4F33-BF9C-3FB307B30F91.jpeg


The root of the problem is that management doesn’t think theme parks are capable of creating original content like movies are.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
The indecision is even more confounding because... well, there's not much creativity going on. Mostly Imagineering these days is trying to replicate the look of a movie. The visual development is mostly already done for you! The character design is mostly done for you! With the way rides and shows replicate movie scenes, most of the writing is already done for you!

Imagineering hasn't done what we would have traditionally thought of as Imagineering in a long time.
While I’ve made similar comments in the past, this only really applies to the art direction and what has been seen. Building a public, commercial building is a lot different than building a set or modeling one in a computer. There is still a lot of work that goes into translating a movie environment into an occupiable environment. Even with that art direction guidance we still see changes made at the 11th hour.

But the ultimate hypocrisy is that they don’t really apply this same thinking to movies. Original movies like Moana, Zootopia, Luca, etc. are greenlit, but the idea of an original theme park ride is laughable to Bob Chapek.
View attachment 565786

The root of the problem is that management doesn’t think theme parks are capable of creating original content like movies are.
I’m not even sure it’s hypocrisy. Theme parks are just not seen as their own legitimate story telling medium. There is no understanding that they are able to be anything more than brand experiences. I’ve asked variations of “Why don’t people expect Mickey Mouse in Frozen[/]?” and there are some who are genuinely confused by the question. It makes no sense to expect Mickey Mouse or any other character in a new movie but there is an expectation of a character in a new ride.
 

Mac Tonight

Well-Known Member
But the ultimate hypocrisy is that they don’t really apply this same thinking to movies. Original movies like Moana, Zootopia, Luca, etc. are greenlit, but the idea of an original theme park ride is laughable to Bob Chapek.
View attachment 565786

The root of the problem is that management doesn’t think theme parks are capable of creating original content like movies are.
No, you're right. Bob Chapek, despite formerly heading the actual division, has proven over and over again that he doesn't understand what makes the theme parks so wonderful. To him, they're just giant interactive Disney stores.
 

MarvelCharacterNerd

Well-Known Member
Children are connoisseurs of impressionistic narratives in which a motif is abstractly related in dioramic tableaus that establish a heuristic interpretation of folklore and communal cinematographic experience that is deconstructed in non-lineal beats that are contrasted and ultimately betrayed by the hegemic transportation device that propels the audience on an unwavering sequential tour of audiovisual mannequinnistas and marionettistas that imprint a both fascinating and horrifying real and surreal homage to the artiste's revelation of a shared tribal mythos of the pedantic voyeur that internalizes the heroic pilgrimage in self actualization and ultimately gets dumped in a gift shop.
1624499943904.png
 

britain

Well-Known Member
I’m not even sure it’s hypocrisy. Theme parks are just not seen as their own legitimate story telling medium.
Of course they CAN be, but does it make financial sense for theme parks to be?

ALL of your employees would like to generate new IP. Sorry, but it would be more cost effective for the studios to occasionally experiment with telling new stories (along with franchise expanding) than for WDI to experiment with it.

There was a time when if you wanted themed adventures, you had to go to Disney’s parks. Now the average zoo or children’s museum has what was unique to Disney 30 years ago. The only thing that separates Disney from places designed by former Imagineers is the studio’s IP.

There’s no sound reason for Disney to place a bet on something like Discovery Bay today when it wouldn’t have anything to benefit all the other divisions of the company.

Disney makes lots of stupid mistakes. “Popular Studio IP First” isn’t one of them.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Of course they CAN be, but does it make financial sense for theme parks to be?

ALL of your employees would like to generate new IP. Sorry, but it would be more cost effective for the studios to occasionally experiment with telling new stories (along with franchise expanding) than for WDI to experiment with it.

There was a time when if you wanted themed adventures, you had to go to Disney’s parks. Now the average zoo or children’s museum has what was unique to Disney 30 years ago. The only thing that separates Disney from places designed by former Imagineers is the studio’s IP.

There’s no sound reason for Disney to place a bet on something like Discovery Bay today when it wouldn’t have anything to benefit all the other divisions of the company.

Disney makes lots of stupid mistakes. “Popular Studio IP First” isn’t one of them.
The Non Descript Coaster Themed Like India or Whatever was a better return on investment than pretty much every domestic project since.
 

choco choco

Well-Known Member
While I’ve made similar comments in the past, this only really applies to the art direction and what has been seen. Building a public, commercial building is a lot different than building a set or modeling one in a computer. There is still a lot of work that goes into translating a movie environment into an occupiable environment. Even with that art direction guidance we still see changes made at the 11th hour.

Yes, this is true. Not to mention all the technical achievements they can accomplish (designing practical effects, all the ride systems). However, I do feel at heart Imagineering is a visual medium. Historically, the inspiration came from pieces of illustration or an animators' character. Everything else was just in support of bringing that vision into practicality. You said it yourself, there used to be such an expectation that the people who made decisions could draw. Or barring that, were at least artists themselves. Or barring that, even liked art, any art, at all. That isn't the case anymore, and the product shows.

I’m not even sure it’s hypocrisy. Theme parks are just not seen as their own legitimate story telling medium. There is no understanding that they are able to be anything more than brand experiences. I’ve asked variations of “Why don’t people expect Mickey Mouse in Frozen[/]?” and there are some who are genuinely confused by the question. It makes no sense to expect Mickey Mouse or any other character in a new movie but there is an expectation of a character in a new ride.

It's genuinely baffling they would take this attitude. Disney's most successful home grown franchise this millenium (Pirates of the Caribbean), is based on a theme park ride. I legitimately can't understand how executives so often take all the wrong, most surface-y shallow lessons of franchise-building, and yet missed somehow missed this possibility.

Rides make excellent franchise starters, because you can take the vague-ish, impressionistic but extremely phenomenological concept and elaborate it out to your heart's content.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Yes, this is true. Not to mention all the technical achievements they can accomplish (designing practical effects, all the ride systems). However, I do feel at heart Imagineering is a visual medium. Historically, the inspiration came from pieces of illustration or an animators' character. Everything else was just in support of bringing that vision into practicality. You said it yourself, there used to be such an expectation that the people who made decisions could draw. Or barring that, were at least artists themselves. Or barring that, even liked art, any art, at all. That isn't the case anymore, and the product shows.



It's genuinely baffling they would take this attitude. Disney's most successful home grown franchise this millenium (Pirates of the Caribbean), is based on a theme park ride. I legitimately can't understand how executives so often take all the wrong, most surface-y shallow lessons of franchise-building, and yet missed somehow missed this possibility.

Rides make excellent franchise starters, because you can take the vague-ish, impressionistic but extremely phenomenological concept and elaborate it out to your heart's content.
It’s not hard to understand if you think about something others are passionate about that you’re just not into. I don’t think any amount of explaining will get me to understand why people love cricket. To me it’s just a weird game that I don’t understand. And that fine, we all have different tastes. The problem is when this is turned into a dismissal. I don’t have to like or understand cricket but it would be wrong and ridiculous of me to claim that cricket players aren’t real athletes, that they don’t work hard and they’re just failed baseball players.

This is the problem that Disney has had, the top job went to a guy who didn’t get parks, who despite the huge success of the Nondescript Coaster didn’t immediately green light a “sequel” but prohibited any similar projects, sought to sell off the parks and, until only very recently, didn’t leave running them to people with actual industry experience. Even I know that if I want a successful cricket team I should probably get a good, experienced cricket coach, even if Ted Lasso is a delightful chap.
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
We both know that Disney could get together research showing that kids like to eat broccoli while getting punched in the gut.

Yeah, but they still have to sell a product. People keep buying the product they are offering, while the fans are screaming that they are in decline, so something is off: either WDI is spot-on-nailing what people are actually expecting in attractions, or attractions aren't really an important part of the "Disney©" experience people are buying into.
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
But the ultimate hypocrisy is that they don’t really apply this same thinking to movies. Original movies like Moana, Zootopia, Luca, etc. are greenlit, but the idea of an original theme park ride is laughable to Bob Chapek.

I know @britain already touched on this, but generally speaking, the cost of having WDI do story development would be far more expensive, and not make the same return that having your studio produce something would net you. WDI's only option for producing an original story would be the equivalent of producing another Endgame level tent pole movie ($200M+), and not even the studios would take that gamble on an unknown story/franchise.

It also should be considered that, the studios SHOULD be far better at telling stories, because they've been at it far longer than Imagineering has.


The Non Descript Coaster Themed Like India or Whatever was a better return on investment than pretty much every domestic project since.

Yeah but this also betrays the darker reality of theme parks: Disney could make a lot of money if they just started building coasters like Universal and Sea World. Not going for the cheap win, is what sets Disney apart... right?
 

britain

Well-Known Member
But but why can’t shoes be a storytelling medium!? I’m a creative genius that has found a really compelling way to tell unique stories with shoes that everyone will love if you’ll only give me a chance! Why am I condemned to churning out shoes with Anna & Elsa, Hulk, and BB8 on them!?
 

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

Back
Top Bottom