raymusiccity
Well-Known Member
I'm being cautiously optimistic. But, they must have 'tested' The Lone Ranger, and look how the critics piled on!
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
DHS CARS LAND
- Thread starter whylightbulb
- Start date
SirLink
Well-Known Member
Yes but Planes was made by Toon Disney the same guys and gals producing the Mater shorts...so super cheap and will make money if Disney put it in cinemas rather than The Lone Ranger. Plus Disney owns the IP for Planes not so much with that of The Lone Ranger. Disney wants to push Lone Ranger so they won't be out of pocket for the film and that is about it...
Big C 73
Well-Known Member
I think Disney would do good if they just moved some of their own productions (like those bad Disney Channel shows) and animation again to Florida. This would be better than trying to get someone else to film there. It may not be the best shows,but it would be something to find interest in at the "studio theme park".
StarWarsGirl
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
The problem I see is that all the actors are located in CA and Disney would not want to spend money flying them to FL. Just like they shoot supposed WDW commercials in DL, which irritates me.
Big C 73
Well-Known Member
I think that if Disney really wanted to they could, they have the money to station actors here. In reality though, like said before, it just isn't happening, or anytime soon for that matter. It would have to be a miracle and surprise me. Unless Iger goes or Walt comes from back from the dead it isn't happening. But, we can "imagineer" can't we?
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
Why would Disney want to spend more money to bring actors to the rainy, muggy swamps when they can more cheaply (and happily) stay in the sunny, dry (smoggy?) orange groves?
AEfx
Well-Known Member
That was the fundamental reason why a "studio" park in Florida was doomed from the outset. I no doubt think that up to a certain point of Disney-MGM Studio's development that they actually, really did intend for it to have active filming regularly beyond the small smattering of productions they ever were able to have.
There simply was no reason for a production to do so. It would increase expense and there is absolutely no reason to do so other than to provide Disney with a pseudo-attraction. Even if they offered free facilities, the extra cost, hassle, and expense of housing crews, actors, etc. and dealing with the limitations imposed at filming at/near a theme park are just nonsensical for most productions.
It works in Southern California because it's the filming capital of the world. It just doesn't fly in the Florida swamp.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Two words... 'film ecosystem'
FL doesn't have it - and its why the studio was shutdown after the first attempt.
PeterAlt
Well-Known Member
They do that? Wow...
coolbeans14
Active Member
The last advert I saw for WDW had great moments with Abraham Lincoln in the background!
PeterAlt
Well-Known Member
Where should I begin with this? Hmm... Okay, this is the fault of local government's lack of vision (or ineffectiveness to carry out a vision, if they had vision). I know some "players" in Central Florida has the "vision thing" - such as UCF with its film school program. Disney, Uni, and (actually) any studio would have that "eco system" in place if the local government can conceptualize Orlando as being a satellite city for Hollywood and create incentives for the industry to make this happen. Incentives, such as friendly taxes, fast and easy shooting permits, zoning of studio industrial parks, etc.
This one?
That's the one currently on in the UK for 2014, with additional Virgin Holidays/Free DDP/14 day tickets for the price of 7/free $200 gift card (gift card offer ended July 1 2013) information.
EPCOTCenterLover
Well-Known Member
^^ That looks like it was all shot in Disneyland.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
The Empress Lilly
Well-Known Member
this^
Apparantly, distance and climate where no problem for Hollywood to move a substantial part of its business to Vancouver - when BC installed the right tax incentives.
Travel Junkie
Well-Known Member
Disney -MGM Studios and Universal Orlando were built at a time when runaway production from Hollywood was just beginning. There was a real belief that places like Florida and the Carolina's would be new East Coast Hollywood's and take a lot of business from California. North Carolina in particular was giving large tax credits to companies that filmed in the state.
Disney bought into this and built a real working studio (as did Universal) that happened to also be a theme park. The idea was a lot of production would move east because it would be cheaper. While Carolina has succeeded to a degree to taking some production from California it never took off in Florida and you had a bunch of empty sound stages in Central Florida as a result.
While Central Florida didn't succeed in getting production, Canada has really taken a bite out of the California economy. Australia as well. Films are usually cheaper to make in Canada and Australia than in LA due to tax breaks and cheaper labor.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
Hey, whatever happened to @whylightbulb anyway?
AEfx
Well-Known Member
I didn't say things like that couldn't have happened, but I think you miss the broader meaning of "eco-system" as the gentleman referred to.
We aren't talking about studio facilities that Disney or Universal could build, but the broader industry that envelops Los Angeles and why a filming theme park works there - because prop shops, and model makers, and costume houses, an abundance of crew of all types and specialties, etc., etc. already are there, and their choice is between studio's 30 miles from each other. You cannot replicate that eco-system with such efficiency and you end up having to ship everything across country all the time. The only other choice would be for Disney, etc. to attempt to replicate this in-house (which they sort of did), but then the point becomes - how much value does this add to a theme park to make all this worth it? I think Disney realized this rather quickly, which is why all but a handful of Disney properties themselves ever filmed there.
Could it work? Yes, but most productions utterly live or die on a budget, and there simply is no incentive. Even if that incentive came in tax breaks, etc., it's still nearly impossible to maintain the efficiency, especially for things like television (where there is far more production period) where a prime time show usually has 8 days an episode and needs can vary week to week (we need a purple chicken suit this week - think Disney has one or do we need to have one shipped from LA overnight for an extra thousand bucks?) it just makes no logistical sense.
And in the end, it really all comes down to: most people who work on a film don't want tourists around getting in the way. And I don't think Tom Cruise and Julia Roberts and Leonardo DiCaprio are going to enjoy living even temporarily in the tourist capital of the world when trying to work. The thought of filming in a theme park environment, even on controlled sound stages, still is in the center of the theme park capital. Cripes, it takes a Disney employee an hour or more from getting on property to parking and getting their shuttle and going through tunnels and changing clothes and getting to work. Sure, are some of these problems surmountable? Again, yeah - but then it just goes back to...why? So people can walk through sets and be a bother? And if they only go in when there is no filming - what fun is that? Oh, and forget outdoor shooting entirely on backlots - Florida simply has way too unpredictable (and often changing) weather.
Again, it's an idea that works in California because it was a studio that stuck a theme park on the edge. Trying to stick a movie studio into a theme park in a place with no existing external infrastructure wouldn't work with even the most generous of tax breaks and financial incentives. And to be absolutely honest, I see why Orlando hasn't bent over backwards to encourage it - they already host the largest theme park industry, and the convention industry - do they really want to be dealing with those "Hollywood folk" too? Orlando already has enough attention.
But they likely wouldn't really be successful if they stuck a theme park in the middle of it, though.
And tax incentives aren't really why Vancover or other cities have developed small industries outside of Hollywood. They help, but if the tax incentives are in the middle of a swamp (or, a swamp with a million tourists at a time milling about), it wouldn't be the same. Filmmakers and TV producers say time and time again Vancouver is desirable because it can double for just about any city in America. That's why TV shows started to move there in the 90's - it can duplicate much larger cities (i.e. New York) but at the same time it has wilderness locations not terribly far away. American cities are incredibly expensive to film in - and not because of taxes, but because of food, lodging, police assistance, shutting down stores/roads/etc. And then they can go two hours away and find gorgeous wilderness.
You cannot say the same for Florida, LOL.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
If by Universal Florida you mean Nickelodeon, then I agree, but, they didn't really make much effort to even make anyone think that it was a working studio, overall! Speaking of which...whatever happened to Nickelodeon? I used to love watching them slime kids.
I know that the network is still around, but, where it is located?